I really wanted my Falcon Menace 5.5-25 scope in 56mm. The price is the same as the 50mm objective. Weight is only 2.5 more ounces. It must be mounted slightly higher. No problem there.
It was back ordered from the UK) so I decided to get the 50mm which was in stock.
The dealer, SWFA, told me:
1) A 56mm objective would give me no difference at all as far as eye strain. My eyes are old and get tired fast behind a scope.
2) A 56mm is LESS forgiving as far as getting a good picture (ie no scope shadow)
I have read in several places that both statements are wrong and the total opposite is true. SWFA is supposed to know things like this.
So, what is the real truth?
I was really hoping the 56mm would give me a bit of less eye strain vs a 50mm.
I was hoping for an easier to attain sight picture (no shadow) with a 56mm objective.
I dont suppose it matters much. Even if both of the above are false, I still had no idea how many weeks it would take to get the 56mm in stock. But if I am not thrilled with the 50mm, I may sell it and get the 56mm taking a bit of a loss, but getting what I want. Or not?
I could use some help. Thanks
The objective has nothing to do with eye strain the way I understand optics. It is more of a design and lens quality issue. One of the big factors that I recognize as causing eye strain is a small exit pupil. This is usually worse on higher magnification and includes small field of view.
You asked for help and I really did not offer you any so I will give you my opinion. The larger objective is normally considered to increase the amount of light gathered by the lens. This helps when increasing magnification. A small objective with high power can get dark on you if the glass and the coatings are cheap. The larger diameter of the scope tube aides in the ability to have more elevation and windage adjustments.
There is only so much you can do with a small investment and in the power game it begins to have diminishing returns. If you notice that very small movements of your head take you out of the site picture you have a small exit pupil, ramsden circle or eyepoint. I thnk they all mean the same. This will cause your eye to tire because it is like trying to view the world through a 1/4 inch tube. Look for better glass at lower magnification and you will be happy. You really don't need much over 20X unless you are shooting long range. Real long range.
Other than gathering slightly more light the larger objective would serve no purpose. The diameter of the exit pupil divided by the objective size will determine the power.
Not sure if that holds completly true on varieable powered scopes. Eye strain would be more apt to be an issue with binnoculars or even a spotting scope than it would in a rifle scope due to the time factor when using them. Even then with good quality properly adjusted binnoculars eye strain isnt an issue.
I get eye strain with inferior glass quite easily regardless of magnification even a 3-9 can stress me in no time at all.
With good glass it is not an issue even at very high magnification and long durations, hours in some cases.
I expect it's fair to say that everyones eyes react differently but for me magnification is only relevant if I do not have enough for the target at hand.
How much magnification you need depends on your target more than the distance alone. A 16" steel plate or an elk can be engaged a long ways out (1K+) with a 4x scope but the head of a ground squirrel peeking over a dirt berm out at 300 yards requires 20x or more quite often.
If the 50mm doesn't work for you the 56mm likely will not either.
robbinhood hit the nail.... bigger tube will help with i strain...a 30mm tube is hard to get in the eye box comfortably a 34mm tube is much more forgiving at higher powers.
Ahhh! Thank you all for the replies. I am usually good at finding my own answers. For some reason this whole concept escaped me.Originally Posted by LongRange
Unfortunately the very best optics I can currently afford are Japan coated glass of good (not excellent quality) Chinese one piece 30mm tube and internals of good quality and U.K. assembly of good quality. The price point is right. SWFA simply replaces the scope for any warranty issues. Its a little known company here in the USA, but popular in Europe. Falcon.
I could have bought a Millet with a 35mm tube but I hear they still have a lot of QC issues. One scope will be fine and the next will be a paper weight...tracking issues, etc. Supposedly Falcon has better glass and QC. SWFA seemed to agree with my choice and didnt try to sway me one bit. So, we shall see...
I bought this scope and reticle today:
Falcon Menace 5.5-25x50 Tactical 30mm Riflescope
Stock # - FALM2550B
- Matte
- First Focal Plane B20 Reticle
- 30mm
- Side Focus
- 1/10 MIL Target Knobs
- Comes with Sunshade and Flip Up Covers
$449.95 + shipping from TX to FL was expensive..around $16, I think. Ground. I wont see it this week I think. I cant order rings until I measure it up on my rifle. I want it as low as humanly possible.
Even though its a 25 power scope, i figured it would be usable at 20 power and below. It needs to do double duty as a spotting scope for now too. Some day I will sell it and get a Bushnell HDMR G2 reticle scope. This one:
It has a 34mm TUBE :D
Bushnell Elite Tactical G2 FFP Reticle Riflescope, 3.5-21x50mm
by Bushnell
12 customer reviews
| 12 answered questions
List Price: $2,119.95 Price: $1,219.99 & FREE Shipping
http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Tacti...=bushnell+hdmr
Last edited by BigDave; 03-16-2015 at 10:07 PM.
let us know how you like it...and if your going to lay down that kinda money on a scope some day id suggest you spend a few more bucks and get a nightforce or a vortex over a bushnell...just MHO.Ahhh! Thank you all for the replies. I am usually good at finding my own answers. For some reason this whole concept escaped me.
Unfortunately the very best optics I can currently afford are Japan coated glass of good (not excellent quality) Chinese one piece 30mm tube and internals of good quality and U.K. assembly of good quality. The price point is right. SWFA simply replaces the scope for any warranty issues. Its a little known company here in the USA, but popular in Europe. Falcon.
I could have bought a Millet with a 35mm tube but I hear they still have a lot of QC issues. One scope will be fine and the next will be a paper weight...tracking issues, etc. Supposedly Falcon has better glass and QC. SWFA seemed to agree with my choice and didnt try to sway me one bit. So, we shall see...
I bought this scope and reticle today:
Stock # - FALM2550B
- Matte
- First Focal Plane B20 Reticle
- 30mm
- Side Focus
- 1/10 MIL Target Knobs
- Comes with Sunshade and Flip Up Covers
$449.95 + shipping from TX to FL was expensive..around $16, I think. Ground. I wont see it this week I think. I cant order rings until I measure it up on my rifle. I want it as low as humanly possible.
Even though its a 25 power scope, i figured it would be usable at 20 power and below. It needs to do double duty as a spotting scope for now too. Some day I will sell it and get a Bushnell HDMR G2 reticle scope. This one:
It has a 34mm TUBE :D
Bushnell Elite Tactical G2 FFP Reticle Riflescope, 3.5-21x50mm
by Bushnell
12 customer reviews
| 12 answered questions
List Price: $2,119.95 Price: $1,219.99 & FREE Shipping
http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Tacti...=bushnell+hdmr
With current high quality scopes, tube diameter has to do with adjustment ranges and nothing with lens quality or "light gathering". Yobuck is correct, divide objective diameter by magnification and you get exit pupil size. Average eye can dial ate to about 7mm, some people can get 9mm. The closer to 7mm the exit pupil the less strain on your eye. This is true when comparing apples to apples.
A few years back tube diameter came into play because only the top of the line scopes with the best lens and coatings had 30 mm tubes so naturally they seemed brighter and better. Now a days tube diameter is a marketing scheme and can be had with absolutely horrible glass.
To answer the original question, on low power you won't notice it and on high power I think lens/coating quality will limit you more than exit pupil.
Last edited by Jamie; 03-16-2015 at 11:26 PM.
More shooting, less typing.
I didn't read through any of the other replies so this might be repetitive, but ...
Properties will vary from scope to scope as the internals (how they're arranged and spaced apart) will dictate performance more than any exterior feature (tube dia, obj. dia, etc.), so a blanket statement that this or that feature is better for this or that on ALL optics is rarely ever true. This is why some scopes from a given brand/model line are great and others from the same brand/model line aren't.
The only thing a larger objective lens will get you is better light gathering capability in low-light situations and a slightly larger exit pupil. Under "normal" shooting conditions the human eye won't be able to tell any discernible difference between a 50mm and 56mm.
Eye strain is more a factor of lens clarity, resolution and contrast, and assuming both the 50 and 56mm use the same quality of lenses SWFA is correct in stating that one will be no better than the other in that regard.
As far as being less forgiving, the scope shadow you speak of is typically caused by poor eye alignment (to high/low, left or right, or to close/far from the eye piece). Given the 56mm would need to be mounted higher, and as such would affect one's ability to get a proper and consistent cheek weld on a stock with a non-adjustable comb, I would tend to agree with SWFA's claim that it would be less forgiving.
"Life' is tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid." ~ John Wayne
“Under certain circumstances, urgent circumstances, desperate circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.” —Mark Twain
Eye strain is all about resolution. Makes no difference about tube or lense size. All I can say is that you get what you pay for.
"As long as there's lead in the air....there's still hope.."
Bushnell elite over any vortex other than the razors, No contest IMHO.
Have both. Won't sell the bushys but am not emotionally attached to the vortex because of eye strain.....coincidentally.
i agree on the lower end vortex(and should of been a little clearer) but the OP is talking about dropping $1220 bucks on a scope...if it was me i would spend the extra $800 or so and by a nightforce over ANY of the scopes mentioned and the razor would be my second choice but if i only had the $1200 i would buy the bushy.
LOL. Nothing like a scope discussion to get a lot of posts! People are more passionate about scopes than the rifles or any other accessory. Rightfully so. I know how much I need to eventually spend. I always have known. I am doing what I can for now.
Thanks for all replies from everyone. BTW, your exit pupil shrinks with age and poor vision. Little known fact.
Yes, I will give a full report on the Falcon. There is a FEW reviews kicking around, but they are for the 56mm objective version. I really could not find anything negative (well.. weight and size, but that's par for the course) like you can find for Millet.
Why does Nightforce make so few scopes in FFP? 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. The problem with Nightforce is that to get 20+ power, Mil/Mil AND FFP you are looking at THE BEAST for 3K. I'll settle for a Bushy HDMR or a Razor. If I was younger or if I get lasix I might try to get by with a 15 power. But I really like the 20-25 power option. You can see your bullet holes/steel strikes and misses at some distances.
Last edited by BigDave; 03-17-2015 at 12:31 PM.
LOL, $1200 vs what I can afford now(450) IS my extra $800usd. That's already gone in a future buy. Getting to a Nightforce FFP Mil/mil of at least 20 power brings me only to THE BEAST at 3k. Cant do it.
Have used or looked through a FFP scope? I don't care for them myself.
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...
Last edited by BigDave; 03-17-2015 at 01:55 PM.
I just purchased an older Pentax LightSeeker AO in 30 8-32X 50 for $375. It is clear very clear to above 24X about half the way to the 32x. Little to no eyestrain. Picked it up for my wife's rig. It is a lot of scope for the money. If you have 450 look for one of those. I have seen several nice NF rigs for 900 on one of the forums recently.
Gotcha....what ever scope you choose try to make it a 34mm tube as it will be much easier to get in the eye box at higher powers than a 30mm tube.
Thats a smokin deal.
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.
Last edited by BigDave; 03-20-2015 at 11:53 PM.
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.
More shooting, less typing.
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
Last edited by BigDave; 03-22-2015 at 04:36 PM.
Real men don't even need scopes. FFP or SFP.
So, "Man-up", both of you. Right NOW!
LOL
Members who have read this thread in the last 1 days: 0
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks