Nikon Black FX 1000 vs SWFA 3-15

[BCD]

Does anyone have experience using both of these scopes? I have the SWFA but the reticle is a little faint for my old eyes and I'm curious as to how the Nikon compares?

Thank You!

 

[la angler]

I had a Nikon fx1000 the reticle was a little busy for me but you could definitely see it well with 59 year eyes.

 

[gr8fuldoug]

Be aware that Nikon no longer makes riflescopes so you're buying something that if it fails they will not repair

 

[Flydaho]

The Nikon is a First Focal Plane scope so the reticle will change in size as the magnification changes. At the higher magnifications it will be larger and easier to see, It may be faint at the lower magnifications, but I haven't looked through that specific scope before.

 

[wildcat33]

As doug says, Nikon is out of the riflescope business. I wouldn't touch any of their scopes. I'm not a massive fan of the SWFA scopes (pour tar, ready feathers). But this is an easy choice. Super Chicken all day. Bushnell LRTS is another great option. But also FFP, so whatever you don't like about the reticle of SWFA will likely be present on the bushnell.

 

[TTT]

I like the scope. Nice glass. FFP milrad reticle is easy to see even without illumination. My experience with Nikon rifle scope is limited to an old Monarch UCC, BDC, and now the Black FX. They have been absolutely reliable.

 

[palomarguru_actual]

Just call Doug at CameralandNY, he wont lead you wrong. You didn't detail your use scenarios so it's hard to give you relevant feedback but at this price range the Athlon Midas TAC should be part of the conversation. Of the two you're considering I would go with the SWFA; I have a couple of their fixed power scopes and they are built like tanks.