Please don’t crush my soul here fellas , I am learning and seeking some validation that I’m on the right path. Here’s a few points I believe to be true , correct me where I’m wrong, please:

- major benefit of FFP seems to be you can use holdovers at any magnification
- con is that the reticle tends to be small at lower power

- SFP benefit is wider view , in some cases cheaper .
- SFP is always true using the center reticle and at any power , even when you dial
- con would be holdovers are only accurate at a certain power, unless you do some quick math

Pretty much. I like FFP with an illuminated reticle. Helps on lower power settings as the aiming point can get washed out in low light or heavy woods.

I agree with your statements except I don’t understand SFP being a wider view. Please explain.

This one is also true for FFP, so that isn't a pro for only SFP. IMO, I don't like SFP anything that has any mil dot or hash marks or any aiming point other than the center of the reticle. If there are multiple aiming points on a scope, I want it to be FFP or I won't buy it. Been down that road, and missed a few shots because of it. When you are at the range, no problem. When you are out in the field hunting, you want it to be as simple and idiot proof as possible, because when that big Buck steps out, it seems that our IQ temporarily drops.

What bubba said: “and idiot proof as possible, because when that big Buck steps out, it seems that our IQ temporarily drops”. True for me, I just want instincts and muscle memory to take over. Can’t unlearn 50 years of doing that way.

FFP and Mil/Mil is what I use for all rifle shooting, including hunting.

Really learn how to use that type scope and a whole lot of people only want to use that type scope from now on.

While I consider you an expert on this subject and you are right, if you are the type of person that doesn’t mess with the dots and holdovers then a SFP is easier to look at and may be a better choice. I love a FFP and what it can do but there are plenty of people out there that only care about the center of the crosshairs because they sighted their rifle in at 100 yards and their feeder is 100 yards away. They don’t even want to think about or try to understand holdovers. For these people they might as well get a SFP as tiny crosshairs at low magnification are not easy to look at on a FFP.

I agree.

I am one that is not handcuffed to 100 yards. I shoot more coyotes, crows, and hogs a year than deer. Their distances vary greatly.

I firmly in the camp that both are totally usable but I have my preferences too.

As for the reticle being too small on low power for hunting, i think the SWFA reticle is an excellent solution. it has these really large outer reticles that helps guide your eye to the center of the reticle on low power. On higher power, the really large portion is barely visible on the outer edge of the view.

I have a few of both type scopes, but more of SFP. I don’t use ffp to its full potential, and I really don’t often use the BDC lines on SFP scopes either. Life, and hunting, was easier back when I had just one rifle - a 270 - and knew what the drops were at distances out to about 400 yards. The scope back then was just a basic duplex, and shots were rarely over 300 yards. I didn’t need anything other than that. Nowadays I have a few more rifles, and all have different ballistics, and more thinking is now required. But, I’m just a hunter, but if I needed long distance precision shooting, my scopes would be FFP. Since I don’t do long distance shooting, and don’t need real precision, I’m perfectly happy with the Leupold CDS system. That, however, wouldn’t be suitable for folks like Fireman.

Like I said earlier. You learn them, and spend enough time using them, and they become second nature to use. I always have a range finder with me. No guesses on distance. Dial it, hold it, whatever I have time for. Quite the contrast in trajectories and therefore elevation corrections. All are zeroed at 100 yards.

7 Rem Mag 180 VLD-H 2980 fps
200Y .3
300Y .8
400Y 1.6
500Y 2.3

LR-308 155 TMK 2600 fps
200Y .5
300Y 1.0
400Y 2 0
500Y 3.0

.223 A.I. 80 ELD-M 3080 fps
200Y .3
300Y .7
400Y 1.3
500Y 2.0

Same scope, different cartridge, different corrections. Not a big deal

Hunting guns I stick to SFP and basic reticles. Too many situations where I use the low end of magnification and larger reticle is helpful. Plus, like others said, when that buck of a lifetime walks out, stupid simple is the way to go. Never experienced that same fever with hogs, varmint, birds. For target shooting I use FFP because its easier for various distances and magnifications.

Easy is relative. A FFP with a milling reticle, you never have to worry if your optic is set on the max power so your reticle will work . Like Jason said, if you know your holds, your just point and shoot.

A basic milling reticle is not complicated or busy, it’s just a duplex with some dots or hashes.

The most basic, and still useful is like a Burris Mil-dot. It has the traditional Mil-dot for full Mils, as well as .5 Mil hashes. Even at low power it is in service for close shots. I have the 3-15X XTR II on my LR-308. Good from 5 yards to 1000 yards. Still say that is one of the most versitile magnification range ever made, as well.

I like those too. I prefer the half mil holds. That Burris, the SWFA Mil Quad and the Trijicon Mil Square are all good. Agree 3-15 or 4-16 is pretty ideal for just about anything. Lately, I’ve just been hunting in East Texas so I just use a 3-9 or an LPVO. Last 2 deer I shot were about 20 yards sneaking through the woods. The were sneaking. I was in a pop up blind near a game trail. It’s impossible for me to sneak where I hunt with all the leaves on the ground.

Yeah, I use either 1x or 3x in East TX and so FFP just doesnt make any sense.

Being primarily a hunter and not into any of the long range games a FFP just doesn't make sense for me. Here in NE TX a long shot is typically 300yds, if you know your loads trajectory a standard crosshair in a SFP scope will do everything you need. The thin crosshairs of a FFP simply would not work for me when following up a potentially wounded hog into a thicket. I'm a huge fan of Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x40 crosshair/green dot, there is very little I can't do with this scope under common hunting conditions.

I do have a Leupold VX-5HD SFP with the Impact 29 reticle on a 6.5CM that as a range toy that I shoot out to 1000yds with, the Impact 29 reticle works well for me. With so many good and inexpensive rangefinders on the market today I don't see a need to determine range with a scope reticle???

This said, I tried a couple FFP scopes, but didn't keep them very long.

The first prerequisite is to know your gear and how it is designed to work for the task at hand. You should match your rifle, bullets, optics, and other gear for that matter to your personal situation, you will have the best chance for success. If I'm hunting hogs in creek bottoms where I've killed loads and loads of them with a Leupy 6x, I'm sure not going to use the same gear I would hunting the wide open spaces of West Texas for mule deer. There is not a single, all inclusive answer to a simple question such as FFP vs SFP.

Determining range with a Mil or MOA reticle is about the last procedure anyone ever considers, because good range finders are so available. Gravity correction and wind correction are thier first job. Ranging with a reticle is almost a parlor trick these days.

I have two of these (Leupold VX-5HD SFP) with duplex reticles. IMO best all around hunting scope.

My general purpose hunting scope that is on several hunting rifles is the Trijicon Accupower 3-9x40 with a Mil Square reticle. It is SFP so I have to be at 9x to use the hold overs. Looks like a ordinary lightweight 1” traditional scope with capped turrets. Glass is good and the mil reticle is there for hold overs should I need it.