Form., the examples you cite are from hunting scopes of uncertain age. None of which were designed from the ground up as tactical scopes. Anybody can take an old VariXII, which has been around since the 70's, add an M1 turret and call it good for tactical matches. Your 6-18X scope has always been either that or a VXII. The 6.5-20 has also been around a long time as a hunting scope. I know because I had one over 20 yrs. ago. in the VariX III model. The 3-9X you cite might be a new model, but it may not.
I have seen no controlled testing, only impressions that do not take into account the ages of the tested scopes, their costs, the VariX/VXII's were alot cheaper than the SWFA scopes, or their design features. If you want to claim the SWFA scopes are better than the current VX3 Leupolds, you need to buy 6 new ones and run them with the same round counts on the same rifles. Just like you did with the 6 new SWFA scopes. You haven't done that.
Nor have you done that with the Nightfoirce, S&B and Leupold top of the line tactical scopes. Yet you insist that the Nightforce and S&B scopes are significantly better than the comparable Leupolds.
And you keep insisting that in any given tactical match, 30% of the Leupolds will fail. Maybe so. But no where do you do any controlled testing or comparisons of new, not used, scopes.
You could easily say that you are very impressed with the SWFA scopes and cite their track record. But when you say they are better than anything else out there in their price range, you are going too far. E
