Reply With QuoteSo am I to understand that BSA and Primary Arms scopes are essentially the same scope as for quality made by the same company?Originally Posted by 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.
So am I to understand that BSA and Primary Arms scopes are essentially the same scope as for quality made by the same company?
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..
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?
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..
Last edited by Bill7mm; 03-15-2016 at 01:43 PM.
Basic Member
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.
Last edited by yobuck; 03-15-2016 at 05:29 PM.
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...
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...
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......
[QUOTE=fgw_in_fla;256183]We told you so...[/QUOTE]
you will be happy
What he said.....I put one on a build for my dad. Really nice scope...especially for the $$$.
Scooter
I'm the Boss. I make sure what she wants gets done.
Holy Smokes guys I am blown away. I am seriously impressed. I have my brother's father in law's Ziess at the house working on his Ruger .270win for him. I really liked that scope. I had his ziess, my Redfield Revolutions 4-12, and my Nikon p-223 4-12 out for a side by side comparison. I knew the Ziess was better then my two, but the PA is even clearer at the higher magnifications. Not by a ton, but at 2.5x cheaper then the Ziess what a bargain. Thank you guys so much for peaking my curiousity enough to pull the trigger on it.
[QUOTE=fgw_in_fla;256183]We told you so...[/QUOTE]
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks