• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

I really do not understand why so many people cling to the SAE with such fervour. Even with my father and grandfather being master carpenters, fractions have always been my down fall. But, with the precision of the meteric system, that is a thing of the past.
Although, I do confuse the hell out of my co-works who are unable convert SAE measurements to Metric in thier head.

It's just straight forward and uncomplicated.
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Have they fixed their windage knobs on this one? That is my only beef with my 4-14FFP (other than no illumination); the windage knob is the same as the elevation knob and only counts in one directions.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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. </div></div>

Yes, most industry is... the only thing based on english units in your car is the odometer and speedometer. People who routinely need to calculate things that involve multiple units understand why the metric system is a much better system. But, your average Joe on the street is only using a single unit at a time. If all you're using is distance, speed, volume, etc... alone then you'll never see the need to change.
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

It's not that I am clinging so hard to SAE that that I will not or CAN NOT learn. I know the math and I have a fair uasage of the metric. I just like MOA on my optics much better

Being nearly 50 YO and have shot most all my life with MOA adjusments. And the optics industry are offering in MOA then that is what I will buy.

If all optics decided that they was only going to offered offered in only metric it would be no problem.
My God in stupid mans math it's a 1/4 of an inch MOA to roughley 1/3 of inch in mootric
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

yes... the metric system.. We all learned it ( I am 41 years old) in grade school. It was more of a threat really. it's coming so you better get used to it and learn it or you will wind up a knuckle dragging retard working at fast food joints. Here we are 35 years later and we are no further towards converting over then we were then. However did we get by?

This is a great read and I want to thank all the posters who added to this read. I am just learning about long range optics and am torn between price and quality. A good 500 dollar scope VS a used Leupold at 500 ETC ETC. As usual time spent here has been time well spent.

Thanks again, To all of you who share knowledge and points of view that teach rather then turn into a pissing contest. Jeff
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buffybuster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Milradian measurement has NOTHING to do with the Metric System.

</div></div>

But optics with metric adj, do.

Thats the debate.
 
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">But optics with metric adj, do.
Thats the debate.
</div></div>

Milliradians are the adjustments on mil knobs NOT centimeters (or whatever people think of as "metric"), as far as I know. And like buffybuster said, milliradians have nothing to do with the metric system.

Both milliradians and minute of angle are measures of angular distance. It just SO happens that one mil approximately equals 1cm at 100m, and 1 MOA approximately equals 1" at 100 yards. But mils aren't metric, in the same way MOA's aren't "English measure".

If you are 1 mil under and 2 mils to the left, you click in 1 mil elevation and 2 mils windage. If you are 1 MOA under and 2 MOA to the left, you click in 1 MOA elevation and 2 MOA windage.

Why is there even a debate about this? Just about the only thing I think is screwy are MOA knobs with mil reticles!
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

As long as the reticle and adjustments match there's nothing to discuss: either MOA/MOA or Mil/Mil. Pick whichever tickles your fancy and live happily everafter. As previously stated, MOA and Mils have nothing to do with the Metric/SAE debate and it's a mistake to make it that. If you like working with units of 1/4 then MOA is your unit. If you like 1/10 then Mil is your unit.

If your reticle and adjustments don't match: Mil/MOA or rarely MOA/Mil, then you have to pull out the calculator/Mildot Master or do some head scratching.

Otherwise this horse is dead and it's still being beat.
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It just SO happens that one mil approximately equals 1cm at 100m.</div></div>

Well, no. You're on the right track, though.

One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length at <span style="font-weight: bold">EVERY</span> distance is exactly 1/1000th of the distance.

In other words, one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is:
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
1 league at 1000 leagues.
1 fathom at 1000 fathoms.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 foot at 1000 feet.
1 lightyear at 1000 lightyears.
1 attoparsec at 1000 attoparsecs.
3.6 inches at 3600 inches (100 yards).

Now, scopes whose angular system is milliradians usually adjust in 0.1 milliradian clicks - which is why at 100 meters, each click is worth 1 centimeter.

But, since 100 yards is 3600 inches, one milliradian is exactly 3.6 inches, and one 0.1 mil click is .36 inches.

I'm sure glad I have all this in a file, so I don't have to keep re-typing it.

Cheers!
-- Lindy
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It just SO happens that one mil approximately equals 1cm at 100m.</div></div>

Well, no. You're on the right track, though.

One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length at <span style="font-weight: bold">EVERY</span> distance is exactly 1/1000th of the distance.

In other words, one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is:
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
1 league at 1000 leagues.
1 fathom at 1000 fathoms.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 foot at 1000 feet.
1 lightyear at 1000 lightyears.
1 attoparsec at 1000 attoparsecs.
3.6 inches at 3600 inches (100 yards).

Now, scopes whose angular system is milliradians usually adjust in 0.1 milliradian clicks - which is why at 100 meters, each click is worth 1 centimeter.

But, since 100 yards is 3600 inches, one milliradian is exactly 3.6 inches, and one 0.1 mil click is .36 inches.

I'm sure glad I have all this in a file, so I don't have to keep re-typing it.

Cheers!
-- Lindy
</div></div>


Lindy,

Thank you once again. Lindy's explaination should be a sticky at the top of this subforum.
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

How in the hell did this thread turn from a scope review to mils vs. moa battle? Lets stay on topic here. I for one am in the market for one of these scopes, so I'de like to hear more about the scope and less bout mils vs. moa.
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How in the hell did this thread turn from a score review to mils vs. moa battle?</div></div>

It didn't. But when someone posts erroneous information, someone else is liable to correct it. And on that subject, someone is frequently me.

And it's a scope review, not a <span style="font-style: italic">score</span> review.

And for the Alabama brother, parsecs are used in astronomy to measure enormous interstellar distances; a parsec is approximately 3.26 light-years or 3.085×10^16m. Combining it with the "atto" prefix (10^-18) yields attoparsec, a conveniently human-scaled unit of 3.085 centimeters (about 1-7/32 inches) that has no obvious practical use.
laugh.gif

 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It just SO happens that one mil approximately equals 1cm at 100m.</div></div>

Well, no. You're on the right track, though.

One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length at <span style="font-weight: bold">EVERY</span> distance is exactly 1/1000th of the distance.

In other words, one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is:
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
1 league at 1000 leagues.
1 fathom at 1000 fathoms.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 foot at 1000 feet.
1 lightyear at 1000 lightyears.
1 attoparsec at 1000 attoparsecs.
3.6 inches at 3600 inches (100 yards).

Now, scopes whose angular system is milliradians usually adjust in 0.1 milliradian clicks - which is why at 100 meters, each click is worth 1 centimeter.

But, since 100 yards is 3600 inches, one milliradian is exactly 3.6 inches, and one 0.1 mil click is .36 inches.

I'm sure glad I have all this in a file, so I don't have to keep re-typing it.

Cheers!
-- Lindy
</div></div>

Just wanted to clarify your point, Lindy.
smile.gif
If we're going to be exact... yes, you are correct that the length of the ARC is exactly 1cm at 100m if we are talking about 1 milliradian (the curved arc length between two points, with the circle centered on the scope)... but most people use the CHORD (the linear length of the straight line that connects the aforementioned two points) as what they want to measure. Which is why I said "approximately equal", since the length of the chord will be slightly less than the length of the arc.

For all intents and purposes, at typical shooting distances the difference is so small, and we are able to use the arc and the chord interchangably.

Sorry to get all nerded out about this. Carry on with the scope review.
wink.gif
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How in the hell did this thread turn from a score review to mils vs. moa battle?</div></div>


And it's a scope review, not a <span style="font-style: italic">score</span> review.


</div></div>

That was a typo, I was typing on my iPhone.
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Hey Folks!

I'm currently having a hard time deciding which falcon scope to buy. I read some reviews here an in other forums but the more I read about them the harder it gets for me to make a decision.
I have been told the Menace 4-14x44 FFP would be the way to go since it's a single tube design, front focal plane and good optics with higher light transmission than Falcon's previous scopes. However, I am looking in a scope with more objective diameter and magnification range to have a bright, contrasty image an better spotting capabilities. One thing I really do not worry about is size and weight. However, this review said that the 5.5-25x56 was somehow milkier than previous falcon scopes? So where's the point in getting a huge 56mm objective when the image might be as good as on the 4-14x44 FFP after all? I mean, when having that half inch more diameter (which causes a lot more light transmission), I would expect the image on 25x to be at least as good as on 14x on the 4-14x44FFP. But that seems to be not the case?

Eye relief would be no problem since I'll mount that scope on a .22lr.
Proper sight alignment also bothers me a litte. I got a Countersniper 3-25x56 thats also sensitive on that, especially on higher magnifications, so I'm used to it but I would be happier if it was not that sensitive.

I also thought of getting the Menace 4-18x56 Illuminated what might be a compromise of those both scopes. Hopefully with bright and clear images but not that much of magnification.
However, it's no FFP design but got a illuminated reticle instead.
I'm not sure if a FFP design would be that important for me, both designs got their pros and cons...
What I'm primarily looking for is the best possible image and magnification (however high magnification gets useless when image quality is poor) in that price range in a tactical package ("target turrets", side parallax) with MIL turrets.
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Romeyo,

Read your post 3 times, and I'm still not sure what your looking for? But I gleaned this from your questions:

You own a .22LR that you need a scope for.
You want the "tactical" package: Mildot or MIL based reticle, side focus, and MIL/MIL adjustments.
You want to spend less than $500.

If those assumptions are right, then I have some questions for you.

Are you shooting at night? That will decide whether you need illumination or a maybe even a 56MM objective.

Do you want a Mil based reticle to actually range? Or do you want to just use the Dots/HASH's as alternate aiming spots? That will clarify whether a FPP scope would be useful for you.

How much power do you need, and how far are you shooting? With a 22lr you probably shooting 300 yds or a lot less.

You will need better quality glass to get high resolution images @24x than you will need at say 14x. Which is why it is harder and more expensive to build a "clear scope" that is really useful @ 24X, than it is to build one that is clearer @ 14x.

Even if the new Falcon is a bit "milkly" @ 24x power, how clear will it be at say around 8x. Because at 8x the Falcon will have the largest exit pupil your eye can use at night, which is 7mm.....

None of this is to say that the new Falcon 5.5-25x56MM will not suit your needs, just be sure what your needs are, before you buy anything....

Bob
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Hi Bob!

Yeah, your assumptions are right.

Well, I won't be shooting in total darkness but I would like to have a scope I'm capable of shooting in lower light conditions (cloudy weather, dawn) since I don't want to be limited to high contrast paper targets. I would like to shoot cans and stuff at 150-200yards or more too.

For ranging I've got a laser-rangefinder. However, I know those FFP reticles are handy for holdovers and quick-corrections. Especially when reticle and turrents got the same scale.
But that could be done with non-FFP scopes at certain magnification values too, however not stepless through the entire magnification range... To sum it up, I would not implicitly need it, but it would be a hadny feature.

I would not want more than 25x. When reaching this limit with a good image I would be happy. But ~18x should also do the job.
I plan on shooting up to ~300yards. I want to push the .22lr to it's limits to gather long range experience. I can't afford a .308 yet since I'm a student, and I also want to shoot precise and repeatable before shooting a round that costs me half a dollar or more per shot.
I read that shooting .22lr to 300yards is pretty much like shooting .308 to 1000yards. So shooting .22lr to unconventional distances would help me gain experience in wind reading, bullet drop compensation and all that without the need of very long shooting ranges and at much lower costs.

I read that the 4-14x44 FFP had better optics (lenses, coating) than Falcon's previous models and since the 5,5-25x50/56 is their latest scope I thought its optics should be equal and should give me an advantage over their previous Menace 4-18x56 when using higher magnifications.
But somehow the exact opposite seemed to be the case since the 5,5-25x50/56 was described to be "milkly"! That was what got me worrying and thinking about getting one of their other scopes.

Romeyo

 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Romeyo,

Thanks, your last post made everything clear. I am not trying to dissuade from you buying whatever you desire. But I use the following on my rimfires:

Falcon Menace 10x42MM, MP20 reticle, Mil/MOA because I could not get a MIL/MIL at the time.

I will be replacing that scope with another Falcon Menace a 7.5X50MM MIL/MIL standard MilDot Reticle and 1cm @100 meters (or 0.36" @ 100 yds; 0.1 MILS) adjustments. The 10x42MM Falcon is being relegated to backup scope duty.

I use my rimfires for both target shooting/plinking to 200 yds, and hunting gray squirrel out to 75 yds or so, in low light conditions. The 7.5x50MM Falcon will give me a 6.6MM exit pupil vs a 4.2MM exit pupil of the 10x42mm. The standard mildot, is less busy than the MP20, and easier to see in low light. The mil/mil adjustments will allow for easier ranging and adjustment after the shot.

I do not find myself limited by having only 7.5x or 10X vs 25x. If I cannot see the target with a 7.5x power scope or 10x for that matter, the target is either too small, or too far away for a 22 rimfire. Note: I am not a benchrest shooter or competitor with my rimfires.

If a 25x power scope floats your boat, buy all means get one. I think all the Falcon scopes are tremendous bargains for the money spent. I do think that if your expectations are Schmidt and Bender or Zeiss quality, at Falcon Menace price, then you might be disappointed. Otherwise any of the Falcon scopes you are contemplating should work just fine.

I apologize to the original poster for getting off topic.

Thanks,

Bob







 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Romeyo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey Folks!

I'm currently having a hard time deciding which falcon scope to buy. I read some reviews here an in other forums but the more I read about them the harder it gets for me to make a decision.
I have been told the Menace 4-14x44 FFP would be the way to go since it's a single tube design, front focal plane and good optics with higher light transmission than Falcon's previous scopes. However, I am looking in a scope with more objective diameter and magnification range to have a bright, contrasty image an better spotting capabilities. One thing I really do not worry about is size and weight. However, this review said that the 5.5-25x56 was somehow milkier than previous falcon scopes? So where's the point in getting a huge 56mm objective when the image might be as good as on the 4-14x44 FFP after all? I mean, when having that half inch more diameter (which causes a lot more light transmission), I would expect the image on 25x to be at least as good as on 14x on the 4-14x44FFP. But that seems to be not the case?

Eye relief would be no problem since I'll mount that scope on a .22lr.
Proper sight alignment also bothers me a litte. I got a Countersniper 3-25x56 thats also sensitive on that, especially on higher magnifications, so I'm used to it but I would be happier if it was not that sensitive.

I also thought of getting the Menace 4-18x56 Illuminated what might be a compromise of those both scopes. Hopefully with bright and clear images but not that much of magnification.
However, it's no FFP design but got a illuminated reticle instead.
I'm not sure if a FFP design would be that important for me, both designs got their pros and cons...
What I'm primarily looking for is the best possible image and magnification (however high magnification gets useless when image quality is poor) in that price range in a tactical package ("target turrets", side parallax) with MIL turrets.
</div></div>

Romeyo,

This is easy for me to answer, buy the Falcon scope that meets your shooting needs. If you need moderately high magnification the 5.5-25x50/56 FFP will be a great addition to your ..22LR rifle. By the same token the 4-14x44FFP is a great scope too. Both of these are highly featured and there is nothing else on the market available with the same features for less than $1,200. Sure the glass is not going to match that $1,200 Leupold but guess what, the very few Leupold FFP scopes available are not made with mil/mil adjustments/reticules. If you want a FFP scope with a good solid adjustment system and milrad adjusters and a matching reticule the Falcon scopes are the only game in town.

I've got a GenIII IOR 3-18x42FFP SH edition scope (which has glass that is about 98% of an S&B or USO, checked them all side by side) and the glass is clearly much better than my prototype Falcon 5.5-25x56FFP. But the Falcon with glass that is maybe 85% of the IOR's glass cost much less than a third of the IOR scope and has all of operating features of the IOR. At this price level I don't think you will find a better FFP scope in terms of optical performance and/or features.

I've got the prototype 5.5-25x56FFP sitting in some Seekins rings clamped to an EGW 20MOA base screwed into a 10/22T. The 5.5-25x56FFP scope is very repeatable, I can reliably dial from 25 yards to 250 yards with a perfectly repeatable dial at all ranges. I'm only limited to a 250yard dail due to the 10/22's inherent barrel droop issues. But I expect to have a new barrel blank screwed into the 10/22's receiver in a few months which will take care of the barrel droop and allow me to dial out past 400 yards or so.

Let me leave you with this, buy the features you want in a scope with the magnification you want for the shooting task of your rifle. For the money if a FFP with big tactical knobs (w/milrad adjusters) matching milrad reticule and large light gathering capability are what you need the Falcon scopes are literally the only game in town for under $1,200.

HTH!


 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

I love this site, I'm continually amazed at the amount of knowledge here.

YAOG/Bob,
My understanding of + MOA bases was to allow for more scope adjustment for shooting longer distances. If this is correct why do I see so many people using 20MOA bases on 10/22s? Any of the Falcon variable mag. scopes have more than enough adjustment for 10/22 distances.
I must be missing something

-Toyz
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mrtoyz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love this site, I'm continually amazed at the amount of knowledge here.

YAOG/Bob,
My understanding of + MOA bases was to allow for more scope adjustment for shooting longer distances. If this is correct why do I see so many people using 20MOA bases on 10/22s? Any of the Falcon variable mag. scopes have more than enough adjustment for 10/22 distances.
I must be missing something

-Toyz
</div></div>

Different idea of "10/22 distances" than you do?
wink.gif
At 200 yards you get awful close to running out of adjustment range without a canted base.
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Alright, thank you guys for helping me and making my decision easier! And, of course I don't expect the scope to have Zeiss grade images.

Romeyo
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mrtoyz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love this site, I'm continually amazed at the amount of knowledge here.

YAOG/Bob,
My understanding of + MOA bases was to allow for more scope adjustment for shooting longer distances. If this is correct why do I see so many people using 20MOA bases on 10/22s? Any of the Falcon variable mag. scopes have more than enough adjustment for 10/22 distances.
I must be missing something

-Toyz
</div></div>

Toyz,

Yes that is what a canted base is usually used for, allowing you to mount optics with a known amount of preset up angled "cant" to allow the optical system to be dialed or zeroed at longer distances without running out of elevation adjustment room. But the use of a canted base on the 10/22 is a special case though because the 10/22's barrel is poorly attached to the receiver and canted bases are often required to get the optical system just to zero at 25 to 50 yards.

I don't know if you are familiar with the Ruger 10/22 design so as briefly as I can: the 10/22 receiver has a short hole depth in the casting to support the barrel tenon. A standard factory style 10/22 uses a slip fit barrel with a short smooth barrel tenon and a machined retaining notch near the barrel's breech end and cut on the underside of the barrel. The barrel notch is used to index the barrel's extractor groove by a complementary shaped "V-block" using two small screws in line with the bore which screw into a protruding mount as part of the 10/22's single action/TD screw pad beneath the barrel at the front of the receiver. The problem is the 10/22's barrel mounting design is flawed causing the barrel to be pulled down out of alignment with the receiver. This problem and the associated issues of the bolt and breech faces not being square are largely caused by gravity, poor mechanical design and a lack of will on the part of Ruger to find an inexpensive means to accurately and mechanically securely join the barrel and receiver while maintaining perfect alignment without the need for an external pressure pad(s) or adjustable parts that need to be hand tuned any time the barreled action is pulled from the stock to regain zero.

This poor design regularly causes problems if you want to shoot much past 25-50 yards/meters depending on how far out of proper alignment the barrel is with the axis of the receiver and bolt. The usual way this issue manifests itself is that the scope used on a 10/22 is all out of up elevation by 25 to 100 yards/meters. The usual quick sort of fix is to shim up the barrel by placing a pressure pad in the stock under the barrel, increasing the torque specs used on the action/TD screw to pull the breech end of the barrel down into the stock effectively forcing the barrel's muzzle up and/or using a modified V-block (the V-block is part of the cause of barrel droop due to the offset of the screws and the V-block geometry) to apply upward pressure on the barrel. None of these are great solutions but for some folks when used singly and/or in combination with enough time to adjust, test and tweak repeatedly can be made to work well enough. Of course you could always do what most any serious shooter would do and just screw the barrel into the receiver and be done with it. Of course this will cost a lot more money than trying one or more of the inexpensive fixes available for the 10/22 but screwing a barrel into the receiver fixes the barrel droop problem 100% of the time without any guess work, no more guessing or post fix installation tweaking and tuning required to get it shooting right.

There are many folks shooting 10/22's at ranges well beyond the traditional target range of the .22LR cartridge of 25 to 50 yards/meters. Depending on what sites you visit you will find some folks shooting at the more traditional .22LR ranges 25 to 50 yards/meters and some folks who are interested in pushing themselves and their weapons to shoot at the limit and beyond of the .22LR cartridge. Most folks think you can't reliably shoot past 25, 50 or maybe 100 yards/meters with a .22LR and laugh at the idea that a 10/22 can reliably place a shot at 300 yards. Well they are sort of correct if you are talking about the stock Ruger 10/22 carbine. But with some research to form a 10/22 rifle building plan and bags of cash (so what else is new?) deposited with a 10/22 specialist gunsmith like CPC or Clark's even a Wally World 10/22 carbine can reliably shoot out to 300 yards and beyond with good air.

HTH!
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Great info thanks!

That kinda throws a wrench in my 10/22 plans. I've been planning on mounting a Falcon 4-14 on a Volquartsen base (.48" high, 0 MOA) in Seekins low rings (.82"high). Have not picked the stock or barrel yet. I would like to test the gun out as far as I can, but am now worried that adding a 20MOA base may take away adjustment down to 25 yards.

Bare with my possibly flawed logic. If there is 75 MOA of elevation adj. in the Falcon 4-14 and there is 3.438 mil's in 1 MOA. I can divide 75 by 3.438 and I get 21.81 mil clicks of adj. By adding a 20 MOA base that would give me 41.81 clicks of adj. Assuming my logic is correct here. How would that effect close range adj?

-Toyz
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mrtoyz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great info thanks!

That kinda throws a wrench in my 10/22 plans. I've been planning on mounting a Falcon 4-14 on a Volquartsen base (.48" high, 0 MOA) in Seekins low rings (.82"high). Have not picked the stock or barrel yet. I would like to test the gun out as far as I can, but am now worried that adding a 20MOA base may take away adjustment down to 25 yards.

Bare with my possibly flawed logic. If there is 75 MOA of elevation adj. in the Falcon 4-14 and there is 3.438 mil's in 1 MOA. I can divide 75 by 3.438 and I get 21.81 mil clicks of adj. By adding a 20 MOA base that would give me 41.81 clicks of adj. Assuming my logic is correct here. How would that effect close range adj?

-Toyz</div></div>

The base doesn't increase the travel range of the scope -- it changes where in the travel range your zero falls...

For example:

Lets say you have 80 MOA of vertical adjustment travel. Just for the sake of example, lets say that without a canted base, your zero falls right in the middle of the travel range. In that case, there will be 40 MOA of adjustment "up", and 40 MOA of adjustment "down" from your zero. The "down" travel really doesn't interest us, as generally we never dial "down" from our zero. So basically we are "wasting" 40 MOA of scope travel in the "down" direction that we will never use, which leaves us only 40MOA of travel to adjust "up" for long shots.

If we throw in a 20MOA base, the new zero for the above example would be with 20 MOA of adjustment available "down", and 60 MOA of adjustment available up. There is still 80MOA total adjustment range available, its just that now we have 20MOA more usable in the "up" direction, because we are wasting 20MOA less travel in the "down" direction.

Hope that helps...

-Matt
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

To expand a little bit further -- what YAOG is saying above is that the 10/22 is designed such that the way the barrel/optics mount line up, you are likely to have much less than half of your scope's travel range available above your zero...

So for my above hypothetical example, at your zero, it might be something more like 30MOA available "up" travel and 50 available "down" without a canted base on the 10/22 --- so you need the canted base to make even half of your scope's vertical travel range "usable" in the up direction. (Note, these are again hypothetical example numbers, I have no idea where the zero might fall for a 10/22 at any particular range).

-Matt

 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Thanks Matt,
So with the Falcon (75moa adj) and a 20 MOA mount I would have roughly 57.50 adj up and 17.50 adj down.
How low would this allow me to zero?

Toyz
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Toyz,

That depends on your exact scope height above center line of the bore, the exact relative angle between the receiver and the bore line before the scope base, etc -- but I really think, especially given what YAOG was talking about, that 25 yards shouldn't be a problem.

-Matt
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

A) What is the length of the scope from the end of the rear ocular to the turret housing (rings bump against)?

B) What is the length of the turret housing?


C) Turret housing to the end of the front objective?

D) A+B+C = total overall length

Thanks!
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

It's not that mils are metric, just that they follow the powers of ten.

So at 1000 yards you get 1 yard.
At 800 yards, you get .8 yards.

The 1/10 mil clicks make that .1 yard and .08 yards, respectively. Nobody really knows what .08 yards is, so it's not a lot of help. Now if you switch to the metric system, also based off the powers of ten:

At 1000 meters you get 1 meter (.1m per click).
At 800 meters you get .8 meters (.08m, or 8 cm per click).
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

My initial/quick impressions of the new production version of the 5-25x50 FFP are as follows...

Unlike the pre-production, it is a single tube/objective.

The "clicks" on these models are better than than the 4-14's

The glass displays good resolution - I can easily view a pine needle at 350 yards on full power.

At full power the mention of milkiness <span style="text-decoration: underline">only</span> occurs if you move your eye out of alignment of the exit pupil. ie. your head isnt aligned correctly with scope.

In summary these scopes are an improvement over the pre-production models I tested. Falcon has another winner.
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

Like Lindy said, mil scopes are not metric they are milradian, and for that matter 1 MOA @ 100yds is NOT 1" it is 1.047" and .25 MOA is really .26175" @100yds but who is counting?
 
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">uh is this going to be available in moa/moa? </div></div>not yet, the dealer stated earlier they have an moa/moa version in the works.

quoted from page 1 of this very thread:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ltfirehunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are all the 5X25's going to mil./mil. adjustments?

I am used to .25 MOA adj.

</div></div>

<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>



does anyone prefer the stadia line reticule to the mil dot?
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

From what Ive gathered the mil/mil adjustments are jus simpler. no matter what range your shooting you you simply adjust your POI to coincide with what the scope is telling you. You shoot and determine POI is approximately 2.2 mils low and 1.2 mils left. So you adjust accordingly and boom your on target with no math.
 
Re: Falcon Optics 5.5-25x56 Menace Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jpmuscle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From what Ive gathered the mil/mil adjustments are jus simpler. no matter what range your shooting you you simply adjust your POI to coincide with what the scope is telling you. You shoot and determine POI is approximately 2.2 mils low and 1.2 mils left. So you adjust accordingly and boom your on target with no math. </div></div>
You can do the same with any scope that has reticle and adjustments of the same angular measurement system; IPHY/IPHY, MOA/MOA, or Mil/Mil.