Primary Arms 4-14 Review

[Twinsen]

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.

[foxx]

^^^ That's it in a nutshell.

[yobuck]

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.

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.

[BoilerUP]

One more thing about running mils is - if you run mils you need to run ffp!

I have three SFP MRAD scopes and don't have any issues with them.

[shooterfpga]

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.

[yobuck]

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

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.

[darkker]

..... 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.

[shooterfpga]

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.

[yobuck]

..... 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.

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.

[Hotolds442]

This is a product review, let's not turn it into another ethics and hunting style banter, yobuck.

[flylo]

YOBUCK, settle down & don't let it ruin your day.

[foxx]

Well, Yobuck, I enjoy the banter. No worries there. :) Can't speak for everyone, but I hope they see it for what I do. And I do enjoy hearing about whatever it is that other hunters do and their various hunting strategies in various environments/terrain.

To answer your question about follow-up shots... I am not unwilling to take a second shot at a missed animal, and will AWAYS attempt one if I believe it is only wounded. Truth is, where I hunt, it is almost unheard of. Not entirely, of course, but the opportunity just isn't there due to the heavy cover. Of course, I have wounded deer and had to track them for a second shot, but I don't consider that "follow up" shot, per se, because it is several minutes, if not hours later. In fact, I clearly remember a time when I dropped a buck at 30 yards from a tree stand with a 45-70. Assumed he was dead. Before I climbed down, I called my wife, sent her some pics... Lowered my rifle down to the ground on a rope... "DANG! He just got up! WTF?!" Went to where he laid... no blood. Dang! Started looking for sign, walking in the general direction he ran through the thick cedar swamp... Could not find him or blood. Knew I was in for a long search so I dropped my coat and back pack and pistol and headed out in search. 1/2 hour later I kicked him up again, he was obviously hurtin' but moving good. Threw another shot at him, through the heavy cover, he kept going. anther 1/2 hour, same thing... Dang! Finally catch up with him and get a good clear shot at the back of his head from about 50 yards and drop the hammer. "Click". What the hey? Nothing. Bad round. Now I am outa bullets. 1/2 mile from my pack and coat and pistol and just an empty guide gun in my hands and a knife in my pocket. Longer story short, I called my buddy, told him the situation and he headed my way. I kept an eye on the buck, but he kept moving... I had to stay with him so as to not lose track of him, but did not want to get so close as to spook him further or drive him away... I don't know how long we "walked together", but there were a few times I was so close I could see him turn back and look at me with a pitiful look in his eye (maybe I only imagined that) and there was nothing I could do about it. Eventually my buddy showed up and we finished him off. As it turned out, I hit him with all three shots, but my bullets were too hard they just would not expand at all. It was like all I was doing was driving steel rods through him. Yeah, that sucked. Big time. And I was lucky (if not good) to have recovered him. But it was a tough day and a lot of frustration and agony for me, let alone the buck. He deserved better. Much better. I am not ashamed of all that, but I made a couple mistakes, one being the bullet choice and the other not having my pistol or extra ammo with me. I also did a few things right. One of which was I managed to keep track of the deer in a very heavy, thick, wet, dark and nasty swamp and I did not push him too hard so as to lose him again. Live and learn.

SO what's my point? Yes, crap happens, and we all make mistakes. However, I still make every effort to not take shots I believe are "iffy" or questionable. I ALWAYS believe I will make a clean kill with one shot or I don't shoot. I am often tempted, but simply won't do it. (as stated earlier, though, I feel differently hunting farm country with literally dozens of hunters for every 40-100 acres.) That's just a different kind of hunt in totally different environment. Does that mean I don't miss? Of course not. I just don't want to hope for a good shot. I want to KNOW I have a good shot.

As for bowhunting, I carry three arrows. One is to replace the one I all-too-often drop while in my tree stand. One is for a kill shot, (if necessary) and the other is in case I have the opportunity to continue hunting after taking my first deer. (On morning hunts, I always stay in my stand till I decide it's time to go in whether I have a deer down or not. No reason to stop with just one, is there?)

[foxx]

Flylo and Hotolds are right, btw.

I just happen to like this sort of thing.
Of course, it IS supposed to be a product review. Oops. :)

[Hotolds442]

Style and ethics discussions are welcome here:
http://www.savageshooters.com/forumdisplay.php?45-Hunting-Lodge
Why not start a thread there and carry on with the discussion?

Let's not get this one locked down.

[yobuck]

Style and ethics discussions are welcome here:
http://www.savageshooters.com/forumdisplay.php?45-Hunting-Lodge
Why not start a thread there and carry on with the discussion?

Let's not get this one locked down.

Well thank you for that, sincerally.
I dont feel any of what i said was of an offensive nature to anyone. and if so seen be assured that was and is not the intention.
Id like to have the questions i raised answered as i think they are very fair ones.
I would also appriciate your moving my post to the proper location in order for it to happen.
Otherwise it would take an hour or more of my one finger typing to reproduce it.
thanks.

[Hotolds442]

I didn't find it offensive, either. Just annoyed that the thread got derailed and veered off in another direction. Unfortunately I don't have any power in this forum to move it. My fu is weak here. You can click the little triangle in the bottom left of any post in the thread and ask the mods that it be split or moved, they'd be more than happy to get it back on track.

[yobuck]

Well, Yobuck, I enjoy the banter.

As for bowhunting, I carry three arrows. One is to replace the one I all-too-often drop while in my tree stand. One is for a kill shot, (if necessary) and the other is in case I have the opportunity to continue hunting after taking my first deer. (On morning hunts, I always stay in my stand till I decide it's time to go in whether I have a deer down or not. No reason to stop with just one, is there?)

Thanks, my comments were aimed at your archery hunting. I just assumed you dont use follow up shots because they usually dont present themselves?
Since scopes are very popular on cross bows now, and since we also now have (extreme) cross bow hunting, would this scope be a better choice there also?
FFP VS SFP and mil/mil for long range crossbows. What can we think of next?

[foxx]

I'd love to respond, but it's not the proper thread. Start a new one elsewhere and I'll jump all over it! :)

[badmutha6]

So anyway, the above listed scope is pretty dang good for the money. Ha!

[Newsshooter]

One more thing about running mils is - if you run mils you need to run ffp!

Why? I have mil/mil scopes in SFP and FFP, they both work well. If I'm dialing it doesn't matter which scope I'm using, if I'm holding over/under or windage, I'd rather have my FFP scope.