r/canadaguns • u/Feisty_Flounder_284 • May 12 '26
Buy recommendations SFP vs FFP for Hunting
Setting up a rifle specifically for hunting but all the scopes I have are first focal plane.
Aside from the reticle differences, does the adjustable parallax of the FFP scope drastically hinder the hunting experience, or is it becoming more common to use these?
I'm looking for a 3-15 option and there are more appealing scopes with FFP.
4
u/EnggyAlex Alex's Homebrew May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
realistically your 308/223 are point blank( less than 3moa off point of aim) to 300 yrd if you do a 25/250 yrd zero so you dont really need any reticle other than a cross hair for hunting large games.
If you hunt closer do a 50/150 yard zero then you are less than 2 moa off till 200 yards.
1
u/holt31415 May 13 '26
Do you mean "less than 3 inches off point of aim" (rather than 3 MOA) to 300 yards? 3MOA at 300 yards is more than 9 inches
2
u/EnggyAlex Alex's Homebrew May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
At 300 is -1.4 moa/-4.3", at100 is +3moa/+3", both statements are true, i say 3 moa because majority of hunters cant realistically shoot 3moa in the field so reticle is the least of the concern
3
u/Dubs337 May 12 '26
SFP scopes have adjustable parallax as well. That’s not really the difference between the two. The difference is basically that the elevation/windage marks on an SFP’s reticle are only accurate at the highest magnification, and the reticle stays the same size regardless of magnification, whereas an FFP’s reticle marks are accurate at any magnification, and the reticle grows and shrinks as you change magnification.
SFP is just fine for hunting.
2
u/h3IIfir3pho3nix N E R F G U N S May 12 '26
Both FFP and SFP scopes can have adjustable parallax, depends on the specific scope model. The difference between FFP and SFP is if the reticle changes in size as you adjust magnification.
That being said, you can use pretty much any type of scope for hunting. If you are hunting at extended long ranges then a FFP scope could be useful. But most people shouldn't/don't need to be taking shots past the MPBR (maximum point blank range) of their rifle, in which case a SFP scope is just as effective as an FFP.
3
u/Holiday-Pattern1759 May 12 '26
way better Second focal plane for hunting in my opinion.I keep my scope at lowest magnification while on the lookout for game.Most first focal plane scopes ive tried in the past had tiny retricles on low magnification that disapeared/blended in the bushes when shouldering the gun.Second focal planes retricles stay big and bold,making for a quicker shoulder and fire sequence on the animal in a forest environment.As other said,I believe the first focal planes scopes are best for long range and target shooting.Depends on what you want to do with it! Also,FFP scopes are often more expensive than SFP if it money an issue for you.Last but not least,It might just be my eyes,but I believe the glass quality is often better on budget SFP than a similar price budget FFP scope.
0
u/Specialist_Chard5231 May 12 '26
The reticle is not accurate at the lowest setting on a SFP scope.
1
u/waitwhatnothing May 13 '26
In what sense? At the lowest setting on an SFP scope you won’t need to use holdovers because the ranges are close, so it’s irrelevant
2
u/Specialist_Chard5231 May 13 '26
If you have any hashes on a sfp scope. They are only accurate at one magnification setting. Usually it is the highest magnification.
If you are are not using hashes then what's the difference between ffp or sfp? The center of the cross hairs is the same.
You may want to use the hashes at a lower magnification because you get better light transfer and some other advantages.
0
u/waitwhatnothing May 13 '26
Yes that’s right about any marks on the reticle if the scope has them. The point is that it doesn’t matter for most hunting applications which is why SFP scopes are preferred.
2
u/Specialist_Chard5231 May 13 '26
SFP are not preferred for hunting though. SFP is an old tech and is dieing off.
Your argument doesn't even make sense. The reticle size doesn't change but the hashes are harder to use because they are not accurate? Why would I want that at closer ranges? Or at all? Ever used those hashes for measuring horns and converting to distance. Harder to use and only accurate at one magnification setting with SFP. BDC reticle? Better with FFP
0
u/waitwhatnothing May 13 '26
I prefer it, I have no interest in getting a FFP scope for hunting.
I can get a SFP scope that’s lighter and with better glass than an FFP scope at the same price.
I still don’t understand what you’re on about with the reticle. At most distances I shoot all I care about is the crosshairs, so it doesn’t matter to me that any marks on the reticle are not calibrated. As the poster you originally replied to noted, at low magnification it can be hard to see even the crosshairs on an FFP scope unless it’s illuminated.
1
u/Specialist_Chard5231 May 13 '26
Because it's not hard to see the cross hairs on a FFP scope? The reason I bring up the reticle is that is the primary difference/reason you have a scope? If you don't need any hash marks then use a dot. ( You are probably zooming in to far if this doesn't make sense to you)
Stop using AI to respond and go learn about scopes man.
0
u/waitwhatnothing May 13 '26
lol, I’ve literally never used AI in my life. I know plenty about scopes, in fact I own both SFP and FFP scopes. I just don’t see a need for a FFP scope on a hunting rifle. They cost more, they’re heavier and the advantages of a FFP reticle for ranging and holdovers aren’t needed at typical hunting distances.
For target shooting they’re great, I don’t care about the weight and the added cost is worth it for the additional features.
2
u/Specialist_Chard5231 May 13 '26
They cost more is sometimes true, they weigh more is sometimes true. But both of those are less true every year.and in a few cases it's a fabrication.
Also that's the crap that AI comes up with.
Some ranging reticles are specificly designed for hunting. Including those that are used to measure horns. I don't get how you can honestly say that's not a hunting distance... Or a hunting use for a scope.and the hunting reticle doesn't work as well with a SFP scope.
The reason you are getting called out is you are making bold statements that are fabrications or misleading. Not because of your preferences.
WTF is a hunting distance? 50 meters or 800 meters? Plenty of big game gets taken at both of those distances.
1
u/swift_gilford May 12 '26
Lots of SFP models have parralax adjustments.
I use both for hunting; really depends on the rifle and where I'm hunting. The only thing I think is important if looking at FFP for hunting is getting one with an illuminated reticle. Those crosshairs are really fine at the low end of the magnification and in low light scenario's the illumination is really nice to have.
1
u/Juno7 May 12 '26
Most harvests are under 300 yards and the typical 3-9x40 scope has a fixed parallax for 150 yards. I would leave a varaible parallax to roughly that same distance because if you spot an animal far away and they dont see you, you have a chance to get closer. Then the issue of parallax goes away. Source: ive shot shit from 60 to 300 yards, spot and stalk is my jam.
1
u/Ok_Rush_246 May 12 '26
SFP is more popular for hunting applications. What’s the chances you’ll need windage or elevation and you aren’t already at max magnification?
1
u/Mirin_Gains May 12 '26
I have a SFP with parallax. I don't see the point in a 3x-15x the magnification isn't there for a FFP reticle. Besides, if you are shooting at 300+ you can just dial your scope instead of holding over. Took an elk at 330m this year .308 178 grain with 2.3 MIL adjusted up.
1
u/Unfortunate_Sex_Fart al May 13 '26
FFP is useful if you plan on dialing in your shot or relying on the reticle subtensions for holdover and windage at longer ranges and elevation differences. You also get a reticle that’s busy and too small to observe unless it’s at 70%+ of its power so it might not be preferred over a simpler design. For a humane killshot, you’d have to be a fairly skilled and confident shooter.
SFP scopes are more popular for hunting because in most cases you’re earning that 100-300m shot where you’re aiming centre of reticle with a duplex reticle. Much easier to make that humane killshot, and dialling or reticle subtensions become irrelevant.
0
u/EliteDuck May 12 '26
Keeping an eye on this thread. I'm also going to hijack this post a bit.
I've been building out a Tikka T3X CTR with a MDT Worker stock. I'm probably going to be getting this for the optic. I have multiple prisms from Vector, but I was wondering if anyone has put their higher end long-range glass on a build before. The cheaper prisms ($200 CAD) are comparable to $500 glass and I wonder if this is similar for the higher priced options from them.
8
u/draftstone May 12 '26
Both sfp and ffp can have adjustable parallax. In your model it might not be thr case, but sfp scopes with parallax adjustment do exist.
The difference will be if you use your reticle for holdovers/ranging target. With an sfp, the markings on the reticle are only true at one zoom setting, while on an ffp scope they are always true.
But this comes with a downside that on an ffp reticle, the reticle becomes bigger as you zoom, so you don't keep that super sharp and thin line, on an sfp scope, the reticle is always super thin and sharp.
Personally I prefer ffp scopes, but lot of hunters use sfp scopes because it keeps the reticle image the same and they don't do holdovers. They zero their scope to have a point blank range of roughly 250-300 yards in a 6" radius circle and then they always aim center of the reticle.