My new Primary Arms 4-14x44 FFP Mil Dot
- Thread starter zebra
- Start date
Zebra, that optic is advertised as being a long-range system with a huge amount of turret adjustment in it as well as the R-Grid reticle if you get it. I think ~ 40 mil useable.
Upvote 0
I chose the mil dot instead of the R-grid for three reasons. The Mil dot version is lighter, it's cheaper and I wasn't entirely sure what R-grid actually was.
There are a few other reticles too but I believe the mil dot version is the only one to come without an illuminated reticle. I don't like those so I preferred to save money and weight. They are all meant to be usable on 1000 yard guns. I haven't tested that but I had more than enough adjustments for any of my air guns. Not sure how well it would do at close range if I zeroed it for 500 or 1000 yard shooting though.
I use holderover / holdunder but I tested the turrets and found them to be fairly precise and repeatable with distinct clicks that moved the crosshairs as advertised. The AO is usable for ranging too which is impressive for the price. I have scopes that cost nearly double that don't don't focus at 50 yards with the side wheel set to 50 yards.
As as long as people set their expectations on the glass quality for the price, it's a great scope for most people's air gun needs. It's a total bargain compared to other scopes I have bought in the price range.
If you want to see how it rates as a long range powder burner optic then do a search for that YouTube video on building a sub-$1000 1000 yard rifle.
Now, for my next scope would I buy another one of these instead of a Clearidge Ultra RM? I'm still not sure. There is a lot to be said for a lightweight scope on a hunting air rifle and while the Clearidge costs more, the glass is better. If I was target shooting, I might be inclined to with the PA. It made me regret ever Leapers and Hawke purchase I ever made.
Upvote 0
Has anyone tried the Athlon 4-14? I'm really hoping to find a FFP that has an illuminated reticule.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/494577/athlon-optics-talos-btr-rifle-scope-30mm-tube-4-14x-44mm-1-10-mil-first-focal-side-focus-illuminated-aplr2-mil-reticle-matteAthlon Optics Talos BTR Rifle Scope 30mm Tube 4-14x 44mm 1/10 MIL First Focal Side Focus Illuminated APLR2 MIL Reticle Matte
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/494577/athlon-optics-talos-btr-rifle-scope-30mm-tube-4-14x-44mm-1-10-mil-first-focal-side-focus-illuminated-aplr2-mil-reticle-matteAthlon Optics Talos BTR Rifle Scope 30mm Tube 4-14x 44mm 1/10 MIL First Focal Side Focus Illuminated APLR2 MIL Reticle Matte
Upvote 0
I ordered one at the same time as the PA. They are also good. I sent mine back because the PA met my needs for less. It was no reflection on the Athlon.
It's not high end glass or anything like that but it will work for an air rifle.
All of the PA FFP scopes have an illuminated reticle except the mil dot version. I just preferred to save cash and weight as FFP scopes are very heavy to start with.
I find illuminated reticles to be a waste of time on these scopes. Neither the PA or the Athlon is bright enough for hunting in really low light where illuminated reticle might matter
if hunting in low light is a common occurrence for you I would advise you to drop the FFP and put the cash into brighter glass, or... Spend more and get a better FFP. These ones are budget friendly scopes.
Upvote 0
Hi Zebra,
In your settings/terrain your findings I'm sure are valid, and I respect your opinion and perspective.
Having said this it bears mentioning the PA glass is a huge leap above many budget scopes, sufficiently so that in my applications it truly excels at night, when using a Laser Genetics illuminator the glass on the PA scope accommodated the illumination very well at any range the illuminator was effective, and the entire reticle was usable at all powers.
Additionally the built in lighted reticle on mine is completely useful in dense mid-day woods, when trying to line up on targets/vermin/game hiding in starkly contrasted shadows deep under the tree canopies and further under a healthy bush at medium to long ranges. At times like this the crosshairs being illuminated puts the advantage squarely back in the shooter's favor, with the reticle no longer blending into the shadows. Plenty bright on the samples I have.
Upvote 0
In the few weeks I have been using my Athlon 4-14x44 BTR scope for squirrel hunting I agree 100% with your observation for use of the illuminated reticle as stated above. I tend to turn on the illuminated reticle as evening approaches or when I need contrast of the reticle against dark backgrounds. Bill
Upvote 0
It's interesting how people see things differently. When light starts getting bad, I find it easiest to see the plain black reticle. I find the glare caused by illuminated reticles to make them worse.
I found no scenario where it was bright enough to see the game but not bright enough to see the crosshairs.
Black isn't really a color in light terms. It's an absence of light. If there is enough to light to see the game, the crosshairs always shows up because it blocks the light over that area. It's odd to me that a person could see one without the other.
Also, my night vision is better when I haven't been looking at electric lights for a while. It like how it looks extra dark outside in the eve when you have been staring at an IPad screen before you look out the window. I find illuminated reticles to have the same effect.
I found no scenario where it was bright enough to see the game but not bright enough to see the crosshairs.
Black isn't really a color in light terms. It's an absence of light. If there is enough to light to see the game, the crosshairs always shows up because it blocks the light over that area. It's odd to me that a person could see one without the other.
Also, my night vision is better when I haven't been looking at electric lights for a while. It like how it looks extra dark outside in the eve when you have been staring at an IPad screen before you look out the window. I find illuminated reticles to have the same effect.
Upvote 0
Hey Zebra, I might give up on the lighted redicule. I haven't had one for awhile, but I live and shoot in the Pacific NW and often deal with dark backgrounds. I just ordered a .22 Wildcat and don't want to weigh it down with too heavy of a scope. I have the Athlon 6-24X50 on order, and will look it over when it comes in, but I might just go simple like the SWFA 12X42. So many decisions
The SWFA is 20 oz and the Athlon is 30.... but has lots of bells and whistles!
http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-12x42-Tactical-Riflescope-P53714.aspx
The SWFA is 20 oz and the Athlon is 30.... but has lots of bells and whistles!http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-12x42-Tactical-Riflescope-P53714.aspx
Upvote 0
I have the SWFA 12x42 scope you mentioned on my Air Force Condor in .22 caliber. I use this rifle mainly for groundhog shooting. I like the scope and the reticle and I don't need an illuminated reticle for hunting groundhog. The 12x power is all I need for the maximum shooting range of about fifty yards I shoot groundhogs. As I mentioned I have the Athlon Talos BTR 4-14x44 FFP on my Wildcat in .25 caliber. which I am using now for squirrel hunting rifle. I don't know if you plan to hunt squirrels or hunt in the woods where a variable focus might be useful locating your game first before zooming in for the final shot. The Talos BTR 4-14x44 weighs in at 23.6 oz. and 12.9" long so it is only 2.8 oz. heavier than the SWFA 12x and about 1.23" shorter. it might be a good trade off to get the Talos as oppose to the Athlon Argos you ordered. I also like that my Talos reticle has every other mil line numbered to help you keep track of longer range holdover aim points. More to think about lol. Bill"LDM"Hey Zebra, I might give up on the lighted redicule. I haven't had one for awhile, but I live and shoot in the Pacific NW and often deal with dark backgrounds. I just ordered a .22 Wildcat and don't want to weigh it down with too heavy of a scope. I have the Athlon 6-24X50 on order, and will look it over when it comes in, but I might just go simple like the SWFA 12X42. So many decisions
http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-12x42-Tactical-Riflescope-P53714.aspx
http://athlonoptics.com/product/talos-btr-4-14x44-aplr-ffp-ir-mil/
Upvote 0
- I only see the glare when the intensity is dialed too high.
- If the game is light colored, and his background is mottled shadows, the reticle may show on the game, but the rest of the reticle is lost/vague making holdovers and range estimation difficult or impossible.
- Earlier you stated the reticle was not bright enough to be useful, yet is bright enough to cause night-blindness ??
[/LIST=1]
Alright Zebra,
Since you astutely and correctly pointed out "people see things differently"... help me figure this out, I'm honestly trying to figure out the root cause of our vastly different experiences with illuminated reticles from an educational standpoint;
Playing "Devil's Advocate"
A friend of mine has similar complaints, and he has fairly significant colorblindness. He can't make out the red (which most find usable without causing night vision issues), yet he can "sort-of" use green at high settings... which does affect his night vision.
Could that have something to do with it? I honestly wonder.
Upvote 0
One indispensable scenario ;
Catch a glimpse of a rat running the fence line, headed away from the barn light, ...wait for it, he waddles back into the freshly mown field, foraging, his outline visible as a faint contrast, like a dark turd hopping around in a sea of chocolate. Would be wasting pellets if not for just a smidge of illuminated reticle. Lowest setting of course... red.
Upvote 0
It's very simple. In any scenario where I can see the game, I can see the black cross hairs without issues. There is no scenario where it was too dark for me to see the sight picture but it was helped by an illuminated reticle. Where it is getting dark and it is borderline whether I can see the game or not, I found the illuminated reticle made the sight picture look dimmer because turning on an electric light in front of your eye makes your pupil contract.
I am not color-blind or anything like that. I would say that my night vision is not that great in general. It's ok but average at best.
A seperate but related point is that the light transmission on scopes in this price category isn't as good as on higher end scopes so they are not what I would choose if usefulness in low light was my priority. That's not to say the PA or Athlon scopes are bad. They are both good for the money but realistically, the glass and coatings are not up there with $500+ scopes. Some of my other scopes are noticeably brighter.
I would add that I don't like to shoot at living things if I can't see clearly. I want to see exactly what I am shooting at and what is behind it. If it was too dark for me to see the reticle, I would consider it too dark for me to be shooting safely.
For night hunting I think night-vision reticles are a better solution but to each his own. I just think the main problem with hunting in low light is your ability to see what you are aiming at, not the reticle.
I am not color-blind or anything like that. I would say that my night vision is not that great in general. It's ok but average at best.
A seperate but related point is that the light transmission on scopes in this price category isn't as good as on higher end scopes so they are not what I would choose if usefulness in low light was my priority. That's not to say the PA or Athlon scopes are bad. They are both good for the money but realistically, the glass and coatings are not up there with $500+ scopes. Some of my other scopes are noticeably brighter.
I would add that I don't like to shoot at living things if I can't see clearly. I want to see exactly what I am shooting at and what is behind it. If it was too dark for me to see the reticle, I would consider it too dark for me to be shooting safely.
For night hunting I think night-vision reticles are a better solution but to each his own. I just think the main problem with hunting in low light is your ability to see what you are aiming at, not the reticle.
Upvote 0
Midway currently has the BSA 4-14 ffp which is the same scope as the Primary Arms for $160. I have owned both and if info is correct, both scopes are the same, just rebranded. My eyes could not see any difference other than branding.
Upvote 0
Zebra thanks for the in depth reply. That's why I've given you an accuracy point in the past... relevance matters !!!
Soooo....That settles it !!
Some folks swear by the PA 4-14×44 FFP Mil Dot's illuminated reticle and low light level optical clarity, some see otherwise.
Guess that proves the old adage, don't knock it 'til you've tried it, and once you have, decide for yourself.
Soooo....That settles it !!
Some folks swear by the PA 4-14×44 FFP Mil Dot's illuminated reticle and low light level optical clarity, some see otherwise.
Guess that proves the old adage, don't knock it 'til you've tried it, and once you have, decide for yourself.
Upvote 0
They are very similar, but do have distinct difference when held side by side, both internal and external finish quality varied (PA being more refined), I spoke with a staff member at PA in Pearland Texas (I went to High School in League City just a few miles from their store) and he went in to great detail explaining their working relationship with the Chinese facility which is FAR REMOVED from where the BSA/Midway samples and its predesessor the Falcon Menace were made. Different plants may share CAD files for exterior components, as a baseline for streamlined development catering to varying distributors demands and expectations, but all similarities and locations end where optics, assembly, final fitment and QC are performed.
For example the Midway scope's mil-dots do not align/span the same distance as the Primary Arms on the samples I have, the turrets are machined differently, and the optical coatings seem slightly different in color. Likewise the coatings perform differently to my eye. In bright conditions the Midway scope seems to produce more glare or haze, and seems to wayne sooner in low light. I bought one of each initially, and the Midway scope arrived first. Liked it so much I ordered two more. Then the PA scope arrived... immediately sold two of the three Midways and bought three more PA scopes, keeping a total of five of them (one Midway and four PA's). The Midway has no illuminated reticle. I've owned and used a vast array of premium optics, too many to name concisely, and can attest in my opinion that the PA scopes do offer much more value per $$ spent than the majority of similar values over the past few decades.
They (Midways) are on clearance now for under $160, incidentally they were clearly branded as BSA scopes when I purchased mine.
Upvote 0
- Target; Known RAT ,
- Target visibility; Distinct silhouette (marginal ambient moonlight)
- Setting; Private field, wooded perimeter
- Obstacle; non-distinct reticle
- Recourse; red reticle, low intensity
- Outcome; One less rat, no collateral damage
The IR and NVRS are both night aids, the former being more affordable, primitive and challenging, commanding more discernment as you noted. Rat killing on a budget is not for the faint of heart.
Viva la illuminated reticle!!!
Upvote 0
How awesome would it be if there was an affordable IR scope option. I love the idea of being able to see what is hiding in the bushes etc. it would make hunting at night even easier than hunting on a sunny afternoon.
last time I checked they were all multi-thousand dollar scopes and some were closer to $10,000. One day we'll all have it.
As Ziabea said, the BSA FFP is not the same as the PA. It looks the same on the outside but so do a lot of scopes and there are tons of different brands all coming from the same factories. The PA is a better product.
It is also worth noting for anyone considering the BSA FFP that there are multiple versions are varying quality that all sell under the same model name. The ones that sell for $400 at Midway are not the same as the ones Chinese sellers are offering on EBay for $180. It's one of those "buyer beware" things.
last time I checked they were all multi-thousand dollar scopes and some were closer to $10,000. One day we'll all have it.
As Ziabea said, the BSA FFP is not the same as the PA. It looks the same on the outside but so do a lot of scopes and there are tons of different brands all coming from the same factories. The PA is a better product.
It is also worth noting for anyone considering the BSA FFP that there are multiple versions are varying quality that all sell under the same model name. The ones that sell for $400 at Midway are not the same as the ones Chinese sellers are offering on EBay for $180. It's one of those "buyer beware" things.
Upvote 0
I owned one of each and maybe had a bad PA and a really good BSA, but I couldn't say one was better than the other. I was under the impression both were made in the same facility but to each brands specs.
Just thought I would pass along a really cheap price on the BSA as I honestly didn't see much difference between the 2 I had.
Edit: The BSA I had was from Midway and I was referencing that Midway has them on sale for $160.
Just thought I would pass along a really cheap price on the BSA as I honestly didn't see much difference between the 2 I had.
Edit: The BSA I had was from Midway and I was referencing that Midway has them on sale for $160.
Upvote 0
They are made at the same facility but most scopes come from the same factory and a number of other brands. They often use the same tubes for a bunch of different scopes that are spec'd differently. You often see $800 and $100 scopes that look similar or even the same on the outside. They may even look similar on paper but they can differ greatly in glass and build quality. A lot of the companies that use Japanese glass are made in one factory in Japan. leupold buys their glass from the same factory where Clearidge and Weaver scopes are made but they aren't in the same league.
As a general rule, two scope brands being made in the same factory should not be assumed to be the same even if they look it. In most cases they aren't. Those factories are contract manufacturers making something to somebody else's specs. They can make the best and the worst scope in the world side by side if asked and make them look identical.
I would also add that sometimes you only see the differences in quality between scopes under certain conditions or at certain power settings. The BSA ones I saw were definitely inferior to the PA FFP 4-14x44. The difference wasn't huge. It was things like edge clarity, light transmission and turret accuracy. If I had an issue with one, I think I would prefer the PA customer service too.
all that said, $160 is a great price for the BSA 4-14x44 FFP if it's the same one they were selling for $400 a few weeks ago. That is a fire sale and a half... It's probably worth buying some for my cheaper guns that I never bother to scope before.
Upvote 0