SimpleMachinesForum     April 24, 2019, 11:37:11 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register today with Malta Shooting Sports Forum!
« ForumGeneral Interest ForumsOptics, Sighting Systemsbeating up the Falcon menace »


Random Pics

 (Read 4147 times) [1]

  beating up the Falcon menace
« on: October 04, 2008, 15:23:06 PM » by bergerbullets
A while ago i had also purchased the 4.5-18x56 SFP with Milrad Clicks 0.1increments with MP20. it was probably some of the best money ive spent. i reviewed it a while ago over here however i found one here in switzerland mounted on a 300win Mag and it was riding that bore very well, held well and owner was also pleased. looking at the archives i had a review saved of some rough times that the menace went through while being tested by various users.

this one is from snipers hide but since i couldnt find the link so im pasting it myself here. When i compare it to my leupold mk4 it also compares well altough i still think the leupold might have an edge in glass however the most important thing to many will be how well those turrets will stand to constant use, turning them left and right for years to come.  well have a look
A while back I did a review for the 4.5-18x56. I was impressed but noted a few changes that needed to be made. I recently was able to acquire a 4-14x44 FFP model to evaluate. My summary is that the 4-14x44 is a better optic in terms of costruction and reticule design. But this isn't a comparison between the 4.5-18x56 and the 4-14x44. It is instead a comparison between the 4-14x44 and my Leupold 3.5-10x40mm M3.
So first I started with a box test. The test was done at 100 yards, and again later at 200 yards to make sure the tracking was good to go, and they both passed. I confirmed the Mil spacing on each optic using a 36" scale at 100 yards, they both read correctly. So from there I tested optical resolution at 25 yards using this chart:
Here is what I noted:

Falcon 4-14x44mm @ 4x = 8
Leupold 3.5-10x40 @ 4x = 9

Falcon 4-14x44mm @ 10x = 11
Leupold 3.5-10x40 @ 10x = 12

Optically they are quite similar in resolution. Next I conducted athe same test in low light conditions:

18:15 CDT (40 minutes past sunset)
Sunset: 17:36 CDT
Civil Twilight: 18:06
Conditions: Clear 79.0 F
Range: 25 yards

Falcon 4-14x44mm @ 10x = 7 and 3 triangle
Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40mm LR/T @ 10x = 7 and 4 triangle

I froze the scopes at 0F for two days and took them out in 100F heat to warm them back up
Both had frost form on the outside of the lenses, they performed like nothing had happened once the frost melted. I also left them in my truck all day reaching 152F, no problems but don't forget the oven mitt when retreiving them like I did . WOW they're hot.

Next I submerged them in the tub for 5 minutes at 68F.
Both passed. Overall, I really like the new 4-14x44 far more than the older 4.5-18x56. The reticule is improved over the skeletonized SLR of the previous Menace. Adjustments are still a bit mushy but repeatable and audible/tactile. Improvements? Still like to see an illuminated reticule and them adopt a solid reticule for their MP16 Miliridian models. But so far this $380 scope has challenged my $1000+ Leupold quite well.

« Last Edit: October 20, 2008, 23:36:01 PM by bergerbullets »

range it, dial it, squeeze the round off.
Certified Precision Rifle Handloader, Basic & Advanced- Russell Simmonds Reloading School - UK

  Re: beating up the Falcon menace
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2008, 16:00:43 PM » by RB
Sometimes I too wonder as to the real-world benefits of a scope whose price tag is right up there. Sure the top end glass may be "better" but how much better is "better". I believe in the law of diminishing returns, whereby past a certain point, making small improvements requires a totally disproportionate effort / cost, and the benefits are slight. I.e. something that is only 10% better, costs 200% more, and for the next 5% improvement, the cost is 500% higher - yet we are only 15% better overall than the starting point.

Furthermore, the "betterness" may not even be required - I mean, it's hard to say that having a titanium scope tube is not "better" than having an aluminium one, but ordinarily, is the benefit worth the extra cost?


The Bright Side: "Sir! We're surrounded!" - "Excellent! We can shoot in any direction!"

  Re: beating up the Falcon menace
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2008, 17:52:57 PM » by bergerbullets
hi ron, good to see your take on this one. The thing that worries me with most scopes is the internal adjustment, they tend to wear out especially for those that dial in all the time and the reticle rarely really matches the clicks on the scope.

  The highend ones will usually take the beating better, not loose zero and you can depend on them. For a custom built rifle i have in mind i will probably mount a Nightforce scope with MIL turrets and reticle, zero stop and First focal plain in 5-25x56. If you think about the price that a hunting trip might cost you, then you slip and fall and your scope is damaged, you might be lost for the rest of the hunt. i guess it really depends on where you intend to go with your kit but if i had to go for a hunt here in the alps with -20 temperature and slipy surfaces, i do want something that can take a beating better.again the only real way to know is tests such as the one above.

range it, dial it, squeeze the round off.
Certified Precision Rifle Handloader, Basic & Advanced- Russell Simmonds Reloading School - UK

 (Read 4147 times) [1]
Jump to:  

Members List

(Choose color)


Welcome to Malta Shooting!

Register today with Malta Shooting and join in the active discussions about your favourite sport and hobby!




29986 Posts
4701 Topics
630 Members
Latest Member: Cicco

Powered by PHP
Powered by MySQL
Valid XHTML 1.0!
Valid CSS!

Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2005, Simple Machines
Simplicity design by Bloc