Rifle Scopes Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

slapshot.308

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 25, 2003
277
1
44
Greenville, Texas
<span style="font-weight: bold">Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review</span>

First off, I want to thank Robert Snyder at RWSGunsmithing.com for allowing me the opportunity to review this optic at length and in detail. I'd also like to say...

<span style="color: #FF0000"> <span style="font-weight: bold"> This is a pre-production model and not a representation of what's on the shelf </span></span>

<span style="font-style: italic">Falcon 5.5-25x56mm Menace Counter Sniper on my Remington 700 VS</span>
Falcon55-25x25.jpg


<span style="font-weight: bold">First Impressions and Length of Review:</span>

First, this is a pre-production model so anything can change between now and production, assuming they adopt it. I’ve had this scope for several months. In that time I’ve drowned it, frozen it, drowned it again, buried it in mud, buried it in ash, and molested it’s knobs and yet it still works. At first I was energized about this scope, a 5.5-25 power scope in a FFP dress for under $500. But honestly, I’m not sure where this scope fits in. I really liked both the 4-14x44 and the 4.5-18x56. I used both as daily shooters and in competition. They delivered and were user friendly. I felt that they had a place in the product line but the 5.5-25 is different. It’s an optic meant to deliver a product to those who desire/need a higher magnification optic without breaking the bank. But at the end of the day it leaves you in limbo of it’s usefulness. But lets start with the basics before I really tell you how I think.

The scope resembles a marriage between a 4.5-18x56 and a 4-14x44mm, only on steroids. It’s big and it’s heavy. As noted above my example was listed as a “preproduction example” and it used the two piece maintube/bell configuration as seen on the 4.5-18x scopes. It came packaged in a black box with rubber flip-up caps and a lens cleaning cloth but no owners manual or warranty registration card. It was well protected, wrapped in a plastic bag and secured in foam blocks to keep it from getting banged around. There is a serial number on the bottom of the turret housing along with the model number. Controls are as usual; parallax is the port knob, windage is the starboard knob, elevation is the dorsal knob. The elevation and windage knobs are marked for 0.1 MIL and have had the single friction lock screw replaced by three set screws. While I’m sure they have a good reason for doing this, I preferred the older single friction screw type design as it was quick and easy.

<span style="font-style: italic">The W/E knobs are marked for 0.1 MRAD correction.</span>
DSC01415.jpg


Found on the port side is the parallax knob that uses a depiction of an increasing angle to indicate distance. The control knobs are a bit mushy and the click, while audible, is muffled. In contrast, the parallax knob was VERY tight and so was the power ring, just not as tight as the parallax knob. The power ring is marked from 5.5-25 and it is a First Focal Plane design. The graduation is clearly marked and the power setting is not visible from the shooting position. But the lack of a dot, line, chevron, etc to note what power you are at is a let down. Critical? No, but it’s something that we’ve become used to and nice to have when checking the Mil-Dot spacing.

<span style="font-style: italic">Falcon 5.5-25x56mm showing the power ring and the absence of a reference point.</span>
DSC01414.jpg


Image was clear, if a little milkier than the previous Falcon offerings. The real frustrating part, and one that I repeat over and over again in this review, is eye relief and proper sight alignment. Even at its lowest setting this scope was very demanding on where you had to put your eye in order to achieve proper alignment. When set to its highest setting it became almost impossible to maintain proper alignment… it never felt natural. Take into account that most of the shooting was done in fair weather, on a calm range with no pressure and most shots sent from the prone position (i.e. I was able to get in behind the rifle and not forced to contort my body to adapt to an odd position). If you’re focusing that intently on keeping a good alignment it makes doing the other things, like reading winds or tracking a moving target, harder. Also, at 25x the bottom Mil-Dot reticule is at the edge of the sight. I wouldn’t trust a reading or hold due to blur and distortion. So, while this optic has the magnification range that many are looking for it fails to deliver usability of that magnification. Overall, the scope is typical of the previous examples I’ve handled from Falcon Optics, clean body with even anodized finish.

<span style="font-weight: bold">In the beginning…</span>

I wanted to start off the tests with a clean unmolested scope so I took and put the 5.5-25x in a pair of standard height Badger Ordnance MAX30 rings. These were just tall enough to allow the bell to clear the stock barrel on my 700VS when using a Seekins Precision 20MOA base if I removed the front lens cap. The point was that I wanted to test the box test on the new, unmolested scope before I could potentially break it. What good would a review be if I broke the scope first. The test was simple, 5 rounds of handloaded Hornady 168gr BTHP match-grade ammunition at 100 yards. Once I got her sighted in she did the deed without complaint. It’s at this point that I realized how many trips I was going to have to make to get this done right. All told, I made five trips to the range with this scope/rifle combination and worked from 25 yards to 1,000 yards. The scope never failed to hold true.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Wet, cold, wet, muddy, and dusty:</span>

So now that she had proven that she could do it unmolested I set out to see if I might be able to damage it by subjecting it some of the things a competitor might face in competition. Well, the first test was to freeze it. Since the rest of the tests would involve water or fine particulates I figured the freezing of the scope and its O-rings would be a good place to start. If they failed, the water would seep in and become evident in the later test. But before I could do that I had to make sure that the O-rings were good to begin with. So, I submerged it in 12 inches of water for 10 minutes. No, not deep and I know not a long time but this was under feasible and realistic controlled conditions. Besides, how many competitions do you go to where you linger in water, much less water to a depth greater than 12 inches and for longer than 10 minutes. At the end of those 10 minutes I retrieved the scope and carefully examined it. I could not find any sign of water penetration into the internals of the scope. Next was, of course, the 0° F for 2 days test. What I wanted was to really freeze those O-rings, get them good and cold. At the end of those two days I pulled the scope out and fumbled the knobs. The knobs were very stiff and mushy. As it warmed up the knobs became more tactile and audible but I’m not certain if the mushiness can be attributed to the O-ring, the grease, or a little bit of both.

Once thawed, the examination showed no signs of failure. Back to the bathtub I went. Again, I filled the tub 12 inches deep and put it in there for 10 minutes. It passed. So, I opened a bag of potting soil (it’s spring, we’re planting flowers and vegetables) and filled a 5 gallon bucket ¾ full of dirt and then topped it off with water. Insert scope and return 10 minutes later. Dirty, yes but after shaking it clean it worked fine. I wanted something finer than dirt… ashes. Once the 5 gallon bucket was clear of the mud, I filled it with ashes and buried the scope. I put it, the bucket, on my Hornady tumbler to allow the ashes to migrate and fill any voids or collapse any air pockets. While dirty, the ash did not seem to hinder the scopes operation. Although I’d invest in some new covers as ash penetrated the stock offering.

<span style="font-style: italic">All wet and doing just fine. The 5.5-25 in water.</span>
DSC01442.jpg
<span style="font-style: italic">
Dusty? Yes, but she still worked later that day at the range.</span>
DSC01438.jpg


It’s at this point that I’ve been to the line four times. Once for initial review, again after drowning it then again after freezing it and again after packing it in mud and ashes. Each time I did a box test. Each time it chugged right along. Good thing I live just a couple of miles from the range.

<span style="font-weight: bold">On the firing line, again:</span>

Well, once more I went back to the line. Only this time I was able to secure a co-worker’s pasture to get to 1,000 yards. I used a LRF, topographical map, and GPS to make sure the distances were correct. I started with a resolution test using an optic resolution chart at 25 yards. I was able to pick out 8 at 5.5x and 11 at 25x under an overcast sky.

<span style="font-style: italic">Optic Resolution Chart used at 25 yards</span>
ResolutionTestSheet.jpg


I changed ammunition this session to handloaded Sierra 175gr BTHP match-grade ammunition and zeroed to that load. I started with a 100 yard zero then jumped to testing at 500 yards and worked to 1,000 yards. Method was simple, take a shot, fudge the knobs and return to correct setting, shoot again. Repeat this process out to 1,000 yards looking for 5-shot hits. What I mean is, I wasn’t shooting for groups but would the scope return to POI/POA correlation. Targets were 12” wide by 24” tall pieces of ½” steel. Aside from my bumbling the elevation correction at 900 yards and getting caught with my pants down on the wind calls a time or two she just chugged right along. At the end of the day I had nearly 70 cases to reload, introduced a friend to the challenge of long range shooting, and was exhausted (remember what I said about that eye relief and sight alignment being demanding and critical).

<span style="font-weight: bold">So… what do I think?</span>

The scope passed the tests and I give it two thumbs up for that. So why am I not all giddy over this scope? Because this is after all a preproduction scope and I think that Falcon missed the mark with this one example. As stated before, the eye relief and alignment is overly critical in my opinion. The blurred reticule at max power and milkier clarity reduce the usefulness of this scope. It gets additional points knocked off for being a two piece design and for not having an illuminated reticule. Lets face it, a FFP optic with an illuminated reticule, is repeatable, has user friendly eye relief, and has an MSRP under $800 is a winner. An FFP optic that’s repeatable but uses a two piece design, has a non-illuminated reticule, and has almost unusable eye relief is lacking at the table. The market that Falcon is in now is riddled with opponents like Millett, Sightron, SWFA (if they get their variable on line), Vortex, and Wonder Optics. The only thing that this model really brings to the table, IMO, is a magnification advantage over these other manufacturer’s current line. But with the uncompromising eye relief/alignment issue that advantage is a bit moot. So why the review? Because I think that Falcon is listening. You are, or else you wouldn’t still be reading this. Because I feel that Falcon is on the right path, but that this scope just isn't the final call, so to speak. That a nudge here or there can open a whole new segment in the optics line that is void right now. That's also why I want to post your thoughts here for them to see. While overall I liked the scope I feel that something like this is the future:

- Built as a solid one piece set-up
- Reduce the power to 5-20x power
- Introduce an illuminated reticule
- Options for
- MIL reticule with 0.1 MRAD corrections
- MOA reticule with ½ MOA corrections
- Mil-Dot reticule with ½ MOA corrections
- Keep a chevron or line to denote the power setting
- Keep the objective bell to a maximum of 50mm
- Aim for an MSRP of <$800

Why those feature and that price? Look around and you’ll quickly see that Falcon would own that market, especially the MOA/MOA market as they’d be the only manufacturer with FFP, 5-20 power, and an illuminated reticule brought together in one package for under a grand. But that’s just me thinking aloud.


Falcon55-25x23.jpg

 

Ares

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Apr 16, 2007
131
0
43
Czech Republic
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Hmm, objective bell is screwed on the main tube
frown.gif
I am afraid about this point
 

Snipers

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 6, 2009
95
0
62
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Eye relief is a big issue. I noticed the scope is "way back" in the mount. Looks uncomfortable to me. You need at least 3 inches for a .308 rifle. A more powerful cartridge and you can forget it. Hopefully, Falcon has addressed this on the production models. The clarity issue was sort of expected - after all, it is a $500 scope. The 4.5X18X56ILL that I own has some clarity issues around the outer edges - but very clear in the center.
 

chadg

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 7, 2009
871
2
55
foothills of the ozarks.
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Kevin great review.On the scope it sounds like something i wouldnt care for that much either.
Thanks for your unbiased review.
 

TresMon

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Dec 3, 2007
1,241
126
NW USA
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Well written! Thanks for your time and efforts. Falcon does listen.

For the benefit of those on the fence, I'll voice that I'm in total disagreement with your stated negative points, except my pre-pro model does have a wee little bit of mush at the knobs, but it does not come close to obscuring the actual setting/adjustment- but recognize that it's microscopic compared to all the other scopes I have owned in this price range.

And with a FFP scope, why is the actual power setting any more than a reference? Why do you need/care to know the PRECISE power setting? The reticule works, on every power...

Sure I'd take a one piece tube, but I took a nasty fall hunting with my 18x menace. The bipod legs were folded forward as I was navigating shale. I fell, actually it was three falls in one. The rifle hit belly down. The center of my chest landed squarely on the OBJ which is over the bipod. My backpack laded hard on me. The 'pod legs got bent (6-9" model legs- not long limber legs.) I landed HARD on the obj. of the scope. I got a bruise for the deal, so did the stowed Harris but the Menace did not. I stopped thinking about their two piece shortly after that and just rubbed my sore chest from time to time.

Also there are plenty of 20ish power variable on the market. I love the extra 5 power. I shot a 600 yard f class match just last Sunday and it was nice to be able to actually see and carefully hold off (bracket) different quadrants in that itty bitty 3" x ring in the twitchy winds we had. I held about a moa with a little AR .223 at 600 in switchy winds. I have also shot sub .3 moa groups with the same rifle- all under the 5-25 Falcon.

But then slipping through the woods after whitetail the 5.5x is good for close brushy shots. Why give up the extra free power? It even often negates the need to hump a spotter. Maybe you don't hunt with your competition rifle. Maybe not every one can afford a fleet of rifles.

My main point is what you get for the money; If this was a scope priced around <$800 it too would be one of those scopes I could never afford to own.

If you got <$800 to spend be happy with the many other fine offerings. But at the Falcons current price, myself and a whole lot of other blue collar workers can own tactical FFP scope that fits the bill and is something I can actually compete with the big (RICH) dogs with.

It's no Porsche 944. It's an Accord, but I'll sure be able to get from point A to point B without a doubt, and what do you know I get reliability, A/C and a good radio too, and it can also get me a speeding ticket just like yours.

And over the long haul, if I work hard with what I got, I have a fair shot as anyone at beating rich dogs at the match. If it was all Porsche pricing, I'd not be able to afford to get off the porch with the rich dogs.

Falcon has done the industry a GREAT service by offering a rock solid perfectly usable scope at just under the middle (generally speaking) of the pricing spectrum for optics.

For the record it's obvious I'm pro-Flacon Optics. I'm just happy a vendor has offered us middle of the road blue collar folks a great solid product without the price gouging for once. Falcon has given me nothing for my statements and loyalty short of a great product and good service. I bought my Menaces with my hard earned pennies.

You did a great review. It was well structured, left nothing out and was obviously composed, executed and written with talent.

Thanks,
TMon

 

slapshot.308

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 25, 2003
277
1
44
Greenville, Texas
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

TresMon,

Thank you for the complements. Concerning the setting and FFP, that's the whole point. How do you know if the FFP actually tracks properly unless you test it. In other words, at 20x it should be exactly twice the value at 10x... right? Those are things that need to be checked. Not ~10.1x equals twice the value at ~19.5x. The marker helps when doing that.

If the scope that I listed above retailed for say, $625 would it be worth the extra $125? Are those features worth the additional investment? That's an individual question that we each ask. Concerning the extra 5x, that's also an individual question. I didn't see a difference in target resolution between 20x and 25x. But I did note a higher degree of concentration needed at the 25x. So again, how usefull is that extra 5x? To me, in this configuration not much.

As stated in the review, I like the previous offerings from Falcon. But, as stated in this review, I'm just not stroked about this one for reasons stated. Is it a bad scope? No, just not something that I care for on a field rifle. A range rat, maybe, but not a field rifle.
 

jeffersonv

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Aug 20, 2008
895
1
SoCal
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kevin Beggs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only thing that this model really brings to the table, IMO, is a magnification advantage over these other manufacturer’s current line.
</div></div>

Isn't the FFP offering a bit unique amongst these other manufacturers?
 

chadg

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 7, 2009
871
2
55
foothills of the ozarks.
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kevin Beggs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TresMon,

Thank you for the complements. Concerning the setting and FFP, that's the whole point. How do you know if the FFP actually tracks properly unless you test it. In other words, at 20x it should be exactly twice the value at 10x... right? Those are things that need to be checked. Not ~10.1x equals twice the value at ~19.5x. The marker helps when doing that.

If the scope that I listed above retailed for say, $625 would it be worth the extra $125? Are those features worth the additional investment? That's an individual question that we each ask. Concerning the extra 5x, that's also an individual question. I didn't see a difference in target resolution between 20x and 25x. But I did note a higher degree of concentration needed at the 25x. So again, how usefull is that extra 5x? To me, in this configuration not much.

As stated in the review, I like the previous offerings from Falcon. But, as stated in this review, I'm just not stroked about this one for reasons stated. Is it a bad scope? No, just not something that I care for on a field rifle. A range rat, maybe, but not a field rifle. </div></div>



AGREED +1
 

MTETM

Sergeant
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Supporter+
Dec 11, 2007
911
207
Montana
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Great review Kevin,
I hope this isn't considered to be a hijacking to add a few comments regarding the pre-production model. My wife bought one several months ago and I have had the opportunity to play with it to 800 yards on steel and a few minutes on a dog town.
As previously stated:
The glass is very nice, not great but very usable, with some distortion toward the edges.
Knobs are very large, parellex is very stiff and the elevation and windage have a bit of mush when cold but much better (more tactile) when warm.

I have to agree with Kevin...eye position is critical, not so much with eye relief, but the user must line up directly behind the optic. If you don't, the reticle will "U" either up or down depending on your view of it, or head positioning.

My wife's comments: It is big and heavy, head positioning is critical and it takes time go get set up correctly behind the scope, other than that it is great and very usable at all power settings. I like the FFP and the .5 mil reticle values for holding off in the wind.
I like high magnification scopes and I won't pay for a "great" one. My husband has tried to buy me a high dollar scope and I won't let him, this fits my needs very well.
I have no regrets buying the scope and would buy it again...might even buy another one...
 

long range dogr

Sith Lord, bitches!
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Aug 13, 2006
    2,411
    139
    Lodgepole, NE
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    This was a great read....And a very good revue!!!

    Thanks for doing this.
     

    AugeredIn

    Private
    Minuteman
    Jan 31, 2009
    41
    0
    57
    Pensacola, FL
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    I think anyone considering this scope should only look at it for what it is. It ain't no Nightforce or other high end optic. Comparing it to one is not realistic (I am not suggesting Kevin did). The question is where does this scope stand at one fourth the price of a Nightforce or other similar optic.

    I can afford expensive optics and I have several expensive optics. I primarily shoot Nightforce. I recently bought one of the preproduction models (used) from another member here just because I believe that: 1) you generally get what you pay for in optics, but 2) the last 20% of quality comes with a 100% plus premium and I wanted to see if Falcon was an exception. I wanted to see what the fuss was about.

    When I first read Kevins review last night I was going to post and agree with everything except the alignment issue. My only issue would be that I believe that some of Kevins suggestions do try and make it something it is not and probably does not want to be.

    Instead, I took it out this morning and ran her side by side with a Nightforce 5.5-22x56. After further review, I am going to have to agree that sight alignment is more critical as Kevin suggests. I just have not noticed it before. That could be because I practice eyes closed cheek placement when dry firing at the house. I do not see any distortion of the reticle however.

    This scope is not a Nightforce or any other $1,500.00+ scope, but it is a damn fine scope for the money. My one chief complaint with it is the still somewhat mushy turrets. I can ignore all the other differences, because the thing didn't cost more than $500.00 and I have no problem remembering that. The other stuff just doesn't affect its ultimate function that much.

    Those turrets though are the one thing that I am spoiled on and can tell the difference on in the field especially when you need to make changes quickly. Don't get me wrong, they are not horrible, but they are the one thing that I just cannot ignore. The scope does box well and returns to zero well you just have to be a little more cognizant of what you are doing, and that results in a little less concentration on the visual alignment.

    My one other comment would be with regards to the reticle thickness at full magnification. It is thick compared to what I am used to. I am not used to FFP scopes though.

    All the other issues Kevin lists I can live with. The eye relief issue does not seem to be that big a deal to me. Yeah, it requires the scope be pulled back, but there is still plenty of room for anything I am going to mount it on (say 308 or less).

    I can tell you I am not going to sell mine. To cut to the chase of where I think this scope stands, I will throw out there that I would buy either a Nightforce or one of these before picking up a Mark IV or some of the other scopes in that range. If I could not afford the Nightforce, I would pick up a Falcon and not lose any sleep.



     

    digit

    Private
    Minuteman
    Aug 6, 2008
    52
    0
    New Zealand
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    From what I understand, the production version is available in both 50mm and 56mm objectives and is a 1 piece tube/bell.
     

    TresMon

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 3, 2007
    1,241
    126
    NW USA
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    +1 AugeredIn;

    That's what I'm saying, I can't and may never afford a NF, or prolly even a MK IV.
     

    TresMon

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 3, 2007
    1,241
    126
    NW USA
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kevin Beggs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TresMon,

    Thank you for the complements. Concerning the setting and FFP, that's the whole point. How do you know if the FFP actually tracks properly unless you test it. In other words, at 20x it should be exactly twice the value at 10x... right? Those are things that need to be checked. Not ~10.1x equals twice the value at ~19.5x. The marker helps when doing that.</div></div>

    Well, I'm a simple man; I hung a metal "yardstick" (actually a 48" straight edge) up on a target board, and made sure the mil stadia, covered the same amount of inch measurement throughout the magnification range having never worried what actual power setting I was on at any given time. It checked out with no drift. So I'm happy.

     

    Jon A

    Sergeant
    Commercial Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 13, 2006
    601
    18
    Everett, WA
    www.aadmount.com
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    Yes, with FFP all one needs to do is measure the reticle and make sure it is <span style="font-style: italic">correct.</span> This is usually easiest to do at max power.

    It's not just that the power setting shouldn't affect the measurement, but really it <span style="font-style: italic">can't.</span> You're magnifying the image and reticle together so it's either right or it's not, regardless of power setting.
     

    Mumbles

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 21, 2008
    355
    7
    Pittsburgh Area
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">at 20x it should be exactly twice the value at 10x... right?</div></div>

    I must have misread something here, but the value should definitely not be twice as much, that would be a SFP scope.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not just that the power setting shouldn't affect the measurement, but really it can't. You're magnifying the image and reticle together so it's either right or it's not, regardless of power setting.</div></div>

    Reading through this thread, I was wondering why nobody was bringing that up.
     

    Rafael

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 26, 2003
    2,269
    18
    59
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jon A</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, with FFP all one needs to do is measure the reticle and make sure it is <span style="font-style: italic">correct.</span> This is usually easiest to do at max power.

    It's not just that the power setting shouldn't affect the measurement, but really it <span style="font-style: italic">can't.</span> You're magnifying the image and reticle together so it's either right or it's not, regardless of power setting. </div></div>

    Correct.
    If you sight in on a ruler and adjust power, the reticles markings should have the same subtension at any power setting. Exact power setting is of no importance.
     

    SingleShot85

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
    Jun 28, 2004
    1,591
    134
    Native Texican (SA)
    spanishgourd.com
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    Hell yes Kevin is back.

    not the 5-25 but my 4-16 survived a drop directly on the elevation turret from about 4ft and has never skipped a beat

    i like the idea of a one piece scope but I have seen a "one piece" scope break the objective bell as a result of a drop.

    my point is they are all destructable no matter who makes them.

    good review as all ways.
     

    slapshot.308

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 25, 2003
    277
    1
    44
    Greenville, Texas
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    Perhaps "value" wasn't the best of terms. What I was checking was that at 20x the image read the same Mil reading at twice the power of 10x. The way that I checked it was with a barricade and a yard stick. I used the barricade (72") in reference to image reading. Yeah, not scientific but perhaps that clears things up. In the long run does it matter? Perhaps not, just like yardage markings on a parallax knob. But I checked those on the two previous scopes and it was all in the name of fun... I mean science.

    Hey SINGLE.SHOT! Good to be missed. We need to hook up again sometime and tap some steel. Need to ring Al sometime and reconnect. Been a while since he and I made smoke together. How's that .22-.250 with those 80's running?
     

    SingleShot85

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
    Jun 28, 2004
    1,591
    134
    Native Texican (SA)
    spanishgourd.com
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    Killed 5 deer 2 bucks and 3 doe, all of them DRT! LaRue's at 700 drop like flys and she makes a nice ping at a 1000.

    Going to be a little tough since I back in Central TX but yes a trip to Waco needs to be on the short list.

    kt
     

    ltfirehunter

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 29, 2008
    917
    6
    63
    Rock Spring Georgia
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    So at 100yds will the cross hairs be thin enough to place in the bullet hole and see it? (30 cal)

    And at 500, 600 and 1000 yds with the scope at full power or at 20X are the cross hairs going to limit me in thickness for match shooting.
     

    sobrbiker883

    Lt. Colonel
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Sep 18, 2003
    7,125
    210
    Gilbert AZ
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ltfirehunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So at 100yds will the cross hairs be thin enough to place in the bullet hole and see it? (30 cal)

    And at 500, 600 and 1000 yds with the scope at full power or at 20X are the cross hairs going to limit me in thickness for match shooting. </div></div>

    Not sure of the Falcon's stadia thickness.

    The reticle is the same size at all power settings. If the stadia (crosshair wire) is .1mil at 100 yards it is .1 mil at 500 yards and .1mil at 600 yards, and .1mil at 732.85 yards. If it is on 5.5X, the stadia is .1mil, if it is at 25X, the stadia is .1mil.
     

    AugeredIn

    Private
    Minuteman
    Jan 31, 2009
    41
    0
    57
    Pensacola, FL
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
    Not sure of the Falcon's stadia thickness.

    The reticle is the same size at all power settings. If the stadia (crosshair wire) is .1mil at 100 yards it is .1 mil at 500 yards and .1mil at 600 yards, and .1mil at 732.85 yards. If it is on 5.5X, the stadia is .1mil, if it is at 25X, the stadia is .1mil.

    </div></div>

    Hmmm...I definitely agree, but I don't think that adequately addresses his question. I guess you could say that if the reticle covers .1 mil at 100 yards and .1 mils at 200 yards you are alright because you believe you would shoot at twice as big a target. The reality is that I shoot at the same size target at 300+ yards as I shoot at at 100 yards so the reticle actually begines to cover more of the "sight" picture. That clear as mud? I will say that when shooting steel it is no big deal.

    My real answer would be that while I definitely notice the reticle thickness, particularly a longer distances, I can live with it.
     

    MAX100

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 11, 2008
    228
    3
    60
    SC
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As stated before, the eye relief and alignment is overly critical in my opinion. The blurred reticule at max power and milkier clarity reduce the usefulness of this scope.</div></div>

    You can really tell what quality optics a scope has on higher power. Most scope are clear up to 16x. The lower quality optic designs & glass start have clarity & eye box problems after that.


    GC
     

    ltfirehunter

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 29, 2008
    917
    6
    63
    Rock Spring Georgia
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    I,like most have a limited budget that will only allow me to purchase optics in this price range.
    The magnification, price and reports on Falcon products is whats causing me to lean in there direction.
    I am currently runnning a Leupy 3X9X40 tactical, and I feel it has me behind a bit when trying to compete with the higher magnification of optics in the matches I have been shootin at 500-600 yds.
    I just plainly need to see the X better, and that is the reason for the question. The 5X25 may not be the answer, but it sure sounds nice.
     

    Ares

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Apr 16, 2007
    131
    0
    43
    Czech Republic
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    Can someone make sharp photo of the reticle on the highest magnification against white or gray background?
     

    RWSGunsmithing

    Gunny Sergeant
    Commercial Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Mar 26, 2006
    4,906
    228
    Manning, Iowa
    www.rwsgunsmithing.com
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    For now they are going to be. Falcon has told me that they have a moa version with a moa reticle in the works but will be a little while before they are avalible.
     

    Dsparil

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Aug 11, 2006
    794
    16
    41
    Albrightsville, PA
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    heh I might be interested in the moa/moa version. I'm just not a big fan of the milrad system since I see EVERYTHING in inches and feet. heh I'm a good ol' fashion ignorant American.

    I speak english and bad english, the four basic food groups are beans, bacon, beer and water and I have NO idea what a meter is.

    wink.gif
     

    ltfirehunter

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 29, 2008
    917
    6
    63
    Rock Spring Georgia
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RWSGunsmithing</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For now they are going to be. Falcon has told me that they have a moa version with a moa reticle in the works but will be a little while before they are avalible. </div></div>

    I was just looking at your web site and seen they was all mil./mil.
    Thanks for respnding .

    I may have to go with a 4.5 X 18

    I'm mainly going to be match and target shooting with it. Maybe an occ. long green field deer huntin.
     

    Babo

    Full Member
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    May 23, 2009
    36
    1
    60
    Austin, TX
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    I was just informed by Matt at Wonder Optics that the shipment he is getting in soon will only be:

    Menace 5-25x50 ML16 reticle with 1/10MIL adjustments or METRIC
    Menace 5-25x56 ML16 reticle and 1/10 MIL adjustments or METRIC

    MOA wont be until later in the year.

    Thanks for the review; as I was going to order the 5-25-50 EMD; guess I'll be hold off and go with something else for now.

    Any recommendations on an "inexpensive" starter scope on an LR-308? Paper puncher; maybe out to 600 if I can find a range.
     

    ltfirehunter

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 29, 2008
    917
    6
    63
    Rock Spring Georgia
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    I know this question has been posted, and yes I did try to do a search.

    What is the actual measurement differece at 100yds per click.
     

    Dsparil

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Aug 11, 2006
    794
    16
    41
    Albrightsville, PA
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ltfirehunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Meter....Thats what the water runs thru so they can know how much to bill ya.

    </div></div>

    LMAO! Yeah there you go!
     

    BobinNC

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jan 31, 2009
    4,689
    46
    72
    Goldsboro, NC
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dsparil</div><div class="ubbcode-body">heh I might be interested in the moa/moa version. I'm just not a big fan of the milrad system since I see EVERYTHING in inches and feet. heh I'm a good ol' fashion ignorant American.

    I speak english and bad english, the four basic food groups are beans, bacon, beer and water and I have NO idea what a meter is.

    wink.gif
    </div></div>

    Dsparil,

    Let see, Falcon's strange urapeean "metric" adjustments are listed as 1 cm clicks @ 100 meters. Which is oddly enough the same as .36" at 100 yds.

    Therefore 10 clicks is = to 3.6 inches @ 100 yds; which is also strangely = to 1 mil.

    So 100 of those "odd metric clicks" is = to 36 inches @ 100 yds which is also the same as 10 mils; which is also the same as 3 feet in Texas.

    Which also 360 inches @ 1000 yds (that's 30 feet in Texas, in case you were not following me), which is also the same as 10 mils @ 1000 yds.

    I don't see any metrics here, do you????? Perhaps too much beer or beans in your diet........
    cool.gif


    Bob

     

    prossound

    Private
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 8, 2008
    42
    0
    Rockdale, TX
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dsparil</div><div class="ubbcode-body">heh I might be interested in the moa/moa version. I'm just not a big fan of the milrad system since I see EVERYTHING in inches and feet. heh I'm a good ol' fashion ignorant American.

    I speak english and bad english, the four basic food groups are beans, bacon, beer and water and I have NO idea what a meter is.

    wink.gif
    </div></div>

    Dsparil,

    Which also 360 inches @ 1000 yds (that's 10 feet in Texas, in case you were not following me), which is also the same as 10 mils @ 1000 yds.


    Bob

    </div></div>

    360 inches is 10 yards in the part of Texas I am from
    smile.gif
    or 30 feet
     

    BobinNC

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jan 31, 2009
    4,689
    46
    72
    Goldsboro, NC
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    prosound,

    Yup it is, I fat fingered that one, but I fixed it just for you.....
    crazy.gif
     

    Big Dog Steel

    Premium AR500 Targets
    Commercial Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Apr 30, 2008
    1,143
    26
    Lima, OH
    www.bigdogsteel.com
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    Ok, 10cm is close to 3.6" @ 100 yards, but not exactly. It measures out at 3.59872029". Which means 1cm @ 100m = .359872029" @ 100 yards. A .50 BMG whipping a 750 A-Max @ 2,750 drops about 244.4" @ 1,000 yards. That would be 67.8888 Mils. If you adjusted you CM scope to that distance thinking it was same as mils you would have an error of one billion feet. Ok, it would be more like 0.086877976248". However, most of us degenerates are used to quarter inch @ 100 yard adjustments anyways so mil/mil adjustments don't really help us. That's what my mildot master is for.
     

    BobinNC

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jan 31, 2009
    4,689
    46
    72
    Goldsboro, NC
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: osuarchitect</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, 10cm is close to 3.6" @ 100 yards, but not exactly. It measures out at 3.59872029". Which means 1cm @ 100m = .359872029" @ 100 yards. A .50 BMG whipping a 750 A-Max @ 2,750 drops about 244.4" @ 1,000 yards. That would be 67.8888 Mils. If you adjusted you CM scope to that distance thinking it was same as mils you would have an error of one billion feet. Ok, it would be more like 0.086877976248". However, most of us degenerates are used to quarter inch @ 100 yard adjustments anyways so mil/mil adjustments don't really help us. That's what my mildot master is for. </div></div>

    Let's see 244.4" @ 1000 yds is actually 6.7888 mils, but your close, only off 61.1 mils or 2199.6", that's 8798.4 .25" clicks. Please explain again how your mildot master is going to fix that one?
    wink.gif
     

    .338Lapua Magnum

    Private
    Minuteman
    Feb 16, 2008
    17
    0
    Scotland
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    Wao, how to make something complicated and difficult in one easy lesson.

    For a Nation that will accept some new ideas quickly and with enthusiasm, Americans appear terrified of the metric system of linear measurement. Rather than getting all tied up with the maths, would it not be easier to just learn and use the metric system? You can use both systems, learning a new one does not mean you lose the old. It also means that you do not have to convert from one to the other, which under pressure can be a disaster waiting to happen.
     

    ltfirehunter

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 29, 2008
    917
    6
    63
    Rock Spring Georgia
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    The reason for wanting MOA adjustments is not for the lack willing to learn.
    This is what I am use to using and there is no reason to complicate things when the equipment can me made in MOA adjustments.
    I am not a sniper, never was, never will be.
    I am someone that enjoys the sport of shooting and accurate firearms.
    Americans was raised with standard inch system not metric, and alot of us wish to use it instead of metric.
     

    ewoaf

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jan 25, 2009
    1,480
    117
    Albemarle VA
    beaurobbins.com
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    its not hard to convert, just print out your dope sheets in meters and mils, use the mil/metric ranging math, and there you go...all the ballistic programs will let you have the info any way you want it, and most LRFs will give you meters if you want, so theres really nothing in the way of a switchover.
     

    TiroFijo

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 4, 2002
    732
    11
    Asuncion, Paraguay
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    "For a Nation that will accept some new ideas quickly and with enthusiasm, Americans appear terrified of the metric system of linear measurement. Rather than getting all tied up with the maths, would it not be easier to just learn and use the metric system?"

    +1000

    People are willing to learn the most obtuse and less useful stuff about shooting, but refuse to learn the metric system that is so easy. Why is it? some sort of proud nationalistic backwardness?

    The world is metric, everybody in USA that teach tech/science stuff use the metric system, most factories in USA use it, etc... the metric system is DECIMAL and all compatible.
     

    BobinNC

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jan 31, 2009
    4,689
    46
    72
    Goldsboro, NC
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    Here's a couple of drop tables: Both are for a 308 Win 155 Grain w/ Sierra's Palma Match @ 2800 FPS

    The first is in Mils/1 cm (.36") per click

    Column 2 Drop/Windage Units: .36" Clicks
    Calculated Table
    Range Drop Drop
    (yd) (mil) (Clicks)
    0 *** ***
    100 -0.0 -0.0
    200 -0.5 -5.0
    300 -1.2 -12.1
    400 -2.0 -20.5
    500 -3.0 -30.0
    600 -4.1 -40.7
    700 -5.3 -53.0
    800 -6.7 -66.9
    900 -8.3 -83.0
    1000 -10.2 -101.7

    The second is in MOA w/ .25 MOA clicks

    Column 2 Drop/Windage Units: 1/4 MOA Clicks
    Calculated Table
    Range Drop Drop
    (yd) (MOA) (Clicks)
    0 *** ***
    100 -0.0 -0.0
    200 -1.7 -6.8
    300 -4.2 -16.7
    400 -7.0 -28.1
    500 -10.3 -41.2
    600 -14.0 -56.0
    700 -18.2 -72.8
    800 -23.0 -92.0
    900 -28.5 -114.1
    1000 -35.0 -139.8

    Now please, somebody who favors MOA/MOA explain to me how drop table #2 in MOA is easier and simpler to use than drop table #1 in MILS???? Also please point out the how the metric system is being used in drop table 1?

    Please notice that in table 1 that if you have a mil dot reticle, hitting your target with at most a 2" error can be accomplished out to 500 yds without dialing or calculating anything. Please show me how your MOA reticle, with I presume 1 MOA between the hashs, can do the same thing?

    Thanks,

    Bob
     

    pauley

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Aug 6, 2008
    135
    0
    87
    so .TEXAS
    Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

    most TEXANS understand the m/m scopes !
    but we are SPECIAL anyway