Thread: Kahles
View Single Post
Old 19th August 2013, 09:02 AM
RobF's Avatar
RobF RobF is offline
My Empire of Dirt
Join Date: Mar 2010
Member of: Southampton Buccaneers, Parkstone, South Dorset
Location: Poole, Dorset
Posts: 10,170

I don't agree that 1/8th clicks are unnecessary, indeed I much prefer them and they are only clicks, they make no difference to the amount of MOA on a turn, which on this scope is something like 16-17 MOA... probably not enough to contain 8-55 for high scope users in one turn, but probably 10-55yds would fit in that for most.

Ret is obviously not great for much. I'd prefer a duplex to look at, but people will use whatever. That's a small detail for now.

The narrow field of view is to be expected with a high mag scope that snaps, focal length is required for shallow depth of field and you can't have both, unless you drop the mag. It's questionable if scopes like the S&B deliver the same size image as other high mag scopes as scope mag isn't a fixed value vs image, it's calculated from the objective focal length divided by the ocular focal length, and thus you can have a different size of image with the same mag. Lower focal length lens clusters will give you a wider image, but enlarge the image less.

Added to which the fast focus (which I much prefer over that of say the leup and march) was wound all the way in, presenting a small image to the eye. Even setting it back to the middle made the image seem much closer, and the eye relief much more comfortable.

Liked the little peg thing, although it's not going to have that much use with so many MOA per turn.

Sidewheel was notchy, and the all important focusing couldn't really be determined well. It seemed the gaps were very tight, but it might need a larger wheel without the notchyness to determine how to progress. I've seen this on the full bore version sold under a different name which is the same as the Falcon T50. Something was rattling inside, so perhaps something isn't all well inside which may account for the notchyness. This is the big thing that needs fixing. It feels like a fault, and i've never felt a scope do it. Combined with the rattling at the front end I suspect the PA tube has a gremlin in it.

As to the positioning of the wheel... well, i think until there's a wheel on there that works and can be marked up it's hard to say how much of a benefit or hindrance it would be. Certainly ranging with the trigger hand would be the way to go, as really that does nothing for position, so it might actually be of considerable benefit. If an indexed wheel could be made up then like the March, it's something that could be added and removed with no change in PA, solving the bag issue.

Image quality seemed good, but difficult to say on the brief look I had through. I would have liked more time and more variety of scenery to look at to see how it handled certain things. Contrast seemed good on what I was looking at. It would be good to do a side by side comparison.

I hear it's off to the World's... I hope they can fix the notchyness beforehand, otherwise a lot of feedback could be rather pointless.

As for temp sensitivity, I think that's only something that can be solved with a long term test, and with the knowledge and desire to minimise it. Certainly there's a couple of shooters like Osbourne and Pepe that have and continue to demonstrate and ability to cope with the S&B's wanderings, but undoubtedly that notorious amount of wandering shift was a 'feature' that no one would like to see repeated on a top flight scope.

I hear the benchrest version is going out the door for 1600. So this could fit below where the S&B PMII sits, and above the Sightron... perhaps with a little bit of organisation we can get them all along side.
BFTA/NSRA County Coach
CSFTA Chairman/BFTA Rep
Reply With Quote