FFP Reticles

[truckerwalt]

sometimes i wonder what the big deal is with ffp. i have gotten along quite well with sfp scopes and they cost a whole bunch less. i really like a fine crosshair and it seems that the 2nd focal plane works better for me.

[moorepower]

I use a Cabelas branded Covanent 6x24 for scope on my .204 with a moa reticle. I was making hits over 1/4 mile away on a Wyoming Prairie Dog hunt. I held of 4-6 moa using the hash marks for holdover and wind with no dialing. All I did was range it, dope it and shoot. The moa marks with a ffp are accurate at 14 power if you have mirage or 24 x if you like as I mostly used. The moa marks are fine enough to clean off pups off af mounds at 350yds plus. I now have 3 ffp 6x24 Covanent scopes on varmint rifles with moa reticle as they worked so well. The marks are fine enough to see a PDog at well over 500 yards.

[204Luver]

It's a tough decision. There are many times I wish my reticle hashmarks were correct, but with my .204 they aren't unless I am on full (25x) power. I don't like to shoot rats that high so I usually shoot on 12.5x, which means my hashmark measurements cover exactly twice as much as they say. That is a bit of a pain to work with but I have gotten used to it, and I am not giving up my super-fine reticle to get FFP. My favorite reticle for rats is the NF MOAR-T ("T" for target), and NF does not put that into anything but SFP scopes.

Also, at low power a FFP reticle condenses down into a clustered mess that impedes searching for little heads sticking out of holes at 200 yds.

It is SFP for me!

[Rick in Oregon]

204Luver: This subject has been discussed here ad nauseum, and the overall opinion seems to be in favor of SFP, but you have company in the love of FFP's just not in many numbers. Reason that's been stated the most? The thick reticle of the FFP blots out tiny targets at extended range. They are perfect for ranging human targets in combat, but are not really designed for precision LR shooting of very small targets. I tried one on PD's in the late 90's.....not for me. After doing this for 52 years, I know what works.....for me at least.

You do realize of course, that this post is eight years old, and the OP most likely has sorted out his issues by now.

[204Luver]

204Luver: This subject has been discussed here ad nauseum, and the overall opinion seems to be in favor of SFP, but you have company in the love of FFP's just not in many numbers. Reason that's been stated the most? The thick reticle of the FFP blots out tiny targets at extended range. They are perfect for ranging human targets in combat, but are not really designed for precision LR shooting of very small targets. I tried one on PD's in the late 90's.....not for me. After doing this for 52 years, I know what works.....for me at least.

You do realize of course, that this post is eight years old, and the OP most likely has sorted out his issues by now.

Rick, you must have been responding to moorepower, who posted a couple of months before I did. I was the one who said I was not giving up my super-thin reticle to get FFP.

Yes, the OP is probably long gone but the topic comes up again and again, and more and more people are automatically being told by salesmen in sport goods stores that "FFP is the only way to go." I was writing for whoever is reading and interested now.

[Rick in Oregon]

You are spot-on in regard to the brainless salesmen in some stores that are selling product they know absolutely nothing about, just re-hashing what's been told to them by other "experts".

I know one thing for certain though, anyone who is set on something like SFP vs FFP or brand loyalty is purty hard pressed to change. And if that individual is say, past the ripe age of 55 or so, change is not likely to occur at all. I know you know what I refer to.

[204Luver]

Well, I dunno. I got my first rifle nearly 60 years ago, and never had a Rem. 700 until yesterday, but shooting it today converted me to Remy-lover in an instant. VLS in .204. Wow.

[Rick in Oregon]

Well, I dunno. I got my first rifle nearly 60 years ago, and never had a Rem. 700 until yesterday, but shooting it today converted me to Remy-lover in an instant. VLS in .204. Wow.

I encountered my first M700 in 'Nam in '66 by a Marine sniper. I had been a M70 fan, but I was impressed with that rifle. When I returned to The World in '68, I purchased my first one, a Varmint Special in 22-250. That rifle opened my eyes to the "real" world of varminting, and the pursuit of accuracy previously thought unachievable. Since that time, many have passed through my hands, but some always remain in the safe. One that will always be there is a faithful reproduction of a M240A1 in 7.62 NATO, and wears the appropriate Leupold tactical scope.

My primary "old guy" hunting rifle is a M700 titanium clone in 7mm-08 Ackley, built for me by Prairie Gun Works in Canada. Weighs 7 lbs "trailside", ready to hunt. To say that I'm also a M700 lover would be an understatement.

For that reason, "welcome brother", glad after a mere sixty years you've finally found the rifle panacea, and the "small block Chevy" of the rifle world!

My No.2 son Dave with his suppressed M700 in 7.62 in one of his gillie suits (he makes them on demand for our SOCOM operators):



Yesterday was the beginning of a new world for you there, 204Luver. Now you probably know what all the fuss has been about.

[204Luver]

Well, don't get carried away, Rick. If I could have bought a pre-'64 Model 70 with a heavy, 26" barrel in .204, I would have.

But, I couldn't, so I love my 700 VLS.

[Fordevr]

A lot of talk about a fat reticle In ffp scopes. This is a video I took of a coyote at just under 500yards. Not to bad, depending on your idea of long distance. I really love it but that’s just me.🤪

https://youtu.be/ExGymfaUF_U