One of if not THE best sub-$1000 FFP scopes!!!!

Steiner said:
How visible is the reticle at 3x ?
Click to expand...
Like with ANY first focal plane scope, at lowest magnification the reticle is not that useable. This reticle is NO different to any other FFP reticle. You get to about 5 or 6x zoom, and the reticle is usable. On a 5-25 as example, the reticle is just as tiny at 5x zoom, or on a 7-35, at 7x the reticle is tiny.

The advantage with this 3-30x scope, is that you can USE the reticle at 5 or 6x zoom, and have a much wider field of view compared to say a 7-35 scope where you have to zoom to 9 or 10x to get a usable reticle size, but at 10x zoom, the field of view is MUCH smaller.

Anyway - short answer is this is pretty much the same as with ANY FFP reticle at lowest power.
 
Shooting Warehouse said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the explanation and the valuable experience you shared! I do appreciate the feedback, and I think you might be onto something. I definitely have more freeplay than what your video is showing and the clicks do seem crisper and more audible on your video. To my defense, I was being very mindful of the mount placement as to not interfere with the turrets and to torque to 18 inch/lbs. I will follow your suggestion to unmount the scope, try it out without mounts and revise my setup if needed.

Like I said, I’m no expert so if what I wrote about the turrets stems from a user error, I will gladly investigate, hopefully improve the situation, and amend what I wrote.



For the mounting choice, according to my research, one-piece mounts were preferred due to their added rigidity, the diminishment of stress onto the optic and that they can be easily/repeatably swapped from one setup to the other without losing accuracy. With my budget of +/- 100$ that’s why I chose the Arken. There seems to be a lot of opinions about which is better (rings or one piece), and to be honest, it’s quite hard to figure out what are marketing tactics or what is “snake oil”. There seem to be a lot of conflicting ideologies from experts and some gatekeeping from professionals so making sense of it all is a bit of a challenge by itself. Perhaps one day I will take you up on your offer and call you up so we can talk about some options once my budget permits.



I do apologize for not contacting you directly. I didn’t think it deserved a warranty claim as it didn’t seem defective, I honestly thought the turrets were made this way. Even if they were, I would have accepted it as long as there weren’t any tracking errors! I was giving the benefit of the doubt that maybe something was wrong or abnormal, but I didn’t think I would get humbled this quickly before even shooting a round! Lol

I want to re-iterate that even with this potential self-caused downside, the scope is still amazing for the price point!
F-L
 
RKtect said:
Thank you for the explanation and the valuable experience you shared! I do appreciate the feedback, and I think you might be onto something. I definitely have more freeplay than what your video is showing and the clicks do seem crisper and more audible on your video. To my defense, I was being very mindful of the mount placement as to not interfere with the turrets and to torque to 18 inch/lbs. I will follow your suggestion to unmount the scope, try it out without mounts and revise my setup if needed.

Like I said, I’m no expert so if what I wrote about the turrets stems from a user error, I will gladly investigate, hopefully improve the situation, and amend what I wrote.



For the mounting choice, according to my research, one-piece mounts were preferred due to their added rigidity, the diminishment of stress onto the optic and that they can be easily/repeatably swapped from one setup to the other without losing accuracy. With my budget of +/- 100$ that’s why I chose the Arken. There seems to be a lot of opinions about which is better (rings or one piece), and to be honest, it’s quite hard to figure out what are marketing tactics or what is “snake oil”. There seem to be a lot of conflicting ideologies from experts and some gatekeeping from professionals so making sense of it all is a bit of a challenge by itself. Perhaps one day I will take you up on your offer and call you up so we can talk about some options once my budget permits.



I do apologize for not contacting you directly. I didn’t think it deserved a warranty claim as it didn’t seem defective, I honestly thought the turrets were made this way. Even if they were, I would have accepted it as long as there weren’t any tracking errors! I was giving the benefit of the doubt that maybe something was wrong or abnormal, but I didn’t think I would get humbled this quickly before even shooting a round! Lol

I want to re-iterate that even with this potential self-caused downside, the scope is still amazing for the price point!
F-L
Click to expand...
F-L

NO worries WHATSOEVER. I like to try my best to help with advice and sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

And there could be small variances from scope to scope with the turrets - the Falcon definitely is not as "loudly clicky" as the ARKEN or DNT scopes - but it's how they designed them, and it's what many many pre-testers were happy with during the 18 months of ongoing development.

Depending on how "tightly" you fasten the top "slotted turret fastening screw" on the top of the turret, the sound will become "louder or quieter" - so you can play around with how much tighter or looser you make that top "screw" on the top of the elevettion turret.

But honestly, I wouldn't care too much about how loud or not the turret is - it's more about tracking and these get tested very well for tracking. Some scope will be louder clicking than others - and it's a personal preference. I have some $1500 scopes here that are way more quiet than these Falcons, and the turrets feel way more "mushy" - but that's just in the design and production from one manufacturer to the next.

As long as the turrets work properly, and tracking is consistent, then it ticks the box.

With regards to mounts - like I said before it's again personal preference - it's just harder to keep a mono-mount's rings away from the turret housing so as to not interfere with the turret housing - which causes issues in its own.

Here's a picture of a guy in the USA yesterday that used that same Arken Rigid Cantilever mount to mount his scope - see how the rear ring is right on top of the turret housing - a recipe for disaster, which he'll find out at the range when his parallax starts binding/grinding and his turrets stop working the way they should. LOL.

Anyway, just ENJOY the Falcon - it's a great scope at the price point. If you need any help in future, just call me - I'd be very happy to assist.

Cheers

Robbie

Image 6.jpeg
 
20YearsOfTannerite said:
The only high powered scope I've looked through was the Bushnell Match Pro ED 5-30x56mm and I was very impressed with it. How would you say this S30i+ compares to that, strictly in terms of clarity/glass quality AND eyebox forgiveness?
Click to expand...
I have heard that Bushnell Match Pro is identical to Vector Optics Continental. Some believe Vector made Match Pro for Bushnell. If you are on a tight budget you can probably give that a try. Continental line uses German manufactured glass, very clear and crisp. I won't sweat for using victor products on a small caliber gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom