Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting SWFA 3-15X42 SS Classic

So many people have been asking me about this scope, so here's a couple short notes as I haven't had a chance to spend too much time with it yet. But here are my impressions so far:

First the important stuff:

Reticle calibration and click value measure accurate within 0.5%. Reticle is square with the movement of the turrets within 1/2 degree. Tracking has been perfectly repeatable so far.

Total elevation travel of my example: 41 Mils 26 Mils "up" available after a 100 yd zero when mounted in a 20 MOA mount. Now they only advertise 36 total so they may not all have as much as mine does, I'm just reporting what I see.










The reticle on 3X, 10X and 15X:





[img]http://www.jonaadland.com/Hunting/SuperSniper/3-15X42/PICT0152.JPG[/img]

At the range:

Size comparison with SS 3-9 and 5-20HD:

[img]http://www.jonaadland.com/Hunting/SuperSniper/3-15X42/PICT0111.JPG[/img]

[img]http://www.jonaadland.com/Hunting/SuperSniper/3-15X42/PICT0082.JPG[/img]

[img]http://www.jonaadland.com/Hunting/SuperSniper/3-15X42/PICT0085.JPG[/img]

It was a dark, gloomy day at the range which is not good for pictures. So don't attempt to judge the glass quality from these pics as it's impossible to take good pics through a scope in such conditions.

100 yds:





300 yds:







A couple 100 and 300 yd targets:



I was in somewhat of a hurry and not doing my best shooting, but even so 39 of 40 rounds went sub MOA.

The eye relief on this scope is by far the best of all the Classic line, longer and more friendly than the well known fixed models. This will make the scope well suited for hard kicking hunting rifles among other things.

I haven't spent much time comparing glass yet, but it looks at first blush pretty good, clearly the overall best of the Classic line. I was able to see the 6mm holes in the paper at 300 yds without too much trouble. But yes, you can see quite a bit more detail with the 5-20 HD as you should with more magnification and higher price.

All in all I'm quite impressed with the scope for the price. Knowing how durable the classic line is, with all that elevation travel it has, this scope can do most things up to and including ELR use without spending a lot of money.

I like the scope a lot, and looks like SWFA is charging within the realm of reason for it, especially if it tracks right and has the FFP feature.

It's going to be from the same shop in Japan as the Weaver Tactical 5-15x50, and about the same price, with a couple of different features. The Weaver seems to be well-received as a good scope for the price.

OK, I�ve spent some time now comparing glass on this thing and now I�m even more impressed. Lots of people were asking how it is compared with the SS 3-9:

With both set on 9X, the 3-15 has noticeably better resolution than my 3-9. It�s a pretty noticeable difference. Now resolution isn�t the only thing that matters�the 3-9 has a larger FOV power for power, and a larger apparent FOV (due in part to shorter eye relief). The 3-9 also has the edge in apparent brightness�though that may be somewhat an illusion caused by the shorter eye relief and larger apparent FOV. I don�t think the difference is ever large enough you can see something with the 3-9 you can�t with the 3-15, the 3-9 just �seems� a bit brighter. Both handle stray light very well. In short, if you�re happy with the 3-9 glass you�ll be even happier with the 3-15�especially if seeing detail at long range is what�s most important to you.

With the thicker center lines in the reticle, the 3-9 has an edge in low light if taking medium range shots on 3X where seeing those lines is important. On higher powers more appropriate to the range the 3-15 does fine. At closer ranges, even on 3X, it doesn�t really matter as both have the same sized posts for fast �point and shoot� vital zone shots.

Compared with the 16X fixed SS Classic, the 3-15 is really impressive. While the 16X is close in resolution, you notice when you compare them side by side it has a veiling flare that is not present in the 3-15 making the 3-15 look significantly more �clear.� As light gets dimmer this difference becomes more apparent and at a point the 16X is hard to look through/no longer usable, the 3-15X still looks great. Of course the fixed 16X was never meant to be a low light scope�in good light, especially on paper targets the 16X looks just fine. But when looking into the trees, etc, and especially as the light gets dimmer, the 3-15 jumps way out in front. People wondering why it�s so much more expensive than the rest of the classic series need only do one quick comparison like this to see where a big chunk of that money went.

Compared with the PST 6-24, the two are very close. Now my particular 6-24 has really, really good glass for the price range�for those who remember it was dramatically better than the two 4-16 PST�s I had. Comparing the two scopes side by side it�s on 15X difficult to tell the difference. The resolution is so close it�s hard to call a winner. The colors on the PST might look a tad better. As the light gets dimmer, the PST starts to show a small advantage on the higher powers as it should with the larger objective. So overall I�d have to give the slight edge to the PST, but they�re close enough you won�t notice the difference unless you�re really, really looking for it.

The PST obviously can be turned up to 24X for more detail at long range, the 3-15 has a FOV on 3X more than twice the size of the PST�s on 6X for use at close range. The SS has around double the amount of travel. Two excellent scopes in this price range offering different features so one can select the scope best suited to his application and make a good choice either way. I like them both.

After doing that I can say without a doubt the 3-15SS is dramatically better than the two 4-16 PST�s I had. Beyond the resolution and CA, the 4-16�s had a noticeable veiling flare that is not present with the 6-24 or the SS 3-15. But as I�ve said, that was some time ago, I�ll leave it to others with more recent models to do an in-depth comparo.

I did compare it to the 5-20 HD as well, and as you may expect the HD wins pretty easily. The difference isn�t as huge or noticeable as you may expect though if you�ve used the other fixed SS classics. The 3-15 is in another ballpark compared with them in my opinion. Considering the reticle, the turrets, the travel, etc, the 3-15 is a heck of a scope for its price.

Dang... I wish I had read this before I ordered my SWFA 16x this afternoon... Ahhh heck... For $300 and the fact that I'll only be using it for load development and long range play, I guess it will be ok. I hope...

John

price?

$300 for the 16x.

John

I had a look through the SS 12X MRAD at Icebreaker 3, that Carl Ross had brought along.

It was super nice. Loved the optical quality, el travel, and that reticle.

I don't know how one could do better for $299.

Hondo, I don't think you will be disappointed with your 16X. I have an older SS16X with MOA turrets, and mildot reticle, no complaints with that old thing either. Had it on the 308 at IB3, and made some good hits using it at 1500 yards. Jordan Smith put a few rounds through it as well, at 1500. Good scope, especially for playing at 1000+ yards.

Thanks for the good news Shane. Looking forward to giving it a try. For $300 and the reputation the SWFAs have for good, reliable tracking, I figured it would be hard to go wrong.

John

Thanks for the extra thoughts on the 3-15. I've been watching for reviews with interest. I picked up a 30-06 out of the classifieds a few weeks back that is set up for long range shooting. I have been trying to decide what to put on it. Originally, I was planning on one of the fixed SWFA scopes because of their reputation for repeatable adjustments and because the price is right. Still, I'm tempted by the 3-15.

John,
Great review. Tell me about the thickness of the center crosshair. Any idea how thick it is and does it washout in low light? The crosshairs in the PST I had were extremely thin and difficult to pickup in lowlight.
Thanks,
Bill

Definitely don't fret. I can't think of a better scope for that purpose for $300 than the SS 16X. Yes, the 3-15X is a step up but it's $700 too.

Which PST did you have so I can compare?

Anyway, I think they�re a pretty good compromise thickness. They look a bit thinner than the center lines on the 5-20 and most complaints about that reticle are for it being too thick. They are thin enough on 3X it could cause issues in some situations�mainly if trying to take medium range shots on 3X in low light. If you�re the type to walk around with the scope on 3X all the time, the 3-9X really is better suited.

Personally I only use 3X when hunting in really thick stuff (and even then I usually stop at 4X) where you expect shots to be really close so you want the wide FOV for speed. For close range shots the center lines don�t mean a whole lot�it�s the posts that matter more, and this one has the same thick posts as the 3-9X. Here�s what I mean�a visual scale of a deer at 25 yds with the scope on 3X:



As you can see, you don�t really need to see the center lines at all at close range as the posts come to the center far enough you just bracket the vitals as with a 4a. Point and shoot�. For general walking around with it on 5X or 6X the reticle is pretty easy to see even in low light.

Jon,
I had the 4-16PST. I shoot primarily long distance and hunt the same but found the center crosshair much too thin. The new VX 6 I have has much thick center crosshairs, almost too thick if there is such a thing. I could not utilize the PST in a lowlight situation. With the pic you have it appears as tho those crosshairs are much too thin also.

Was your PST FFP or SFP?

Isn't it always dark and gloomy at Kenmore? At least that looks like Kenmore.

SFP but that has no bearing on duplex size.

Yup! That's Kenmore for you (except that one month a year the sun comes out).

I'm sorry, I haven't seen one with a duplex so I can't give a first-hand comparison. Did you mean it was an HS? Anyway, according to the specs for the HS, the duplex lines are thinner than this scope's lines on full power. And being an etched FFP it stays very black with good contrast.

To get a better idea of what the reticle looks like at high power, look at this pic in a separate window so it's not reduced to fit the board: http://www.jonaadland.com/Hunting/SuperSniper/3-15X42/PICT0097.JPG . I can put up a bigger one too if that would help.

Seeing the reticle at higher powers/long range shouldn't be an issue for most even in low light, but everybody is different. It's on the lower powers I'd expect some to find it a bit thin.

As for the Vortex 4-16, it sounds like you would have been much happier with the FFP PST--its reticle is very easy to see in all conditions--a fair amount easier than the SS 3-15, especially when you factor in the illumination. Though the glass on the SS gives you a better chance of seeing what you're aiming at.

Thanks for the info!