Savage 110BA & Falcon Menace

P

personal_aviator

Regular
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Location
Onterrible
I posted in the Optics forum without much luck. Figuered I'd try here.

I will soon be picking up a Savage 110BA in .338 Lapua and I have been looking at the Falcon Menace to top it with. Specifically the 5.5-24X50 model. Everything I have read on the Falcon seems promising, good scope for the money. What I would like to know is if anyone has tried mounting the above model to a 110BA and if the objective will clear the top rail. Also what height rings need to be used and does it put the scope too high on the rifle. I wonder if the 5.5-24X50 would just sit to high on the rifle and if the 4-14X44 would be a better fit for the rifle. Any info would be appreciated.

Thanks
 
i cant give to much insite but the 50mm objective will clear, seen plenty of guys with 56mm objective or bigger scopes mounted to the 110ba, just need the appropriate rings, with the adjutable cheek piece you shouldnt have any problems with eye relief / alignment. im goin to be mounting a nightforce 12-44x56 on my 110ba when it arrives
 
Any idea what size rings to use with the 50 or 56mm obj? I'm looking at the night force rings but they are quite pricy (I know everything for the .338 Lapua is pricy) for a set of rings. Any recomends?
 
I'm running TPS medium rings for my 56mm obj, but it is on a savage FCP and I do have a Karsten adj cheekpiece.
 
Medium rings sounds like it is then, probably wont know untill I get the rifle though. My eyes are going crosseyed from all the reading I've done on the different scopes. The Menace is most in my price range and seems like a very good scope for the money, people seem happy with it, and it's Mil/Mil FFP. Thanks for the input, hopefully will pick up the rifle and scope early in the new year.
 
On my Savage 10BAS, which has the same type of top rail, I had to use Leopuld High rings to mount a 56mm Falcon scope. I had to use extra high rings to mount a 60mm Sightron scope. There is not as much clearance over the barrel as there is on other rifles because the rail extends so far forward and does not drop very much .

I would suggest you wait till you get the rifle and scope together and measure the height you need before you get the rings. Might as well only do it once, eh.
 
I would suggest you wait till you get the rifle and scope together and measure the height you need before you get the rings. Might as well only do it once, eh.
Click to expand...

Sounds like good advice, especially since I want to use good rings and wouldn't want to pay for them twice. How do you find the scope fits? Is it up way to high or is it fine?
 
With the adjustable cheek piece on the 110BA I think you will be fine for scope height. The nice thing about this version of Savages is that it's easy to change the shoulder stock if you want to, since it's ar-15 compatible.
 
I had a Falcon and wasnt real impressed with it. The glass was foggy and and the turrets a little mushy. The set screws for the turrets was a soft brass as well and once tighten it left a substantial dent so when you try to rezero with different load it wants to slide back in. I ebayed it after my buddy picked up a Millet LRS 1 for the same money. The glass was WAY clearer. If you are looking to spend that kind of money go for the Millett 4-16 TRS1. It has a 30mm tube with a 50mm bell. The LRS 1 has a 35 mm tube and we had to order TPS rings for it at 120 dollars. By the time he was done with the LRS 1 he could have bought the Trijicon which I replaced my Falcon with. It was 1200 but the glass is on part with Mark 4s and Nightforce easily. Dont waste the money on the Falcon. Its a stepping stone at best. You already put 1800 or so into a rifle, dont skimp on the optics. I tried and it only cost me more redoing it. If you want another good cheap scope try Hawke. I have one of the 42mm objectives and the glass is as good as the falcon for about 400 dollars.

Cheers
 
I had a Falcon and wasnt real impressed with it. The glass was foggy and and the turrets a little mushy. The set screws for the turrets was a soft brass as well and once tighten it left a substantial dent so when you try to rezero with different load it wants to slide back in. I ebayed it after my buddy picked up a Millet LRS 1 for the same money. The glass was WAY clearer. If you are looking to spend that kind of money go for the Millett 4-16 TRS1. It has a 30mm tube with a 50mm bell. The LRS 1 has a 35 mm tube and we had to order TPS rings for it at 120 dollars. By the time he was done with the LRS 1 he could have bought the Trijicon which I replaced my Falcon with. It was 1200 but the glass is on part with Mark 4s and Nightforce easily. Dont waste the money on the Falcon. Its a stepping stone at best. You already put 1800 or so into a rifle, dont skimp on the optics. I tried and it only cost me more redoing it. If you want another good cheap scope try Hawke. I have one of the 42mm objectives and the glass is as good as the falcon for about 400 dollars.
Click to expand...

I was also looking at the Sightron as well, i'm still tossing them both up in the air. I understand what you mean about skimping on the glass and I have done alot of reading on both here and other forums and at least 6 reviews of the falcon and they honnestly get good reviews. I would love to have a NF but can't simply afford it. I did read that the new gen of falcons are better then the previous gens though. They did have problems with the glass and the tubes (they used to be a 3 piece tube, now they are 1 piece), but they seem to have sorted that out. I also read that the edges of the sight picture gets fuzzy at max zoom, but the glass for the most part is almost on par with the Leopolds.

If you are in the area of our store, bring it in, and we'll try out some rings for you.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer but i'm in Sioux Lookout which is a long way from anywhere. I called the nearest gun shop arround here (Thunder Bay, 5hrs away) for a price on the 110BA, $2500! Frontier Firearms as it for just over $2000, with free shipping to boot! As much as I'd like to support local business', an extra 500 bucks i'd rather keep, although Frontier didn't have any in stock.
 
Here's a pic of mine with the scope mounted.

338%20Lapua.JPG
 
Take a look at Bushnells Elite 4200 6-24x50 Tactical. Priced between the Sightron and the Falcon. Has gotten excellent reviews for optical quality and tracking. Might be the best value in this price range.
 
I have the falcon 5.5-25x50. The glass is as clear as anything i have looked through. I am very happy with it and will be switching to my 110 BA when i order it this spring.
 
So many mixed reviews. I've read some that love it and say the optics are better then the Bushnell's and some say they don't like it.

What I wan't in a scope is FFP, and Mil/Mil. It seems obtaining that in a reasonably priced scope is hard to obtain, and the Falcon has it both and is well priced. As I stated if I had 1500 to spare for a Leopold or cheaper nightforce then I would but I don't. I knew getting into the .338 Lapua game was going to be expensive, and I don't think I am necessaraly cheaping out on the scope. I have honnestly read more reviews then I care to recall on the Falcon that says it is a very good scope for the money. I'm not trying to put anyone down that says not to get it, and appreciate all the input I can get before springing for a scope.

Thanks.
 
After owning a Falcon and shooting a Leupold, Millet, and Trijicon, I would say the Falcon was the most disappointing. I did the same thing and saw all these great reviews and was really hung up on the FFP. The only problem with the entry level FFP is the reticle gets HUGE when you are on max magnification. If found it blocked out the 12 inch gongs at 800m. I couldnt clearly see bullet holes in paper at 200m for load development. I would go with the Bushnell 4200 way before the Falcon again and Im not a Bushnell fan. Poor support. I went back to second focal plane and havent had an issue. If you are not using it to range the FFP is kinda a waste. I didnt like the mil/mil after I got it either, something about MOA that makes more sense to me. 1 moa is 1 inch for every 100yards, 100 yards is 110 meters or close enough. When I look at things I naturally see inches and feet rather than centimeters and meters. Just me though. Let us know what you end up with. Try looking at the IOR Valdada, I am thinking one of those may be my next if I can find someone who sells them. Might have to make a trip to the US for it. Also look at the Vortex Viper PST, they have a FFP Mil Mil for about 1k and are getting great reviews. They have had some supply delays, but they have officially landed.
 
Do not get the Bushnell 4200. Yes it has excellent optics, great "clickable" turrets, but at only 35moa of elevation adjustment it fails to deliver in the long range category. It also has 1/8" click adjustments

Yes i own one, yes i have used it for long range, max i could get out of it was 850 yds w/holdover on a 300 RUM with 208amax travelling at 2950 fps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom