Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

New Sidewinder.

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ slipperyox
    Registered User


    If bought, and turns out to be a lemon.

    They saw you coming:D

    the new untested is always the gamble


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,759 ✭✭✭ clivej
    Registered User




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,389 ✭✭✭ extremetaz
    Registered User


    First - I like Hawke scope. I've always found them to be reliable, robust, and good value for money; and the Sidewinder has always been a decent value offering, but it seems to me they've missed a couple of opportunities here.

    https://uk.hawkeoptics.com/sidewinder-30-ffp-4-16x50-ffp-half-mil.html

    They're clearly staying loyal to the hunter target precision market where parallax is used as a range finder (which is why the side-wheel is in there), so the FFP offering makes a huge amount of sense - but the reticle is setup in MIL and the turrets are in MRAD.
    !!Why!! would you not make it a matched unit scope? I do not understand this.
    Sure - it's FFP so you can just do a conversion - but why not just index the thing to match the reticle in the first place?

    Outside of that market I have a bugbear about this insistence on starting at 4x with a scope that will parallax down to 30m.
    Give us an offering with a 2.5 or a 3 at the back end.

    If this thing had matched units, and a 2.5-~14 option I'd be getting keen on it.
    I prefer reticles with a circle element to them though, which would still be a sticking point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭ jb88
    Registered User


    Hawke scopes are good quality, ive used them for almost 15 years and they have suffered hardships and are still extremely accurate and robust.
    I enquired about the 6x24x56 option in FFP MRAD and its 250 more expensive than the traditional sidewinder.

    The Eclipse and Sidewinder Models have worked well for me so I may take a punt at the new scope.


  • Registered Users Posts: 800 ✭✭✭ Wadi14
    Registered User


    extremetaz wrote: »
    First - I like Hawke scope. I've always found them to be reliable, robust, and good value for money; and the Sidewinder has always been a decent value offering, but it seems to me they've missed a couple of opportunities here.

    https://uk.hawkeoptics.com/sidewinder-30-ffp-4-16x50-ffp-half-mil.html

    They're clearly staying loyal to the hunter target precision market where parallax is used as a range finder (which is why the side-wheel is in there), so the FFP offering makes a huge amount of sense - but the reticle is setup in MIL and the turrets are in MRAD.
    !!Why!! would you not make it a matched unit scope? I do not understand this.
    Sure - it's FFP so you can just do a conversion - but why not just index the thing to match the reticle in the first place?

    Outside of that market I have a bugbear about this insistence on starting at 4x with a scope that will parallax down to 30m.
    Give us an offering with a 2.5 or a 3 at the back end.

    If this thing had matched units, and a 2.5-~14 option I'd be getting keen on it.
    I prefer reticles with a circle element to them though, which would still be a sticking point.

    Are the terms Mills and MRAD both not short for Millradian ? so a mills turret and an MRAD ret are both the same measurement ? its when you mix Mills or MRAD with MOA turrets you have to do the conversions. Older Hawke scopes suffered from the moa turrets and mills ret, but I think the have it sorted in these newer scopes. Just had a look at their web page, they have a mil /mrad sidewinder which would be grand same measurements but I see moa turrets offered as well but no moa ret, so I have to agree with you that they should have gone the extra mile and offered an moa ret with the moa turrets.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,389 ✭✭✭ extremetaz
    Registered User


    Wadi14 wrote: »
    Are the terms Mills and MRAD both not short for Millradian ? so a mills turret and an MRAD ret are both the same measurement ? its when you mix Mills or MRAD with MOA turrets you have to do the conversions. Older Hawke scopes suffered from the moa turrets and mills ret, but I think the have it sorted in these newer scopes. Just had a look at their web page, they have a mil /mrad sidewinder which would be grand same measurements but I see moa turrets offered as well but no moa ret, so I have to agree with you that they should have gone the extra mile and offered an moa ret with the moa turrets.

    [Facepalm]

    Yes - yes they are. You're absolutely correct and I'm a total knob. :D:D
    For some reason in my daft head I was thinking of precisely that Mildot-MOA relationship but in the wrong terms.

    I can only put this down to seeing what I expected to see rather than what was actually there. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 800 ✭✭✭ Wadi14
    Registered User


    Don't feel bad cus your half right lol, as was I because I thought they had sorted the moa/mills on the new scope only to find out Hawke got it half right too, there moa turrets still seem to have a mill ret.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭ Feisar
    Registered User


    Wadi14 wrote: »
    Don't feel bad cus your half right lol, as was I because I thought they had sorted the moa/mills on the new scope only to find out Hawke got it half right too, there moa turrets still seem to have a mill ret.

    I don’t understand how mixing the measurement systems was ever a thing.

    First they came for the socialists...



Advertisement