Reply With QuoteTagging for future reviews once I get some time behind mine. Glass looks great and im eager to get some time behind it
Originally Posted by Z06sid
Anyone got anything to say about this? I want to move a voxtex pst from my ar to my 6.5-284 and put this scope on my ar.
Tagging for future reviews once I get some time behind mine. Glass looks great and im eager to get some time behind it
Ive read nothing but good about these scopes. Im seriously thinking about buying one. I'm just a little hesitant because all Ive ever used is MOA. Im just now getting into stretching my guns out just a little, and I have a couple questions. If I understand FFP correctly, the mils dont change value through the entire zoom range as does a 2nd FP. Ive read the reticle gets bigger as you zoom....if thats the case, wouldn't the crosshairs start to cover the bullseye? Ive read a little on the mils vs moa (just starting) It doesn't seem too difficult, I guess I don't wanna buy the scope and be disappointed it ( i realize that can happen with anything) I guess I need to know what I'm getting into with the FFP and the mils stuff. Sorry for the newbie questions.
Thanks!
Scooter
Once you go ffp AND mil you never go back. Its the best invention since the automobile. People always want to think in inches or moa but mils are where its at. Some reticles MAY cover the target as you zoom because of the thickness of the reticle but most never have that issue with the more commonly used ffp scopes. I can zero any new weapon with two shots using mils. One to see where its at on paper and one to correct placement using just what the reticle tells me to adjust my turret. If you want to get fancy with mils the swfa milquad reticle is beautiful and the bushnell g2dmr reticle is even more sexy. Im running traditional mildots but my next will be a christmas tree mildot reticle.
I trying to change all my scopes over to mils and ffp and at this price I can maybe make it happen a little faster.
Scooterf, The reticle on ffp never covers the target at higher zoom anymore than it does at a lower zoom. It just appears to.
One more thing about running mils is - if you run mils you need to run ffp!
It should be pointed out here that this review is for the Primary Arms 4-14x44 FFP MIL-MIL non-illuminated model.
Originally Posted by keeki
Guess it doesn't really matter. If ya cant afford $15, you won't be buying much anyways
Correct, FFP the distance between the mil dots in the reticle are a constant distance, because the reticle grows and shrinks with magnification.
You CAN cover-up the target with the reticle, yes. but provided your scope doesn't have an oddly proportioned reticle, I don't know anyone that uses 14X at 100 yards. So it is only a "problem" on a personal application basis.
The important point, at least in my mind, is to have MATHCING turrets and reticle. As long as the reticle is Mil, AND the turrets are mill; or alternatively, if they are moa/moa the world is in harmony.
What I discovered was that at distance, what I used to think was... some number of inches off, really was not. So again, if you have matching turrets/reticles; don't think about inches or mills in an absolute value to me tested on paper, so much as the mills or moa that the Turret Vs. impact is.
If you are a mill low or high, adjust that amount. rather than looking at the target thinking you are an inch off and trying to convert to mils.
cheers
I'm a firm believer in the theory that if it bleeds, I can kill it.
^^^ EXACTLY. to put another way... always measure your "misses" or whatever tthrough your scope, and use the reticle marks (mills) as your "ruler". if your shot was 1 mill off, move your turret 1 mil (10 clicks if it is a .10 mil/ click turret). If it appears to be 1/2 mill off, adjustyour turret 5 clicks (5 x .10/clicks = .5 mil total adjustment).
As long as your turrets match your reticle, and your scope is FFP, it doesn't even matter if they are "mils" or "farts". :) it's all about adjusting for what ever the angle is that you are off. If your "ruler" for measuring is the same as your tool for correcting, you are good to go. Just keep in mind that most clicks are 1/10 of a mil.
Some reticles are marked with mils and then 1/4 and 1/2 mils. That makes it easier to judge whether you were off by 1/2 or 1/4 or 3/4. etc. Regardless, the principal is he same.
It really is SO much easier than a newbie wants to make it, especially if that "newbie" is used to measuring how far the hole is from the center of the target in inches and then, whether he realizes it or not, does the math in his head to determine how many clicks he needs to move his reticle. FORGET ABOUT IT! Just move it as many clicks as necessary according to your reticle, regardless of the range you are shooting from.
So what your really saying is FFP is for ppl that like to miss
Lol Yes, but it is even better for estimating distance. If you know the size of the object you are looking at, and know the conversion factors, then you can instantly estimate the range to the object. And, it doesn't matter what power you are at.
Last edited by foxx; 02-05-2015 at 03:27 PM.
Hmm....the using the reticle to figure out the adjustments ne9eded sounds great, and easy....and i understand it needing to be mil/mil. I never was sure why some scopes had both, in my little head that made no sense to me lol. You guys are pushing me toward this one, here we go again, being forced my peer pressure by you all to buy something else....just like the actions, barrels, this tool, that tool that you all make me buy 😉. Seriously though, thanks for the info and input, I really appreciate it.
Scooter
I'm the Boss. I make sure what she wants gets done.
Each has their place.
I like the thin crosshairs sfp scopes have. I have a Leica rangefinder for determining range. Now estimating offsets in wind at long distance could prove to be a chore. So im guessing it depends what type of shooting you do.
Holdover works on sfp or ffp the same. The only place ffp shines is if you want to measure on the reticle then dial accordingly. ..mainly target shooting
Hunting it wouldnt matter either way.
I now own both. So we will see if I get bit by the ffp bug or not.
No, holdover doesn't work the same way; which means it does matter for hunting.
If you are using your reticle, whether it is a mill dot, duplex, etc to guess a holdover; SFP will tell you lies, which is where most of the stories about " I done shot at over 500 yards and got him" come from.
Unless you ONLY shoot at one magnification, SFP scopes will make you hold over different amounts, due to it staying a constant size relative to the target. So in a SFP say you shot and miss low by one mill on your scope. You chase, catch back up to the game and your rangefinder says it's the same distance. But you want to make sure you hit, so you zoom in/out some. NOW you changed the magnification, so that mill you had to hold over, isn't the same relative amount. Miss #2, inbound
I'm a firm believer in the theory that if it bleeds, I can kill it.
heres my train of thought darker. you take a shot at a ground hog, pdog whatever, you see the shot go high, note how high on the retical and make a holdover adjustment.... different train of thought I know where your coming from
The upside to FFP is the reticle changes size. The downside is the reticle changes size. Low magnification and low light mean a hard to see reticle with FFP. Those are common hunting conditions. Also at high magnification the reticle covers more of the target than an SFP.
But they're idiot proof so I like FFP.
^^^ That's it in a nutshell.
My comments are not aimed at this or any scope, or the opinion of any posting here.
But, the ability to zero a gun with just a few shots has always been available regardless of scope design.
No trickery involved, just a little knowledge on how to dial.
#1, shoot your bore sighted gun at the target.
#2, hold your reticle on the aiming point and without moving the gun dial to the hit.
#3, fine tune your adjustment or hold and shoot.
Its been referred to as a 1 shot zero for decades. And guess what? it works when your shooting at other things also.
But it does remove the bragging rites for (cold bore hits). Unless your alone of coarse.
As for the scope, it sounds interesting. I liked the review, i might even try one on a varmit gun.
I have three SFP MRAD scopes and don't have any issues with them.
I have an older sfp mil/mil scope that i still use besides ffp. But for myself its much faster when only used on the zoom its calibrated for or half of it to make the subtentions easier to account for.
Well your are correct in what your saying here. But your also using hypothetical situations to arrive at the points your trying to make.
Having been a long range hunter for a very long time i would say your overselling both ffp and mil/mil.
I could care less what a person chooses, and it could well be there would be some slight advantages to this system. But they would be very slight at best.
First off experienced hunters are picking the power they want and sticking with that till its over. They wont be fooling around with the power or parralex either.
And unless theres a significant change in the animals location there wont be another range taken. There would be a better chance of a sighter shot
as its quicker and offers more information. Especially if the animal is standing in a place where a clear shot isnt available anyway at present.
We have time, so lets (waste) a shot which shows what the wind is doing, and allows for updating the elevation data also. And as an added bonus it
could make things happen which would present a shot at the animal. This would be the mindset of an experienced hunter whose only goal is to kill the animal.
20 years from now we may well look around and find most people are using this system. But your not going to be convincing many if any to be making any switch.
..... Wait, what?
Missing a shot, have to chase after the animal, rangefind again and make an adjustment of magnification to make sure you can properly see your target isn't what an experienced hunter would do, so is hypothetical?
Rather it is more reasonable that an experienced hunter would: not dare use his variable power scope he purchased. Only take one range reading, but take a purposeful "Sighting" shot at an unclear animal during the hunt to see where it hits, with a benefit of it could make things happen to get a clear shot!?
Whether at the partially obstructed deer, or just in general; a "sighter" during the hunt hoping to spook things into the "open" isn't called hunting around here, that's sniping.
If that's what you want to do, so be it.
My contention stands. For those who want actually use their scopes adjustment, who want there scopes adjustment to be correct at any magnification they chose. FFP with matching turrets/reticle, make life simple.
I'm a firm believer in the theory that if it bleeds, I can kill it.
Ive hunted for years with an sfp scope. I was very limited to range because of the reticle subtentions. After upgrading to almost all ffp mil/mil i have no limitations except my other deer stand at 480yds obstructing my view from the rest of the 500yds behind it. Since im not a millionaire i use all my rifles for both long range matches and hunting. This gives me a common platform to not confuse things. The same way all of my duty weapons are on the same standard. Anyone can pick up any of my rifles, read a chart and place a direct hit.
You can sugar coat whatever you wish to make it more palatable to you. But the bottom line is were killing animals here.
I cant speak for you or where you come from. But i can speak for me and where i come from.
Some (hunters) there join up into large groups and perform whats known as deer drives and its called (hunting).
Others use elevated stands or trees to (hunt) from with both bow and rifle, and thats also called (hunting)
Some have permits to use vehicles to ride around back roads and shoot from the vehicle, and thats also called (hunting).
Those who dont have permits and do that are (slobs) who are (hunting) like slobs do.
Some of those hunt long range also and you can always tell who they are because they shoot alot.
Some use very good binnoculars to look for wildlife and they might be known as bird watchers. Everybody loves birdwatchers lol.
But there are also those others who use those things for the purpose of finding things to shoot at. A disgusting bunch who often refer to things as
deze and doze and dumz. But thats what some are referring to as (hunting) now days also if you can believe that.
Now the (shooting) part has rather recently become somewhat controversial among those who (now) choose to partisipate in that type of (hunting).
To the point that there are now different classes within the same class if you will. Used to be there were arguments over guns or the optics being used, but thats changing.
The actual killing of an animal is now considered unethicle if it takes more than one (cold bore) shot. I should add (by some) and mostly on the internet, and not where im from.
The same type mindset as those who would preach that a trout would prefer being eaten after being caught on a fly than a hook and worm. IMHO.
As for the (sighter) shot, where did i even hint that it would be taken at the animal? When conditions change, would an accuracy minded shooter
in a match go back to his sighter if permitted? Or might he whip out his wind meter and ponder over his data sheets?
What did the large group of long range hunters do when there were no scope/reticle choices other than the unertles or the few others like them?
What did they do when there were no lazer rangfinders or combination lazer/binnoculars?
Can a person even today who dosent own one of these become a long range hunter?
As for the word (sniping) do we determine what that is by how many shots were fired? Or by the manner in which (any) shots were fired?
Could it be said some (snipers) are better at what they do than other (snipers) might be?
Might that also apply to other type (hunters). Foxx, for some reason comes to mind here lol.
Do professional snipers like our military or swat teams always make first round hits? Does Foxx always make first round hits?
How many arrows does Foxx carry anyway lol.
Would a military sniper who might miss a shot be apt to not shoot again for fear of missing again? Why dosent Foxx shoot again?
Were now hearing terms used like (cold bore mapping). Sounds like a really cool catchy thing to me but im not really sure i understand it
at least fully. But it seems i might go out and shoot today, so i can be ready for what happens next week when the season opens?
And i might even post a video on youtube for no other reason than to prove im an ethicle kind of guy?
Are there any cold bore mappers here who could could explain that more eloquently than i just attempted to do? Dere jist hasta be. lol
If i might ask Darkker, just how do you go about long range hunting?
Could you furnish a list of the equiptment you would be using for lets say shots at animals that could be say up to 1200 yds?
All the equiptment, and how you would proceed to use it for finding and (killing) animals.
What you would see as ethicle and what wouldnt be. I think even a slob would prefer just one shot if for no other reason but to brag.
But what would someone ethicle say on where the shot count ends?
Ive recently said that i doubt theres the (desire) or interest here for a debate on this subject.
But based on what im seeing now i was probably wrong in saying that.
Im not picking on you Foxx or anyone for that matter and i sence you might enjoy the banter going on here.
Hopefully everybody does.
This is a product review, let's not turn it into another ethics and hunting style banter, yobuck.
Originally Posted by keeki
Guess it doesn't really matter. If ya cant afford $15, you won't be buying much anyways
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks