20YearsOfTannerite
Regular
Thanks for sharing all these details, you've won me over for my next scope purchase
One of if not THE best sub-$1000 FFP scopes!!!!
- Thread starter Shooting Warehouse
- Start date
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Much appreciated - I stand behind every product I sell, 100% of the time. I'll never leave a customer "high and dry"... LOL
- Location
- Calgary, AB
The S40i+ is an enhanced version of the previous S40i. I ordered the new S40i+, but Nick told me (given how critical I am about scopes), that I would not like the S40i+ as much as I like the S30i+, so I held off ordering them. You don't really need the extra 10x mag - as glass has to be spectacular to be great at 40x mag. Very few European scopes are excellent at 40x, and they cost 7 times more than the Falcon scopes. The S40i+ is a very very nice scope, but the S30i+ is a tad nicer.
Order in!!
I’ve had the pleasure with dealing with Robbie for nearly 10 years now, bought budget scopes, all the way up to TT 7-35
One thing is always consistent, the service and advice.
Advice on what’s best option, not necessarily the most expensive.
Million percent trustworthy!!!
I’ve had the pleasure with dealing with Robbie for nearly 10 years now, bought budget scopes, all the way up to TT 7-35
One thing is always consistent, the service and advice.
Advice on what’s best option, not necessarily the most expensive.
Million percent trustworthy!!!
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Thak you my dear friend!!!
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Hi everyone, first time posting!
I was about to get a DNT The One when available at Shooting Warehouse at the end of April. A shooting partner of mine called Robbie and that's when we started looking into the Falcon Optics S30i+.
Small disclaimer; I'm not a professional, I'm not a reviewer, I'm simply an amateur precision shooter that wants to improve at this sport with the limited budget he has. I also want to say I have no skin in the game and I won't hold back any punches if needed be. So here are my first impression about the scope:
Mounting Options:
If you plan on using scope rings, this section doesn't really apply to you since you have the flexibility to space the rings however you want. If you're using one piece mounts though, it's a different story...
First thing I noticed is the lack of documentation (probably due to the scope being so new). Secondly, I noticed the manufacturer recommendation (of their other scopes) to install the mounts relatively far from the turret adjustments as it can negatively impact the accuracy, or even damage the scope (Yet, there were no dimensions or diagrams). After a little CAD magic, I was able to guestimate what mounts would and would not fit.
My shooting partner installed his S30+ on a quick detach American Defense Recon Mount (AD-RECON-S). I went with a more budget friendly option, the Arken Optics Rigid Precision Cantilever Scope Mount.
If we talk about fitments, the respective manufacturer says the American Defense mount has 2.52" between the rings whilst the Arken mount has 2.6". You might say there's almost no differences, but if you respect Falcon's recommended clearances of the turrets, it's the difference between not being able to adjust anything (with the American Defense) or having +/- 1/8" of play where you can slide your scope forward or back within the mount.
Even though there is not a lot of documentation on the internet, I would like to add that there is a print at the bottom of the front scope tube showing where it is safe to install your mounts.
Reticle and Glass clarity:
I like the reticle, the charismas tree, and that the whole reticle illuminates. I guess this is a matter of preferences so I'll let you come to your own conclusion. For me, it was still an important criteria when I was shopping for a scope.
For the glass... Isn't it why we are all here?... I must say, Robbie is not understating the glass clarity. I was VERY impressed! There is nothing scientific about my test, so please take it with a grain of salt. I simply looked through the scope at trees +/- 500m away.
I had a quick comparison with the scope I had around, a Sightron SiiiSS 6-24x50, and a Vortex PST (Gen 1) 6-24x50. I know the comparison might be apples to oranges, but this is what I had on hand. It might be worth noting that at their release, those scopes were more expensive than the Falcon.
The falcon was brighter, and there was much more details when looking at branches. The Sightron was a little bit dimer, the details weren't as sharp and I could see more chromatic aberration at full zoom. The Vortex was disappointing... It was darker, the branches weren't crisp and it almost looked like there was a gray filter over the glass.
Like I said, I know there are years of technologies between those scopes. They don't have the same objective lens sizes or tube sizes so it might not even be a fair comparison to begin with. I don't want to remove anything from Sightron (for the age and price it was, it's a clear glass!) nor Vortex (For it's age and warranty, I'm still a satisfied customer!). They served me well and I will keep using them.
Turrets:
If you think "This is too good to be true!" or "Where's the catch?", this might be it. I honestly think the turrets are the compromise of going with the Falcon.
The turret are semi-crisp when changing the elevation down, and mushy when changing the elevation up. There also seams to be a little bit of free play - or slack - in the turret (+/- 0.05 MRAD)... The turret can turn slightly without engaging the internal mechanism. If the turret lines up at 1.15 MRAD, are you clicked at 1.1 or at 1.2?... I have to play with the slack to align it with the correct marking. I want to give the manufacturer the benefit of the doubt, I don't know if this is considered normal, if it's a defect, if it's within their quality control tolerances (and all scopes with have play in the elevation turret), or if there are adjustments to improve this, but I've never had that type of play on any of my scopes. Like I said, this is only how my own scope reacts and there isn't a lot of information out there about this model.
The parallax adjustment is also quite stiff so get ready to grab it tightly for adjustments.
All in all, the Sightron and Vortex are a lot crisper and more tactile. There is no ambiguity which "click" you are on.
For me, this is not a deal breaker. When I adjust the elevation turret, I'll simply make sure to align the markings properly.
Summary:
The quality you get for 899$ CAD is astonishing!
For the price, for myself, this scope is 1000% worth it.
I will also agree with Robbie about all the advantage and features he listed.
It might be difficult to find a mounting solution that respects the manufacturer's "safe mounting position".
I think the turrets is the compromise that needs to be made to get this quality at this price point.
That being said, assuming that the turrets tracks accurately, I will gladly save the money!
It is, undeniably, an amazing scope for the price!
I have yet to try it in the field but I figured I would talk about my first impressions and, perhaps add information that hasn't been shared yet.
I don't want to dissuade any buyer or scare them off, I do think it is a great offering for the price and a well informed decision will certainly make satisfied customers like I am. I hope this was insightful!
F-L
I was about to get a DNT The One when available at Shooting Warehouse at the end of April. A shooting partner of mine called Robbie and that's when we started looking into the Falcon Optics S30i+.
Small disclaimer; I'm not a professional, I'm not a reviewer, I'm simply an amateur precision shooter that wants to improve at this sport with the limited budget he has. I also want to say I have no skin in the game and I won't hold back any punches if needed be. So here are my first impression about the scope:
Mounting Options:
If you plan on using scope rings, this section doesn't really apply to you since you have the flexibility to space the rings however you want. If you're using one piece mounts though, it's a different story...
First thing I noticed is the lack of documentation (probably due to the scope being so new). Secondly, I noticed the manufacturer recommendation (of their other scopes) to install the mounts relatively far from the turret adjustments as it can negatively impact the accuracy, or even damage the scope (Yet, there were no dimensions or diagrams). After a little CAD magic, I was able to guestimate what mounts would and would not fit.
My shooting partner installed his S30+ on a quick detach American Defense Recon Mount (AD-RECON-S). I went with a more budget friendly option, the Arken Optics Rigid Precision Cantilever Scope Mount.
If we talk about fitments, the respective manufacturer says the American Defense mount has 2.52" between the rings whilst the Arken mount has 2.6". You might say there's almost no differences, but if you respect Falcon's recommended clearances of the turrets, it's the difference between not being able to adjust anything (with the American Defense) or having +/- 1/8" of play where you can slide your scope forward or back within the mount.
Even though there is not a lot of documentation on the internet, I would like to add that there is a print at the bottom of the front scope tube showing where it is safe to install your mounts.
Reticle and Glass clarity:
I like the reticle, the charismas tree, and that the whole reticle illuminates. I guess this is a matter of preferences so I'll let you come to your own conclusion. For me, it was still an important criteria when I was shopping for a scope.
For the glass... Isn't it why we are all here?... I must say, Robbie is not understating the glass clarity. I was VERY impressed! There is nothing scientific about my test, so please take it with a grain of salt. I simply looked through the scope at trees +/- 500m away.
I had a quick comparison with the scope I had around, a Sightron SiiiSS 6-24x50, and a Vortex PST (Gen 1) 6-24x50. I know the comparison might be apples to oranges, but this is what I had on hand. It might be worth noting that at their release, those scopes were more expensive than the Falcon.
The falcon was brighter, and there was much more details when looking at branches. The Sightron was a little bit dimer, the details weren't as sharp and I could see more chromatic aberration at full zoom. The Vortex was disappointing... It was darker, the branches weren't crisp and it almost looked like there was a gray filter over the glass.
Like I said, I know there are years of technologies between those scopes. They don't have the same objective lens sizes or tube sizes so it might not even be a fair comparison to begin with. I don't want to remove anything from Sightron (for the age and price it was, it's a clear glass!) nor Vortex (For it's age and warranty, I'm still a satisfied customer!). They served me well and I will keep using them.
Turrets:
If you think "This is too good to be true!" or "Where's the catch?", this might be it. I honestly think the turrets are the compromise of going with the Falcon.
The turret are semi-crisp when changing the elevation down, and mushy when changing the elevation up. There also seams to be a little bit of free play - or slack - in the turret (+/- 0.05 MRAD)... The turret can turn slightly without engaging the internal mechanism. If the turret lines up at 1.15 MRAD, are you clicked at 1.1 or at 1.2?... I have to play with the slack to align it with the correct marking. I want to give the manufacturer the benefit of the doubt, I don't know if this is considered normal, if it's a defect, if it's within their quality control tolerances (and all scopes with have play in the elevation turret), or if there are adjustments to improve this, but I've never had that type of play on any of my scopes. Like I said, this is only how my own scope reacts and there isn't a lot of information out there about this model.
The parallax adjustment is also quite stiff so get ready to grab it tightly for adjustments.
All in all, the Sightron and Vortex are a lot crisper and more tactile. There is no ambiguity which "click" you are on.
For me, this is not a deal breaker. When I adjust the elevation turret, I'll simply make sure to align the markings properly.
Summary:
The quality you get for 899$ CAD is astonishing!
For the price, for myself, this scope is 1000% worth it.
I will also agree with Robbie about all the advantage and features he listed.
It might be difficult to find a mounting solution that respects the manufacturer's "safe mounting position".
I think the turrets is the compromise that needs to be made to get this quality at this price point.
That being said, assuming that the turrets tracks accurately, I will gladly save the money!
It is, undeniably, an amazing scope for the price!
I have yet to try it in the field but I figured I would talk about my first impressions and, perhaps add information that hasn't been shared yet.
I don't want to dissuade any buyer or scare them off, I do think it is a great offering for the price and a well informed decision will certainly make satisfied customers like I am. I hope this was insightful!
F-L
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Hello F-L
Thank you so much for posting this. From my side, maybe just a few comments....
1) I never suggest using 1-piece mono mounts on large (non-LPVO) scopes as it does restrict where you can place the scope mount so as to not interfere with the turret housing.
2) With a set of 2-ring mounts, you have way more available "space" to place the mounts on the scope so you can get the proper eye-relief you need. Also, the Arken Rigid mount is a FORWARD LEANING cantilever, so it's actually pushing the scope 1-1.5" forward, sway from your face. These mounts were really designed for LPVO scopes.
3) They have a line indicating the "safe mounting area) - which is 18mm away from the turret housing, and 13mm away from where the turret housing starts to "flare out". With the Arken Rigid mount, when mounting on the "safe mounting line" on the tube forward of the turret housing, you only have 2mm on the rear tube before the turret housing starts "flaring open". So you're basically starting to "crimp" the turret housing.
4) And cheap torque wrenches have varying amount of actual measured torque from one tool to another - so sometimes you think you've got 18 in-lb of torque, and in actual fact it could be 20, 22, 24 etc. I have sent 5 different Wheeler Fat wrenches in for calibration over the past 4 years, and only ONE was 18.1 in-lb when set to approx 18 in-lb - the rest were 22, 23 and 24.5. So that too can damage or limit a scope's proper working.
5) Lastly, no scope manufacturer that I now of at least, has diagrams or documentation with specs of where to mount the rings. This Falcon is only of the only scopes I have ever sold, where they show a line on the underside of the scope, showing the "safe mounting distance" away from the turret housing.
6) And if a line on the turret doesn't line up 100% with the numbers, it's the angle of taking the video.
But you can clearly see there's NO slop on the turret, NO mushy-ness up or down - and very very audible.
F-L - I suggest removing the scope from the mount, and see if your turrets work better. My thought it your mount "pinched" the turret housing, possibly causing some of the issues. I check EVERY scope before I ship it out, and Nick Watts (owner of Falcon in England) also inspects every single scope personally before shipping them to dealers - that way, if a problem is found, he sends it back to the factory and obviously doesn't have to pay for that specific scope, and doesn't have costs with warranty etc etc. I did not find ANY of the first shipment to have any slop or mushiness on the turrets - I tested them all. And so did Nick - this leads me to believe it may be your mounts - too close to the turret housing and/or rings crews tightened too much - either accidentally, or by a torque wreng being out of spec. I don't use cheap torque wrenches anymore (except I have ONE Fat Wrench that was measured in a lab to have the correct calibration. I use Fix-it-Sticks or a $500 one from Europe - which has been properly calibrated. LOL
I just tested the 4 units I still have here in stock (unmounted), and they click very crisply, and there's no slop. Which makes me wonder if just maybe, the Arken Rigid mount you're using is causing some kind of issue with your turret housing - being mounted too close to it.
I have attached a photo of the Rigid Mount on the scope, where the front ring is AT the "safe install line" - and another photo showing how close to the turret housing the rear ring is - around HALF the distance it should be compared to the front ring.
I would suggest you both move to using RINGS, and not mono-mounts. And especially not forward-leaning cantilever mounts.
Thank you so much for posting this. From my side, maybe just a few comments....
1) I never suggest using 1-piece mono mounts on large (non-LPVO) scopes as it does restrict where you can place the scope mount so as to not interfere with the turret housing.
2) With a set of 2-ring mounts, you have way more available "space" to place the mounts on the scope so you can get the proper eye-relief you need. Also, the Arken Rigid mount is a FORWARD LEANING cantilever, so it's actually pushing the scope 1-1.5" forward, sway from your face. These mounts were really designed for LPVO scopes.
3) They have a line indicating the "safe mounting area) - which is 18mm away from the turret housing, and 13mm away from where the turret housing starts to "flare out". With the Arken Rigid mount, when mounting on the "safe mounting line" on the tube forward of the turret housing, you only have 2mm on the rear tube before the turret housing starts "flaring open". So you're basically starting to "crimp" the turret housing.
4) And cheap torque wrenches have varying amount of actual measured torque from one tool to another - so sometimes you think you've got 18 in-lb of torque, and in actual fact it could be 20, 22, 24 etc. I have sent 5 different Wheeler Fat wrenches in for calibration over the past 4 years, and only ONE was 18.1 in-lb when set to approx 18 in-lb - the rest were 22, 23 and 24.5. So that too can damage or limit a scope's proper working.
5) Lastly, no scope manufacturer that I now of at least, has diagrams or documentation with specs of where to mount the rings. This Falcon is only of the only scopes I have ever sold, where they show a line on the underside of the scope, showing the "safe mounting distance" away from the turret housing.
6) And if a line on the turret doesn't line up 100% with the numbers, it's the angle of taking the video.
But you can clearly see there's NO slop on the turret, NO mushy-ness up or down - and very very audible.
F-L - I suggest removing the scope from the mount, and see if your turrets work better. My thought it your mount "pinched" the turret housing, possibly causing some of the issues. I check EVERY scope before I ship it out, and Nick Watts (owner of Falcon in England) also inspects every single scope personally before shipping them to dealers - that way, if a problem is found, he sends it back to the factory and obviously doesn't have to pay for that specific scope, and doesn't have costs with warranty etc etc. I did not find ANY of the first shipment to have any slop or mushiness on the turrets - I tested them all. And so did Nick - this leads me to believe it may be your mounts - too close to the turret housing and/or rings crews tightened too much - either accidentally, or by a torque wreng being out of spec. I don't use cheap torque wrenches anymore (except I have ONE Fat Wrench that was measured in a lab to have the correct calibration. I use Fix-it-Sticks or a $500 one from Europe - which has been properly calibrated. LOL
I just tested the 4 units I still have here in stock (unmounted), and they click very crisply, and there's no slop. Which makes me wonder if just maybe, the Arken Rigid mount you're using is causing some kind of issue with your turret housing - being mounted too close to it.
I have attached a photo of the Rigid Mount on the scope, where the front ring is AT the "safe install line" - and another photo showing how close to the turret housing the rear ring is - around HALF the distance it should be compared to the front ring.
I would suggest you both move to using RINGS, and not mono-mounts. And especially not forward-leaning cantilever mounts.
Last edited:
In that turret video I can see a small amount of free play in the mechanism and the clicks do sound a bit different going down as compared with up..... looks pretty acceptable overall though and I really like the large font and markings.
As to the stiff AO adjustment. The S10 I bought from Robbie last year also came with a very stiff adjustment, I got a silicone ring that I put over it to increase the friction a bit for my fingers and that helps when making small adjustments. So far it hasn't loosened up with use and when it sits for a while it seems to take a bit more force to get it flowing smoothly.
As to the stiff AO adjustment. The S10 I bought from Robbie last year also came with a very stiff adjustment, I got a silicone ring that I put over it to increase the friction a bit for my fingers and that helps when making small adjustments. So far it hasn't loosened up with use and when it sits for a while it seems to take a bit more force to get it flowing smoothly.
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Hi Can-down
Thanks for your input. Yeah, it might look like play on the video, but there's no "slop" when turning. The turret is actually pretty nice. In think the video is exaggerating the sounds and the feel. But that's just my personal opinion.
Unfortunately many of us want a $900 scope to be in the same league as a $7000 Kahles or ZCO or Tangent - and they're not - but we're also pay 8x less money. For $900, this Falcon is in my opinion the best bang for the buck scope on the market today.
I'm not someone that expects to ever own optics over a couple grand.... we are in a golden age of many consumer products and the quality today of mid level optics compared to when I first started shooting is impressive. I finally understood what many shooters talk about with diminishing eye sight when I was around 53 and clearly there are people that never had good sight.
A big part of people's opinions on optics come from the fact we all see things a bit differently, even comparing scopes in the same mid level or upper mid level price range I will usually prefer some over others.
As long as the hashmarks line up close to where the turret is and the adjustments are solid and repeatable I don't worry too much about a little free play and the tone of the clicks.....
That said, the stiff parallax adjustment on my S10 is stressful on my construction worker fingers and unnecessary as the 5 other scopes I have from 3 different brands don't require nearly the same amount of strain and it's not like they are loose and blowing in the wind waiting to be bumped out of alignment.....
This new Falcon looks great and I would consider it if I was in the market for one!
I bought a couple of the earlier pre AO versions of the S10 (after buying the AO one from you) on sale from another supplier and I really like them!
They are lighter due to the lack of adjustable objective and I like the mild Christmas tree they have and the fact the illumination only lights up the center dot which I prefer.
A big part of people's opinions on optics come from the fact we all see things a bit differently, even comparing scopes in the same mid level or upper mid level price range I will usually prefer some over others.
As long as the hashmarks line up close to where the turret is and the adjustments are solid and repeatable I don't worry too much about a little free play and the tone of the clicks.....
That said, the stiff parallax adjustment on my S10 is stressful on my construction worker fingers and unnecessary as the 5 other scopes I have from 3 different brands don't require nearly the same amount of strain and it's not like they are loose and blowing in the wind waiting to be bumped out of alignment.....
This new Falcon looks great and I would consider it if I was in the market for one!
I bought a couple of the earlier pre AO versions of the S10 (after buying the AO one from you) on sale from another supplier and I really like them!
They are lighter due to the lack of adjustable objective and I like the mild Christmas tree they have and the fact the illumination only lights up the center dot which I prefer.
Last edited:
This is an interesting scope.
I do have a DNT The One MIL scope and although I haven't had the chance to shoot with it yet has impressed me.
The DNT is very clear , I have compared to my NXS 5.5 x 22, looked out to about 800m, I really didn't see much difference. Both made out details on what I was looking at. Obviously the Nightforce is going to be a more durable scope.
DNT is so far impressed me. I just bought a Tikka Ace Target today, I was going to mount the DNT on it. I have it mounted on a T1X right now. I kinda like it on there, maybe a new scope is in order as well.
You have mentioned the S30+ as being just as good so far as the DNT. Being a new scope there really isn't much information on it. You said you have a prototype that you have been using, real world use how does it compare? Illumination comparable? Zero stop? Using the rest of scope functions, like focus ring, parallax?
I'm actually impressed with what is coming in to purchase right now. Some really decent optics put there for good prices.
I do have a DNT The One MIL scope and although I haven't had the chance to shoot with it yet has impressed me.
The DNT is very clear , I have compared to my NXS 5.5 x 22, looked out to about 800m, I really didn't see much difference. Both made out details on what I was looking at. Obviously the Nightforce is going to be a more durable scope.
DNT is so far impressed me. I just bought a Tikka Ace Target today, I was going to mount the DNT on it. I have it mounted on a T1X right now. I kinda like it on there, maybe a new scope is in order as well.
You have mentioned the S30+ as being just as good so far as the DNT. Being a new scope there really isn't much information on it. You said you have a prototype that you have been using, real world use how does it compare? Illumination comparable? Zero stop? Using the rest of scope functions, like focus ring, parallax?
I'm actually impressed with what is coming in to purchase right now. Some really decent optics put there for good prices.
Just took mine out too the range and was really impressed, mounted in an Area 419 mount, zero issues with the turrets or anything else.
Shot at 100 yards, but looked out too 600 yards with it. Excellent quality and vivid picture at that range. The lens caps are to die for!!!
Conclusion, going too mount these optics on all my rifles.
More than enough for what I need
Shot at 100 yards, but looked out too 600 yards with it. Excellent quality and vivid picture at that range. The lens caps are to die for!!!
Conclusion, going too mount these optics on all my rifles.
More than enough for what I need
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Thanks for asking hogie. I can honestly say the Falcon is an "overall" better buy than the DNT.
So let's compare a few things, side by side....
1) TURRET "clickyness" - Comparing just the turret feel - I would say compared to a DNT 7-35's turrets "clicks", if I based the DNT at 100 for comparison, I would give the Falcon a 90-92 on tactile clicks - in other words, how "clicky" they are. So slight advantage DNT
2) Turret caps - here I give it to the Falcon by quite some margin - as the Falcon is a tool-less turret reset other than having to use a coin - the Falcon's turret caps unscrew with an included plastic tool or with a coin. NO little "grub screws" to tighten using a torx tool, and nothing to come "loose" and getting lost. And the turret number markings on the Falcon are also a bit nicer to me personally - but that's very subjective as it's a matter of personal preference.
3) Windage turret - Falcon has a capped windage turret, which I like, and it's large enough for use without the cap - DNT/Arken have exposed windage turrets.
4) Zero stop - The Falcon's zero stop beats the DNT/Arken hands down, as it's not with exposed screws that can loosen - and it can be completely removed (it comes separately in the box, not installed from factory), AND you can set any number of clicks BELOW ZERO - something the DNT/Arken scopes cannot do - they are either not engaged at all or that set AT ZERO - no ability to set BELOW Zero.
5) Parallax knob on the Falcon is a little "stiffer" than on the DNT - I prefer it stiff, but some would prefer the "looser" feeling of the DNT/Arken - again personal choice.
6) Throw lever - Arken not included, DNT has a small included throw lever - the Falcon has a decently large included throw lever - which personally, again I prefer as it's easier to "grip"
7) Lens Caps - Arken/DNT use $50 plastic/rubber caps that you have to purchase - the Falcon included VERY high end ALUMINUM flip caps that screw into the objective and screw into the ocular, and can fold FLAT onto the scope - completely out of the way. I personally think they are NICER than the Swarovski Aluminum Flip caps that cost $450 per set. The DNT/Arken $50 caps are very very basic, and just OK. NO comparison whatsoever to what the Falcon comes with standard.
8) Glass - The DNT uses glass from Japan, but they won't divulge who's glass they use - the Falcon used HOYA glass from Japan - in terms of glass quality, to my eyes, exactly the same. Several times now using a photo lens chart, I could discern just a tad more detail on the Falcon, but that might be my eyes. I would say 100 to Falcon, 98 to DNT.
9) Scope "tube" - the DNT/Arken has sharp edges almost like the tube was "molded/pressed" during manufacturing - the Falcon he no "edges" - again most probably just looks nicer to me.
10) Turret housing - bottom of the DNT/Arken turret housing has the "plug" where final inspection at the factory is done for the erector system - this "plug" limits how low you can mount your scope, and especially so in mono-mounts. The Falcon's turret housing underside is FLAT - so no protruding plug there - again cosmetic, BUT I love it, as I can use lower rings and a MUCH LOWER one-piece mount (btw, I don't like cantilever one-piece mounts).
11) Reticle - DNT and Falcon have great, usable 02. MRAD hash mark "Christmas tree" reticles, fully illuminated - the Arkens only have 0.5 MRAD hash marks and only the centre part illuminates. Big win for both the DNT and the Falcon.
12) Parallax - Falcon parallaxes down to only 10 meters (11 yards), DNT closest parallax is 25 yards - big advantage Falcon - not everyone needs 10m focus, but its great to have
13) DNT has 30 MRAD of total elevation adjustment, while the Falcon has 39 MRAD - again a BIG win for the Falcon. Both use 34mm main tubes.
14) Zoom Ratio - DNT/Arken still use older (and cheaper to produce) 5x zoom ratio, while the Falcon uses a 10x zoom ratio, so the field of view at 100m of the Falcon at lowest magnfication (3x) is 13.1m and at 30x mag, it's 1.3m. The DNT at lowest mag (7x) at 100m is only 5m. At 30x mag the Falcon at 100m is 1.3m and the DNT is 1m.
15) Eye relief - Falcon is 103mm - 99m (4.06" - 3.9") and DNT is 88m (3.5")
16) Weight - Falcon weighs 1050g (37oz) and DNT is 1190 g (42oz)
17) Length - Falcon is 365mm (14.3") and DNT is 406.5mm (16")
18) Quality Control - DNT/Arken are mass produced with several thousand pieces per month being produced, and QC is only done once, at the factory in China. Falcon is only produced at several dozen per month, and QC is done in China at the factory, and AGAIN in England by Nick Watts when he receives the shipment from the factory - each unit is hand inspected in England, and tracking tested on a high-end collimator. The warranty "claims" on Falcon have become negligibly small given the QC being done twice - and especially because they are hand tested in England a second time - not something a factory can do....
19) Warranty - both have lifetime warranty. And with DNT/Arken, the warranty is handled by the importer and communicated remotely between the importer and the factory via emails - the Falcon is handled by the owner (Nick Watts) directly. And he's GOOD and superb to deal with - very, very hands on.
Other than that, I don't think I have more to say. Do I like the Falcon, absolutely. Is it hands down better than a DNT - in my opinion it wins the battle - but again that's subjective, as I do LOVE my DNT's as well - I just think you get a LOT more for your money with these Falcons - for all the reasons mentioned above.
Any questions/concerns - instead of asking on a forum, why not just CALL ME? I have all the time in the world to engage and discuss.
Cheers
Robbie
PS: here are 2 photos to compare ergonomics of the Falcon and DNT.
My very first range trip when I bought my first Zero Compromise scope was a sad day. I had installed it in a Spuhr mount with too little gap and as-per-specification ring torques. I got to the range, hung a target, loaded the mag, laid down behind the rifle and went to adjust the parallax (focus) dial. It wouldn't turn. The focus was totally wrong for the target distance so I couldn't see the target and couldn't shoot.
Back home I went.
I had to move the scope's position within the mount to have more clearance from the turret. I also had to drastically reduce the torque on the rings compared to what the manufacturer called for.
A year later, new Spuhr mounts included a yellow warning paper advising of new instructions to avoid this problem.
TLDR: Even fancy scopes and mounts can bind the internal mechanism if the user doesn't know what to avoid.
Back home I went.
I had to move the scope's position within the mount to have more clearance from the turret. I also had to drastically reduce the torque on the rings compared to what the manufacturer called for.
A year later, new Spuhr mounts included a yellow warning paper advising of new instructions to avoid this problem.
TLDR: Even fancy scopes and mounts can bind the internal mechanism if the user doesn't know what to avoid.
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Thanks for the info adamg!! It’s happened to us all. LOL. Been there too.
