Re: Falcon 5.5-25x56 Menace owners question
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mr. Humble</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you don't seem to GET is that there is a trade off in clarity and light transmission when you get a cheap scope.
You could have a 100mm objective with 50X power and it would still be a piece of crap for $500.</div></div>
How the hell can you make a blanket statement like that unless you actually own one of them? You're so full of shit it isn't even funny. I can tell you the glass in the pre-production falcon I have sitting right here next to me is every bit as nice as any leupy, and IMHO, better. Just because I didn't pay an extra $500+ for some brand name does not make it inferior. I've had a leupy, I really was dissappointed and no longer own any for that reason. Honestly, I thought it sucked for the price.
I've been looking hard at some nightforce scopes at local dealers. I do intend to buy one for my win mag build, I like them alot. I'd put the glass on par with the falcon, no shit. The mechanicals are probably far superior, but the glass is not, at least not by much. I would also say the falcon glass is FAR superior to the glass in my Horus Hawk, which the MFG says is almost $600 worth of scope. In the same field, on the same rifle, the falcon beat the shit out of it for clarity.
We are talking about some EXCELLENT glass here, at least in the pre production model I have. I doubt it has changed, but I have heard reports of "milky"... I have not experienced this. Also dont forget that things at falcon have changed and the new turets are far superior to the older ones. Still not as nice as the NF scopes or things above it in price range, but HERE is where that $500 tag comes into play. Falcon's shortcommings are in the body of the scope NOT in the glass.
Humble, until you have tried things, don't go around flapping your trap about them. Every scope is different, regardless of price. Barskas are under $500 too, but don't let that cloud your judgement about other scopes.
Is the falcon equivalent to a S&B or a Zeiss? hell no. But it's not $3k either. If you expect it to live up to that, you're foolhardy. If you don't need that level of performance, then there is no reason to rule out an item simply because of it's price tag. That's the same methodology as making snap judgements about someone because of their race or nationality. All zorgs are wizzits, but all wizzits are not necessarily zorgs.
Features, quality, and performance are king. Like I said, the falcon won't disappoint, and if it did, you'd have no trouble dropping it on the classifieds. It is MOST important to consider your intended role:
Are you dragging it through IRAQ? no, so you dont need UBER.
Hunting in timber? maybe the 4-14 is a better choice.
Hunting or shooting in low-light? the 56mm is a safe bet.
Big game hunting on a long hike? go with something lighter.
Popping rodents and want high mag? the falcon is for you.
Paper @ 100yds? anything will do.
Eliminating the need for a spotting scope at close-mid range? Big magnification FTW.
ask yourself the when, where, why, how far do I have to lug it, am I going to beat it to death questions. Personally, I think the falcon would make a decent club, like a USO, because it is one HEAVY sum bitch.
