56mm objective..Less Eye Strain?

[BigDave]

Millet is a 35mm tube but not FFP. There is definite leaning to 34mm in high end FFP optics. Thats way out of my price range for now.

I got the Falcon late today finally. Yeah, i wish it was 34mm tube. I wish I had a 56mm version for a side by side. My 50mm: seems it has a fussy cheek weld. It tunnels pretty easily. Oh, well. I wont know for sure until my rings come in Monday and I mount it. Low rings should work fine. The 64mm diameter (with scope cap) objective clears my barrel with plenty of room with just the scope body (no rings) sitting on my rail. I ordered Weaver 30mm six screw low rings for Picatinny rail. I almost orderd their "tactical rings" by mistake.

100% of the guys that ordered the Weaver Tactical rings on Amazon have not a clue they are for a Weaver Rail System and will have slop on any Picatinny rail. You think one out of the 75 people had a clue. I do blame Amazon a bit for not making this clear. There is NO mention of this anywhere. I had to check on the Weaver website to find that out. Not to say you cant use weaver rings on a Mil STD rail, but I wouldn't want to...

I got a Triad Stock pack, large size, modular, that will afford me a perfect, comfortable check weld since it is very adjustable with multiple thin strips of material. This stock pack the only top tier item I own. It is the best of its kind IMO. Zero regrets or dissapointments! Will review separately. Sweet,super soft cheek felt. Mmmmm...Soooffftt....
Ayway, the stock pack will help keep tunneling to a minimum.


I will do an initial unboxing review of the Falcon with a photo or two when I get a chance.

Preview: Both the turrets read 'Zero" but are 2 mils out of mechanical zero for elevation and 1 mil out of mechanical zero for windage. Will any high end scopes ever show up like this? I was not impressed or very happy about that. There are NO units on the parallex knob. Just "infinity and and arrow indicating less than infinity. Not impressed. But I have heard of even decent scopes not matching up as far as "units vs sharp focused image". Is this true?

The cheap included scope caps seem fine. No need for Butler Creek just yet. The included sun shade is pretty short, but the scope objective lens is recesses a bit in the main body. So, even with the short sun shade it's OK. I think.
The anodizing is fine. The inner turrets need to have the silicone grease removed and replaced with a better (thinner or thicker? IDK) quality grease applied. I have heard that silicone spray helps with the "mushiness" of the turrets. Clicks are audible, tactile and positive. I could focus the ocular diopter OK for my poor eyes. Got a sharp image of the reticle.
I have no report yet on any image quality or anything else. It got dark by the time I got home.

[Jamie]

I got the Falcon late today finally. Yeah, i wish it was 34mm tube. I wish I had a 56mm version for a side by side. My 50mm: seems it has a fussy cheek weld. It tunnels pretty easily......

Dave,
On high or low end scopes the 34 mm tube does three things;

1) Allow the tube walls to be thicker for durability
2) Allow for more mechanical adjustment.
3) Always helps with marketing

Depending on the price the order of importance will change. Stop worrying about scope tube diameter so much. If it has crappy lens then eye box will never matter at higher magnification because everything will be blurry, cloudy and dim. If it has the adjustment needed and clear, crisp optics, you won't care if it is 1", 30mm, 34mm or what ever. Yes, I have scopes in all 3 sizes on 40x my 34mm is almost like trying to look through a spotting scope (reality is, it almost is a spotting scope). On 25x it is the Same as my VX-3 Varmint series 8.5-25, both very bright and very clear, but still not as bright and clear as two of my 1" tube scopes.

[yobuck]

Quote from my last post:
"I intend on eventually taking a few long range precision/tactical classes. I see that some classes INSIST that you have a FFP Mil/Mil scope for hold offs and ranging practice"

So, i suppose I should elaborate, then:

Yes. I dont mind SFP at all. They are cheaper and lighter. But using the mil reticle for ranging/hold overs and more is integral to most if not all of the courses I have looked at taking. I learn more in couple days from top notch instructors than I do reading about it or fumbling at the range. I do as much self teaching as possible. Go out and shoot a ton of ammo, get familiar with my gear, then take a good course for what ever. I have done a few tactical pistol and one intensive Tactical Carbine (AR 15). I go every other Thursday night and do drills (run and gun under two instructors. I have been shooting for decades and still am open to learning.
I go out and apply what I learned and then eventually find an advanced course.

What I am saying is that a FFP mil/mil scope is necessary for me taking most long range classes. If the classes dont demand having one, they highly discourage SFP scopes. I dont mind a FFP. They ARE heavier and cost more $$. That is usually the case. Oh, well...

I think your wrong regarding ffp being a requirment for (most) long range classes.
Possibly the ones youve checked do but i know others do not. Fact is some instructors dont like ffp.
Why dont you check into the (Long Range Only) site and check this out.
Be prepared to not like some answers your apt to get.

[BigDave]

I think your wrong regarding ffp being a requirment for (most) long range classes.
Possibly the ones youve checked do but i know others do not. Fact is some instructors dont like ffp.
Why dont you check into the (Long Range Only) site and check this out.
Be prepared to not like some answers your apt to get.



I think your wrong regarding ffp being a requirment for (most) long range classes.
Possibly the ones youve checked do but i know others do not. Fact is some instructors dont like ffp.
Why dont you check into the (Long Range Only) site and check this out.
Be prepared to not like some answers your apt to get.

You are correct. I was wrong. I mispoke. I exaggerated. Sorry. I saw TWO Tactical courses that mandate a FFP scope. I saw many that suggested one. Some had nothing to say except the differences of FFP vs SFP would be discussed.

Not like what I read? Doubtful. I have been reading and studying FFP vs SFP scopes for 12 months now. FFP has some definite drawbacks but it is the best for my personal needs.

It is the best for the needs of 10's of thousands of people evidently as well. Just as is the SFP scope the best for the rest of the world. I am quite aware of the pros and cons of both. I will not bore you with such a long list. In the end it is personal preference. I would NEVER say a FFP scope is better for your needs. I am 100% certain that is not true.


I am ONLY interested in hiking and humping my gear out in the field and training for tactical shooting. Not bench rest shooting or hunting or paper punching competions where a super fine reticle is advantageous.

By definition, a tactical shooter must learn to range unknown targets using only his scope reticle and a mil dot master or calculator or long hand or even in his head.

Not every operator has a high end range finder ($1k++). Possibly the light is too bright or the target is not reflective and the operator must fall back on ranging with his reticle. Yes, you can range with a mil dot SFP scope but only on one or two power settings. SFP scopes usually do not offer the variety of ranging reticles that I prefer since ranging is not a primary use of a SFP scope.

I pay a price, weight, and complexity price for my FFP scope. I am very aware of that.

Unless one has a top tier scope it is quite possible that the cross hairs of a FFP scope are not as fine as a SFP at full power. This is a very good reason for Bench rest shooters to not even think about using a FFP scope if always shooting at known distances. But FFP scopes like the Schmidt and bender do have very fine reticles. There are exceptions. For bench rest shooting and scored paper target shooting I can see instructors wanting their students to have SFP scopes.

Hunting can go either way. FFP scopes have been quite popular in Europe with hunters for a long time now. Here in the USA its mostly SFP scopes for hunters, but FFP is catching on.

Professional Tactical shooters almost exclusively use Mil/Mil scopes in the FFP or fixed power scopes which are essentially FFP.
Tactical courses and schools spend a good amount of time teaching students to use their FFP reticles to range unknown distances. I have a Mil dot master in the pouch of my stock pack it goes with the rifle everywhere.

There are exceptions. Some of the Military use high magnificatrion Nightforce scopes that are SFP. But Nightforce is bowing to pressure and coming out with some awesome FFP scopes ie The Beast

Note that in real world situations in combat there may not be time to range and the operator has to "SWAG" it. Scientific Wild Ass Guess. LOL

Here are some instances of needing a good Mil reticle scope for ranging. FFP gives the operator more options and works well for wind holds in any power. The courses offered do not hire insurgents to go running across an alley way, but they do have moving targets that you need to do a mildot lead on. I find this fascintaing. I want to be able to do this in a course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeqoVE5HHwU go to 38:28

I remember seeing a TV program of an interview with a US sniper in Iraq. He had a .50 cal but no range finder "worth using" he said in an interview. He said that he had to use his mil reticle to range (distant) targets of unknown distances.
The details would just take too long to write. Go to the link and go to 4:10 out of 1:27:52. I find this instance facinating beyond belief.

Humor me and watch the 3 minute portion of this 1.5 hour documentry. SO intersting..to me anyway. I do not expect you to have the same interst as I do, or else you too would likely have a FFP scope. I just want to show you that my interests differ from yours. They are not better or worse. Just differnt. As a result I am willing to give up some things to purchse and use a FFP scope....as are many others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBc3AODHM14

The same thing can be done at shorter distances like 800 yards with my FFP scope and .308. I just dont want to be chained to max or 50% power as in a SSP scope. I may want my power at 18x out of my 24x available power due to mirage.

regardless of your proclivity and intersts, you should find this video quite interesting
Part 84 - How to use Mil-Dots for Ranging Targets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-WNofGasFo

[foxx]

Real men don't even need scopes. FFP or SFP.

So, "Man-up", both of you. Right NOW!

LOL

[D.ID]

Just FYI:
I do not know what amazon sells but weaver actually makes two different "tactical" rings. One for weaver rails and one that is a true picitiny.

[yobuck]

Admittedly Big Dave my only interest is hunting or shooting at rocks. For that purpose any good scope will work.
For ranging, a rangfinder is the best and most accurate option for me and most others.
As for videos it would be rare that id watch any of them. My feeling of them is sooner or later they get it right
and thats the version we see.

[D.ID]

"For ranging, a rangfinder is the best and most accurate option for me and most others."
Count me among them.
.
By definition a "professional" will use the fastest safest most accurate means available (rangefinder when possible) AND have a less effective, slower, less definite backup plan like a reticle if need be.
A sfp with a reticle used properly at a specific magnification can fill that backup plan just as well.
Any "professional" would know that.

[BigDave]

Just FYI:
I do not know what amazon sells but weaver actually makes two different "tactical" rings. One for weaver rails and one that is a true picitiny.

I love my Weaver Picatinny Six Hole LOW rings part # #99692 (note...the word "Tactical never appears for rings that fit MIL STD Picatinny rails. Here in lies a ton of confusion. it gets complicated.

Weaver does not use the word "Tactical" to describe the rings it makes for modern US Government MIL STD Picatinny rails. Go figure. Weaver simply calls them "Picatinny Rings"

They LOOK outwardly the same as their TACTICAL STYLE RINGS which are made for and will fit the old fashioned (year 1930) , discontinued Weaver Rail System.

Weaver Scope company exact name of my rings is "Weaver Six Hole Picatinny Rings 30mm Low" #99692

Weaver calls the rings for the old fashioned (year 1930) Weaver Rail System..."Tactical-Style".

Confused yet? So are 99.9% of the buyers of Weaver rings.

If you do not visit the Weaver Scope company's website you will never know the difference. Amazon does NOT tell its buyers that the Weaver "Tactical" rings are not tactical at all! In fact, they are designed to fit an out of date no longer used Weaver Rail System!! Stupid? Yes! Heinous IMO.
Caveat Emptor.

I almost got caught up in this. I was able to cancel my order in time after I went on Weaver's website and found out I had ordered ill fiting rings. I finally found the correct Picatinny rings made by Weaver only after I used the correct part number as part of my search (99692)


The Amazon title for the correct LOW Picatinny rings is a mistake. You can not find these rings on Amazon with out using the Weaver part number.

Amazon calls them "Weaver 6-Hole 30mm 'Short' Picatinny Rings" They do not show up in any search unless you know the Weaver part #.

99.9% of the buys purchase the WRONG rings for their Picatinny rail systems.
They buy the rings below..

The Weaver exact name is: Weaver 30mm Six Hole Tactical-STYLE Low Rings (Matte Black) part #48355
The Amazon exact name is: Weaver 30mm Six Hole Tactical Low Rings (Matte Black) part#48355

Any Weaver ring (six hole or four hole) with the word "Tactical" or Tactical Style" in the description is NOT for tactical rails. They are for old fashioned Weaver Rail System developed in 1930. They have a .188" cross bolt width. The MIL-STD-1913 rail (Picatinny Rail) scope rings have a cross bolt diameter of .206.

You can fit Weaver rail system rings on a Picatinny rail, but it will be a poor, loose fit. You must push forward hard on the rings and SQUARE them on the lugs of your Picatinny rail when tightening them.

You can NOT fit MIL STD Picatinny rings on a Weaver Rail System. They simply will not fit.

Please make sure you have the correct rings for your scope base. When in doubt, go to the manufacturer website. MANY vendors neglect to tell you Weaver rail system vs Picatinny rail system.
It is up to you as the buyer to find out.

Mostly this problem is with the Weaver Scope company. Maybe they have a huge inventory of Weaver rail system rings that need to pawn off to unsuspecting buyers.

99% of the buyers on Amazon had no idea they were buying ill fitting rings (the wrong rings) for their Mil STD Picatinny rail system. They ALL bought the "Tactical" rings for their Picatinny rails. I did too..but I found out my mistake and was able to cancel.

Like I said, the proper Picatinny six hole 30mm low rings are buried on Amazon due to being mis titled. I did find them. Notice the correct( this assumes you do have a Picatiny rail and not a Weaver Rail SYSTEM) MIL STD picatinny rings have a mere 3 reviews vs 100reviews for the wrong but easy to find "Tactical-Style rings.

Owners who DO have an old fashioned Weaver Rail System tend to be much, much better informed since it it critical that they NOT buy rings made for Picatinny rails. They will not fit at all!

BTW, I have TONS of room under my 50mm lens (64.2mm O.D. with scope covers) objective bell using Weaver LOW rings. In fact my scope clears the barrel of my Savage 10 FCP-SR with NO RINGS...just sitting on the rail! These LOW (they are lower than most LOW rings) will fit a 56mm bell NO PROBLEM. IDK why guys get anything else for rails like 10 series that are so elevated to begin with. it is possible that a 20moa rail might make a 56mm objective pretty close to my barrel. Bull barrels and 56mm scopes likely need medium rings.

[BigDave]

"For ranging, a rangfinder is the best and most accurate option for me and most others."
Count me among them.
.
By definition a "professional" will use the fastest safest most accurate means available (rangefinder when possible) AND have a less effective, slower, less definite backup plan like a reticle if need be.
A sfp with a reticle used properly at a specific magnification can fill that backup plan just as well.
Any "professional" would know that.

I hear you, but..
1) Not everyone can afford a range finder that will work well on a sunny day out to and past 1000 yards. They are very pricey.

2) Even the military operators say in interviews that they can not rely on the MIL SPEC range finders they are issued.
They break, batteries run out, haze/dust defeats them etc. As a result they go back to fundamentals...ranging with their mil reticle. This is something I think everyone should know and practice before plunking $$$$ down for that 1600 yard laser range finder.

I love my toys as well as the next guy. But mil ranging is one of the very, very BASIC fundamentals of tactical and field work. The speed at which this is done is much faster than you realize. I see in courses where both things are taught. Take a laze and back it up with a ranging from your mil dot reticle.

I am ALL for using every modern electronic device, but I want to know, and know WELL, what to do when they fail or simply are not working properly given the circumstances.

Most modern Military snipers admit to using electronic ballistic calculators for the really hard shots. But you can be assured, they can work out a firing solution long hand with a protractor (for angle) and set of tables if need be. A well prepared person has all the manual back ups in his kit...like a real thermometer, compass, barometer...it gets crazy, I admit. But it keeps you honest.

I like the challenge of knowing how to do things the old fashioned way, but not get mired in it. I just cant afford the laser rangefinder I have on my wish list right now. But I CAN afford $26 for a Mil Dot master card and did spend the extra $$ for a FFP scope.

Its not an argument or who is right or wrong. It is how hard you want to "work" at a hobby that is supposed to be relaxing. I find the challenge enriching, personally. That's me. If I did this for a living, I would HAVE to know all this extra stuff. I just choose to know. Dig?

You would be amazed how may HUNTERS use this. They have a "range card" pre made of the prey they are hunting. They take the height in inches, yards or feet or meters, of mm or cm from the biscuit to the top of the head (or what ever). They KNOW that when a TYPICAL Elk (for instance) reads X mils on his FFP scope at any magnification that that animal is X meters or yards away.

You can do this in bright sunlight, snow etc...all the things that can defeat even the best laser rangefinders. Freezing Cold outside? Oops, there go your batteries. You see what I am saying.

I am sure this will not change your mind. It is not meant to. 99.99999% of forum readers have their own way of doing things and i respect that. I just want to point out that their are options and reasons why so many courses teach FFP ranging and TEACH using the MilDot Master slide rule card.

I work on huge 1000'+ foot ships in the US Merchant Marine. We are surrounded by hundreds of pounds of electronics. We have 3 GPS. Some of the crew has GPS on their Casio or Garmin watches. But every day we take an old fashioned Sextant SUN SIGHT and work out long hand (VERY tedious!) our line of position. At night we do moon or star or planet sights and do similar calculations. This is done on every US Merchant Marine ship in the world. Hope you can appreciate the analogy.

[Hotolds442]

56mm objective..Less Eye Strain? (http://www.savageshooters.com/forumdisplay.php?24-Optics)


Back on topic please.

[yobuck]

Theres already a discussion taking place on rangfinders in the hunting lodge section, i'll post a reply there.

[Boudin]

IMHO whatever you gain in light transmission from a huge objective lens is offset by the beating your shooting form takes because of how high you have to mount the scope. Even with built-up cheek rests etcetera, I could never make it work for me personally, so all the optics I'm running are 40 - 44mm. As others have said, the only way to beat eye fatigue is with better glass and coatings.

[BigDave]

IMHO whatever you gain in light transmission from a huge objective lens is offset by the beating your shooting form takes because of how high you have to mount the scope. Even with built-up cheek rests etcetera, I could never make it work for me personally, so all the optics I'm running are 40 - 44mm. As others have said, the only way to beat eye fatigue is with better glass and coatings.

And apparantly a 34mm+ tube. I heard this a lot. I cant afford one just now. I ended up with a Bushnell Tacical Elite 30mm tube 6-24x50mm G2 DMR scope. I returned the Falcon 50mm because of tracking errors. My next scope will be a 50mm objective too, but with a 34mm or 35mm tube.

[LoneWolf]

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/19/tactical-scopes-field-test-results-summary/

Here's some info for you on the most common high end scopes being used by the pros. From the extreme to the mediocre. Good review, tests, and some knowledge on them all.

[Stockrex]

Well what is causing your eye strain?

I would get the BIGGEST obj so you have the biggest exit pupil width and highest light, which is also tied to the clarity at max mag.

[BigDave]

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/19/tactical-scopes-field-test-results-summary/

Here's some info for you on the most common high end scopes being used by the pros. From the extreme to the mediocre. Good review, tests, and some knowledge on them all.

I have had that test bookmarked for a while.
Notice a lot of the scopes in that test are 56mm+ objectives. Notice also how well the Bushnell DMR 3-21 did. It out ranked many more expensive scopes. It is a 50mm objective BUT also a 34mm tube. That is the scope I really wanted.

My Bushy 6-24x50mm is a few steps below the DMR in quallity...30mm instead of a 34mm tube too. Oh, well. I could barely swing the $950 price tag. No way I can spend a penny more right now.

I will report on how my eyes hold up in a "measly" 30mm tube. I will be shooing with it this weekend with any luck. Eye relief is a healthy 4". That might help. I am hoping I will not have buyers remorse and kick myself for not getting the 34mm DMR. I am so far over budget I had to put on the brakes somewhere!

*#@! my eyes. They seem to be getting worse every day....

[LoneWolf]

I have a vortex razor HD the Gen I version and still am looking to upgrade. You'll always wish you would have just went big up front. Never make up the money by reselling and buying twice!

[LongRange]

I have had that test bookmarked for a while.
Notice a lot of the scopes in that test are 56mm+ objectives. Notice also how well the Bushnell DMR 3-21 did. It out ranked many more expensive scopes. It is a 50mm objective BUT also a 34mm tube. That is the scope I really wanted.

My Bushy 6-24x50mm is a few steps below the DMR in quallity...30mm instead of a 34mm tube too. Oh, well. I could barely swing the $950 price tag. No way I can spend a penny more right now.

I will report on how my eyes hold up in a "measly" 30mm tube. I will be shooing with it this weekend with any luck. Eye relief is a healthy 4". That might help. I am hoping I will not have buyers remorse and kick myself for not getting the 34mm DMR. I am so far over budget I had to put on the brakes somewhere!

*#@! my eyes. They seem to be getting worse every day....


You will most likely be sorry....the WORST place to cut cost in a long range riffle build is glass...i bought my NXS because i didnt want to wait another month to save for an ATACR....i REALLY like the NXS but wish ida held out for the ATACR. The only reason i dont sell the NXS and buy another ATACR is because like LW said you never get near what you paid.

[D.ID]

I hope your experience with your bushy is as good as mine have bean.
As I mentioned earlier my eyes strain easily but never behind my 6-24x50 30mm elites.