FFP scopes
Well I went and done it, been looking at entry level/cost FFP scopes for the last week and was really looking at the Falcon Menace 4-14×44 until someone commented that BSA has one (Midway exclusive not even on BSA site) that is an almost exact copy except for the turrets, that is rumored to be made by the same company. So went ahead and ordered both, BSA from Midway and the Falcon from SWFA. Figure I’ll check them out and keep the better of the two.
All Replies
KIBA :
They did do all that but it would take days to translate everything from Swedish. I see nothing subjective in that test – and they even try to remove the “what works good for one gives headache to another” – factor as well ; They use several testers. Not two or three but to my recollection there are seven of them – all with years of field expertise between them. No Internetexpertise found there , no spec sheet facts counted.
About those spec sheets : As useful as a piece of Toilet paper when on a market for a scope. About the only fact that´s according to those sheets somewhat factual is the length of a scope the specs are written for. That´s about the only thing i´ve learned when on a hunt for a new scope. May give you an rough estimate for a scope´s features. Ever seen a scope that weighs what the specs says ?? Me neither. A friend in scope business said that some brands weigh their scopes without turret caps etc. Now who the hell goes hunting without them caps on ??
Well, maybe Hoot: does but he´s not like all the other Kids …
I´d like to have a look thru (or actually not just look thru but a possibility test one a couple of days) those high-end Vortex´s though since they seem to be very good ones. The problem here is they´ll cost almost as much as established, great European brand Scopes and i don´t know whether them Razor´s can hold their own in comparison. The Warranty is unbeatable though.
Nice write up Ville, thanks for the link.
Mike
Their tests are an interesting read but I’d love to see them put more test effort into the mechanics of the scope– a full box test, multiple shot return to zero tests, etc. That would take a lot of time and ammo though for the amount of scopes they are evaulating. Seems they are mostly just shooting and each tester is comparing optical quality, how long into the dusk hours they can make out specific details, overall “ease of use” of the scope regarding turret feel & legibility, reticle usability, etc. Still good testing but without rigorous testing of the turrets it’s not a complete picture.
As I said… a riflescope with the prettiest glass in the world isn’t worth a damn if the mechanics are garbage– it’s not a spotting scope, the mechanics are the critical feature in the scope. The only way to really test that is to do full box testing and return to zero testing, something I do on all my scopes. It’s the only way to find if your scope tracks true, has a linearity issue, a repeatability issue, return to zero issues, etc. I’ve seen where a scope might track true between 0 and 8 mils of elevation but starts having some scaling issues between 8 and 10 mils– noticed this on one of my IOR 3-18 x 42s actually, shooting long range one day once I got past 8 mils the dope no longer matched between the scope elevation turret and my ballistic calculator. Didn’t know for sure what it was that day; may have been ammo, conditions, the rifle, etc. A couple weeks later I did a box test on the scope at 100Y and found the scope had issues with the elevation turret between 8 and 10 mils. While the scaling was off in that range it was repeatable so I just made notes in my logbook and adjusted the dope chart. Doesn’t take too long with a big piece of paper with aiming points printed out on it at the appropriate increments to match the turret units and then shooting at a known range to do the tests.
Still awaiting their final input & results even if they are a bit subjective. Optics quality in regards to a test like that is quite subjective and up to the end user; what one user might find pleasing to the eye may give someone else a headache, but since they’re taking the impressions of multiple users and not just a single user that helps “average out” some of the subjective opinions and impressions. The mechanics on the other hand can be evaluated through objective tests and the holes in the paper don’t lie if a scope has a mechanical issue.
Here´s the promised link : http://forum.snipershide.com/snipers-hide-rifle-scopes/224136-impressions-range-2.html
They haven´t finished the writing part but i know how it ends thru inside info .. 😉 (Astro Sweden)
The Delta did very well nevertheless beating the Nightforce in the process. The Vortex ? Well …
On my BR Comp the turrets are everything but mushy, the PX is buttery smooth and on this modell the PX wheel actually goes from down at 20 meters and upto infinity and if you continue to twist it past infinity you´re back at 20m again = no need to back the whole turn since the wheel just goes round and round.
At first i thought it was a faulty unit but it´s build to work like that. Very neat feat for those who need it , although i´m not one of them. As said i´ve never seen a pure BR scope with as nice a reticule either. And the glass is crystal clear – it usually is better at fixed power scopes – at 36x. I can study the Ants at the 50m bank at the range.
Indeed they did have problems, I’d say it was between 2005-2010 or so? Plenty of reports out there about the fragility of the 3-18 x 42 FFP. The 3-18 x 42 FFPs went through 4 generations of internals, each iteration reducing the amount of failures. The Gen 4’s are supposed to be solid but after killing 3 of the early models (Gen 1s and 2s) and finally coming to the realization the eyebox was crap and the overall tube configuration of the scope made mounting them on some rifles damn near impossible I got rid of them at a rather substantial loss and even then it took a while to sell them– nobody wanted them because of their reputation for failing. That model really gave IOR a black eye and it still shows today in their resale value and perceived quality even if their new models like the Recon, 3.5-18 x 50, and Terminator are actually pretty darn solid. Their past history of a high failure rate scares a lot of guys away. If you go over on Sniper’s Hide and tout the virtues of IOR above all others you will get jumped on… it happened just last week after a guy was recommending IOR as “the best” in a bunch of threads. Frank (the site owner) and many others jumped all over him about him wearing blinders to IORs past issues regarding reliability and tracking accuracy and looking past better alternatives for the same price.
I never had any issues with my 3.5-18 x 50 FFP as it incorporated all the lessons learned from hundreds of failed 3-18 x 42 FFPs… but given the choice today I wouldn’t buy one. Sure IOR’s glass is great and always has been but their knobs are a little mushy, the parallax knob on every one I had was rough, and I was always wondering “is this thing going to break today?” after all the problems with the 3-18 x 42s that I had. That nagging doubt about if and when the next one was going to fail is why I sold them all– I just didn’t trust them anymore.
I will say that Val at IOR here in the US was great to work with, for the 3 scopes I had fail they had the replacements in my hands in about a week.
Now – there´s a test where all the opinions and claims on the spec sheets doesn´t matter. Real world info from guys who know their business.
Saw that too, looks like it’s going to be a great data point when finished. AFAIK the test is still ongoing and given how many scopes they are testing I expect they’ll be posting updates for quite a while…
Damn it Knife ! I was actually looking those Hensold´s as well but they do not – at least over here they don´t – sell them to Civilians. You need to work in Law Enforcement, Military etc. in order to be able to buy one. Now – there´s always a way around these things but
i didn´t bother.
And yes – it was just a Dream… :3:
I´ll post a link to a big Scope test including Vortex, March, Nightforce, Zeiss, S&B, Leupold, Delta, IOR, Sightron etc., etc. I need to find it (maybe Dr. Evil has the link at hand ?) and i´ll definitely post the link here. I think the test /shootout is still ongoing since it included many scopes and a Hord of testers from LE, Military Snipers (both ex and present), high-end BR guys, very experienced Hunters and whatnot.
Now – there´s a test where all the opinions and claims on the spec sheets doesn´t matter. Real world info from guys who know their business.
SV, The IORs’ did have problems several years ago, But it has been my understanding that this has greatly improved in the last couple of years. But I’m old and my have just dreamed this. 😆
Hell, Just buy a hensholt and be done with it . LOL!!! 😉 😀
Knife
Coke bottle glasses!! :ugeekn: :ugeekn: :ugeekn:
Regards
LarryW 😎 😎
Way ahead of you! Bought two Leapers 4 x 28 .
Kiba is the first one i’ve ever heard saying IOR having poor reliability and mechanics though.
I did extensive reading -and i do mean extensive – before the buy.
Anyone can do the same and just Google IOR. Many BR, Long Range shooters and Hunter Forums Worldwide has tested them and the one thing common in all those tests is the talk about the ruggedness of these scopes. It’s there for all to read at Forums such Sniper Central , snipers Hide and lots of others.
He likes Vortex, that’s for sure. His findings just happen to be a bit opposite from those i’ve come across. While a good scope with the best quarantee in the World it does’t cure the world hunger. Nor was it a match ( neither the Viper nor the Razor) for Delta in clarity etc. when i last compared them – much less IOR.
Vortex choice of reticules isn’t towards AG use – not any that i’ve seen – the plain MD being the best suited for AG use. I’d have bought one of them if it wasn’t so but that time i came across the Delta and the rest is History.
The IOR i bought for BR solely, for Rimfire use, and it was the best BR scope i could find for the budget i had in mind. So between Leo Comp, Weaver T, Sightron Big Sky etc it was the winner.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2. This POS iPhone sucks though …
Sometimes true, sometimes not… depends on the scope. I tried putting a spare Bushnell XRS 4.5-30 on one of my rimfire .22’s that I like to shoot 50-400Y with so I wanted a wide magnification range and *lots* of elevation travel. The XRS fit most of the criteria except parallax; Bushnell states 75Y minimum parallax and I figured I’d get away with maybe 15x at 50Y (where I zero my .22’s) before running into any noticeable parallax or focus issues. I quickly realized you could *not* get a parallax free and completely in-focus image even down on 4.5x at 65Y and it was even blurrier at 50Y. Trying to shoot at 12x at 50Y nearly gave me a headache. When they said 75Y minimum they meant it!
Many scopes are fairly tolerant of being used inside of their minimum parallax setting at reduced magnification which reduces the amount of parallax and also brings the image more into focus– but some like that Bushnell XRS really stand out as a contrary example. If you buy a scope with say 50Y minimum parallax assuming the reduced magnification trick will work for closer shots and it doesn’t (as in the case of that Bushnell XRS) you might be very disappointed in your choice and also out a decent amount of money. Ideally every scope on the market would offer 10Y bottom-end parallax for maximum versatility but unfortunately that simply isn’t the case.
Wow, what a thread. Full of technical, informative, information. Let me see if I’ve got this right, FFP stands for Freaky, Finnish, Philanderer, his favorite reticle is short an very slender and his most famous quote is “its like waving a wiener in an elevator shaft”. Gotta respect the Ville. Now if you could do something about those
Coke bottle glasses!! :ugeekn: :ugeekn: :ugeekn:
Regards
LarryW 😎 😎
i’m also in the more magnification isn’t always better camp and as such the 50 yard parallax issue doesn’t bother me. If the shot is inside 50 yards I just dial down the magnification and the parallax can then be eliminated and in focus. It’s clearly preference combined with the job you’re trying to accomplish.
[quote=”Kiba”
For an air rifle I really like the 3-12, 3-15, 3-18, or 4-16 scopes for lots of FOV and a lower magnification for close in shots while still providing plenty of magnification on the top end. My feeling is that many people fall into a “trap” of using too much magnification on air rifles and thus really limit their bottom end magnification choices and correspondingly limit their field of view– FOV is very valuable in hunting situations when the target may hide behind clutter (again, shooting non-moving paper exclusively is a different set of rules.) I’ve hit ground squirrels out to 145Y and just yesterday tagged several starlings between 85-115Y with my 3-12 Bushnell without any issues.
While the 3-12 works fine honestly I’d prefer a 3-18x to have a little more magnification available on the top end (sometimes a blackbird and a starling can look somewhat similar sitting in a tree at 100Y+) but I’ve yet to find one that I like that also offers 10Y parallax for clear parallax-free close-up shots. The Leupold Mk6 3-18 is a pretty nice little scope– relatively small and light and the TMR reticle is pretty good but again, 50Y minimum parallax. I’ve played with one on a powder burner and it was a case of “almost, but not quite” regarding its suitability for air rifle use IMO.
[/quote]
What do you think of the Vortex Viper HS LR 6-24×50 FFP XLR (MOA) if I have the parallax adjusted as some have done. Every review I have seen comparing it to the Bushys you mention give it the edge on clarity on a resolution grid at 200 yards. It’s about $900.
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/viper-hs-lr-6-24×50-ffp-with-xlr-moa-reticle/reticle
Vortex is a mixed bag IMO/IME.
I have one of their 20-60 x 85 Razor HD spotters- absolutely love it especially with the 30x MRAD eyepiece. Was able to resolve finer details than a friend’s Swarovski spotter and even he agreed.
I had 2 of their Razor HD 5-20 scopes– really liked them while I had them but replaced them with S&B 5-25s.
I’ve purchased/mounted 5 of their 6.5-20 x 50 Mil Dot Vipers on rifles for friends– very good scope for the money ($350ish) IMO except the eyebox & eye relief is a little tight up at 20x.
I had 3 FFP PSTs, one 4-16 and two 6-24s. The 4-16 had noticably “murky” glass compared to the 6-24s– I sold it before even mounting it on a rifle. In both of the 6-24s the reticles detached in less than 10 shots being mounted to a .338 Remington Magnum hunting rifle. Vortex’s customer service was excellent and replaced the scopes in a week but my faith in them was lost and I didn’t trust them anymore. They were replaced with SWFA 5-20HDs which haven’t had a single issue. On a PCP air rifle however the PST will probably be just fine, most users have excellent luck with them.
My overall impression of the 6-24 PSTs (post repair) was pretty good glass, decent knobs, very good reticle. Many others have reported the same glass quality disparity that I observed between the 4-16 and 6-24 so I think I’d limit my choice to the 6-24. If there is enough physical lens adjustment in the scope for them to adjust the parallax to say a 20-25Y bottom end that would be a decent choice… but for a little more money I strongly prefer the Bushnell 3.5-21 DMR / ERS or the SWFA 5-20 HD to the PST line. I don’t know if either Bushnell or SWFA will adjust the parallax on those models for you (50Y minimum on the Bushnell, 35Y on the SWFA.) In terms of glass clarity, the 6-24 PSTs I had lagged slightly behind the Bushnell 3-12 FFP, 3.5-21 ERS, and 4.5-30 XRS. Still plenty good to do the job though.
The new Vortex EBR-2C reticle coming out for the PST and HD line looks really good, I’d get that over the XLR and they’re available in both MOA and Mil.
The upcoming Razor HD 3-18 and 4.5-27 appear they will be *excellent* scopes… if you can look past the the weight. I have both a 3-18 and 4.5-27 Razor HD on preorder for friends rifles so I’ll get to play with them first. 🙂
Both are brilliant for the price . Just for the sake of ; Check out the IOR reticle. That´s how a BR reticle should look like, IMO. Not just a target dot or fine crosshair.
http://www.valdada.com/scopes/benchrest-competition-scope/36×42-30mm-sf-benchrest-competition-scope
The Deltas look interesting but since I’m now a mil/mil/FFP guy on everything it’s hard to break routine. I’ll have to wait for them to offer one– a Delta 4.5-30 mil/mil/FFP would be something I’d try!
Regarding IOR… I’ve had 4. At one time I had three 3-18 x 42 FFP and one 3.5-18 x 50 FFP simultaneously. All 3 of my 3-18×42 FFPs broke eventually and needed to go back for repair/replacement. One broke the Saturday morning of a 2-day camping / ground squirrel blasting trip and left me without an optic for the weekend. One broke just by adjusting the magnification ring after taking the rifle out of the safe and looking at some stuff in the backyard. One broke while zeroing it in on the first day at the range. They were all exchanged and back in my hands in less than 2 weeks but still… horrible mechanical reliability. IOR had a poor internal design on that scope and went through 4 generations of internals. Not to mention they had a horribly picky eyebox at higher magnfication and the tube & turret box arrangement with the really short rear tube made them difficult to mount. Models from that generation also had a reputation for poor tracking. On the other hand, the 3.5-18 x 50 was a good scope– great glass, much better eyebox than the 3-18 x 42, pretty decent but a tad bit mushy knobs, good tracking, and I never heard of anyone having issues with the 3.5-18 as it incorporated all of the “lessons learned” from 4 generations of internals on the 3-18 x 42. However, for the same price though there are many better options IMO and that combined with their rather poor reliability of a few years ago is reflected in the poor resale value of IOR scopes. And if you hate thick reticles never look through an IOR 3-18 x 42 FFP… with the exception of the floating center dot it looks like two crossed telephone poles in your scope.
I still like the 3.5-18 x 50 FFP IOR but for right about the the same price I’d much rather have a 3.5-21 Bushnell ERS, 4.5-30 Bushnell XRS, or Vortex Razor HD 5-20. You could also get a good used Nightforce F1 for that same price range.
Mechanical reliability and turret function is first and foremost what I look for in a scope, second is reticle choices, and third is glass quality– it could have the prettiest glass out there but if it doesn’t hold zero or track worth a darn what good does it do? You won’t be able to hit what you’re aiming at if the mechanics are garbage. Having good glass to match the mechanics is a nice bonus. Nightforce built a great reputation on having scopes with extremely durable mechanics and “good enough” glass quality. They’re now stepping it up in the glass quality department, the ATACR is excellent and I can’t wait to try a BEAST when they’re finally on the market.
Don’t forget the service department as well, anything mechanical can fail. I’ve had very good luck with the service departments of Leupold, IOR, Bushnell, and Vortex having broken at least one of each of their scopes… while all were pleasant to work with Vortex was the best and quickest. I haven’t had any of my SWFA’s or S&B’s need any kind of work done yet so I can’t comment on those. I know earlier last year that SWFA had several people waiting for months for replacement & repair of 5-20HDs because of a shortage of parts from Japan and I’ve heard that S&B USA is very good to work with. Still, the less you have to use their service department the better…
Scopes aren´t really my field of expertise – very few things are – so i say this : I know exactly what i want from my scope and that´s clear glass, a very thin reticule with lots of aiming points, SF, focus down to 15 meters, repeatability and rugged constuction. That topped with good and fast customer service, reasonable price and i´m sold. The best one´s i have today are IOR BR Comp 36x with MP8M reticle and the venerable Delta Ti 4.5-30x with MCZ2 reticle.
Both are brilliant for the price . Just for the sake of ; Check out the IOR reticle. That´s how a BR reticle should look like, IMO. Not just a target dot or fine crosshair.
http://www.valdada.com/scopes/benchrest-competition-scope/36×42-30mm-sf-benchrest-competition-scope
Thanks for the reply. Leupold and Vortex will update the parallax to customer specs for about $25. I have been using high mag so many years that FOV isn’t really an issue and I like to see their whiskers. :smilen:
What do you think of the Vortex Viper HS LR 6-24×50 FFP XLR (MOA) if I have the parallax adjusted as some have done. Every review I have seen comparing it to the Bushys you mention give it the edge on clarity on a resolution grid at 200 yards. It’s about $900.
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/viper-hs-lr-6-24×50-ffp-with-xlr-moa-reticle/reticle
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
They did do all that but it would take days to translate everything from Swedish. I see nothing subjective in that test – and they even try to remove the “what works good for one gives headache to another” – factor as well ; They use several testers. Not two or three but to my recollection there are seven of them – all with years of field expertise between them. No Internetexpertise found there , no spec sheet facts counted.
About those spec sheets : As useful as a piece of Toilet paper when on a market for a scope. About the only fact that´s according to those sheets somewhat factual is the length of a scope the specs are written for. That´s about the only thing i´ve learned when on a hunt for a new scope. May give you an rough estimate for a scope´s features. Ever seen a scope that weighs what the specs says ?? Me neither. A friend in scope business said that some brands weigh their scopes without turret caps etc. Now who the hell goes hunting without them caps on ??
Well, maybe Hoot: does but he´s not like all the other Kids …
Good to know they did full mechanical testing, that obviously didn’t get translated yet; hopefully they’ll get everything translated sooner or later. I’d love to read the complete results. Averaging everything out between multiple users is a big plus and that’s one of the first things that caught my eye on the initial posts. The fact they actually shot them on rifles and didn’t post a scope “review” after only holding them up and looking at things in the backyard is a plus too. :biggrinn:
Agreed on spec sheets… while they’re usually pretty good for dimensions, weight, reticle subtensions, knob units, features, etc, it doesn’t tell you anything about the glass quality, eyebox, feel of the turrets, depth of field & parallax sensitivity, etc… unless you can try before you buy you might be in for a surprise in that department. However, I’ve seen dimensions that don’t match the spec sheets either. 😀
I think that’s part of the reason I seem to always be buying and trying different scopes; something seems to catch my interest based on specs or reviews or trying one at the range on someone else’s rifle and I think it might be an upgrade over what I have so I’ll buy one to play with and shoot for a month or two. If I like it better than what I previously had on the rifle I’ll keep it and sell what it replaced… if I don’t like I’ll sell it and move on. Sometimes I like a scope so much I end up buying, 2, 3, 4, or 5 of them to replace other scopes that really didn’t need replacing just for commonality between rifles– “might as well change all of them while I’m here.” That got really expensive after I tried my first S&B… the damn things multiplied. 😆