Rifle Scopes Primary Arms 4x14 ffp mildot

[ArmyJerry]

Bought this scope on a whim after reading some good review, going to use it on my AR 308 that I just rebarreled with a 18 inch Med weight CBI from Fulton Armory. First impressions, glass is in the upper end of good, better than the SS 16 x I have, adjustments are positive, FFP is nice in this mid range magnification, reticule is a bit thickish, not like a Simmons but slightly larger than the Bushnell FFP mildot Elite I have. Will take it out this weekend to see how it holds up.

https://www.primaryarms.com/Primary_Arms_4_14X44_FFP_Scope_p/pa4-14xffp.htm

 

[elfster1234]

let us know how it goes.... btw, nothing really happens unless you have pics

 

[orkan]

Been using a couple of those PA 4-14 ffp scopes on rimfires for a few months now. Work well enough for what they are. There's not really anything else to compare them to at that price range. We've yet to have a problem with them.

 

[marsh1]

Bought this scope on a whim after reading some good review, going to use it on my AR 308 that I just rebarreled with a 18 inch Med weight CBI from Fulton Armory. First impressions, glass is in the upper end of good, better than the SS 16 x I have, adjustments are positive, FFP is nice in this mid range magnification, reticule is a bit thickish, not like a Simmons but slightly larger than the Bushnell FFP mildot Elite I have. Will take it out this weekend to see how it holds up.

https://www.primaryarms.com/Primary_Arms_4_14X44_FFP_Scope_p/pa4-14xffp.htm

I look forward to your feedback.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Well I mounted it up today, I gotta say its a very nice scope for the $, really nice. I have a broken ejector on teh 308 so I just switched it to the 556, here is a pic. Would be nice if you had a ffp in 16 power for my old eyes.

 

[BigRso]

I actually mounted one on my savage build in 308 . Zero quickly with the mil/mil so seems they match up and passed the box test. Only thing I did notice it seems to be a little off in the box test on the left hand side poi was low only on that side by a very very small margin I wrote it off as shorter era considering I am a newbie..

 

[elfster1234]

Looking good so far! For an absolute budget scope and ffp im interested to see how it performs. Keep us informed!

Well I mounted it up today, I gotta say its a very nice scope for the $, really nice. I have a broken ejector on teh 308 so I just switched it to the 556, here is a pic. Would be nice if you had a ffp in 16 power for my old eyes.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Well, I shot today, about 500 rounds of 223, and 500 rounds of 308 from my nre savage 5 R barrel. Breaking both barrels in and trying to find a load for them, I am impressed with the scope , am sure I will be more so once I find the right load for the barrel, it does not like anything under 69 grains. I could easily see the 223 holes at 100 yards, and I have bad eyes too, here are a few pics. I would put the glass just under the Bushy 10 x elite which is a great scope.

upper left with 69, lower right with 77 gr, the others are 45 and 55 grain.

 

[1slow01z71]

Thats great to hear. Marshall is awesome and I've been eyeballing this scope for my 10/17hm2 build.

 

[elfster1234]

dude!! that is awesome! very nice! you can not go wrong with those results at all!

Well, I shot today, about 500 rounds of 223, and 500 rounds of 308 from my nre savage 5 R barrel. Breaking both barrels in and trying to find a load for them, I am impressed with the scope , am sure I will be more so once I find the right load for the barrel, it does not like anything under 69 grains. I could easily see the 223 holes at 100 yards, and I have bad eyes too, here are a few pics. I would put the glass just under the Bushy 10 x elite which is a great scope.

upper left with 69, lower right with 77 gr, the others are 45 and 55 grain.

 

[z71rat]

Marshall is good to go, and this should fill a huge void on many a hunters rifles!!

DK

 

[ArmyJerry]

Well my reloading better get better or I will have to stick to the 308's and larger, I am OCD and if the 5 shot groups of 223 cant be covered by a nickle I am not a happy camper. Will see how it go's next weekend after I get some more loaded up. Scope is good the rifle is good I think, the shooter is great (hehehehe) can only be the loads I am firing, I swear.

dude!! that is awesome! very nice! you can not go wrong with those results at all!

 

[AvsFan]

I wonder if this scope available at Midway USA is the same? It seems to have the same dimensions, features, and looks just like the one from P.A., w/the exception of parallax adjustment knob?

BSA Tactical Mil-Mil Rifle Scope 30mm Tube 4-14x 44mm Side Focus 1/10

 

[ArmyJerry]

Looks very similar. Except the PA is less money.

 

[NewsShooter]

Looks very similar. Except the PA is less money.

The midway scope has a different reticle, hash marks instead of dots. I have the midway model on a .22 trainer. I like it so far, have dialed it to 300 meters and back to 25 yards, seems to track well, nice and clear, focus to 10 yards.

 

[TexasGunTrustLawyer]

I am running several.

One is on a pof 18" upper.

One is on a rem 700 300blk

The glass is clear and the clicks are positive.

The reticle works.

Marshall and his staff at primary arms are great guys to work with.

 

[Outdoor play]

The midway scope has a different reticle, hash marks instead of dots. I have the midway model on a .22 trainer. I like it so far, have dialed it to 300 meters and back to 25 yards, seems to track well, nice and clear, focus to 10 yards.

I have one similar on my Ar15 made in china - it has the has marks on it as well. I think it is a hammers scope. The first thing I did with it was to mount in in my vice and make sure the click adjustments were consistent( ready to run back to the show and ask for my money back). Over a year later I still have not felt a need to change it. I can see my holes out to 200 just fine ( the furthest my local range goes).

 

[FailureToStart]

I put one on a CZ455PT, then turned around after the first range session and actually replaced the fixed 10x SWFA SS (cheap version) with one the next day. I've been pushing them as the best of the bunch in that price range ever since.

I've not personally seen anything under $400 that can beat it.

 

[wusscvr]

Primary Arms is a great company to deal with. Marshall is a member on many forums and always takes the time to answer questions. I have three PA optics, a multi-reticle red dot, a 4x16-44 mildot scope, and the the 4x14-44 FFP mildot scope in question. All three have been great. I did have a canted reticle issue on the 4x16-44, I contacted Marshall and, even though it was out of warranty, he replaced it with the newest model at no charge. The 4x14-44 is currently mounted on my 20" .308 FN PBR XP in a set of TPS steel rings. I have 300 rounds down the pipe with the scope attached and have had zero issues. Every 75-100 rounds, I perform a box test and the scope is tracking perfectly. All in all, I am very happy with the scope and would recommend it to anyone who is on a budget and wanted to try FFP out.

It goes without saying that the scope is great for the money, no it is not as clear as a S&B or USO but it is about one tenth the cost. I think it is the best variable powered FFP scope below the $400 mark.

 

[Blackmore]

I should have ordered one before I went on vacation. OOS until November :-(

 

[ArmyJerry]

Well I have had it mounted on my M1a, no gun bangs away at a scope ike the M1A, it still runs great, currently on my SASS as my M1a is at Springfirld getting upgraded to a NM. I would like one in ffp at 24x power.

 

[Playerz1337]

Anybody try this at 1000 yards for tracking & take a picture at that range for clarity?

 

[Archangel01]

I think this just might find a home on top of my .22 trainer. Seems to fit the bill to the T as everything i am looking for. Glad to hear the positive responses form the members here

 

[VJJPunisher]

any rocking the reticle bukkake ACSS?

 

[Southwind]

I have one of these on a 18" SPR .223 and I like it a lot. Glass is on par with the Falcon, Bushnell Elite 10x and the SS 16X that I own. I wish the clicks were a bit more like the Bushnell and SS, though. I have not put it through much abuse, but it has held zero and allowed me to shoot some decent groups. I will agree that the reticle is pretty thick if you are trying to shoot groups at 100yds, but it can be done. I would buy another.

 

[Q-Unit]

I look forward to your feedback.

Hey Marsh, I have one of these scopes. I have some feedback. This is only meant to be constructive:
1) If you could make the turret slightly more tactile the scope would be way better IMO. Right now it is just a little too easy to not get a consistent "click" because the detent is not quite strong enough to control the turret. I find myself really paying attention to the position of the turret and how the click feels.

2) A pet peeve with mine is I cannot get the "0" line to line on the turret to line up with the "reference" on the scope. They are always slightly off.

3) If there was an easy redesign that would allow for a "shimmed" zero stop similar to the vortex PST then that would be very nice.

For the price, none of these issues would prevent me from buying one of these scopes. It seems like any of these may be possible to improve on with manufacturing or slight design improvements and would not add much or anything to the cost. If that is incorrect then I think keeping the scope at its current price point makes the most sense.

 

[Q-Unit]

Anybody try this at 1000 yards for tracking & take a picture at that range for clarity?

I have a picture like this. I'll try and remember to post it when I get home. Its a picture of a 100yard NRA target. I think it is clear enough that I could hit the target with the scope.

 

[Q-Unit]

Here is the NRA target @ 1000yards.

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[marsh1]

Hey Marsh, I have one of these scopes. I have some feedback. This is only meant to be constructive:
1) If you could make the turret slightly more tactile the scope would be way better IMO. Right now it is just a little too easy to not get a consistent "click" because the detent is not quite strong enough to control the turret. I find myself really paying attention to the position of the turret and how the click feels.

2) A pet peeve with mine is I cannot get the "0" line to line on the turret to line up with the "reference" on the scope. They are always slightly off.

3) If there was an easy redesign that would allow for a "shimmed" zero stop similar to the vortex PST then that would be very nice.

For the price, none of these issues would prevent me from buying one of these scopes. It seems like any of these may be possible to improve on with manufacturing or slight design improvements and would not add much or anything to the cost. If that is incorrect then I think keeping the scope at its current price point makes the most sense.

Good feedback. A shipment just arrived so it would be late in the year before we could change anything

 

[steve123]

Good feedback. A shipment just arrived so it would be late in the year before we could change anything

I don't own a PA but I do own 3 Midway 4-14's. Obviously they are close to the same scope in many ways right?

Anyway, I'm not a brand name fan boy, I just pick the scope Co with the features I prefer. Those .5 mil hash's are a improvement over a regular mildot and that's why I bought the other brand instead of yours.

You want to improve your scope and sell a bunch I'll tell you how.

Offer wide low profile 10 mil knobs with reasonably distinct clicks and a reticle somewhat similar to GAP's G2. The design being a christmas tree type reticle with mil line numbers far enough off to the side as to not be in the way. Look at March's FML1 reticle as a example of "not" the proper place to put those "humongous = fail" numbers!

In fact do look at Bushnell's LRHS as a near perfect design.

We all know these upgrades are going to end up costing more. I'd gladly pay the extra $ for them! The next step up in FFP scope world for us are the SWFA 3-15 and Bushnell 3-12x44 which are $700 to $900 scopes. I'm sure you could come in just the other side of half the price of those scopes and offer the reticle and turrets I've described. I own/owned both BTW, they are not all that and bag of chips at those prices. I have 4 rifles that I'd like to put a scope on such as I've described. I'm sure there are many that feel the same as myself and are tired of paying $$$$ to get the features we want.

C,mon man step up and give the big Co's a run for their money!

 

[ArmyJerry]

When is the big brother 24x coming out Marsh? Just remember I was the first to ask about it when they do come in.

 

[BoilerUP]

I don't own a PA but I do own 3 Midway 4-14's. Obviously they are close to the same scope in many ways right?

Anyway, I'm not a brand name fan boy, I just pick the scope Co with the features I prefer. Those .5 mil hash's are a improvement over a regular mildot and that's why I bought the other brand instead of yours.

You want to improve your scope and sell a bunch I'll tell you how.

Offer wide low profile 10 mil knobs with reasonably distinct clicks and a reticle somewhat similar to GAP's G2. The design being a christmas tree type reticle with mil line numbers far enough off to the side as to not be in the way. Look at March's FML1 reticle as a example of "not" the proper place to put those "humongous = fail" numbers!

In fact do look at Bushnell's LRHS as a near perfect design.

We all know these upgrades are going to end up costing more. I'd gladly pay the extra $ for them! The next step up in FFP scope world for us are the SWFA 3-15 and Bushnell 3-12x44 which are $700 to $900 scopes. I'm sure you could come in just the other side of half the price of those scopes and offer the reticle and turrets I've described. I own/owned both BTW, they are not all that and bag of chips at those prices. I have 4 rifles that I'd like to put a scope on such as I've described. I'm sure there are many that feel the same as myself and are tired of paying $$$$ to get the features we want.

C,mon man step up and give the big Co's a run for their money!

The ONLY thing I didn't like about the BSA 4-14x was the turrets. I could live with the large size/weight for the value provided by the feature set and price point, and the glass was much better than I expected for an inexpensive Chinese first focal optic, but the turrets had TERRIBLE tactile & audible feedback. If the knobs had been similar in feel to the Bushnell 10x or Weaver 3-10x it'd have been great, and I'd have paid an extra 10% for better knobs.

 

[derek1387]

I have had two of these scopes, and have been very happy with the quality, glass clarity, and the reticle. I just bought a vortex PST and there is definitely a quality difference, BUT, if you are on a budget, you wont go wrong with the PA.

 

[Q-Unit]

I have had two of these scopes, and have been very happy with the quality, glass clarity, and the reticle. I just bought a vortex PST and there is definitely a quality difference, BUT, if you are on a budget, you wont go wrong with the PA.

+1. I would not do anything that would increase the cost though. This is the ONLY scope in this price range. If they increase the cost then it will just be another mid level scope.