Man, I made it into your eyebox and eye relief comments in the beginning, and realized that thus was not going to be the optic for me on a rifle that my kids will shoot. Thanks for the review.
I love the scope, I love the fov, the turrets, the reticle, the depth of field, etc, but if eyebox has top importance to you, I won't recommend it. Glad you got info that you needed, and thanks for watching!
Dear Rothgyr - Thank you for the detailed review. I bought the FDN 3.2-17x50mm with the MPR reticle, which is easy on my eyes and brain. I shoot a 308 and I am willing to tolerate a tight eye box and eye relief to achieve a field of view that helps me spot my impacts. Take care. -Phil
I really appreciate the review, even though I'm more interested in the FDN 10X, for more of a SPR kind of role. Hopefully someone will post a review of it someday.
@@rothgyr4360 Supposedly USO have a dual focal plane version of the FDN 10X in development that also has improvements on the tunneling issue, which is pretty exciting, but that's not releasing until Q4 this year. I'm thinking I might grab a 2-10x Credo or 1-10x Vudu to mess around with until then, but I haven't decided yet. I really just want something a little lighter than my 4-16x ATACR.
Thank you for the review. I’ve been looking at the FDN 17x, but there’s just not a lot of reviews on them. Do you know if the 17x has the same tunneling effect?
Yes it tunnels. Dark Lord of optics has a review of the 17x and mentions tunneling. I expect the 17x to have a kinder eye box than the 25x though. I really want one for my mk12 grendel
I have to do some more shooting behind one first. What I talk about is mostly from shooting friends' guns. The mk5 is solid though. My only annoyance with it is the small sight picture compared with my Steiner and USO. Optically and ergonomically it's excellent though.
The eye box is tight on it since it's a 52mm objective lens, which makes it so you need to be straight behind it. Pros are that it's harder to induce aberrations and parallax, but cons are that shooting weak side and other weird positions is a bit trickier. The sight picture, or the size of your "HUD", is massive, especially compared with a mk5.
If your length of pull us long and you mount the scope really far back, you can hit your fingers on manipulation. If you keep lop short (my personal preference) it's a non issue. No ejection problems with my lone peak Fuzion either. TBH I've stopped running the cap entirely as I've been dialing wind a lot recently
I recently purchased the FDN 17. In my opinion. It is not worth the $2600 price. While it looks really good on the outside. There are quite a few drawbacks that deems it unworthy. The rheostat design is a nightmare to reinstall. The eye relief is terrible. The eye box is even worse.
Have you compared it to other $2600 scopes? You're absolutely correct about the rheostat design. You should have what suits your eyes, and I can't deny that, but the eyebox and eye relief are poor in order to increase field of view. It's not a bad optical choice, it's an optimization. You can get a Razor II and have a forgiving eyebox, but you'll have more CA and possible misses due to parallax. You can get a MK5 and have a tiny field of view. Eyebox/eye relief are great features in a rifle scope, but if they're not the highest priority on the manufacturer's optical formula it doesn't mean it's a bad design. Did you mount your scope? Most people who complain about the eyebox have never mounted it or looked through it on a rifle that is properly fitted to them.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Man, I made it into your eyebox and eye relief comments in the beginning, and realized that thus was not going to be the optic for me on a rifle that my kids will shoot. Thanks for the review.
I love the scope, I love the fov, the turrets, the reticle, the depth of field, etc, but if eyebox has top importance to you, I won't recommend it. Glad you got info that you needed, and thanks for watching!
Thank you for making the review with comparisons !
Dear Rothgyr - Thank you for the detailed review. I bought the FDN 3.2-17x50mm with the MPR reticle, which is easy on my eyes and brain. I shoot a 308 and I am willing to tolerate a tight eye box and eye relief to achieve a field of view that helps me spot my impacts. Take care. -Phil
true. it is a nice scope! cool design
I really appreciate the review, even though I'm more interested in the FDN 10X, for more of a SPR kind of role. Hopefully someone will post a review of it someday.
I have the 10x on my radar for the same reason! I've got an SWFA on my mk12 grendel, but I'd love to have a 10x or 17x fdn on top instead
@@rothgyr4360 Supposedly USO have a dual focal plane version of the FDN 10X in development that also has improvements on the tunneling issue, which is pretty exciting, but that's not releasing until Q4 this year. I'm thinking I might grab a 2-10x Credo or 1-10x Vudu to mess around with until then, but I haven't decided yet. I really just want something a little lighter than my 4-16x ATACR.
Thank you for the review. I’ve been looking at the FDN 17x, but there’s just not a lot of reviews on them. Do you know if the 17x has the same tunneling effect?
Yes it tunnels. Dark Lord of optics has a review of the 17x and mentions tunneling. I expect the 17x to have a kinder eye box than the 25x though. I really want one for my mk12 grendel
is it as good as SB PM II 5-25X?
I've never looked through one, sorry I can't help
Can you do a vid on your leupold mark 5, please?
I have to do some more shooting behind one first. What I talk about is mostly from shooting friends' guns. The mk5 is solid though. My only annoyance with it is the small sight picture compared with my Steiner and USO. Optically and ergonomically it's excellent though.
@@rothgyr4360
I thought you said the uso had a terrible eye box
The eye box is tight on it since it's a 52mm objective lens, which makes it so you need to be straight behind it. Pros are that it's harder to induce aberrations and parallax, but cons are that shooting weak side and other weird positions is a bit trickier. The sight picture, or the size of your "HUD", is massive, especially compared with a mk5.
Does big wind cover get in way of brass ejecting, bolt manipulation?
If your length of pull us long and you mount the scope really far back, you can hit your fingers on manipulation. If you keep lop short (my personal preference) it's a non issue. No ejection problems with my lone peak Fuzion either.
TBH I've stopped running the cap entirely as I've been dialing wind a lot recently
Turn turret 180° loosen torrent screws align marks tighten screws turn to zero marks will be aligned
Yeah for me the killer was the zero stop being really unreliable for me. It shifted too much and would bind on me.
Interesting. I've not had that problem - I'll have to see if this one has issues if I mess with the zero stop
I recently purchased the FDN 17. In my opinion. It is not worth the $2600 price. While it looks really good on the outside. There are quite a few drawbacks that deems it unworthy. The rheostat design is a nightmare to reinstall. The eye relief is terrible. The eye box is even worse.
Have you compared it to other $2600 scopes? You're absolutely correct about the rheostat design. You should have what suits your eyes, and I can't deny that, but the eyebox and eye relief are poor in order to increase field of view. It's not a bad optical choice, it's an optimization.
You can get a Razor II and have a forgiving eyebox, but you'll have more CA and possible misses due to parallax. You can get a MK5 and have a tiny field of view. Eyebox/eye relief are great features in a rifle scope, but if they're not the highest priority on the manufacturer's optical formula it doesn't mean it's a bad design.
Did you mount your scope? Most people who complain about the eyebox have never mounted it or looked through it on a rifle that is properly fitted to them.
Thank you for your reply and insight. :). Happy New Year to you and yours.