CenterPoint Spectrum 4-12×44 FFP scope from Crosman

? CRITIQUE ?

I’m continually surprised at the low quality of the Crosman webpage. They don’t explain their products well. They misname and mislabel them. And the customer needs to go to other sellers and online stores to find out the info they need – does Crosman feel they need to dumb down the information they present?

Now, in principle this CenterPoint Spectrum 4-12x44 FFP scope is a good move by Crosman to finally offer an FFP scope (and with side parallax) – not even Leapers/ UTG with their massive scope offerings have ANY FFP scopes...!

And so I really wanted to included this scope in my Scope Specs List I've been putting out on the forum. But I didn’t. Here’s why.

? First of all, they put caps on the turrets – which for me is the manufacturer’s way of saying: “Shooter, zero this scope, and then leave the turrets alone. They don’t withstand frequent adjustments!”

? Now an FFP scope is designed that it can be shot with holdovers with frequently changing ranges.

But for those holdovers to work I need a reticle with some kind of dots or hash lines that allows me to make adjustments for windage and elevation.

This scope has those markings, but the most important ones – the elevation hash lines are not EVENLY SPACED!  Cf. pic, and the three red arrows – the arrows are all the same length – the distances between the hash lines are not..... ?

This reticle is called a BDC, a bullet drop compensating reticle. And for PB shooters a BDC is calibrated to a common standard cartridge – that has a certain standard muzzle velocity and projectile weight and BC.

If Crosman doesn’t even tell us in their product manual(!) what cartridge the reticle is calibrated for – then this has got to be the biggest scope joke in a while…!   ?   =>   ?   =>   ?

Because, as our airguns do not have standard muzzle velocities, standard projectile weights, or standard BC, this reticle is NONSENSE for airgunners who want to use hold over and benefit from the FFP. Because we need mil dots or moa hash marks that are evenly spaced out for making our holdovers.

? MAKING IT WORK ANYHOW ?

Calibration of the Reticle

Now I came into posession of one of these -- after I had discovered how bad it was. It came attached to a gun I bought...

So, now I HAD to make this scope work, because I needed it. So I did the leg work measuring the reticle (I'd say accurate to ± 0.1 moa).

I calibrated the reticle in MOA — because the turrets are in MOA, and it seems to make no sense if turrets and reticle speak different languages….

However, I've met so many shooters who somehow like this disconnect, so for your enjoyment there is a calibration in MIL as well. ?

I'll attach a JPG and a PDF file of both the subtension in MOA and in MIL.

What's left for me (and any other owner of this scope) is to figure out, what range each of the elevation subtension represents  – with a certain pellet–power–range combination.

Should you chance upon the reticle or a similar one in Strelok Pro, let us know here in this thread, plz.

Matthias

ATTACHMENTS: 

MOA Reticle (PDF)

MIL Reticle (PDF)

MOA Reticle (JPG)

MIL Reticle (JPG)

so you typed up this long post to complain about a 90 dollar scope that can be used on an air rifle but could be use for the less picky PB shot goal of center of mass 

interesting, most feedback i read were middle of the road and some even liked it enough to give it 5 stars 

hell i would buy one for 90 buck hell i think i even have one, i'll have to look, just much much stuff 

so is it perfect, more then likely not but is a March scope perfect to everyone 

the old line, you get what you pay for, is always in play 

i bet a 12 year old would love that scope 

Matthias;

In REALITY, this is not an airgun scope.

The subtensions are not too useful. Just consider that an 8.5 grs pellet at 800 fps has the whole trajectory from 15 yads to 55 between the crosshair (23 yds zero) and 55 yards betwwn the zero and the 1.25 mrads,  So unless the shooter in question is using this scope at very slow speeds and long rangeas (not compatible), the scope is just decoration.

Now, as CROSSBOW scope (300 - 450 fps with hunting weight arrows) . . . . then it would be useful. Also, MAYBE for some airbows.

JMHO

Keep well and shoot straight!

HM

Another great use for a scope like this is in the proof-of-concept role. Say you've only ever used a 2x7 or 3x9 on a hunting rifle. You want to know: Will I like high magnification? Do I need adjustable parallax? Will I like target turrets? Will I like Mil-dot reticles? Do I need a first focal plane reticle? Do I want to spend a lot of money to get those things? This scope allows you to answer some or all of those questions for $80. All it has to be is just good enough to last just long enough to let you get enough trigger time through it to really know those answers. It will likely also answer the question: Am I willing to pony up for better glass?

For me it was a Simmons 6-20x44mm. Remember the "44 MAG" series? It was a $200 Sale $99.99 scope. You know, it was never a $200 scope, they just marked it that way to make you feel like it was a deal. The first anyone ever heard of it, it was being "closed out." I'm exaggerating. I'm sure it was once full price somewhere. It somehow gained a reputation in airgun circles as a "great little scope." It did it's job. It made me fall in love with high magnification, adjustable parallax, target turrets, Mil-dots, etc. After six years the erector springs started to weaken and groups started getting erratic. I sold it with full disclosure for what I paid for it. Go figure.

The point is, owning it gave me the confidence to pay bigger money for scopes to get features that I now knew I wanted. Now I'm using a Leupold 8.5-25X50mm Mark 4 ERT, and a Burris XTR II 5-25X50. These scopes are monsters and I love them. I wouldn't have had the stones to buy them if it weren't for that $99 Simmons.

P.S. That's my daughter shooting a .22 LR through the Burris. It's ridiculous on a rimfire but it lets you ring steel at 300 meters at 4-cents per shot. How do you put a price on that?

RockDoc,

I like the point you are making. ? That is truly a good idea for shooter to get to know the functions — and see what they like — not on paper but at the range and on the hunt —

and then commit to making a quality purchase according to what they found. ??

However, THIS particular scope is not really suitable for this.... 

Because the distances between the hash lines are huge — the line just below the center of the crosshairs is 8.2moa — that's over 2" of holdover at 25y!  When do you need to holdover 2" at such a close range...? It must be a very rare gun/pellet combination that has 2" drop at 25y.

Shooting to 50y the first line gives you a holdover of over 4". Again, not very common.

And that's only the first line of the reticle. The second is even more holdover than the first. Basically unusable — just like Héctor said!

And shooting out to 100y — well, at that range many guns have larger holdovers — but I imagine that those who attempt 100y shots are probably also not going to buy sub-$100 scopes.... ?

Again, your idea of getting a cheap scope to test things out and find personal preferences — I like it! ??

Matthias

I have one of these scopes, purchased used, off the Yellow, and not proud to have paid more than $80.00 for.

It sure sounded good on "paper" - but I've never been that fond of it once in hand -

Open to offers lol -

At this point I think we are all aware that many sellers are acquiring merchandise from a limited number of factories in China, and with a sufficiently sized order any of us could get our own name placed on whatever models are available. 

Sometimes this leads to overpaying, ie. $1000 for the same scope which sells for $200 when labeled with another name.

Here is a good example, you might find your favorite scope here 😉 (click the menu on the left, they have MANY models and model families)

Note, they are a manufacturer, and do not sell in less than 100. http://www.bosmaoptics.com/products.asp?id=179

My strategy when confronting this issue, can I figure out which OTHER model of scope is the same, and can I see a savings by ignoring the actual branding?

So, can anyone name the cartridge or platform (crossbow?) this reticle was designed for?

Thank you for the discussion, I'll keep this in mind as a (cheap) suggested FFP scope for new shooters, IF I can figure out which cartridge.

Ok I popped up 90 bucks on the Crosman website for the 4x12. First FFP for me and I thought what the heck? 100 bucks shipped to my door can't be all bad, huh? ?

Now the wait........

@rockdoc65

I like the 44 Mag front focus scopes.  I have two or three of them.

David Enoch

Still waiting for the CP. Should be here this week sometime- but you never know with crosman ?

I'm really looking forward to trying it out.

The Spectrum FFP 4x12 came yesterday. I mounted it onto my Disco, which was sitting at only 1400 psi, but I figured was enough to site me in....  at least get me close before I run out of air. 

So, just up front, I do 90% of my shooting off a bench these days, so there is no real advantage to having the FFP scope for me. In fact, now that I have it I believe I would rather have a 2nd focal plane scope. The reason it that when you magnify the scope the crosshairs and hash m marks get thicker. I can live with it, but I'd prefer to not have to. Once I'm settled on the bench at a set distance, my magnification will not change. A couple of site in shots is all it takes to get on line. 

So there's that. Now for the scope. Nicely made. Nice turrets. Positive clicks. Movement seems predictable. Zoom in magnification was smooth. Yardage was easy to bring in a nice clear target. Glass seems very clear for a $90. scope.

Once setup- I was able to site in within a half dozen shots. Really I grabbed the wrong pellets for the Disco, but I'm now very close. I'll fill up today and send 45-60 rounds down range for a true scope break in session.

All in all I'm very impressed for the value. Who would have though a 90 buck scope could be this feature rich. More power (16x) would be a plus for me- but hey.... so far no real complaints other than the thick cross hairs at 12x. 

Posted by: @gratewhitehuntr

At this point I think we are all aware that many sellers are acquiring merchandise from a limited number of factories in China, and with a sufficiently sized order any of us could get our own name placed on whatever models are available. 

Sometimes this leads to overpaying, ie. $1000 for the same scope which sells for $200 when labeled with another name.

Here is a good example, you might find your favorite scope here 😉 (click the menu on the left, they have MANY models and model families)

Note, they are a manufacturer, and do not sell in less than 100. http://www.bosmaoptics.com/products.asp?id=179

My strategy when confronting this issue, can I figure out which OTHER model of scope is the same, and can I see a savings by ignoring the actual branding?

So, can anyone name the cartridge or platform (crossbow?) this reticle was designed for?

Thank you for the discussion, I'll keep this in mind as a (cheap) suggested FFP scope for new shooters, IF I can figure out which cartridge.

BOSMA is a medium quality manufacturer. They have limited in-house design capabilities.

As ALL optical manufacturers they "grade" their own production runs, it's called "binning", and it's something that started in the electronics industry, when they realized that "defective" 486 processors could still be sold as "386" and not loose that chips production run.

Finding similar specs/knobs/bodies tells you nothing about the INSIDES of the riflescope. EVEN if they are identical externally, the lenses may be from different "bins" and so, one "brand" may exhibit some characteristics that are not present in another, simply by speccing different "bins" for components.
And the same goes for elevation screws, ORings, holding rings, suspension springs, etc.

Now, about what calber to use that scope for, mmmmm, perhaps a 45-70-550 shooting at 1,500 fps.

Zeroed at 300 yards, with a 3"LOS, the  short range trajectory peaks a bit above 13 MOA's, you could use the first line of holdunder at 20 and 200 yrds, the second line at 75-115 yards , at 300, of course, you are back to zero; at 420 yards you are at the first holdover line, at 530 you are at the second holdover line, the third will put you in the ballpark at 675 yards, the thick/thin transition will put you almost smack on at 900 yards.

Of course, for formal competition along that train of thought, you absolutely need a ladder peep sight.  😉

But, I MAY just get one of these scopes precisely for some research on this purpose!  LOL!

Keep well and shoot straight!

HM

@arkmakerdont know where you guys see this scope for $90. I see it for 149-169

Crosman website is where I bought mine. Still 90 bucks.

https://www.crosman.com/optics/scopes/4-12x44-mm-riflescope

Posted by: @hector-j-medina-g

BOSMA is a medium quality manufacturer. They have limited in-house design capabilities.

As ALL optical manufacturers they "grade" their own production runs, it's called "binning", and it's something that started in the electronics industry, when they realized that "defective" 486 processors could still be sold as "386" and not loose that chips production run.

I'll translate that to layman...

If Bosma is medium quality, and they bin the low grade stuff out for off-brand labels, then off-brand FFP scopes are potentially (probably) low quality.

I agree with that, and advise buyers to engage in their own QC ASAP after delivery.

At least 2 otherwise nice scopes I've bought had knobs which were nearly impossible to adjust due to tightness. Some paint-gun lube and a few dozen revolutions and they are GTG. FFP reticles are hard to make, I've seen some boo-boos on those that were likely the reason for QC fail. I couldn't see them unless zoomed to max, and it's nowhere near a fatal flaw.

OTOH, the most profitable way to run a factory is to keep everything moving, and avoid start-stop.

I would suggest that assessing model similarity based on externals is the incorrect way to go, more likely that internals are similar, with externals having been downgraded to maintain plausible deniability (looks different, therefore is) and to reduce expenditures on bells and whistles.