Lately, I have seen a quite a number of threads in here relating to optics choices for rifles. It seems that we move in waves. Not long ago it was ARs and AKs.
Some may know that I've been in the process of looking for the best optic within reason to mount on an LR-308. I thought I’d share some of the things that I’ve learned in this pursuit.
For the better part of this year (and beyond), I’ve been perusing several forums dedicated to optics and precision shooting. I am BY FAR not an expert on either topic. However, I do have the good sense to make an effort to learn from the posts of respected and knowledgeable members of those forums. Hopefully, that will help me make a better choice and possibly save me some costly lessons.
What I’ll write here is somewhat of a blend of findings from the following sources:
AR15.com
TheHighRoad.org
SnipersHide.com
SnipersParadise.com
SniperCentral.com
OpticsTalk.com
Various Manufactures’ Websites
First let me interject a few points.
First, I’ve been shooting for most of my life—30 years of 37 years lived. Most of those years have been using optics. However, we’ve never been a family that splurged on optics or kept up with the trends. Most of my years of centerfire shooting used a Redfield 4X fixed on top of a Remington 700 .30-06. But I can’t tell you how many deer I’ve put down with that combination. I was using that 4X Redfield LONG after everyone here had moved on to 3x9’s.
Second, when we finally DID start getting interested in Variable power optics, we liked them. However, we didn’t splurge here either. We always took the view that you were really paying for a bit more light transmission—and how much difference could that REALLY be??? The rest was for bells and whistles that you could probably live without. After all, I did quite well with a 20 year old Redfield 4X fixed!
It took me quite a bit of time to realize better. Sure, you are paying for better light transmission. And I learned that it really DOES make a big difference where we hunt.
But you are also paying for durability and the ability to retain zero.
I can attest to a number of broken Simmons, Tascos, BSAs, a BEC or two, and one particularly crappy Leapers.
I let my father use the Leapers and I can honestly say that it would not maintain zero from one loaded magazine to the next! A man that has never lost a deer before completely missed one this past deer season—and I attribute it to that optic.
Don’t worry. I plan on re-enacting the Carlos Hathcock shot with it later.
However, this is where I became surprised. I put a Nikon Prostaff 3x9x40mm on my Mother’s Remington 700 .243win. prior to this season. My mother was able to sit a full 10 minutes longer than either my father or I using that optic. She could simply see longer at dusk. He was using that craptastic Leapers, and I was using an 8X PSOP.
That Nikon impressed me and really started me to rethinking a lot of things. It impressed my father to the point that he’s decided to go ahead and put a Nikon Buckmaster 3x9x50mm on his Remington 7400 .30-06.
But I am not writing this to sell everyone on a Nikon. What I am doing is trying to tell of my path to seeking the best balance in what you are paying for.
I was told recently that 90% of the cost of an optic is in trying to get that last 10% of performance. I believe that.
Right now, I am not in a position where I want to spend a great deal of money on optics. That will change soon—and I could probably swing it now if I HAD to, but it would require me to reposition a few priorities that I simply do not wish to do at this time.
Considering this election year, I am operating from the assumption that we could face another AWB. I still have a couple more AR’s to build, a SBR project, and a number of standard capacity magazines to buy. No, I don’t think that they will succeed in an AWB, but I also don’t believe that Zombies will rise this year either. Neither belief means that I shouldn’t be prepared for either—or both.
For now, I have been looking for decent optics that meet my requirements at a reasonable price.
Now, let me say this.
Around here, our primary function is hunting. Light transmission at dusk and dawn are very high priorities. In addition, we live in a freaking forest. There are VERY few places where we will make shots at great distance. I think the average deer shot around here is done at a range of between 75-150 yards. Cake.
However, I DO want the optics to be able to bring out the best in a LR-308. I am currently building a 600 yard private range on our land. I wanted 1,000 yards, but I can’t seem to find a place that I could do that without bulldozing a few things that I’d really rather not demolish (cypress and oak trees).
So, if you are still reading this, God bless you.
As my reading has progressed, my desires for an optic have changed. Originally, I was just considering high quality glass—brightness.
But I have kept piling other things onto the list. Every time I find an optic that starts appealing to me, I find something that causes me to disqualify it. However, I can always find another in that optic’s line that meets that criteria—if I am willing to dump a few hundred more dollars into the optic. Suddenly that $400 optic is costing $1,000 plus.
OK… so this is the list that I have begun working with. Some of it is crucial, some are “wants:”
- Retains Zero
- Brightness/Clarity
- Durability
- Clear to the Edges
- Waterproof/Water Resistance
- Field of View
- Variable Power Range
- Finger Adjustable Turrets
- Ranging Recticle (Mil-Dot)
- Range of Internal Adjustment
- FFP (First Focal Plane) – Would be nice, but eliminates many optics
- Warranty
- Cost
Some of these are more important than others for me, and some I would be willing to compromise on—but it gives an idea of how my process has gone.
Now understand, I am omitting optics that extend beyond certain price ranges. We aren’t talking about Schmitt and Bender, Swavorski, US Optics, or European Zeiss. We really aren’t even talking about Leupold Mk 4, IOR Valada, or some in those ranges. Some of the optics that I looked at may seem that they are outside of the range I am suggesting, but understand that I am looking at both New and Dealer-Sample optics. That has a way of blurring things.
The optics that I primarily looked at were:
Zeiss Conquest (US manufacture)
Leupold VX-III
Nikon Monarch
Kahles Helia
Bushnell 4200 and 6500
Burris XTR
According to most of the reading that I’ve done, it seems to be a consensus that Kahles is the brightest optic in this range—followed closely or equally by Zeiss Conquest.
Kahles seemed geared more towards hunting specifically with no ranging recticles, or other features that could be considered on the “tactical” side. While I really like these optics, I found myself not looking at them as hard as I did earlier. Besides, I never found a deal that made it particularly stand out. And then it was competing with the Zeiss Conquest.
I have REALLY been looking at the Zeiss Conquest. No one complains about the quality of the glass or the quality of the manufacture. It has a lot of things going for it.
However, I learned recently that it suffers from a very limited range of internal adjustment. No problem, right? Just put it on a 20 MOA base if you want longer shots. Well guess what? According to my reading, if you put it on a 20 MOA base, you will get out to 1,000—but you will not have enough downward adjustment to zero at 100 yards if you want that.
Now, I really don’t PLAN on 1,000 yard shots, but I may in the future. And I’d like to know that I could attempt it if I so chose (not that 1,000 is some magic number.)
This made me start second guessing the Zeiss Conquest for use on a 24” LR-308. I think it may sell the rifle short.
Leupold is essentially the standard by which forums typically judge optic brightness on. I should point out that I have repeatedly seen statements that Leupold is not the brightest optic that is out there in its class. Durability, Consistency, and Warranty are what sells Leupold. That and the fact that it is a US company.
However, the Leupold VX-III’s I’ve seen and used have always seems pretty damn good to me in terms of brightness. They’ll work in this swamp I hunt in at dusk and dawn.
So I really pay attention to how an optic measures up against a Leupold VX-III on the forums. Because of my familiarity with the optic and my view that it passes muster for my needs for brightness, it becomes a benchmark for me.
I should point out that the VX-III really hasn’t been a choice for me due to it not having a few features that I’d like to see. But if you want to give me one, I won’t complain.
I mentioned earlier that Nikon really impressed me with its lowest line—the Prostaff. I really can’t see a lot of difference between it’s brightness and that of a Leupold VX-III. Because it doesn’t have the features I was looking for, it really hasn’t been a consideration.
But then there’s the Nikon Monarch line. These are top of the Nikon pyramid (and they then have the Monarch Gold and Monarch X)
However, we are now getting into some dollars. The Nikon Monarch X can run more than a Leupold Mk 4.
I didn’t give a great deal of consideration to either the Bushnell 4200 and 6500. For the 4200, it seems that it didn’t have a lot of the features that I was looking for, and I could probably do better in glass quality. For the 6500, we are getting out of the price range that I wanted to look at.
Neither did I look at the Burris XTR too hard—for the same reasons as the 4200 and 6500.
So wow… I am SOL.
Well, not necessarily.
Lately, I have been taking a serious look at the Falcon Menace series. For those that are not familiar, they are Chinese parts, Japanese Glass, and a British company. They seem to be backed well by the company, and the folks on SniperCentral, Snipersparadise, and Snipershide, seem to rave over them.
Here’s the one I have become interested in:
http://www.falconoptics.com/menace4-14x44FFP.php
What got my attention was this…
The one that I am looking at claims a 94% light transmission. According to Nikon’s own website, the Monarch line—which many say has better glass than Leupold—is claiming 93% light transmission.
And then there is the fact that the 30mm tube of the Falcon Menace has 75 MOA of internal adjustment. That is 5 MOA less than the Monarch (that 5 MOA is a deal breaker.)
Basically, the Falcon Menace 4X14X44mm FFP has all the criteria that I’ve been looking for in a package that is WAY lower than I’d expect to pay. It seems to be well built. The primary criticism that I’ve read (aside from the Asian aspect) is that the knob clicks are felt, but do not have a loud “click” sound. That is actually a plus for me as a hunter.
Someone on this forum mentioned this optic to me a bit ago, and it didn’t register with me. After looking into it, this one is holding my attention at the moment.
At any rate, I thought that some may be able to benefit from this post. This is by far not written from the point of an expert—just a guy trying to sort through a myriad of optics and find something that works.
Any input is appreciated. If anyone has experience with the Falcon Menace, I would love to hear from you.
Thanks!
-- John
Some may know that I've been in the process of looking for the best optic within reason to mount on an LR-308. I thought I’d share some of the things that I’ve learned in this pursuit.
For the better part of this year (and beyond), I’ve been perusing several forums dedicated to optics and precision shooting. I am BY FAR not an expert on either topic. However, I do have the good sense to make an effort to learn from the posts of respected and knowledgeable members of those forums. Hopefully, that will help me make a better choice and possibly save me some costly lessons.
What I’ll write here is somewhat of a blend of findings from the following sources:
AR15.com
TheHighRoad.org
SnipersHide.com
SnipersParadise.com
SniperCentral.com
OpticsTalk.com
Various Manufactures’ Websites
First let me interject a few points.
First, I’ve been shooting for most of my life—30 years of 37 years lived. Most of those years have been using optics. However, we’ve never been a family that splurged on optics or kept up with the trends. Most of my years of centerfire shooting used a Redfield 4X fixed on top of a Remington 700 .30-06. But I can’t tell you how many deer I’ve put down with that combination. I was using that 4X Redfield LONG after everyone here had moved on to 3x9’s.
Second, when we finally DID start getting interested in Variable power optics, we liked them. However, we didn’t splurge here either. We always took the view that you were really paying for a bit more light transmission—and how much difference could that REALLY be??? The rest was for bells and whistles that you could probably live without. After all, I did quite well with a 20 year old Redfield 4X fixed!
It took me quite a bit of time to realize better. Sure, you are paying for better light transmission. And I learned that it really DOES make a big difference where we hunt.
But you are also paying for durability and the ability to retain zero.
I can attest to a number of broken Simmons, Tascos, BSAs, a BEC or two, and one particularly crappy Leapers.
I let my father use the Leapers and I can honestly say that it would not maintain zero from one loaded magazine to the next! A man that has never lost a deer before completely missed one this past deer season—and I attribute it to that optic.
Don’t worry. I plan on re-enacting the Carlos Hathcock shot with it later.
However, this is where I became surprised. I put a Nikon Prostaff 3x9x40mm on my Mother’s Remington 700 .243win. prior to this season. My mother was able to sit a full 10 minutes longer than either my father or I using that optic. She could simply see longer at dusk. He was using that craptastic Leapers, and I was using an 8X PSOP.
That Nikon impressed me and really started me to rethinking a lot of things. It impressed my father to the point that he’s decided to go ahead and put a Nikon Buckmaster 3x9x50mm on his Remington 7400 .30-06.
But I am not writing this to sell everyone on a Nikon. What I am doing is trying to tell of my path to seeking the best balance in what you are paying for.
I was told recently that 90% of the cost of an optic is in trying to get that last 10% of performance. I believe that.
Right now, I am not in a position where I want to spend a great deal of money on optics. That will change soon—and I could probably swing it now if I HAD to, but it would require me to reposition a few priorities that I simply do not wish to do at this time.
Considering this election year, I am operating from the assumption that we could face another AWB. I still have a couple more AR’s to build, a SBR project, and a number of standard capacity magazines to buy. No, I don’t think that they will succeed in an AWB, but I also don’t believe that Zombies will rise this year either. Neither belief means that I shouldn’t be prepared for either—or both.
For now, I have been looking for decent optics that meet my requirements at a reasonable price.
Now, let me say this.
Around here, our primary function is hunting. Light transmission at dusk and dawn are very high priorities. In addition, we live in a freaking forest. There are VERY few places where we will make shots at great distance. I think the average deer shot around here is done at a range of between 75-150 yards. Cake.
However, I DO want the optics to be able to bring out the best in a LR-308. I am currently building a 600 yard private range on our land. I wanted 1,000 yards, but I can’t seem to find a place that I could do that without bulldozing a few things that I’d really rather not demolish (cypress and oak trees).
So, if you are still reading this, God bless you.
As my reading has progressed, my desires for an optic have changed. Originally, I was just considering high quality glass—brightness.
But I have kept piling other things onto the list. Every time I find an optic that starts appealing to me, I find something that causes me to disqualify it. However, I can always find another in that optic’s line that meets that criteria—if I am willing to dump a few hundred more dollars into the optic. Suddenly that $400 optic is costing $1,000 plus.
OK… so this is the list that I have begun working with. Some of it is crucial, some are “wants:”
- Retains Zero
- Brightness/Clarity
- Durability
- Clear to the Edges
- Waterproof/Water Resistance
- Field of View
- Variable Power Range
- Finger Adjustable Turrets
- Ranging Recticle (Mil-Dot)
- Range of Internal Adjustment
- FFP (First Focal Plane) – Would be nice, but eliminates many optics
- Warranty
- Cost
Some of these are more important than others for me, and some I would be willing to compromise on—but it gives an idea of how my process has gone.
Now understand, I am omitting optics that extend beyond certain price ranges. We aren’t talking about Schmitt and Bender, Swavorski, US Optics, or European Zeiss. We really aren’t even talking about Leupold Mk 4, IOR Valada, or some in those ranges. Some of the optics that I looked at may seem that they are outside of the range I am suggesting, but understand that I am looking at both New and Dealer-Sample optics. That has a way of blurring things.
The optics that I primarily looked at were:
Zeiss Conquest (US manufacture)
Leupold VX-III
Nikon Monarch
Kahles Helia
Bushnell 4200 and 6500
Burris XTR
According to most of the reading that I’ve done, it seems to be a consensus that Kahles is the brightest optic in this range—followed closely or equally by Zeiss Conquest.
Kahles seemed geared more towards hunting specifically with no ranging recticles, or other features that could be considered on the “tactical” side. While I really like these optics, I found myself not looking at them as hard as I did earlier. Besides, I never found a deal that made it particularly stand out. And then it was competing with the Zeiss Conquest.
I have REALLY been looking at the Zeiss Conquest. No one complains about the quality of the glass or the quality of the manufacture. It has a lot of things going for it.
However, I learned recently that it suffers from a very limited range of internal adjustment. No problem, right? Just put it on a 20 MOA base if you want longer shots. Well guess what? According to my reading, if you put it on a 20 MOA base, you will get out to 1,000—but you will not have enough downward adjustment to zero at 100 yards if you want that.
Now, I really don’t PLAN on 1,000 yard shots, but I may in the future. And I’d like to know that I could attempt it if I so chose (not that 1,000 is some magic number.)
This made me start second guessing the Zeiss Conquest for use on a 24” LR-308. I think it may sell the rifle short.
Leupold is essentially the standard by which forums typically judge optic brightness on. I should point out that I have repeatedly seen statements that Leupold is not the brightest optic that is out there in its class. Durability, Consistency, and Warranty are what sells Leupold. That and the fact that it is a US company.
However, the Leupold VX-III’s I’ve seen and used have always seems pretty damn good to me in terms of brightness. They’ll work in this swamp I hunt in at dusk and dawn.
So I really pay attention to how an optic measures up against a Leupold VX-III on the forums. Because of my familiarity with the optic and my view that it passes muster for my needs for brightness, it becomes a benchmark for me.
I should point out that the VX-III really hasn’t been a choice for me due to it not having a few features that I’d like to see. But if you want to give me one, I won’t complain.
I mentioned earlier that Nikon really impressed me with its lowest line—the Prostaff. I really can’t see a lot of difference between it’s brightness and that of a Leupold VX-III. Because it doesn’t have the features I was looking for, it really hasn’t been a consideration.
But then there’s the Nikon Monarch line. These are top of the Nikon pyramid (and they then have the Monarch Gold and Monarch X)
However, we are now getting into some dollars. The Nikon Monarch X can run more than a Leupold Mk 4.
I didn’t give a great deal of consideration to either the Bushnell 4200 and 6500. For the 4200, it seems that it didn’t have a lot of the features that I was looking for, and I could probably do better in glass quality. For the 6500, we are getting out of the price range that I wanted to look at.
Neither did I look at the Burris XTR too hard—for the same reasons as the 4200 and 6500.
So wow… I am SOL.
Well, not necessarily.
Lately, I have been taking a serious look at the Falcon Menace series. For those that are not familiar, they are Chinese parts, Japanese Glass, and a British company. They seem to be backed well by the company, and the folks on SniperCentral, Snipersparadise, and Snipershide, seem to rave over them.
Here’s the one I have become interested in:
http://www.falconoptics.com/menace4-14x44FFP.php
What got my attention was this…
The one that I am looking at claims a 94% light transmission. According to Nikon’s own website, the Monarch line—which many say has better glass than Leupold—is claiming 93% light transmission.
And then there is the fact that the 30mm tube of the Falcon Menace has 75 MOA of internal adjustment. That is 5 MOA less than the Monarch (that 5 MOA is a deal breaker.)
Basically, the Falcon Menace 4X14X44mm FFP has all the criteria that I’ve been looking for in a package that is WAY lower than I’d expect to pay. It seems to be well built. The primary criticism that I’ve read (aside from the Asian aspect) is that the knob clicks are felt, but do not have a loud “click” sound. That is actually a plus for me as a hunter.
Someone on this forum mentioned this optic to me a bit ago, and it didn’t register with me. After looking into it, this one is holding my attention at the moment.
At any rate, I thought that some may be able to benefit from this post. This is by far not written from the point of an expert—just a guy trying to sort through a myriad of optics and find something that works.
Any input is appreciated. If anyone has experience with the Falcon Menace, I would love to hear from you.
Thanks!
-- John
Last edited: