Anyone here with experiences with Falcon Menance scopes?
I'm specially interested in the 4,5-18x56, with 20MOA and metric clicks, and the 35x56 target dot.

Look at the reviews over on Sniper Central They were quite impressed with them.

Good luck finding one for sale right now. If you can find one, let us know where!

LWD

I believe Robert has a few of the 4-14 FFP scopes left, which are highly sought after at the moment. And if durability is a concern, I'd recommend them over the 4.5-18. http://www.rwsnydergunsmithing.com/secure-rwsnydergunsm...iew.asp?idproduct=45

I'm quite happy with mine so far. Actually that's understating it--I'm just giddy about getting a scope this good for that price. Here are some pics:

nice looking scope, but i can't quite make out the girl in the window

http://www.opticswarehouse.co.uk

Then one is comming my way!

When I receive it, I will compare it to my Bushnell 4200 Tactical, 6-24x50.

Those are obviously pictures on the internet, but that's some pretty decent looking glass.

How do you like the 1cm clicks? I've never used anything but 1/4".

LWD

quote:

Originally posted by LWD:
Those are obviously pictures on the internet, but that's some pretty decent looking glass.

How do you like the 1cm clicks? I've never used anything but 1/4".

LWD

Mil dot reticles and MOA clicks is the biggest crap in this world today!!!

I think mixing both the metric and the inch world is stupid. You'll have to have to be a mathemathic genius to convert the values in a hurry. I think it would be better to create a MOA-dot reticle IF have to use MOA clicks, and a mil-dot reticle to use metric clicks. NOT a mix!

This will reveal my lack of understanding, but how does the 1cm clicks work with the mil dot reticle? It sounds like there's an advantage, but what is it? Do I actually want 1cm clicks on a mil dot scope? Remember, I'm a stupid American who doesn't speak metric.

Thanks,

LWD

Mil dot is a metric reticle. One mil is 10cm on 100m (10 clicks). 500m/50cm and 1000m/100cm(1 meters).
I dont think either inch or cm is best, and that is a matter of what you are used to. What I mean is that it would be better to make a retickle that has maybe one or ten MOA between dots @ 100 yards, and do that with MOA clicks on the turrets. I think mixing these two units together is bad.
I have a couple of mil-dot scopes, with MOA clicks, and I think that sucks. I have a lot of scopes though, with MOA adjustments and thay are ok. But they dont have mil-dot.
I did not mean to offend anybody, believe me.

You certainly did not offend me. I can be a littel emphatic myself.

This makes total sense now. The lightbulb is coming on. I see the connection. My handicap will be trying to think in a different measurement system. Meters are just close enough to yards to be a problem!

LWD

quote:

Originally posted by LWD:
Those are obviously pictures on the internet, but that's some pretty decent looking glass.

Yes. While it’s certainly no IOR, I’m quite pleased with the glass considering the price. Right now I’d say it’s comparable to Leupold VX-III glass. I’ll do more side by side comparisons in the coming weeks and have better idea. Last weekend I compared it with a Nightforce NSX 5.5-22X56 and it didn’t do too badly. There was a difference for sure, but not as big as I expected.

quote:

How do you like the 1cm clicks?

Perfect. I wouldn’t have it any other way (except, of course, on a scope with an MOA reticle). At roughly 1/3 MOA they fit nicely between ¼ MOA and ½ MOA; it takes fewer clicks to get to a given range, a single turn of the knob gets you to a farther range, etc, and yet they aren’t as coarse as ½ MOA which can begin to get a bit annoying a long range.

quote:

Remember, I'm a stupid American who doesn't speak metric.

Don’t worry, you never have to do a thing in Metric. Mils work just as well with any units: 1 Mil = 1 Yard at 1000 Yards, 1 Foot at 1000 ft, 1 inch at 1000 inches…the only problem with the English system is it doesn’t work well with itself. If yards were divided into 100 inches (or centi-yards?) instead of an oddball number like 36 things would be easier.

Anyway, forget about all that. It’s an angle, just like MOA. Forget about inches and cm and think of them as .1 Mil clicks. When cranking MOA knobs to shoot at various distances, one should forget about inches of drop at this range vs. that and just think in MOA or you’ll over complicate things. Once somebody does that, Mils is just as easy or even easier.

The way they work with a Mil reticle is so simple, it’s almost as if they were made to go together. 10 clicks = 1 dot on the reticle. So simple.

You take a shot, see you’re off by .5 Mils, simply dial 5 clicks if you don’t want to hold. Judge the wind to say you’ll have 1.2 Mils of drift? Hold 1.2 on the reticle or dial 1.2 Mils on the turret. Know your holdover for a certain range is 2 Mils? Dial two Mils or put the second dot on the target. Really, after a bit of time with one MOA knobs just seem dumb with a mildot reticle.

So you simply do everything in Mils. Most ballistic software will give you everything you want in Mils if you select it instead of MOA. This actually makes for a nice svelte dropcharts as everything is pretty much two simple digits (3.7 Mils instead of 12.75 or 12 3/4 or 12+3 MOA for example) until you get to crazy ranges:



In short, forget they say "cm" on the turret just as you forget most turrets are .261 inches.... It's an angle. Think in angles and it's very easy to pick up.

A good statement!! John A.

You actually change my view.

This is really beginning to make some sense to me. Thank you all for the insights.

LWD

No problem.

BUT!!, with this scopes you'll get what you like the most.
I'm waiting for mine.

I hope you like it! Another guy did a review of the 4-14 HERE you might like to read.