Form,
Have you run any of the Leupie VX3 much (with the twin bias springs)? Does the two springs tend to fix the problems? In say a 3.5-10?
I have and, no.
Formidilosus
In practical terms, is there $400 difference in the standard 10X SS and the new 10X SS HD?
It's in the glass. Whether it is worth it or not is up to you. I would not pay the extra for a 10x HD personally. There is no target that the HD would let me see that the standard 10x wouldn't.
I think what would be interesting is to learn the reasons WHY the Nightfarces and Super Chickens hold up better than the rest. We know they have heavier tubes, but what spring and erector designs are they using? What else can be done to make a scope tougher?
J
I guess the mystery of "why cannot or will not any other manufacturer build a scope to hold zero like the SWFA, or NF offering remains unanswered? What are they doing that is special I am very interested! Finally if NF put a good AR coatings on the lenses, and used good glass, spent good money keeping the figure of the lenses consistent across the optic they would be 100 % of the way home.
In short- better erector springs and design, better quality control on springs, screws and tubes and better materials in the erector, equals better more reliable and correct adjustments and thicker tubes help keep outside interference from screwing with that.
an honest question is "how SWFA SS and NF build their variable scope such that they never loses zero, and the clicks are 100% right on".
How is it they do it right but a $3000 S&B or $2500 Zeiss or $fill in the blank Swaro cannot figure it out? Beats the hell out of me.
It's not that they don't know how, it's that hunters don't shoot, and all they care about is bs'ing their buddies with how great the glass is when they gently pull their "serious" hunting rifle out of the padded case that was inside their padded safe. God forgive if their "serious" rifle gets a mark on it....
For those of hunting the SS scopes, are the turrets getting moved on you when you don't intend them to? I hunted a scope with an exposed elevation turret and hated it. It got moved on my pack, in alders, coming out of the case, etc.
My favorite hunting scopes are the Leupold 3-9, 2.8-8, and 3.5-10. I have been thinking of trying an SS just to see what everyone is talking about. My main concern is what all that weight will do to a hunting rifle that is under 7 naked. Then I worry about the turrets moving, then I worry (considering the SS 3-9 and 3-15) if the FF plane reticle is too small at low power in dim light and if it covers too much of the target at high magnification.
Would someone who has hunted, not just shot at the range, with these scopes mind sharing their thoughts on those issues?
One more thing, the SS are super reliable, so why use the fixed over the 3-9?
Thanks again.
The turrets don't move inadvertently. The reticle is as bold as most duplex's. The reticle covers up the same amount at high power as it does at low power.
I have fixed and variable SS's. They all work.
I have a non-SS scope with a reticle very similar to the mil-quad SWFA uses now. It's NOT a good choice for hunting at lowest magnification in dark/thick conditions unless you turn on the illumination. The reticle is too thin, making it tough to pick up against dark brush/branches/whatever without illumination help. The mil-quad _may_ be a bit better, if the 3 solid bars around the top 3 points of the crosshair are heavy enough.
The mil-quad style of reticle is GREAT for precision/tactical rifle comps and similar situations, which is what it was designed primarily for. I don't like it so much for hunting. Obviously, this is a matter of opinion/preference.
There is no other manufacturers that make a FFP mil reticle like SWFA's Mil quad that I've seen. It's the best FFP reticle I've seen for general hunting.
