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.

9 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

23 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.