Primary Arms Rifle Scopes

[wn40]

I have the 4-14 ffp and I have a all the swfa SS fixed and I wish the PA would have finer mil dots and cross hairs like the newer SS. I like both scopes I think the swfa fixed 12 is brighter than the PA.

[DrThunder88]

Fixed scopes tend to be brighter and clearer than variable scope of equal quality in my experience.

And good point about the dots. I had not realized the reticle was not a standard mil dot. How much difference that extra 0.05 mil makes can be pretty substantial at longer ranges.

[Warrick]

Just got mine in the mail tonight!! They had a blem deal on Ebay for $189 , I can't see anything wrong with the scope though so ya me. Still has 3 year warranty I hope I don't need.

First impression was great out of the box. Not as Heavy as a scope as I thought from some of the info I have read, and the mil adjustments where crisp. I already love it and its not even on my gun yet.

Now I am a poor boy, so this is the best scope I have. So I can only compare to my bushnell 44 mag , and it is a great deal of an upgrade.

[Twostepct]

Which scope is not a standard mil dot? I just got one of the Primary Arms in and cannot find anything about the subtensions.


Fixed scopes tend to be brighter and clearer than variable scope of equal quality in my experience.

And good point about the dots. I had not realized the reticle was not a standard mil dot. How much difference that extra 0.05 mil makes can be pretty substantial at longer ranges.

[DrThunder88]

The PA scope (http://cdnll.primaryarms.com/images/art/PA4-14XFFP%20Instruction%20Sheet.pdf) has circular dots that are 0.25 mil, whereas the circular US Army dots are either 0.20 or 0.22 mil. The USMC dots are 0.25 mil long but are ovals.

The practical implications of the size mismatch if the user is using the dots as a scale are not insignificant. A 9" target will subtend 0.25 mil at 1000 yards, but the same size target will appear 0.2 mil at 1250 (and 0.22 mil at 1136 yards). I didn't make the connection until this discussion, but I remember my first trip to Rockcastle with Rosco where we had placed an 8" gong in the field. I had milled it as almost exactly 0.20 mil, the size I assumed my PA's dots to be. I did the math and calculated it to be about 1100 yards away. I dialed the corresponding elevation and completely overshot it. I spotted my miss and dialed it back down almost three whole mils. I backwards-checked the elevation and found it was only about 900 yards away. I wrote this off as overestimating the size of the plate, but really it was probably underestimating the size of the dot!

[Twostepct]

Ok. I bought this scope used so I'm not sure if I'm missing any paperwork, anyone know what the measurement between the ends of the dots would be? I'm very new to mils and trying to work all of this out.

[Twostepct]

If the Primary Arms dots are .25 mil then that should leave the distance between at .75 mil right?

[darkker]

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j84/Darkker13/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_20160306_065034_zpsux4w5i7l.jpg

[Twostepct]

Cool, thank you.

[Robinhood]

The PA scope (http://cdnll.primaryarms.com/images/art/PA4-14XFFP%20Instruction%20Sheet.pdf) has circular dots that are 0.25 mil, whereas the circular US Army dots are either 0.20 or 0.22 mil. The USMC dots are 0.25 mil long but are ovals.

The practical implications of the size mismatch if the user is using the dots as a scale are not insignificant. A 9" target will subtend 0.25 mil at 1000 yards, but the same size target will appear 0.2 mil at 1250 (and 0.22 mil at 1136 yards). I didn't make the connection until this discussion, but I remember my first trip to Rockcastle with Rosco where we had placed an 8" gong in the field. I had milled it as almost exactly 0.20 mil, the size I assumed my PA's dots to be. I did the math and calculated it to be about 1100 yards away. I dialed the corresponding elevation and completely overshot it. I spotted my miss and dialed it back down almost three whole mils. I backwards-checked the elevation and found it was only about 900 yards away. I wrote this off as overestimating the size of the plate, but really it was probably underestimating the size of the dot!

You can't beat real world experience.

[Bill7mm]

Just to add on the "anything .308 and under" comment as far as recoil is concerned in a early post. I have had the 4-14 FFP on a unbraked 300 Weatherby for over a year, and it is flawless. Holds zero, and tracks like the day it was new. I have the BSA version which is the same scope marketed thru Midway, on a 30-06 shooting 215grain Bergers and it is flawless. So much so I'm ordering another BSA version for a Savage 7mm Rem mag. The BSA has a better "stated" warranty incase anybody was wondering.

[yobuck]

Just to add on the "anything .308 and under" comment as far as recoil is concerned in a early post. I have had the 4-14 FFP on a unbraked 300 Weatherby for over a year, and it is flawless. Holds zero, and tracks like the day it was new. I have the BSA version which is the same scope marketed thru Midway, on a 30-06 shooting 215grain Bergers and it is flawless. So much so I'm ordering another BSA version for a Savage 7mm Rem mag. The BSA has a better "stated" warranty incase anybody was wondering.

So am I to understand that BSA and Primary Arms scopes are essentially the same scope as for quality made by the same company?

[Bill7mm]

Yes, Primary Arms 4-14 FFP, BSA Mil Mil 4-14FFP, Wotac 4-14ffp, Discovery 4-14FFP and Falcon Menace 4-14FFP are all the same exact scope, just different company branding.... That being said, i personally think this scope is the best Varible power scope you can get for under 500$. It's been tested over and over for tracking, and the glass is amazing for a 250ish dollar scope. And the front focal plane, puts this scope in a category that out performs my 3.5-14 Nikon Buckmaster and the few comparable priced Bushnells..

[yobuck]

Ive never owned any of those scopes except one BSA called a sweet 22. I bought it for a my Savage 22 mag but felt it was to big and removed it.
I don't think I fired the gun 50 times before doing that and its been sitting on a shelf ever since. I'm guessing that wouldn't be the same quality scope as the others?

[Bill7mm]

The BSA 4-14 FFP is the only BSA I would trust. It's technically not a BSA. They don't even list it in their catalog, only at Midway. I'm not sure who exactly makes these scopes for those companies, but I do know it's Japenese glass but assembled in China the internals are of decent quality as well. And... The reticles are etched glass which I find desirable in a scope. But yea, it's not a BSA but BSA put their name on it for Midway.. Side by side the Primary Arms and the BSA are identical. The reticles are different but the glass is the same, if I was going to have to judge, the BSA edges out the Primary Arms in light gathering and clarity. But, it's such a small difference I would say, that the glass in each are in the same grade, just so happens the BSA glass was polished a little better in this particular scope. It could be changed for someone who has both, and the Primary Arms is better..... Very good scopes for the money..

[yobuck]

Its interesting for me and no doubt others like me, to hear the various opinions regarding the scope options today.
Realize that ive been using scopes since the early 50s. It really hasent been all that long since target knobs and therefore dialing was possible with other than target type scopes like the Unertles and a few others of similar design.
Second focal plane options are even a much more recent offering, and im not sure that some companies still don't offer that option. Same goes for the various reticles and options on dialing such as mill vs moa.
Ive been involved with long range huntingand dialing scopes since the early 70s. It was and still is simply range the target, add the required elevation to the scope to compensate for the distance and shoot. Follow up shots could either be by holding over or additional dialing.
In a hunting situation, unlike a target situation distance of an actual hit from the aiming point is basicly guesswork since there is nothing to refer to as there would be with a hole in a target.
Ive never looked thru a ffp scope nor have I ever used a mill reticle or dialing system.
I would be interested to hear from somebody very familiar with both focal plane scopes and both dialing systems, to explain why one would have an advantage for hunting as ive described it above. I'm not really interested in the (this is what I do therefore its best) opinions, and im not interested in the rangfinding aspects of various reticles either.
Consider it as if say Winnie was looking to buy a new scope for his new 338 Lapua to use exclusively for long range hunting and informal target shooting.

[Bill7mm]

If you are going to use maximum point blank range and then dial for range after that, I don't see either being better than the other. FFP scopes are for someone using a reticle for range estimation and holdover shots, where they may want to estimate range but don't want to worry about setting their scope to a certain power to have the reticle sub tensions be at the proper value. A Elk hunter may have his scope set to a lower power for the added field of view, and when the elk pops out at 300 and his reticle is in the second focal plane, and it's calibrated for a high power setting on the scope, if he wants to range or hold over with the reticle, it will be off.... If it's in the first focal plane, it will hold its sub tension value no matter the setting. If a person uses a rangefinder and dials for range, then a second focal plane scope is fine. The reticle subtensions won't matter, and the reticle will remain the same physical size through out the power settings, as to where a FFP scope the reticle gets smaller as the power setting gets lower... As far as Mils vs. Moa, one is not better than the other, in my opinion. If a person goes with a FFP scope I would suggest going with a scope that has matching turrets and reticle. You don't want a Mil dot reticle with MOA turrets, that's just to much math when a shot needs to be taken quickly...

[yobuck]

Sorry for the double post. As for the scopes, I'm aware of the difference in the mechanics of them.
I'm also aware that no hunter in his right mind attempts ranging with anything other than a good rangefinder.
I should correct myself regarding mil dot reticles in that I have used them, but only as a reference for holdovers
with follow up shots. For that purpose, the reticle matching the turret dosent matter. Actually I cant see where any
differences matter assuming the user knows how to use a scope dial.

[Bill7mm]

Sorry for the double post. As for the scopes, I'm aware of the difference in the mechanics of them.
I'm also aware that no hunter in his right mind attempts ranging with anything other than a good rangefinder.
I should correct myself regarding mil dot reticles in that I have used them, but only as a reference for holdovers
with follow up shots. For that purpose, the reticle matching the turret dosent matter. Actually I cant see where any
differences matter assuming the user knows how to use a scope dial.There is no difference.... Good luck to you...

[tufrthnails]

Just pulled the trigger on a used in new condition PA 4-14 Mil Dot from PA. Pretty stoked to get it in my hands and see what all the fuss is about. Now what to mount it on......