The Upcoming Assassination of a Junk Rifle Scope

[BallisticsGuy]

See https://www.longrangehunting.com/threads/6mm-creedmoor.221795 for more back story.
Cliff's Notes: Forum member Deahl bought this pile of junk Primary Arms 4-16x44 scope for his really quite decent long range rifle and I just couldn't allow that tragedy of mismatched parts to stand unchallenged. You see, I have a little hobby where I destroy garbage scopes in gloriously excessive and showy ways and make low budget short films about said destruction done in the style of historically famous and cinematically significant flicks. Here's an example of me and my crew destroying a UTG Bug Buster which I did with a wink and a nod to Eraserhead. Why Eraserhead? Seemed like the thing to do at the time.


More details:
So, I traded forum member Deahl a SWFA 16x42 Super Sniper in Mil/Mil for his Primary Arms 4-16x44 SFP. He got himself a 6mm Creeedmoor Savage Tactical rifle which was a great idea and then he decided on a Primary Arms optic from their low end line which was and remains a terrible idea. I love destroying garbage optics in ostentatious ways. I know you guys don't like anything too ostentatious and you really don't like fire.

The SWFA 16x42 rushing on its way to Deahl spent the last ~5 years on one of my 7mm RM's that I used for >1500yrd shooting pretty well exclusively so I can vouch not only for the brand but also for this specific unit. I've done some good work with with this optic. Here's me and a buddy rejoicing in the 2 consecutive swats I made in a row on a 10" wide target from just a RCH under a mile (IIRC it was 1625yrds) with the rifle that used to wear the scope I've sent to Deahl.

So I'm going to use this thread to track the various tests that I do with this scope before it meets its final fate. I've already kind of decided on what theme to do for the video but I've got this nagging thought that a 2nd idea might be better so we'll see which one I do.

First look:
The first thing I did was compare the 2 side by side with the ol' mk.1 eyeball. The glass is on the PA reasonably clear and bright. That's good and the good more or less stops there. So I dial the PA up to 16x and point it at a palm tree about 100yrds away and it's like looking through a straw. I pull up my 16x42 SWFA and look at the same spot and it's a tight field of view (16x at rock throwing distance) but it's noticeably broader than the PA. I also compared to a Nikon P5 Prostaff 4-16x which seemed smaller yet. Ok, well let's look this up. The PA does in fact have a smaller FoV than the SWFA but bigger by a decent bit than the Nikon.

Field of View
FoV @ 100yrds @ 16x
Primary Arms 4-16x44 SFP ($159): 6.98ft
SWFA 16x42 Super Sniper ($299): 7.2ft
Nikon P5 4-16x42 ProStaff ($329): 6.2ft

Dat mask:
Comparing the images I note that the image quality among all 3 scopes is roughly the same at close ranges. Long ranges I have to wait a little bit for. The SWFA image goes right to the physical edge of the scope leaving no black ring. Then I look through a Nikon ProStaff 4-16x42SF and there's only a slight bit of black at the edges of the image. On the PA there is apparently a massive mask in use which creates an ocean of black between the image and the physical edge of the scope. It's seriously like 30% of the area that could have image in it only has black in it.

Coming up: Turrets (consistency, click values, cap attachment, look & feel, locking), long range optical performance, weight and illumination.

 

[BallisticsGuy]

So what else makes this PA 4-16x substandard for long range? The turrets are MOA and the reticle (such as it is) is in mils. Mismatched angular units of measure are a hinderance to learning. Combining mismatched angular units of measure with a SFP reticle is just adding insult to injury.

I got curious about the literature available with the thing so I got to PA's site and download the manual for this scope only to find out it was written with the express intention of preventing the user from getting any helpful or accurate information about the optic at all. There's adding insult to injury and then there's gratuitously kicking someone when they're down. Link to PA's "manual" for this scope.

I was expecting to find room for disappointment at every level of this optic and so far my expectations have been validated at every level.

 

[Litehiker]

That was a Carlos Hathcock shot.

Hey, don't feel bad, years ago (early '90s) I bought an excellent Burris Black Diamond scope with MOA turrets and mil DOT reticle in, yes SPF! I was stupid then but got schooled whilst trying to use it with a MilDot Master algorithmic slide rule for determining distance. EVERY time I had to crank that miserable scope to full power for accuracy in measuring with the mil dots. Aaarrggghh!

Eric B.

BTW, I do have a SWFA SS 3 - 15 x 42 mil/mil scope that is very good - except for not having locking turrets.
Other scopes:
Bushnell ERS 3.5 - 21 x 50 W/H59 reticle (on 65. CM RPR for competition)
Bushnell LRTS 4.5 - 18 x 44 W/G3 illuminated reticle (on 6.5 PRC X-Bolt Pro for hunting)

NEXT SCOPE: SIG Tango6 5 - 30 x 56 W/ Level-Plex internal level. (for my RPR)
The SIG Tango6 scopes are heavy but excellent for the money. And the internal level is great for long range competition.

 

[BallisticsGuy]

In my <sarc>copious spare time</sarc> I'm doing some direct comparisons between the SWFA 16x42mm SS and the PA 4-16x44mm SFP before metal meets glass. I've also selected the firing squad which will deliver the coup de grace. Just to be clear: The SWFA scope being tested below is one of several identical scopes I own. I already sent Deahl one of them but I still have a few. All of my 16x42's were bought in one lot in a bulk purchase.

The photos below show some differences between the two scopes in terms of what you see in the image and what you don't. In the PA it seems they're using a mask; a big one at that, and it creates an ocean of black around the image. These are not the best focused pics and were taken with a cell phone, not a decent camera so ignore the image quality and focus issues.

@Deahl's PA 4-16x44SFP . Look at the ocean of blackness around the image. This is at the proper eye relief. <schocked face> Without such a big mask this scope would have a huge field of view.

My SWFA 16x42SS. Notice how little black around the image.

I don't have elevation control in my testing fixture at the moment so the images are of different points of aim vertically. Both are set at 16x with parallax set for the clearest image possible for my vision while wearing my glasses.

Not being able to see an image near to the edges means there's probably a big ol' mask in use. "What's a mask?", I can hear you asking.

A mask in a riflescope is a disc with a hole in the middle which conceals certain less desirable effects that can happen in scopes. One of those effects is vignetting (decreasing brightness as you approach the edges) another is tunneling (no change in field of view as magnification changes). In a fixed power scope any mask is likely to be slender if it's there at all but in variables you usually need one if for no other reason than to eliminate tunneling. US Optics doesn't use a mask so you always get tunneling with their variable scopes at low magnifications.

One can also use a mask to "fix" other issues like off-center reticles but I don't know of there ever being a case of that. A mask is also a great idea if you want to save money on lens elements by using lower quality lenses because you can hide most of the icky effects by hiding the place where those effects like to show up first, at the edges.

Better pics, click values, click consistency, box test and more coming up.

 

[lefty308]

I have a PA 4-14x44 ACSS HUD DMR and its a great scope for the money ($279). Very clear, passes box test with flying colors, and the reticle is dead on with my loads out to 1000yards (give or take .5MOA).

Not all Primary Arms Stuff is garbage. And as for the SWFA, its much easier to reach that price point on a fixed power scope.

Not saying PA is amazing, but their mid-line scopes are made in the same factory with the same glass as the Mid-line Vortex stuff