Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Why SWFA?

Having said that, "glass" is the least important feature of a scope as they are aiming devices, not bird watching devices, and for what matters in a scope, they are at the top of the heap.

Bingo. It's a SIGHT, not a viewing or photographic device. I do wish they offered a better hunting reticle.

Do they not make a straight duplex with turrets to spin?

It seems to me that most folks who shoot/hunt LR do so with the aid of a decent electronic rangefinder.

I don't feel the need for both the range finding reticle and the turrets to spin unless one was preparing for electronic rangefinder failure.

What am I missing in my thinking?

I'd really like to try a 6X but for the areas I hunt a variable works better. Most of our shots are 250 yards and in and lots of times within 100 yards in dark cover. I think a 6X would be too much in the woods and I'd really prefer to have more magnification for longer shots. For a hunting scope in my area the SWFA doesn't seem to do it for me.

Anyone in the east use one of them effectively?

twofish,

Even if you do not use the reticle for wind or elevation hold offs, it is still invaluable for spotting your own shots. This is why you'll find most shooters do not like the big boomers and also why you'll find a lot of brakes and suppressors on the firing lines of any long range shoot.

When I shoot, I'm watching the steel and the surrounding area. If I see a poof of dust on the half-mil-mark to the right of the steel, guess where I need to hold for my next shot?

Easy-peasy.

Same holds for elevation. Your windage call is good, but you see it "poof" at the 1 mil mark below your crosshairs, guess how much more you need to dial?

You trackin'? Get it? Tracking? I made a scope related pun.

GFY.



Clark

Travis, I'd love to move west but lots of family here and it's home so that's not an option. It's still not that bad, being able to catch mountain trout one day and fish bluewater or inshore the next. Hunting sucks compared to out west but we can get into some decent waterfowl action.

I've never been on to twist turrets and have never used ranging reticles to their potential, mainly due to the shorter ranges we hunt. What's the concensus on mil dot vs MQ? I don't have a need for either but the draw is high with the prices this weekend.

The MQ is more precise but I like the standard mil dot just fine. But it is much "coarser" than the MQ.

Based on what you described I'd give the 1-4X a whirl and see if you like it. It has all the features you could want to try out in one scope. Ranging reticle, MQ reticle, and turrets.

I was going to buy one myself but somebody shot my truck and I ended up needing four new tires. You can visit here any time. Everybody loves meeting me.

Hope this helps.


Travis

I don't think the person who shot your truck liked meeting you.

I don't think the person who shot your truck liked meeting you.

I'd really like to try a 6X but for the areas I hunt a variable works better. Most of our shots are 250 yards and in and lots of times within 100 yards in dark cover. I think a 6X would be too much in the woods and I'd really prefer to have more magnification for longer shots. For a hunting scope in my area the SWFA doesn't seem to do it for me.

Anyone in the east use one of them effectively?