Optics Lightstream 4.5-14x44 FFP
- Thread starter ParaDrop
- Start date
peterlake36
New Member
Hi ParaDrop, i've owned the Lightstream FFP for about 2 years. It is mounted on my 22lr. For the price the glass is very clear ( can only compare it to an MTC Mamba). The Milldots are spot on when i'm shooting above or below my zero. The turrets have a screw on cap which are easily unscrewed if you wish to dial in an adjustment instead of using the Milldot. The focus is on the end of the scope furthest from magnification end, i just leave this set at 75 which seems to keep all in focus. If it was a perfect world, i would have liked the focus/ parallax on the side of the scope.
PL36 has pretty much summed it up, but I would add that being built on a 1" tube it's nice and light compared to the 30mm build that has become virtually standard these days.
I have two, one on an Anschutz .22 and one that is currently without a home following the sale of my HMR (I didn't let the scope go with the rifle, which should tell you something too).
My only quibble would be that in a word that now contains fully metric scopes (i.e. turrets with 0.1 Mil clicks matched to Mildot reticles) such as the Falcon Optics 4-14x44 FFP*, I'd like to see Lightstream offering a similar combination.
*The Falcon is bigger, heavier, nowhere near as elegant, and the glass isn't quite as good, but it has a significant edge in functionality thanks to its Mil/Mil build, and side- focus.
I have two, one on an Anschutz .22 and one that is currently without a home following the sale of my HMR (I didn't let the scope go with the rifle, which should tell you something too).
My only quibble would be that in a word that now contains fully metric scopes (i.e. turrets with 0.1 Mil clicks matched to Mildot reticles) such as the Falcon Optics 4-14x44 FFP*, I'd like to see Lightstream offering a similar combination.
*The Falcon is bigger, heavier, nowhere near as elegant, and the glass isn't quite as good, but it has a significant edge in functionality thanks to its Mil/Mil build, and side- focus.
I have this scope on my .17 HMR and have been delighted with it, especially in comparison with an MTC Mamba which was present on the .22 LR I have just purchased. Indeed, the step down from the Lightstream to the MTC Mamba is so significant, it has brought me to immediately look out for another Lightstream (although preferably the other model in order to benefit from the Illuminated Reticule as I plan my .22 for Lamping - bunnies). I have seen many others extol the benefits of a higher quality scope (and indeed lower fixed magnification), but for vermin I just cannot (and would not wish to) justify e.g. £850 for the equivalent Zeiss (and would also not desire lower magnification). The only small drawback I have found is the pretty fussy eye relief, but that's a small price I am more than willing to pay for an otherwise outstanding scope for much less than the real premium scopes.
I have this 'scope on my HW100 air rifle. It is nicely made and finished, and the FFP reticle works well at high magnification.
The turret clicks are 1/8 MOA and precise and repeatable (tested with my collimator), albeit rather stiff. The glass is quite clear, probably worth the price, but don't be fooled by the hype, it is no better than that.
It holds zero, and the zero does not shift when zoomed (nor should it with FFP reticle)
However it is rather spoilt by the fact that when adjusted below about x6 or x7 magnification the field of view does not increase, rather the magnification reduces and the view tunnels. So there is no benefit from using it below this magnification, it doesn't even seem that the depth of field benefits at lower mags.
It is rather fussy about eye position, the exit tunnel is not large.
The eyepiece focus is old-school, a lock ring is used. No "fast focus eyebell" here. It is also quite a long 'scope.
Understand that it is actually only a 7-14x44 'scope. Yes it goes down to x4.5, but there is no usable advantage in the lower magnifications. TBH in this range a 50mm objective, or larger, would be more use for light gathering.
For my use, precision air rifle shooting at 20-50 yard ranges it is effective. It would also be useful on an accurate rimfire. For centrefire rifles I have other 'scopes which are better suited.
It is actually a Weaver Tactical, rebadged for the UK market.
I bought mine second hand, I would not consider the asking price (over £400) for a new one good value.
The turret clicks are 1/8 MOA and precise and repeatable (tested with my collimator), albeit rather stiff. The glass is quite clear, probably worth the price, but don't be fooled by the hype, it is no better than that.
It holds zero, and the zero does not shift when zoomed (nor should it with FFP reticle)
However it is rather spoilt by the fact that when adjusted below about x6 or x7 magnification the field of view does not increase, rather the magnification reduces and the view tunnels. So there is no benefit from using it below this magnification, it doesn't even seem that the depth of field benefits at lower mags.
It is rather fussy about eye position, the exit tunnel is not large.
The eyepiece focus is old-school, a lock ring is used. No "fast focus eyebell" here. It is also quite a long 'scope.
Understand that it is actually only a 7-14x44 'scope. Yes it goes down to x4.5, but there is no usable advantage in the lower magnifications. TBH in this range a 50mm objective, or larger, would be more use for light gathering.
For my use, precision air rifle shooting at 20-50 yard ranges it is effective. It would also be useful on an accurate rimfire. For centrefire rifles I have other 'scopes which are better suited.
It is actually a Weaver Tactical, rebadged for the UK market.
I bought mine second hand, I would not consider the asking price (over £400) for a new one good value.
Last edited:
I have two of the previous version by Weaver. It was badged as the Simmons VTac before Weaver took over. I think it an excellent design, even if the image 'tunnels' below 6x mag. It is, however, a long and heavy scope for the specification, the same length as a Zeiss 6.5-20x50, and about 25% heavier.
It has a large unfussy eyebox, and an unusually wide field of view. The Weaver reticle is a standard mildot without the extra hash marks of the Lightstream, and is fine enough for precise aiming at high mag, but to my eye, virtually unusable below 6x mag. I'm not keen on the 1/8th minute clicks, nor the unnecessarily large turrets. Overall I really rate the scope, and think it represents excellent value for money. As a self confessed optics tart, I have the obligatory Zeiss and Swarovskis, but I don't feel too short changed when using the Weaver.
It has a large unfussy eyebox, and an unusually wide field of view. The Weaver reticle is a standard mildot without the extra hash marks of the Lightstream, and is fine enough for precise aiming at high mag, but to my eye, virtually unusable below 6x mag. I'm not keen on the 1/8th minute clicks, nor the unnecessarily large turrets. Overall I really rate the scope, and think it represents excellent value for money. As a self confessed optics tart, I have the obligatory Zeiss and Swarovskis, but I don't feel too short changed when using the Weaver.
Last edited:
Similar threads
