Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics SWFA SS MRAD Scopes

E,

I/we have done exactly that. In direct comparison, that means same guns, same abuse, same ranges and same conditions those scope I listed perform as they should. I can't say the same amount of rounds because others just don't last.

Just looking at zero retention, reliability and durability, understanding that most don't dial, when viewed in large numbers scopes fail.... a lot. Granted, most hunters won't shoot a thousand rounds in their lifetime, which I do on a regular basis in a week, but still your Ziess/Swarovski/Leupold variable hunting scopes pale in comparison. Not that they won't work (though often times they don't) but that there are more inconsistencies day to day.

They'll be a dozen guys who will come on here stomping their feet screaming that their _______ scope has worked for ______ amount of time and always stays zeroed. When true this has more to do with them shooting only from a covered bench, shooting 20 rounds a year, shooting 3 round groups, and excusing "fliers", the wind, "just having an off day" or other such nonsense. Start shooting 10 round groups that are actually zeroed (yes even with hunting rifles), stop treating the guns as if they were newborn babies, start ahooting from field positions and stop with excuses and you will see that very few scope maintain POA/POI at all times.

My routine whether it is an issued M4 or 6lb hunting rifle every time I go to the range is the same. They guns get zeroed with ten round groups at the start. And by zeroed I mean zeroed. POA/POI.

Like this-



The POA was the tip of the black diamond that used to be there.


Then every time it gets shot the zero is checked. Not with one or two rounds but a no kidding group. No excuses. Whether it has been a week or a year Any deviation is unacceptable. If the optic will be dialed then a tracking test is preformed at the start and rechecked every so often. Again, any deviation is unacceptable. That not to say that all will actually adjust exactly .25moa or .1mil or whatever, but it better adjust consistently and correctly every time.






In the last two months on personally owned guns we've had a Leupold 6.5-20x40mm fail (Leupold replaced the entire erector system) a Leupold 6-18x (which are known problem scopes) with dead spots in the travel, a Vortex Viper PST that is showing some inconsistencies, and one of my 3-9x40mm Leupolds with an M1 that has been solid for 5 years or so (but only a couple hundred rounds on a light 243win) have a 1 MOA zero shift. The 3-9x40mm was rezeroed and will be watched like a hawk. One more issue and it comes off the gun. Truthfully the only reason that it is still on there is because I want to see how long it goes before doing it again.





All this isn't to say that if you have a variable Leupold/Ziess/Swarovski except for a few notable exceptions, that it will blow up on you or that they're not "good" scopes, it's to say that under real use they have a higher rate of problems. The average hunter will never wear out most scopes..... or barrels....

FX2 6x36 or FX3 6x42? Or both?

E,

Gassers can actually be hard on a scope with the bolt acting like a mini slide-hammer. Don't forget the bolt slams forward too.

Formi mentioned 70k rounds in the last few years. That is likely more, much more, than most shoot in their entire lifetime. You are interested in low volume, heavy recoil but there is something to be said for lighter recoil in high volume. Parts can still fatigue from the lighter loads and don't forget the slide-hammer and forward recoil.

I like Leupos, but only use their fixed-power scopes. Not so sure I trust their variables as much. Just went through this with a buddy's 3-9x. Leupo couldn't figure out why it wouldn't track or hold zero. This scope lived the vast majority of its life on a heavy 7mm Rem.

Their explanation was that it would cost too much money to figure out why it failed. This was after the 2nd trip to Beaverton. Their first inspection failed to confirm the problem. On the second trip we suggested that they shoot with the scope. After shooting with the scope, they agreed that it wouldn't hold zero or track. In the end, they made it right by giving him a new one but he had to be persistent. Should have gotten one with dual-bias springs, right?!

Rather than speculate on all this, why not check with some of Formi's buddies over at the Snipershide? They shoot high volume like Formi. Some of them run training classes for soldiers and they see hundreds of weapons come through their classes.

I've read their comments and there seems to be a trend that I've observed from them: Leupold Tacticals fail the most, Nightforce fails the least, and S&B is somewhere in between. Most all of these dudes also state that the only other scope that survives are the Super Snipers. Not Leupos, not Vortex, not Nikon, not Millet, etc. The new Bushnell DMR is also doing extremely well according to these guys.

I don't know of any controlled tests like you described, but the info from the professionals that actually use these scopes while performing their jobs is worthwhile and probably as good as we are going to get. They see this stuff being used side-by-side, different makes and models, and the Leupolds do not come out on top. They seem to have the highest failure rate.

Oh, repeatable adjustment is relevant here. This thread is about tactical scopes after all!

Jason

All of them. From a close to 15 year old M8 6x36 to new FX3 6x42's. They generally build them right.

Formidilosus,

What reticles and turrets you running on your 6x Leupolds? Would love it if they offered a reticle with MOA hashmarks on the horizontal wire. Less than thrilled with the idea of MOA adjustments and a mil-dot reticle�

John

That wasn't a yellow submarine was it Eremicus ?

I seem to remember a noted and highly regarded outdoor writer that wrote a very good book on sport optics for hunters using examples of one that you held in high regard. Impact testing and light transmission testing was cited many times here by you from that very book.

Formidilosus, just wanted to say that I appreciate the info you share here and find it very useful for those looking for scope sights that are dead reliable. I happen to be friends with Chris Farris and know what went into the design of these scopes. Basically, everything you have cited as being the most important aspects of a scope sight was their #1 priority. They weren't aiming at hunters who quibble over minor light transmission differences. The focus was extreme durability. They nailed it.

Yes, I know this thread is about tactical scopes.
I find it odd that the cheaper Leupold hunting scopes are measured against purpose built tactical scopes.
The ones you are discussing, the SWFA SS scopes, you admit don't have as bright an image as the hunting scopes you compare them to, for instance. With the cheaper scopes, you buy the tradeoffs offered. I'll bet money they don't have Leupold's super tough coatings either.
As far as judging scopes that show up at ranges, I suspect few pay attention as to which models of which brands do well, or how old each scope is. As has been said, use anything long enough and hard enough and it will fail. Before stating which ones hold up the best, do you have the complete history of each ?
As to Sniper's Hide opinions of some, I can easily recall one of their more vocal members saying that in any given match, one can expect over 30% of the Leupolds present to fail. That's pretty hard to buy when one considers that the military uses so many of them. And that the rest of us don't see that happening. E

Brother that's because "the rest of us" don't shoot that much. And when they do that don't actually measure it. See my post. That 30% number matches what I've seen and it matches what friends have seen from issued Leupold Variables.


Every solicitation for almoat a decade for new scopes for military snipers has had a Horus reticle as a requirement. Why do you think that is?

I'm not measuring cheap hunting scopes against purpose built tactical scopes. I'm measuring scopes that work against those that don't.

The SWFA 3-9x42mm is $599. It gives up nothing in brightness or clarity to VX3's and yet will destroy that scope in use. It's small enough and light enough to be used on general purpose hunting rifles.


I would love nothing more than to be able to say the same about Leupold but until hunters stop waxing on about crap that doesn't matter and start paying attention to what it takes to actually hit things, we won't see that.

All this from somebody that was willing to bet the farm on the advertising from Leupold and swore up and down that DiamondCoat was REAL diamonds. I hope you don't expect many to take you to serious!!

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?

The 3.5x10x the military bought is supposedly one of the worst. It came after I retired but I still talk/work with guys on active-duty.

Was that the one with the dual bias springs?

DakotaDeer,

My guess is that the number of springs doesn't make a difference. The FX-3 6x42 has one big spring and seems to hold up better than the variables. Dual springs just seems like a marketing gimmick since these scopes seem to fail just as frequently as the older single spring. Just my WAG though

In another thread someone, maybe JB, mentioned the new Swaro design. Instead of the old leaf spring design that most companies use, they put 4 springs at the end of the erector tube. And, of all companies, Simmons has a design with a huge spring at the end of the erector tube. I actually ordered one of the Simmons fixed powers with the big spring to beat-on for awhile. They have a great reputation from turkey hunters for holding up to recoil, but probably aren't the best optically I should have ordered two and taken one apart to see the pieces Just something to play with.

Jason

It was for the military so I'm guessing yes, but I don't know for sure.

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

Formidilosus

In practical terms, is there $400 difference in the standard 10X SS and the new 10X SS HD?

First and foremost I greatly appreciate Formidilosis posting this information, it makes me aware of what I do and don't do regards making sure my guns are zeroed. It also makes me aware of what we mostly don't think about, i.e. sight zero retention, I need to check zero more often.

Secondly how do SWFA and NF build their scopes so well such that no other manufacturer or most other manufacturers cannot come close to holding zero and correct adjustments? I don't get it.

I am that guy that shoots 3-5 round groups and I hunt deer, pigs, coyote's and that is about it. I check my zero with 2 shots 2-3 times during the season but that is about it. I have broken a lot of rifle scopes doing dumb ass things like dropping the rifle out of the case onto the concrete etc. Then some not my fault that just started throwing flyers a Zeiss Diavari MC that I have comes to mind.

I want a Night Force or SWFA hold zero forever scope, I had a NF with 25 mm objective on a nice 223, but because I am average Joe I just did not like it because the glass was not that good. I would buy another one if I could see that the glass was good from edge to edge, and it worked fine in low light.

I mean get real, iron sights are more rugged than a scope and will hold zero forever! Why do we buy a rifle scope over better iron sights? I do because I want more resolution than you can get with an iron sight and a scope works better in low light! Let's piss all over the zero holding ability of a Zeiss Victory but lets also say it works well near dark. I guess its safe to say that most telescopes on the market represent some type of a compromise. It looks like NF or SWFA work better than an iron sight and still holds zero almost forever. I don't hear any reports regarding their low light performance so I just don't know about that, but for NF a 2.5-10 x 25mm...come on folks!

I am not using my scopes for imaging, I am using them for purpose to see shoot what I could not shoot with an iron sight. Sure I want it to hold zero well, but I also want a quick image in the view, a precise aiming point, something that can work over entire legal hours, I am not studying spot patterns or reading prose at 300 yards, just trying to pick up a reticle fast in low light and shoot the animal.

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.