SWFA SS Optical Quality

[atmat]

My advice is to suck it up and buy better shit.

The issue with this is that there’s really not a lot of better options. Of the other reliable dialers, though some have better glass, most don’t have remotely as good of reticles for hunting purposes. Or they weigh 50% more. It’s not just a price proposition.

But I do get your point, and I did pay quite a bit more for a different scope. But even then, mine has limitations of elevation travel.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

The issue with this is that there’s really not a lot of better options. Of the other reliable dialers, though some have better glass, most don’t have remotely as good of reticles for hunting purposes. Or they weigh 50% more. It’s not just a price proposition.

But I do get your point, and I did pay quite a bit more for a different scope. But even then, mine has limitations of elevation travel.

Do you live under a rock? There's literally hundreds of options that are better than the SWFA's with solid reliability. You just aren't going to get them for $200-300. Those better options start around the $1000 mark and go up to $4000+. The milquad reticle is also nothing to write home about, there's a ton of better reticles too.

 

[Crow Hunter TN]

I owned four of the 6x and one of the 3-15 SWFA scopes for a short time and i had trouble seeing the reticle in variable lighting conditions. The reticle would wash out bad when the light around me was brighter than the target. If I put a toilet paper tube on the occular so that I limited the light coming into my eye to mostly what was coming through the scope, it would work, otherwise I couldn't see the thin part of the reticle on a squirrel in a tree at 40yds away. Same distance and same target the Trijicon credo 3-9 was fine at all magnifications.

Similar results on other game as the light faded.

I also have a Credo 2.5-15. Brightness and resolution are good, no problem seeing any target in low light but the reticle (.035mil) is so thin it is very had to see without the illumination on when it starts to get dark or looking at targets in shadow or on a mottled background in low light. I wouldn't want it on a general purpose hunting rifle myself. I have it on a rifle I plan on shooting targets and prairie dogs with. I think it will be great for that. If the reticle was thicker like the credo 3-9 (.05mil) it would be awesome.

Everyone's eyes are different so it might be just my eyes.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

3-9, 6x, 10x, in that order, are my preference for hunting....and the 10x is trailing the first two by a good margin. The greater than 10x SWFA fixed scopes have been irritating for me to use...they are functional but as power increases the difference in glass quality is amplified. Couple that difference with the smaller exit pupil and I just don't want to use them. I haven't used the 10x HD.

The 6x glass isn't "bad" and the lower mag power doesn't amplify shortcomings...which makes it a very usable scope. I really notice the glass quality when shooting a S&B 6x along with it. For me, the differences become obvious at that point...but were I simply shooting the SWFA by itself in good light I wouldn't notice anything about the glass, nothing "WOW" but also nothing bad. In low light it's not the best, but it's fair. Learning to subtend with the outer bars (for any scope) is very useful in low light...the design of the SWFA reticles is very good for this. The 6x SWFA as a total package for reliability, adjustments, reticle, and functional glass is impossible to beat for the $.

The 3-9 SWFA glass seems noticeably better than the 6x to my eye. From 4x-9x the glass and user characteristics are really good for me. I have no complaints about the quality of the glass in the 3-9...I really think it's as good as needed in an all around hunting scope. I can notice the parallax when shooting but it's just a reminder to get myself right on the comb and behind the stock. If $ isn't a deciding factor, I'd recommend choosing it over the 6x for hunting use. For what it offers, I think the 3-9 is the best thing going in it's price range.

Just my experience, everyone has different preferences.

 

[Marbles]

The issue with this is that there’s really not a lot of better options. Of the other reliable dialers, though some have better glass, most don’t have remotely as good of reticles for hunting purposes. Or they weigh 50% more. It’s not just a price proposition.

But I do get your point, and I did pay quite a bit more for a different scope. But even then, mine has limitations of elevation travel.

Yep, I have looked a lot and have to agree. Unfortunately too many high end scopes have very busy reticles, or are very heavy, or have ridiculous magnification ranges, or have all three issues.

 

[atmat]

Do you live under a rock? There's literally hundreds of options that are better than the SWFA's with solid reliability. You just aren't going to get them for $200-300. Those better options start around the $1000 mark and go up to $4000+. The milquad reticle is also nothing to write home about, there's a ton of better reticles too.

I must be under a rock. Can you give me examples of the hundreds I’ve missed?

I’ve owned plenty of Leupold’s (all levels), several NF’s (NXS and NX8, but not ATACR), Bushnells, Nikons, and S&B Klassic now. Also owned some older brand scopes that aren’t really relevant right now. I’ve played with Zeiss, Swaro, and Vortex a ton, as well, but didn’t technically own them.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Suffice to say there is a spectrum of opionions on what "solid reliability" means for scopes.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

I must be under a rock. Can you give me examples of the hundreds I’ve missed?

I’ve owned plenty of Leupold’s (all levels), several NF’s (NXS and NX8, but not ATACR), Bushnells, Nikons, and S&B Klassic now. Also owned some older brand scopes that aren’t really relevant right now. I’ve played with Zeiss, Swaro, and Vortex a ton, as well, but didn’t technically own them.

If you've owned those optics and you don't think they are significantly better than a $300 SWFA, I really don't know what to tell you.

Here's a short list of optics I would buy 100X over before consider another SWFA.

NF SHV, NXS, NX8, ATACR
Trijicon Credo, Tenmile,
Eotech Vudu
Leupold VX5HD, VX6HD, MK5HD
Swaro Z3, Z6, Z6
Vortex Razor, Razor LHT
Brownells MPO
Tangent Theta any model
S&B any model
Hensoldt any model
Tract Toric any model
Bushnell Elites

 

[Marbles]

If you've owned those optics and you don't think they are significantly better than a $300 SWFA, I really don't know what to tell you.

Here's a short list of optics I would buy 100X over before consider another SWFA.

NF SHV, NXS, NX8, ATACR
Trijicon Credo, Tenmile,
Eotech Vudu
Leupold VX5HD, VX6HD, MK5HD
Swaro Z3, Z6, Z6
Vortex Razor, Razor LHT
Brownells MPO
Tangent Theta any model
S&B any model
Hensoldt any model
Tract Toric any model
Bushnell Elites

I'll take living under a rock over living in fantasy land.

Though in all fairness, given multiple reports of reticles rotating on the recent SWFAs they may be on there way to fantasy land as well.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

The swfa reticle rotation issue does seem to he occurring quite a bit. It's giving me pause.

 

[morgaj1]

If you've owned those optics and you don't think they are significantly better than a $300 SWFA, I really don't know what to tell you.

Here's a short list of optics I would buy 100X over before consider another SWFA.

NF SHV, NXS, NX8, ATACR
Trijicon Credo, Tenmile,
Eotech Vudu
Leupold VX5HD, VX6HD, MK5HD
Swaro Z3, Z6, Z6
Vortex Razor, Razor LHT
Brownells MPO
Tangent Theta any model
S&B any model
Hensoldt any model
Tract Toric any model
Bushnell Elites

As Researchinstuff said above, there is a big difference in the definition of scope reliability from one shooter to the next. I shoot a lot, year-round, and have had bad experiences with a good bit of what you list here. I have no doubt that you would prefer those on your list over SWFA, and you've probably had good experiences with the manufacturers. When I am looking for a new scope for a rifle, there are very few that meet my personal criteria for reliability, reticle and features. To each his own...

 

[atmat]

If you've owned those optics and you don't think they are significantly better than a $300 SWFA, I really don't know what to tell you.

Here's a short list of optics I would buy 100X over before consider another SWFA.

NF SHV, NXS, NX8, ATACR
Trijicon Credo, Tenmile,
Eotech Vudu
Leupold VX5HD, VX6HD, MK5HD
Swaro Z3, Z6, Z6
Vortex Razor, Razor LHT
Brownells MPO
Tangent Theta any model
S&B any model
Hensoldt any model
Tract Toric any model
Bushnell Elites

Haha well you disqualified yourself with this list, amigo.

 

[atmat]

I’m not going to play mental gymnastics with you all because your king says certain scopes are good and bad. Those are a list of solid scopes and if you want to stick your head up your ass and pretend otherwise that’s your own business.

Who is my king?

I literally said I’ve owned or spent plenty of time playing with half of those. Half of your list won’t hold a zero, not to mention dial reliably. Several don’t have great reticles. Several are 50% heavier than SWFA.

Edit: I also get massive retail discounts on a bunch of them and still don’t think they’re worth the money.

Edit 2: How is it mental gymnastics to expect a scope to perform as it’s supposed to?

 

[Formidilosus]

I’m not going to play mental gymnastics with you all because your king says certain scopes are good and bad. Those are a list of solid scopes and if you want to stick your head up your ass and pretend otherwise that’s your own business.

Can you show pictures of your personal heavily used- that means well worn scopes from below? Because, you have used each of these scopes heavily to know that they are “better”, right? You wouldn’t be saying something is “better” without actually using each heavily… would you?

“NF SHV, NXS, NX8, ATACR
Trijicon Credo, Tenmile,
Eotech Vudu
Leupold VX5HD, VX6HD, MK5HD
Swaro Z3, Z6, Z6
Vortex Razor, Razor LHT
Brownells MPO
Tangent Theta any model
S&B any model
Hensoldt any model
Tract Toric any model
Bushnell Elites”

 

[xsn10s]

I don't see any scopes on that list anywhere near the $200-$300 price point either. I've owned a 12X and currently own a 10X. Yes the glass quality isn't great, it's okay. But I can't get the features or durability to equal a fixed SWFA for the price point.

 

[BjornF16]

I’m not going to play mental gymnastics with you all because your king says certain scopes are good and bad. Those are a list of solid scopes and if you want to stick your head up your ass and pretend otherwise that’s your own business.

 

[slowelk]

I'm not taking a side in this discussion, but man, the round and round on the same topics in this arena and these users is EXHAUSTING.

 

[PathFinder]

This is what I knew this thread may devolve into...Let's keep this thread to the objective analysis, it's mostly been really good so far until the last few posts.
However, we have established what I hoped. My 12x isn't the exception, and I need to cough up a little more cash to get what I want rather than a 3-15 SS.
@redneckbmxer24 I appreciate your input on the glass quality, your analysis there was solid. I'd have to disagree on your list of reliable optics though.
Lots of folks on the site want to claim certain optics are reliable, but are thus far entirely unwilling to provide data to demonstrate it. The reality is that Rokslide is now (as far as I'm aware) the only compendium on zero retention testing publicly available anywhere. There is no data to refute the collection here, and those seeking to discredit the testing have failed to provide any data to the contrary. Nobody has presented, established, or implemented an alternative testing method either. Until such time as someone does, the collection of scope testing data here has the scientific authority.
With that said, I hope there are still some good used NF scopes in the classifieds here soon. My rifle is showing up tomorrow. Load development will be done with the trusty 12x but there will be something else atop it for hunting season.

 

[fwafwow]

Tangents are sometimes important.

 

[fwafwow]

I’m not going to play mental gymnastics with you all because your king says certain scopes are good and bad. Those are a list of solid scopes and if you want to stick your head up your ass and pretend otherwise that’s your own business.