View Full Version : LIGHTSTREAM 4.5 x 14 x 44 Worth £400 notes?
BlackDuck
13-10-2006, 07:52 PM
Lightstream….
OK, I have just read the excellent review on the Lightstream scope by TargetZero http://www.airgunbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145963 and thought that I should add my own.
The Lightstream was purchased due to being a Milldot reticule and replaced a Nikon Monarch (Which I loved apart from the Reticule!) so, with a fairly good comparison to go on here is what I thought…
The Box, packaging and Instrucitons…..
Ok, a cardboard box does nothing for the scope, and this certainly does nothing for the scope. It is a plain (literally, plain, white cardboard) box and the labels are like the Avery address labels with either laser or inkjet print. Similarly, the instructions look as though they have been printed on a laser printer and not commercially printed. Ok, so this looks a bit cheap buy hey! This could mean a sensible manufacturer is at last putting effort into reducing needless costs and producing better optics….isn’t he?
The Scope
The first impression is that this is not particularly good quality. Sorry, but for a few beers short of £400 I want a bit more “Class” feel and looks. I want the gold filled etching to be properly filled, not with black gaps in the lettering. I want spotless anodizing…I want £400’s worth and this does not, for me include elasticized lens caps that don’t even fit. The OS Diameter of the objective lens is 5.15 (not precise, just the best steel ruler I have) and the inside of the lens covers? 5.9 leaving a half-centimeter gap all around the scopes lens. Fluke? No, same with the ocular lens as well (lens = 3.8 Covers = 4.2) No real hardship, just bloody sloppy for a £400 scope.
The Locking Ring (“Sure Lock” ring) is much the same as any other and the instructions seem to suggest that this is a bit special, how escapes me.
The “Variable Power” (magnification ring to you and me) is disappointing, on scopes costing lots less (Simmons) you find a block to aid turning. Not on the LS. The resistance of the mag ring is good, smooth and does the job.
Objective Lens Adjustment (Rangefinding)
The calibration on the ring is from 15 yards to 300 and then infinity. However, turn the ring down to 15 yards and there is still about another 1/3 turn left before it reaches the end of travel. Not a problem, just surprises me of the amount. What I do like (at last you say, he actually likes something) is the resistance of the ring is less than other scopes. Personally, I find trying to adjust the ring to get a range is difficult enough, especially when you don’t have side focus, but this at least makes the task easier.
Turrets.
These are OK in my book, well, about the same as my Whitetail Expedition (well, actually, almost identical) There is a positive “Click” for each 1/8 MOA and the ability to reset to “0” with a small hex key (hex keys, how much are they? Wouldn’t it have been nice to see one included in the box?)
Lenses
These are pretty good. They beat anything that Simmons can throw at them for clarity and let in loads of Light for a 44 Objective. However, (yep, sorry, lots of negatives….) I did find that the first evening I was out with the scope I had a problem. Basically, it was a bright sunny evening and the sun was just starting to drop below the Downs with no direct glare or really bright light. Certainly plenty to see with and while viewing in any direction apart from in the brightest direction the sight picture was excellent. However, pick a target towards the sun (I mean in the same direction, I hope you knew that!!!) and the picture literally “Clouded” as though I was looking into fog. Move away, and it was fine. Now, I have not got the lens shade but I do not for one moment think that would have made any difference. It is just that I have never experienced this before and certainly not with the Nikon or my many Simmons. It may just be glare, but hey, is that £400 I have just paid for this?
The magnification drops down to 4.5 and in my book when you drop the mag the field of view increases. Well it does with the lightstream, but with a strange “Tunnelling” as well. What I mean is that at 6x mag the sight picture fills the entire ocular lens. From 6x down you start to get a wide black margin eventually looking something like about 1cm all round. No, the “real” field of view stays as it should, but this is disconcerting.
The Reticule
How well do you know your 27.78 times table? That is what the Milldot calculations require you to know. The range finding example with the mildot method that is given is as follows –
Target Size 12”, visually fits between 2 mil spaces – 12(inches) x 27.78 = 333.36. Divide this by the two mil spaces = 168.68 yards (er….was this the scope “Specifically designed for Air Rifle hunting”?) it goes on to say that at 100 yards the mil dot space will equal 3.6” and then gives various examples for 200, 100, 50, 40 and 33 yards being 0.5, 1, 2, 2.5 and 3 mil spaces respectively. Now, at the real risk of showing my ignorance, this is the first time I have tried to use the mil dot range finding method. Given these instructions I am still very lost, especially as I cannot get from my mind why we are talking of ranges up to 200 yards for an air rifle?
The actual reticule is also problematic, for me at least. Yes it is on the first focal plane and is supposed to be of great benefit by offering a “Unique” true strike system whereby if you need 1 dot holdover at 50m at 14 x mag, you will also need 1 dot holdover at 50m on 7 x mag. Now, call me sceptical (or a lawyer), but to me the words “Unique” have a certain meaning; that there is no comparison and no other scope manufactured offers this same ability. Really? Can someone please pass me my litigation manual……..? In my (perhaps as far as riflescopes) limited experience I have had other scopes where the magnification did not alter the required holdover. Especially not at air rifle (even FAC) ranges. I happily stand to be corrected if necessary.
The other problem is the actual size of the reticule. Because this is on the first focal plane the size of the reticule changes with the magnification (Ok, well at least the holdover supposedly stays the same, is this the trade off?) By this I mean at 6x mag and above you have a decent size reticule, but drop the magnification and this gets smaller and smaller and smaller until it is very hard to try and distinguish the mildots.
I have not tried it yet, but for me this is looking like a huge problem waiting for dusk/night shooting, even with a lamp as you will be hard pressed to see the reticule at anything less that about 8x mag. Have a wood or hedgerow for a backdrop and you will barely (to my mind, and I don’t wear glasses) have a bloody hard job of finding the reticule at all. To be absolutely fair, this is assumption but I will try it and let you know.
Zeroing was great. Done in about 10 shots out of the box and there is even a trajectory planner for you to get to know your aim points and allowance for wind etc.
Overall impression?
Not good. I doubt very much if I would have another and if someone offers me decent money for this I will be ordering a Nikon immediately (or the Elite 4200 or the………
With £400 I will be out to find a manufacturer that can afford to supply decent packaging, lens caps, allen keys and even a cleaning cloth as well as a optically brilliant scope.
No, not that impressed at all. It may be that this scope has been designed by a hunter with specific purposes in mind. He may have designed exactly the scope he likes and for him, and perhaps many others it is excellent, but for me I have found little that leaves a real impression apart from one of cost cutting that is not reflected in the scopes quality, finish or abilities.
Offers anyone?
No offers, but excellent review.
I do think, that in comparison to a Monarch or a 4200 they will be outclassed.
Get the 6.5 x 20-44 Mildot (illuminated) Monarch for less.
The "tunneling" issue is what made me sell my IORs.
dbc-65
13-10-2006, 08:18 PM
:( Good review, a pity you don't live closer you could do a
comparison the lightstream and my elite 4200, i think
you would do a better write up than myself.
Cheers
Dave
deeps
13-10-2006, 08:34 PM
Hmm, sounds like you feel you have a £200 scope.
Can I be the first offer you £200 for it ?
nurek
13-10-2006, 08:36 PM
Nice review, as for the glare problem I have commented on this earlier, you need a sunshade and a 'pigs-ear' to sort it out, alternatively try a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 with Mil-Dot, although the reticule is in the second focal plane, if imported from the US the price is similar and you will not have any glare issues and optically it is better. The Elite on the other hand is too long (6-24x40 AO), and SFP, optically it is similar and as you say the finish is a lot better.
As for the 'Unique' bit you mention, I also believe this scope is almost identical (apart from the reticule, and possibly the lens coating) to Weaver Tactical, which also is a FFP scope, with the same tube, the same micro TAC turrets, etc. :rolleyes:
However, I do like these scopes, especially the FFP, turrets and lenses (if there is no glare) :D .
As for offers, (well you did ask ;) ), I have a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x50 Mil Dot you could try, it is factory set parallax to 30yds. It iss a bit more expensive (around £450) but maybe we could come to some agreement…
Whereabouts in London are you? I need a scope for a HW77 and am a bit worried about putting the Zeiss on it, something like the Lightstream would do.
Scooby
13-10-2006, 08:44 PM
Lightstream….
The “Variable Power” (magnification ring to you and me) is disappointing, on scopes costing lots less (Simmons) you find a block to aid turning. Not on the LS. The resistance of the mag ring is good, smooth and does the job.
If the resistance on the mag ring is good, why would you need a block to aid turning ???
Lenses
Now, I have not got the lens shade but I do not for one moment think that would have made any difference. It does make a difference, but then again I've actually tried a sunshade !
The magnification drops down to 4.5 and in my book when you drop the mag the field of view increases. Well it does with the lightstream, but with a strange “Tunnelling” as well. What I mean is that at 6x mag the sight picture fills the entire ocular lens. From 6x down you start to get a wide black margin eventually looking something like about 1cm all round. No, the “real” field of view stay s as it should, but this is disconcerting. I don't find this disconcerting, the field of view does get bigger you just get the margin as well, this happens on some other scopes with a first focal plane ret.
The Reticule
How well do you know your 27.78 time table? That is what the Milldot calculations require you to know. The range finding example with the mildot method that is given is as follows –
Target Size 12”, visually fits between 2 mil spaces – 12(inches) x 27.78 = 333.36. Divide this by the two mil spaces = 168.68 yards (er….was this the scope “Specifically designed for Air Rifle hunting”?) it goes on to say that at 00 yards the mil dot space will equal 3.6” and then gives various examples for 200, 100, 50, 40 and 33 yards being 0.5, 1, 2, 2.5 and 3 mil spaces respectively. Now, at the real risk of showing my ignorance, this is the first time I have tried to use the mil dot range finding method. Given these instructions I am still very lost, especially as I cannot get from my mind why we are talking of ranges up to 200 yards for an air rifle? This scope was not designed specifically for Air rifles & the information is there if you need it, I don't so I ignored it.
The actual reticule is also problematic, for me at least. Yes it is one the first focal plane and is supposed to be of great benefit by offering a “Unique” true strike system whereby if you need 1 dot holdover at 50m at 14 x mag, you will also need 1 dot holdover at 50m on 7 x mag. Now, call me skeptical (or a lawyer), but to me the words “Unique” have a certain meaning; that there is no comparison and no other scope manufactured offers this same ability. Really? Can someone please pass me my litigation manual……..? In my (perhaps as far as riflescopes) limited experience I have had other scopes where the magnification did not alter the required holdover. Especially not at air rifle (even FAC) ranges. I happily stand to be corrected if necessary. I've never seen a 1st focal plane scope with this Reticle.
The other problem is the actual size of the reticule. Because this is on the first focal plane the size of the reticule changes with the magnification (Ok, well at least the holdover supposedly stays the same, No..the holdover does stay the same is this the trade off? yes most things are.) By this I mean at 6x mag and above you have a decent size reticule, but drop the magnification and this gets smaller and smaller and smaller until it is very hard to try and distinguish the mildots. deciding on the dot size is very difficult, if you make the dots larger at low mag then they will be too large at higher mag.....again a trade off.
Overall impression?
Not good. I doubt very much if I would have another and if someone offers me decent money for this I will be ordering a Nikon immediately (or the Elite 4200 or the………
With £400 I will be out to find a manufacturer that can afford to supply decent packaging, lens caps, allen keys and even a cleaning cloth as well as a optically brilliant scope. I don't care about the box, the lens caps are replaced with Butler creeks so remain in the original box like any scope I own, I use the allen keys in my shooting kit so any provided stay in the box & I've yet to see a lens cloth I would use....Leupold included.
My comment are in bold above & as you can see I am impressed by mine:)
Nice review, as for the glare problem I have commented on this earlier, you need a sunshade and a 'pigs-ear' to sort it out, alternatively try a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 with Mil-Dot, although the reticule is in the second focal plane, if imported from the US the price is similar and you will not have any glare issues and optically it is better. The Elite on the other hand is too long (6-24x40 AO), and SFP, optically it is similar and as you say the finish is a lot better.
As for the 'Unique' bit you mention, I also believe this scope is almost identical (apart from the reticule, and possibly the lens coating) to Weaver Tactical, which also is a FFP scope, with the same tube, the same micro TAC turrets, etc. :rolleyes:
However, I do like these scopes, especially the FFP, turrets and lenses (if there is no glare) :D .
As for offers, (well you did ask ;) ), I have a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x50 Mil Dot you could try, it is factory set parallax to 30yds. It iss a bit more expensive (around £450) but maybe we could come to some agreement…
Whereabouts in London are you? I need a scope for a HW77 and am a bit worried about putting the Zeiss on it, something like the Lightstream would do.
The New 4200 6-24 x 40 is smaller and lighter than the Lighstream.
I know someone who has both..
nurek
13-10-2006, 09:00 PM
The New 4200 6-24 x 40 is smaller and lighter than the Lighstream.
The sidewheel one is, but I specifically said the AO ;) by which I meant the front parallax as you know. I have not yet seen the side-wheel Elite, but did hear a lot of good about it, especially that it is smaller and more compact.
BlackDuck
13-10-2006, 09:04 PM
My comment are in bold above & as you can see I am impressed by mine:)
You are welcme to your opinions and I hope you allow me mine without sounding as though you are offended somehow. But I will comment:
1 the resistance is good, but just would be easier with a block
2 Please explain, Simmons Scope = no glare on the same evening same target. (No sunshade) Lightstream = Glare. OK, different optics but I did not expect it to be this "Fussy"
3 You dont find it disconcerting - good for you. I do, thank you.
4 Sorry to argue, I have seen other litreature and reviews that do state that this was for Air Rifles. (.22Lr at 15 yards?)
5 it is not the reticule that is stated to be unique but the "Range Finding and Bullet Drop compensation/trajectory using the mil radian method" which they call the "True Strike" system. That information is in the instructions if you didnt ignore it.
6 Trade off's - personal opinions as to what matter,but I was not stating this as a negative, simply what you agree it is; a trade off.
7. Perhaps you dont care about the box, lens caps or other items. Nor, honestly, do I but it does give the purchaser a sense of value for money with so many other items are left wanting. (Such as finish, and attention to detail). I did actually say "This could mean a sensible manufacturer is at last putting effort into reducing needless costs and producing better optics….isn’t he?" and I then made my judgment
I respect your opinion. Please respect mine.
... I respect your opinion. Please respect mine.
Read it again mate - no-one is having ago at you. Scooby has made some valid points and stated that he is impressed with his scope.
TARGETZERO
13-10-2006, 10:34 PM
very good review,totally agree on most ov your points,the point ov doing a review is to aid any one in making there mind up,about a certain product they may be intrested in,we all hear the hype on the grapevine,new toy in town,even if we dont need it,gaurenteed most ov us will buy it,every ones got differant tastes for things and the lightstream delivers for some but not for all,this scope has its uses,but not for me,and certainly not for the price,to me like your self,i noticed thier was no cloth or aallen key and the box looked like joe bloggs makes them in his garden shed,maybe these are trivial things that bother sum and not others,but it botherd me,befor i even opened the box i think ide made my mind up already. perry
Lash13
13-10-2006, 11:27 PM
Very good review... The point about the packaging is a valid one. When you buy an Elite 4200, the box makes you feel like you've got something really special. On the BBS we're used to the 4200 selling for under £400 but in reality they retail for about £599, which is a lot more. I was really impressed with the optics on the Lightstream when I glanced through one although I obviously didn't seriously test it. I thought it was on a par with the 4200 I had at the time.
I suppose when you're talking about Leupolds and Nightforces etc, the Lightstream is only a mid priced scope, (My EB Sniper was £300 and that is distinctly average) so I guess I'll still keep it in mind, but I'm definately taking on board what you've said.
cheers Lee
DAFY555
14-10-2006, 02:24 PM
I need a scope for a HW77 and am a bit worried about putting the Zeiss on it, something like the Lightstream would do.
Stick the Zeiss on it mate. Herx on here has been using a Zeiss 3-9x36 on his for 20 years or more.
Regards
Daz
BoNeS
14-10-2006, 03:03 PM
i wont go into a long why this is better than that but i have a lightstream and a 4200 side focus
IMO the bushnell is far better
i could never see the point in FFP scopes unless you are a sas sniper who might be engaging targets from 500-1200 yards and wants his zero's and drops to remain the same on different mags
on my .223 for example i zero an inch high at 100 yards so from 100 to 250 i aim on and then never more than about 3/4 dot for ranges over 250 which is VERY rare with the .223
again the same thing kinda applies to airgun ranges look at HFT with a 35 yard zero the only time you need more than a dot either way is at the very close one below 15 yards, not an ft shooter so wont state this as gospel but is 14 mag enough for reliable rangefinding for FT? I dont "think" so as all the FT guys i have seen shoot are looking for 35-60 mag for rangefinding
if i had 400 quid to spend on another scope then i would spend £325 on the bushnell and £75 on ammo or beer
again just my opinion and they are like arseholes, everyone has one:D
i could never see the point in FFP scopes
Best bit is if the light is poor (out hunting early/late) then you can wind the mag down a bit.
Same with HFT. Turn up to an event. Walk the course and if loads of targets are poorly lit or the ambient light is very low, wind the mag down, twiddle the parallax and off you go. No having to remember a different set of aimpoints :)
Scooby
14-10-2006, 03:14 PM
You are welcme to your opinions and I hope you allow me mine without sounding as though you are offended somehow. But I will comment:
1 the resistance is good, but just would be easier with a block. As you have stated the resistance is good, I totally agree with you
2 Please explain, Simmons Scope = no glare on the same evening same target. (No sunshade) Lightstream = Glare. OK, different optics but I did not expect it to be this "Fussy". I'm not suggesting you didn't have a glare problem but you state "Now, I have not got the lens shade but I do not for one moment think that would have made any difference." all I'm saying is it does make a difference, I have tried it.
3 You dont find it disconcerting - good for you. I do, thank you.
4 Sorry to argue, I have seen other litreature and reviews that do state that this was for Air Rifles. (.22Lr at 15 yards?) The literature also talks about zeroing at 300y & the range estimation section gives examples from 33-200y
5 it is not the reticule that is stated to be unique but the "Range Finding and Bullet Drop compensation/trajectory using the mil radian method" which they call the "True Strike" system. That information is in the instructions if you didnt ignore it.:rolleyes:
6 Trade off's - personal opinions as to what matter,but I was not stating this as a negative, simply what you agree it is; a trade off.
7. Perhaps you dont care about the box, lens caps or other items. Nor, honestly, do I but it does give the purchaser a sense of value for money with so many other items are left wanting. (Such as finish, and attention to detail). I did actually say "This could mean a sensible manufacturer is at last putting effort into reducing needless costs and producing better optics….isn’t he?" and I then made my judgment. But then at the end of your post you state "With £400 I will be out to find a manufacturer that can afford to supply decent packaging, lens caps, allen keys and even a cleaning cloth as well as a optically brilliant scope." ???
I respect your opinion. Please respect mine.
Of course I respect your opinion & I was in no way offended, I just don't agree with it & as you have posted this on an open forum people should be allowed to read both opinions!;)
BlackDuck
14-10-2006, 03:26 PM
Of course I respect your opinion & I was in no way offended, I just don't agree with it & as you have posted this on an open forum people should be allowed to read both opinions!;)
Thanks Pete,
I was tired last night and just thought you were knocking my opinion - sorry.
however, looking at the Lightstream website (www.light-stream.co.uk) you will see one review by Tim Finley. This states [Quote]:
Alan Konyn the man behind AK Sports Optics and the Lightstream has been
shooting for many years. Air rifles and FAC rated air rifle hunting is his thing. Frustrated by what he saw as less than ideal scopes made for centerfire and rimfire rifles, Alan set off on a personal crusade to bring a quality airgun specific scope to the UK. He was utterly selfish in that he wanted a scope for himself, but it so happened that dream specification is indeed what we airgun hunters have been long looking for.
Gun Mart September 2006
Now to me, this scope is easily capable of Rimmy or Centrefire use and the focusing, magnification and the Mildots all suggest that it is not, as stated above, an airgun specific scope which is what this was being touted as being.
BoNeS
14-10-2006, 04:21 PM
Best bit is if the light is poor (out hunting early/late) then you can wind the mag down a bit.
Same with HFT. Turn up to an event. Walk the course and if loads of targets are poorly lit or the ambient light is very low, wind the mag down, twiddle the parallax and off you go. No having to remember a different set of aimpoints :)
i know what you are saying paul i know you get on REALLY well with yours m8 i just cant get on with mine, i am doing less and less air rifle shooting these days so perhaps i am just sticking with the tryed and tested guys like leup and bushnell
its all about personel choice i know a chap at the club who has a 3grand unique alpine rifle in a wildcat cal and swears by the 6.5x20x50 simmons WTC wont even entertain another scope
each to their own like:D
Scooby
14-10-2006, 04:33 PM
Thanks Pete,
I was tired last night and just thought you were knocking my opinion - sorry.
however, looking at the Lightstream website (www.light-stream.co.uk) you will see one review by Tim Finley. .
You don't want to believe everything you read in magazine articles & I took the pictures for Tim on that article.;) :D
Stick the Zeiss on it mate. Herx on here has been using a Zeiss 3-9x36 on his for 20 years or more.
Regards
Daz
I think Dave Welham imported these in the early 90s and they were special ordered for the 30 yard PX.
There are a few still around and they are absolutely superb.
Scooby
14-10-2006, 06:06 PM
I think Dave Welham imported these in the early 90s and they were special ordered for the 30 yard PX.
There are a few still around and they are absolutely superb.
They came into the country a bit earlier than that, I've had mine since 1986:)
BlackDuck
14-10-2006, 07:12 PM
You don't want to believe everything you read in magazine articles & I took the pictures for Tim on that article.;) :D
Whoa……hold on a second Pete……
So, what you are saying is that you took part, as the photographer, in the Review that appeared in the Sept 06 issue of Gun Mart?
It is your friend Tim Finley who wrote the very positive review that was full of praise for the scope?
And then you tell me that I should not believe everything I read in the magazines?
So who is not being honest? Tim, in his review? Alan, who is behind AK Optics, the Importer of the Scope or everyone who has written a review on the scope, including the shooting press and, indeed, those on this thread?
Sorry Pete, because of your comments I am now really confused and someone’s credibility has just taken a serious knock, I just don’t know whether it is those who write reviews or the marketing hype behind the Light Stream scope!
You have your opinions, and me mine and I agree, the whole point of reviews is to allow those who read them to make up their own mind. It is just that if a little bit of, shall we say, “poetic licence” is allowed to creep in, the whole review is cast into doubt don’t you think?
Scooby
14-10-2006, 09:26 PM
Whoa……hold on a second Pete……
So, what you are saying is that you took part, as the photographer, in the Review that appeared in the Sept 06 issue of Gun Mart?
It is your friend Tim Finley who wrote the very positive review that was full of praise for the scope?
What I'm saying is that Tim (who is a mate) had the scope on his HFT gun for the test while we were shooting at Emley Moor & he asked me to take a couple of pictures using his camera while he held the gun. Tim liked the scope so much he bought one, I tried this scope out a few weeks later & compared it to my Zeiss 3-9x36 Diavari C. I found it more suited to HFT so I too bought one, since I've had it my HFT scores have gone up.
And then you tell me that I should not believe everything I read in the magazines? As a rule I never believe a magazine review, I try thing myself & come to my own conclusions. When have you ever seen a bad review.....never....does this mean all the guns/scope are brilliant ???
So who is not being honest? Tim, in his review? Alan, who is behind AK Optics, the Importer of the Scope or everyone who has written a review on the scope, including the shooting press and, indeed, those on this thread?
Sorry Pete, because of your comments I am now really confused and someone’s credibility has just taken a serious knock, I just don’t know whether it is those who write reviews or the marketing hype behind the Light Stream scope! I wasn't trying to knock anyones credibility! I don't care what anyone says about a product whether it be the manufacturers, the airgun press or a shop, I try it for myself & make up my own mind.
You have your opinions, and me mine and I agree, the whole point of reviews is to allow those who read them to make up their own mind. It is just that if a little bit of, shall we say, “poetic licence” is allowed to creep in, the whole review is cast into doubt don’t you think?, There is no Poetic Licience on my part I'm just being honest, if you doubt this in any way then tough titty
:D :D :D :D :p
BlackDuck
15-10-2006, 07:34 AM
On the contary Pete, I do not see any Poetic Licence on your part at all.
I certainly dont doubt your honesty and have never called it into doubt in any of the posts above. Why should I? You are, after all, confirming what I said, that this scope, marketed as being "Airgun Specific" and made for airguns, isn't. Tim Finley's comments state categorically that Allen Konyn set out on a personal crusade to bring an "Airgun Specific" scope to the UK and that as Allen Konyn had "disscussed the specification with [Tim] a year ago".
Allen Konyn and AK Optics obviously endorses these comments as they have, without edit or comment, used this positive review on their webpage as a marketing aid - why wouldnt they? But then I am told "Not to believe it" and that all reviews are somehow biased.
I do disagree about your comments on reviews. I have seen some, independant, reviews be highly critical. Perhaps Tims review was not that independent then? (Otherwise, why the poetic licence?)
There is no doubt, this is a good scope. My own opinion, and that of some others it seems, is that it falls short of the standard expected in the £400 bracket. You dont think so and we all respect that. The only point I make above is that this scope is NOT Airgun specific and I dont think it should be marketed as such (which it has).
Over to you, and as I dont like "Tough Titties" (just soft, slightly firm silky ones please) I take no offence and hope you dont either.
bennyblanco
15-10-2006, 08:12 AM
FFS:rolleyes: "Application: Hi Spec Hunting/Target and General Purpose Scope for use on STD/FAC PCP, Rim Fire, Centre Fire Rifles"
IIRC Allen spent a day with military snipers whilst working out the spec for the scope. it is not airgun only or aimed specifically at airgun users. we do however spend ****loads on glass for our pop guns, and have a huge online community which is easy to target. Tims article was aimed at airguns as he is an airgun shooter.
ben(smug with his 4200:) )
I've just come back from an outing with a buddy with the 4-14 x 44 and I was using a Bushnell Scopechief and I would say this is a very close comparison of optical quality. The optics were crisp with no decernable contrasting. I prefer the 30/30 on the trophy.
Therefore, I would not think that the Lighstream is in the same league as the 4200.
Woops. The field of view was however better than the Bushnell which is by comparison better than the 4200.
The Scopchief is a 4-14 x 50.
Scooby
22-10-2006, 02:10 PM
Allen Konyn and AK Optics obviously endorses these comments as they have, without edit or comment, used this positive review on their webpage as a marketing aid - why wouldnt they? But then I am told "Not to believe it" and that all reviews are somehow biased.
I do disagree about your comments on reviews. I have seen some, independant, reviews be highly critical. Perhaps Tims review was not that independent then? (Otherwise, why the poetic licence?)
Having chatted with Tim Finley he also thinks I was suggesting he uses "Poetic Licence" (lies) in his articles. When re-reading post No.19 it does seem I'm suggesting just that which is why I posted post No.23.
So can I just state that I wasn't suggesting Tim lied in that or any other article.
dbc-65
25-10-2006, 10:06 PM
:rolleyes: FFS:rolleyes: "Application: Hi Spec Hunting/Target and General Purpose Scope for use on STD/FAC PCP, Rim Fire, Centre Fire Rifles"
IIRC Allen spent a day with military snipers whilst working out the spec for the scope. it is not airgun only or aimed specifically at airgun users. we do however spend ****loads on glass for our pop guns, and have a huge online community which is easy to target. Tims article was aimed at airguns as he is an airgun shooter.
ben(smug with his 4200:) )
Don't realy want to rock the boat on this lightsteam tread BUT.
Page 17 November Airgun world should clear up who its aimed at.:eek: :eek: :D
Cheers
Dave
bennyblanco
31-10-2006, 09:12 PM
:rolleyes:
Don't realy want to rock the boat on this lightsteam tread BUT.
Page 17 November Airgun world should clear up who its aimed at.:eek: :eek: :D
Cheers
Dave
airgun world, as true to life as eastenders, alice in wonderland and buck rogers:rolleyes:
after sitting down and chatting with Alan on sunday and looking at the info on the lightstream website i happy this is not a scope specifically aimed at airgunners.
i will quote the lightstream site again "Application: Hi Spec Hunting/Target and General Purpose Scope for use on STD/FAC PCP, Rim Fire, Centre Fire Rifles"
this is a really silly argument which has stemmed from someones inability to understand mildots.
good scopes but i prefer the 4200;)
ben
dbc-65
01-11-2006, 02:01 PM
[QUOTE=bennyblanco;1418712]airgun world, as true to life as eastenders, alice in wonderland and buck rogers:rolleyes:
What you mean theres no Alice in wonderland ;) :D :D
Cheers
Dave
kev hughes
01-11-2006, 02:28 PM
good scopes but i prefer the 4200;)
ben
Now I'd rather my Light Stream to any Bushnell I have tried, but that is personal preference. ;)
Kev
TARGETZERO
01-11-2006, 02:45 PM
theres a lot ov differant views on these two scopes,both ov them good scopes,it would be hard to do a poll,because not everyone could gain access to both scopes,how about which do you like best on what youve heard or what youve seen?then we would all know the magoritys prefrence?thing is dont know how to start one:D
BlackDuck
29-11-2006, 08:46 PM
After about six weeks or so I still have the Lightstream on the Rifle. Why?
I still have not been able to remember the formula for Mildot range finding (Sorry Ben, I DO have the ability to understand it, just not used it before so please don’t imply it's beyond me or I dont understand it) and for good reason – I simply have not been able to decide if the scope was for me, or not! However, Sunday afternoon has made me reconsider all my thoughts on it and I feel I should share them....
I managed to sneak out for a brief walk round a farm from about 15:30 and so did not have much time before dark. In fact, I had packed the lamp in case I had a bit of luck. Sure enough, I was out when dusk fell and clipped the lamp on for when I walked back to the car and a warren that I knew should provide a couple of extra bunnies.
I could barely make out the warren with the naked eye and got ready to turn the lamp on…..but did not need to, the scope was literally sucking in all the available light on the lower mags which, as I have said before, made me anticipate a problem with the reticule (Being on the first focal plane it diminishes in size with lower magnifications – I thought it would be hard to see in low light conditions). I could not have been more mistaken. Not only was a rabbit sitting there, but the cross hairs were as clear as anything with even the Mildots clear. Forget about “Super Nightview” on the Simmons range – this was incredible, especially with only a 44mm objective!
I take the points made about the packaging (that it does not help your shooting) and yes, I will remember the calculations for the mildots. I have it on very good authority that different lens caps are now available for the scope and so at the end of the day, I am going to leave the scope where it is; on the gun, as the problems I mentioned before are not so severe that I am not hitting anything (In fact, quite the opposite, even in near darkness!!).
I feel the first review may have been a little biased as yes, the Nikon Monarch is a nice scope with all the trimmings but it was not a fair choice on which to draw a comparison. THe Lightstream has kept perfect zero, has excellent clarity and acts almost as a nightvision scope with the amount of light it seems to suck in. Oh, and I also seem to be hitting things with it - Nuff said!
sparky
30-11-2006, 09:27 AM
I was supposed to be having a play and testing the Lightstream but made the mistake of putting it on Jane's gun first:(
For HFT she has been using 8mag and a 25 yard parallax and she ain't doing bad with it, looks like i'm going to have to get her one now:eek: before i can try it myself.
Pete
For HFT she has been using 8mag and a 25 yard parallax
Pete
I push it out a little more, maybe to 28 yard parallax but whatever. I like the one on my Cyclone so much I ended up buying another to put on my hw77k.
B.
I push it out a little more, maybe to 28 yard parallax but whatever. I like the one on my Cyclone so much I ended up buying another to put on my hw77k.
B.
Seems quite common that ;)
Guest
30-11-2006, 12:06 PM
I ended up buying another
Same here!
Cam
Spanner.
31-05-2007, 02:27 PM
I have just bought a S/H one and I think it is a very nice scope indeed, don't give a toss about the box:) Lovely bright optics, a very good reticule and solidly built with everything working nice and smoothly. I have owned 1 x VX111 and 2 x VX11's and IMO this knocks spots of them and I would definitely buy another. Each to his own but I have also owned a Bushnell 3200 and this knocks spots of that also. I own a Schmidt and 2 x Swaro's so I do appreciate what good glass is and this scope definitely has some great optics. I am also being sent a set of screw in caps FOC to replace the oversize caps, so no complaints in the customer service dept.
SCW22
31-05-2007, 03:23 PM
I too have one of these and as said i also rate them better than the leupolds.
Very good glass - good enough to take 300 yard plus rabbits.
Steve
Very impressed with mine also, its light gathering capabilities are astounding indeed, loving the fact that the mildots are true at every mag and how well made it is, very solidly built.
If there was anything I would change.. I think having a side wheel PA would be it.
Overall, highly recomended, cant praise it enough, big thumbs up from me!
Spanner.
01-06-2007, 09:33 AM
Lens caps came this morning, if you are reading this Liz then a big thankyou.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.