This is not popular on the sniper/competition site, but while I like big, clear, high field of view scopes for hunting, I detest a tiny FFP reticle on low power. I have a NF NSX SFP on several hunting rifles, and I love the fact that it has a full sized reticle on low power (where most shots occur). I put a Razor on a hunting rifle years ago, and wanted to love it and love dialing for deer, but I hated it. It sucked, and I'd have to waste time fooling with the scope and dealing with a tiny reticle on low power. If you're going to insist on a FFP scope then you definitely want good illumination so that you can see the damn thing when fully pulled back, but SFP makes way more sense for hunting ungulates at chip shot (under 400 yards) ranges.
If you're shooting antelope at long ranges then SFP makes more sense, but even for Elk I prefer SFP. You can also get way more scope for the same money to go SFP and MOA, and WGAF hunting? Now, I probably have five times as many FFP scopes in mils, but I don't hunt with them. I only have four or five, sporter-barrel, hunting rifles and they all have 56mm SFP or LPVO scopes on them depending on the terrain. If you want to take long shots and hold over you can always go to max power and then the reticle is correct. This just is way more comfortable and makes more sense to me.
If you're shooting antelope at long ranges then SFP makes more sense, but even for Elk I prefer SFP. You can also get way more scope for the same money to go SFP and MOA, and WGAF hunting? Now, I probably have five times as many FFP scopes in mils, but I don't hunt with them. I only have four or five, sporter-barrel, hunting rifles and they all have 56mm SFP or LPVO scopes on them depending on the terrain. If you want to take long shots and hold over you can always go to max power and then the reticle is correct. This just is way more comfortable and makes more sense to me.