FireField 1-6x24 scope

I've been using a new low cost, low power variable optic for the last month and have been very pleased with it for the money. Here is my short review of it.

The first thing you notice about FireField 1-6x24 is how compact it is. At 9.75" long its shorter than most 1-4x variable scopes, especially the less expensive models like the Primary Arms 1-4x which is 11.75" long. Here is a photo of the scope on my LRB build from the recent group buy:


The most noteable feature is the wide range of magnifications available. I've been using 1-4x scopes for a while and for an average AR-15 they will do most everything the gun will. For my latest build I went with a heavy 18" barrel and wanted a little more than 4x in order to really strech out the rifle and shoot at extended ranges. I also plan to use this rifle in multigun matches and wanted the ability to shoot close targets quickly, so a 1-6x matches my use profile very well.

Here are some shots while looking throught it. Because the eye lens is inset a good bit within the scope, the pictures appear to have a "soda straw" effect that is much more pronounced than it is when looking through the scope with your eyes.

Here is the FireField at 1x with illumination on at dusk.

One thing to note is that the 1x setting is very "1x". I'm able to easily keep both eyes open and merge the two images together instantly. When operating its more like looking through a tube with crosshairs than it is a scope. This was a plesant surprise as I've owned 1-4's that while appearing to be true 1x, I had a hard time merging the images together.

You'll note that the crosshair is very fine in the above photo. That's because this is a first focal plane scope. The crosshairs are always the same relative size no matter the magnification that the scope is set to. In a long range scope FFP is very desierable, however I'm not quite sure what use it serves in a low power scope like the FireField. I believe it's really just a function of FFP being in vouge and so the scope was designed with it.

One might believe that the ultra fine cross hairs would lead to a slow down in CQB performance. I know I did when I first go the scope. However, after using it, it's not the impediment I thought it would be. I can still shoot very quickly and as accuratly as I could with a red dot with the scope in 1x mode.

Here is the firefield at 6x with max illumination at dusk:

Here is 6x with no illumination.

The 6x really lets you get up close, especially if your used to shooting with a red dot. You'll notice the Mil hash type reticle. I was surprised to learn from BigJimFish of www.opticsthoughts.com that the reticle is accurately made, so one may range using the scope.

I will mention that the reticle is not perfectly sharp at 6x. Remeber that in an FFP scope the reticle (and its imperfections) is magnified along with the image. In most traditional second focal plane scopes, the reticle is not magnified, and any imperfections are hidden. The slightly fuzzy reticle looks to my eye about like it does in the picture, so judge that for yourself.

The overall quality of the glass is "not bad". It's certainly good to my eyes. I can see some slight color haloing due to Chromatic Aberation(CA, when all colors aren't focused at the same point) when looking at high contrast objects, but it's not bad and CA drives me nuts in my other hobby of astronomy. You can see the CA best in the 6x photos . The vents provide high contrast agains the sky and you can see a purple halo. The ACOG pictured below doesn't have the halo, but it's also much less noticable at 3x on the FireField. The glass is certainly not uber high end, but I'm not really sure of the use of mega buck glass (that is to say: exceptionally well figured, as well as low index material (low CA) glass) on a scope that only goes up to 4x or 6x. If I'm shooting for groups at 24+ power, at 1000+ yards with a 1/2 moa capable rifle then mega buck glass will do much good. However if I'm shooting an AR-15 at 6x, does the extra clarity really benefit me in a meaningful way? I'm not sure.

To do my best to show the quality of the glass, here is a shot of a Trijicon ACOG TA33-8 amber chevron at the same time of night on the same rifle.

Here is the FireField at 3x: Note the difference in field of view.


Note again the appearance of the "soda straw" effect, to your eye the effect is far less. The trijicon's eye lens is very close to the edge of the scope so the effect is much less from the cameras perspective.

One thing to note is the glare visible in the 3x picture. The FireField 1-6x24's objective lens is very close to the edge of the scope tube. This accounts for some of it's short length. In most low power 1x variable scopes, the objective lens is inset within the end of the scope tube. This guards against glare like you see in the 3x photo above. I haven't yet tried, but a small sun-shade around the end of the tube would likely fix this issue.

Another thing pointed out to me by BigJimFish is the fact that while the turrets say 1/2MOA per click. They are not actually 1/2MOA. The windage is slightly less than 1/2MOA and the elevation is slightly more than 1/2MOA. I plan to do some additional testing to see if I can determine exactly how much movement is made per click. I generally do my comeups in and app on my iPhone, so all I need to do to compensate is put the right change per click in my phone.

Overall, I'm very happy with the FireField 1-6x24. At a street prices of around $160.00 I think it offers a high dollar to value rating.

-Jim

Funny that you posted this; there's a new review up on ARFCOM, too:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/4...ose_scope_review_thread.html&page=23#i5595894

If you want a FFP 1-X scope for under $500, the Firefield 1-6x and the GRSC 1-4x are basically your only reasonable choices, with the usual caveat that you get what you're paying for (not a horrible thing...). I have to say that, after reading the ARFCOM review and your own, I'm leaning more towards the Firefield for my carbine - cheaper, better glass, and I never screw around with windage and elevation adjustments anyways.

Yep, BigJimFish's intial review from SHOT is the reason I bought the scope. I talked to him before the purchase as well. He now has his full review on it, which is probably a better resource than mine :-)

-Jim

Any updates on this? I'm considering one for a temporary solution for a 3 gun optic

I've been shooting it a lot on my 18" SPR and on my AK308. It's held up great on both rifles. The only thing I don't like is the thickness of the reticle. Given the mil-hash first focal plane design it's probably the best compromise, however it is a compromise. At 1X it's very useable and quick, however at 6x shooting at targets less than 3MOA is tough since the reticle covers up about 1MOA.

Last time I was at the range I was shooting a 4" steel plate at 200 yards and found it difficult to hit since the reticle covered up 2" leaving me only 1" of steel to see on both sides of the reticle. When I moved up to a 6" plate, life became easy again because I could easily see what I was shooting at.

So, the glass is good, the scope is well built, but it's not for shooting groups at long range or shooting very small (angularly) targets.

So, a bit of a mixed bag. I don't plan on selling either of mine any time soon and I think it's a PERFECT fit on the AK308, but I wish I had a bit more precision for shooting very tiny things with the SPR.

-Jim

I have been shooting the Firefield 1-6x24 since early in 2012, starting with my AR15-22 and later my 3-gun AR. I shot it in 2 3-gun events at Peacemaker. 1st event it shot fine but due to the FFP crosshair size at 6x I used a max of 4x. I have used FFP scopes before, but mainly 4-14x tactical scopes not low power ones. Not sure I like it in a 1-6x.
In the second event at PNTC the scope zero was way off when I started the event. I don't know if it was me or the scope or something I did in the time between the events. I noticed one screw in the ring of my cantilever mount had backed out so it is possibly the mount. I am going to run one more event with it before I opt for a more serious scope. However if the issues disappear I will keep using it. Have to admit I got a chance to look thru one of the new Vortex Razor HD II 1-6x24 at the event and I can say unequivically it is the finest low power scope I even looked thru. Not sure about the Jerry Miculek designed reticle, but hey if he uses it it must be OK. Just not sure if it is $1399 OK.

I've yet to have any zeroing problems, even on the .308. However, I agree that the reticle is the weak point here. If this thing were a SFP scope with the mil-hashes accurate at max power, that would be nearly perfect. I still am very happy with the glass though.

Yep the Razor HD II is freakin awesome, but I can't justify that kind of money on a low power scope. IMO Big dollars should go to high magnifications where good glass becomes critical. If you're only magnifying 4 or 6x, the color correction and figure of the lenses is far less critical (as long as you keep decent apertures).

I hear primary arms is going to put out a 1-6x with a ranging reticle in SFP, I'll probably try one of those.

-Jim

I got to get mine out and zero it yesterday and took it out to 200 on my 18" SPR and was breaking clays. Very happy with it so far. At 100yds it was dead on and extremely clear. Had I not been under cover I am pretty sure there would have been some glare issues, but since I was, it wasn't an issue.