new scope : Falcon Menace 5.5-25×50 FFP B20 ret

Forums Optics, Scopes, Rings, & Mounts new scope : Falcon Menace 5.5-25×50 FFP B20 ret

  • Views : 2432
  • Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    Hi guys =)
    I just wanted to know if anyone own this scope and if so… what you can say about it.
    Right now I have an MTC taipan 4-16×50 mounted on an S510 and I’d like to  buy an FFP scope for my next rifle (certainly a wildcat or impact)/
    So..is this Falcon well spent money ?? =) 
    thanks 
    John

    Link

    travels4fun
    Participant
    Member

    John,

    Here is a good review of the scope: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_5/416779_.html&page=1&anc=3933789#i3933789.

    Scott

    Link

    Nathan
    Participant
    Member

    You may want to consider a lighter scope for either of those rifles. The Vortex Diamondback 4-12×40 AO and Sightron Sii Big Sky 4-16×42 both weigh around 16 ounces and would proportion well, especially with the Wildcat.

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    Thanks guys for the answers =)
    And I know the proportions of this scope might not be the best for these rifles but weight is not a point I give too much attention to.
    Still, of I find it too much, I might consider the 4-14×40/50 menace as well, other FFP’s being too expensive considering my budget ^^

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    Menace 4-14×44 FFP *

    Link

    Cookie
    Participant
    Member

    The referenced review doesn’t appear too thorough, lacking accuracy of turret tracking. I have 5 Falcons, all mil/mil, B20’s. I have three of the 4-14 and one of the 5.5-25×50 and 5.5-25×56.

    Some people may be annoyed by this, but FOR THE PRICE I was so impressed by the technical features and how they worked I just ended up buying more so that I could maintain a consistency between airgun reticles in my airgun shooting. I emphasise price because, as with all scopes, there is a balance between price and quality of parts/design. No scope is absolutely “perfect” at all ranges, whatever some reviewers may suggest, with top scope companies always looking to get more from new technologies and chemistry. Even a $4000 Schmidt & Bender 5-25×56 PM II isn’t perfect.

    You can find similar looking scopes, which are also made in China, on Alibaba from Vector Optics. I bought one of the 4-14 Vector, and I know someone who bought a similar looking BSA, but they aren’t the same quality as the Falcon, the body seems different (though that may be immaterial to the internal workings) parts seem different and the lenses don’t appear to be the same. Falcon claim that they test all their scopes once in the UK, including for use on 338 Lapua, that they have their own Japanese lenses….which means internal settings (at least) must also be different.

    The tracking within the turret system of my Falcons work 100% for between (depending upon rnage of adjustment) six to eight mrads (60-80 clicks or about 24 to 32 inches at 100 meters) from centre, at which point most start losing one click (= 1cm at 100 meters). Since scopes, by issue of design, normally become less accurate as the reticle is moved away from centre I am not worried about that degree of error. Such errors are common, as per Precision Rifle Blog’s tests.

    Tactical Scopes: Mechanical Performance Part 1

    Repeated errors can be easily accounted for, assuming I’d ever shoot outside that 100% working zone with an airgun.

    The 25 magnification, like many other high mags, Falcons have a lower range of turret adjustment so if you lack a canted scope rail you’ll probably need vertically adjustable mounts. Sportsmatch mounts are very good quality and solid, also are far cheaper than FX. My models are newer version, turrets have 10 mrads per turn. Don’t have historically reported problem with mushy turret clicks.

    First Focal Plane allows very good range finding/shot correction etc. With the side focussing adjustment, though you should play with it to get your distances pinned down exactly and mark it for focussing/keeping reticle dead still, you have a great system for identifying ranges (with practise, and in good daylight conditions) down to 1 or 2 yards; at up to 70 yards. I don’t have the IR versions.

    I don’t know whether weight (not that it is very different from others) may be a problem on a Wildcat ( I don’t know specs, don’t know you). Some people say that more weighty scopes are of poorer quality, but, they are usually wrong because more complex lenses combinations of higher density do weigh more.

    Variable reviews over the internet, with problems with some of the old brand “Menace” which supposedly wasn’t constructed from a one piece tube. My friends use them on centrefires up to 308 cal, out to 1500 yards. Many solid UK airgun Field Target users use Falcons. I have not used them on a high powered/high recoiling spring air rifle. 

    I found Falcon very happy to answer questions. Other than being an owner and fan of their scopes (for the price), I am not connected with Falcon in any way. 
     
    Some YouTube reviews.


     

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    Thanks a lot bud !!!!! *.*
    Your review is just what I was looking for =)
    And it confirms what I’ve already read about these scopes but this time from a neutral point of view. Thanks a lot for that =)
    Now…. which one would you choose for a wildcat please? =]
    I know they are on the heavy side but…. really, it’s not a big deal for me unless it weights 2 kilos ^^

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    F*** sorry I wrote my reply too early, my phone hadn’t finished charging the page ^^

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    Thanks a lot bud !!!!! *.*Your review is just what I was looking for =)And it confirms what I’ve already read about these scopes but this time from a neutral point of view. Thanks a lot for that =)Now…. which one would you choose for a wildcat please? =]I know they are on the heavy side but…. really, it’s not a big deal for me unless it weights 2 kilos ^^

    Link

    Cookie
    Participant
    Member

    You ask me to guess so much. And, I don’t want to tell you what to do.

    I wouldn’t say the scopes were heavy; they are within the general range of weights.When faced with a light rifle, I tend towards lighter scopes.

    ​Ideally, a scope should be fitted in a gunshop to a specific rifle that itself has been fitted to the shooter. The Wildcat doesn’t look to be a true bullpup, which I think of in terms of a rifle that balances behind the trigger grip, though I suspect there will be no problem in FINE (most don’t notice) balancing a 25x scope. If shooting small creatures at long distances, or was OK paying extra for higher magnification despite not having a material reason (which I did), then I would be happy going for the 25x in B20 reticle. They cost more than the 14x, which in themselves do me to 150 meters on rabbits and pigeons.

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    Thanks again for your advice =)
    And I totally agree with you when you say every single scope should chosen in the gunshop according to the shooter’s expectations and feeling and to the rifle.. sadly, I don’t have the chance to be able to do it ^^
    But considering what you’ve told me and all the other reviews… I might give a chance to the x25 B20 non IR (I’ll build my own NV set up and I’m not using the IR that much on the other scope so…)
    I’m pretty sure it’s gonna be perfect ;)
    Thanks a lot again !!! =D

    Link

    BRS
    Participant
    Member

    Falcon 4-14×44 gets my vote for general hunting use, I feel the larger Falcon is too much mag. and rather too heavy for most airgun use.

    Like Cookie I have several of the 4-14’s (more like 4.5-14 IMO) and I prefer the EMD reticle, like all Falcons they are solidly built and that means they weigh more than many other similar scopes. Falcon do specify their own choice of lenses (as well as turrets etc.). If you’re going to be using higher magnification with an FFP scope be very careful about reticle selection – in effect the reticle ‘grows’ as the mag. increases this can result in very thick ‘strada’ (side bars) with some rets, a Skeleton reticle (open, not blocky) would suit higher mag. use.

    I never use illuminated rets. but do use NV quite a lot (Add-On systems) and can say that FFP is perfect for that use (rangefinding is very, very difficult with nightvision gear). Obviously you cant generally use Ill. Rets. concurrently with most NV as they can either damage the tube or flood the sight picture (digital).

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    You’re right for the reticule choice but why should I chose the EMD over the B20?
    I mean… the B20 seems Really thin and quite easy to use and to get used to with the numbered mil..

    Link

    BRS
    Participant
    Member

    James, I’m more of  hunter than target shooter.

    I have used an earlier version of the Falcon ‘B20’ reticle in its skeleton form and found that type of ret. can get ‘lost’ at lower magnification (in woodland type of scenery / backdrop) – I rarely go above 7x in the field. The Enhanced Mil Dot has the fine lines or extensions between the actual Dots, but the Dots themselves stand-out very clearly at lower mag.

    It all depends on your intended use for the scope ie. if you intend to stay in the 6-12x region most of the time BOTH rets would work well; if you intend to work mostly above 10x then probably the B20 would be better, (assuming fairly long-range work).

    Nick Watts, the owner/designer of Falcon Optics is a bit of a perfectionist and I believe his main interest is Target Shooting (all types / calibres) and he was ‘into’ NV work when I last contacted him. He doesn’t put himself about on Forums but lets the scopes he makes/sells speak for themselves.

    Link

    Cookie
    Participant
    Member

    Having just scanned around mixed woodland of varying colours/contrasts at 20 to 100 meters, with two 4-14×44’s, I would say the lowest useable/practical magnification was 6x with the B20 (in good light two hours after Dawn). I’ve shot into the Dusk with a B20, though do not have a light meter, and found the lower mag settings (reticle marks being reduced in size) generally difficult to see when it is getting “dark” (dark means different things to different people, such as someone in New York City and someone in the woods of Maine) though not black. The lower magnifications would be useless in full moonlight.

    But, most of my shooting is in daylight. The fine lines of the B20, along with the numbers on the even mil markings, are a key feature for me. I can certainly see how the Enhanced Mil Dot (EMD) , with bold mil dot markings, could be better for dusk/night/dark woods. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen that reticle in person.

    ​Ring Falcon and ask their advice.

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    Thanks a lot guys for your wise comments ;)
    As I intend to use the scope at not less than x10 mag and with DIY NV at night as well, I think I might go with the B20 =)
    Still, I’ve just seen another scope: vortex viper PST 4-16×50 FFP mil/mil… I think I should consider this one too…

    Link

    Cookie
    Participant
    Member

    Its your money, so please do think carefully.

    ​One feature of that scope, having just quickly checked, apart from the price, is that according to their website the minimum parallax setting is 50 yards. Not normally ideal for an airgun, unless your needs are very specific and always long distance.

    http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-viper-pst-4-16×50-ffp-riflescope-with-ebr-1-mrad-reticle
     

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    Didn’t take my time to check for the specs… I’m gonna forget this one then ^^ and stay focused on the falcon =)
    Thanks for your great help !!

    Link

    BRS
    Participant
    Member

    The Vortex scope is considered ‘King of the Hill’ among FFP units – that, unfortunately is reflected in its price ! (almost TEN TIMES the cost of the Falcon).

    One other scope you coud look at is the Lightstream FFP (I only know of the 4-14x unit), more expensive than the Falcon, but not in astronomical terms like the Vortex.

    Both the Falcon & Lightstream are excellent scopes which I’m certain you (anybody!) would be happy with…

    here comes that BUT you were expecting…

    But, your NV rig (I assume will be both an ‘Add-On’ & Digital) will be most unlikely to work well at your stated 10x mag with ANY scope – SORRY, but the laws of physics (Jim :-)), mean that insufficient light will pass thro’ the scope to be of use to the NV (on the eyebell or ocular) at above approx 8x. This doesn’t just apply to Add-On NV systems even Dedicated NV Sights (all-in-one units) cant function properly above 9x (they’ll tell you slightly diff. but their lying!), I consider around 6-7x perfect for airgun NV work, higher mags not only greatly reduce available light but also the field of view (which could be a Safety Issue for some people).
    Whatever, remember to factor-in the actual shape of the scope’s ocular / eyebell for your NV rig- I started out with an MTC Viper SCB (on the NV trek) the pronounced ridges on that scopes focusing ring plus the fine Christmas Tree ret. was a PITA.

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    Thanks for the lesson BRS !! =)
    I’ll remember the x7 mag max (luckily, it’s not gonna be a big problem as the scope will be a FFP) and I’ll have a look at the other scope as well =)
    And for the vortex.. I’m not talking about the razor HD like the one Ted uses (which costs $$$$$). It’s the viper and I read it “”only”” costs 800-900$… have I been fooled? ^^

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.