if yall dont mind, I am going to write down the phrase "texas twatorium" and hope and pray that I have an opportunity to use it in conversation one day.
A 6x42 Leupy with dots and M1 would be hard to beat on a hunting rig. The SWFA 3x9's are huntable but they are not my fav for that purpose.
RTA
Funny, that's exactly what this scope replaced. I'm not looking back.
Quick drive by.....
I've hunted with Leupold 6x36's and 6x42's with duplex, wide duplex, fine duplex and LRD as well as 6x40mm MK4 M3 with duplex. They are very good optics for killing. I also use both mil dot and Mil Quad versions of the SS 3-9x42mm. When it is too dark to place the mil quad reticle in the 3-9x42mm on an animal, it is too dark to do the same with a duplex in a Leupold. The mil quad is an inverted #4 with the thick posts. Bracket that around what you want to hit and it's easy.
As for weight, I just can't see it. Some act like its a 72mm Ziess. It does everything that a scope is supposed to. Which is something that most scopes can't claim. It stays zeroed, adjusts consistently and correctly and gives some options in range that a Leupold 6x doesn't.
The "glass" in the SS 6x and 3-9x42mm is very good. There is no noticeable difference between them and comparable Leupolds side by side at last light.
I know you've had extensive time behind the SS 3-9x42mm. Have you had first experience with the SS 3-15x42mm?
How's the eye relief and eye box on both the 3-9x42mm and 3-15x42mm? The spec sheet on the 3-9 shows the eye relief to be only a smidge over 3" at 9x.
How easy are both scopes to get behind throughout their magnification range? Any case of tunnel vision at any magnification settings(blackouts around the edges)?
The issue isn't so much the weight of the scope. The issue is where the weight is located in relation to the rest of the rifle's weight. Also the sheer size of the scope is a factor (especially the fixed powers or 3-15) when used on a light, slim rifle.
Bolt a 20 ounce, bulky scope to a Ruger 77 300 Mag, and it's not going to have nearly the same effect on handling as when it's bolted to a slender Kimber 84M. The Kimber is easily overwhelmed. It's like loading a dead moose on the top of a Suburban vs. loading the same moose on the top of a Yugo. Which one is going to handle the load better driving in traffic?
I see tunneling (change in mag with no change in FOV and increased black ring size in the view) in the 3-9x42 from about 4x down to the 3x. No signs of tunneling in the 3-15x42.
Regarding the 3-15, I found that it had too critical an eyebox above 12x or so for my taste, one of the reasons I no longer have mine. I think that's hard to avoid with 15x and a 42mm objective.
Not everyone who shot it felt this to the degree I did, but I didn't even like to use the top of the magnification range for slow fire paper punching.
While the SS apparently has great tracking it doesn't have much eye relief at 9X. It also varies greatly between 3 and 9 on the eye relief. I can't stand that. Might work for you guys shooting gas guns but doesn't work for me shooting in field positions when trying to hit something while lying on one side of a canyon, trying to shoot to another. I gave my sample back.
As for putting one on a Mtn rifle that is absurd! Balance would be so bad it wouldn't even be enjoyable to shoot. I tried several scopes on mine and finally settled on a 2.5-8 with a B&C. I had this reticle added and I guess Leuplod gave it their bullet proof treatment. I took a pretty bad tumble off my Mtn bike two weeks ago with the rifle on my back. I came home just knowing that it was ruined.
It was off 1/2" at 200 yards! Guess it is pretty tough.
I don't doubt that Leuplod is having some quality issues but they still make a pretty nice scope for the money. They are about the only ones that understand eye relief too.
Been working with a couple of Vortex scopes. I like everything about them except their lack of adequate eye relief for magnum use.
NRA Benefactor Member
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
A wise man would take a look at the Leupold VX 3 4.5-14 LR 40mm objective, 30mm tube CDS. Had a TMR installed at the custom shop and mounted it on my lightweight Creedmoor.
Perfect for a lightweight, long range-capable rig
Originally Posted by Bristoe
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
As per usual,there's some pretty phuqqing hilarious Window Licking Schit here! Fascinating constant,that them who Whine the most..."do" the least and it be rather easy to correlate Whine pitch/volume to "experience" in regards to the crux. That if only as per ALWAYS. Hint.
Very MUCH enjoyed the Rifle Tip Over notion. FUNNY schit! Last time I checked,I had more than (1) rifle and even more than (1) scope. Hint.
The only thing funnier than that,was the 4.5-14x nudge! What a piece of phuqqing schit they are. Points awarded to Dumb Phuqqers dumb enough,to convince themselves or others,that I've not suffered that stench. Hint.
I'll make this easy. Phuqq variables. Hint.
I've heard of a Montucky and rumor is,that they are simply at their best when wearing ruggedly reliable glass,of stellar tracking and copious travel latitude. Conjoin a useful reticle in same and one is then "cheating" inherently. Hint.
The Montucky simply becomes SINISTERER +P,with the install of a FF in either MQ or MD. Some malign the MOA/MIL arrangement,but the middle is always the middle,as a "worst" case scenario. If the first poke gets duped by atmospheric(s),the correction is easily seen and subtended. 5 Mils of wind,is a fair amount. 5 Mils of ele,not so much. Very easy to realize a Hasty Chart,that'll utilize the 5 Mils of ele and to locate it separate from an Erector Chart. Hasty Charts go on the fore end,Ele Charts on the butt. I'll greedily take FF MD erector travel latitude,arrange POA/POI crosshair intersections in regards to drop and slide wind on the reticle. Hint.
The MQ is tough to whoop,as it doubles Ele Subtension(of the "traditional" MilDot),while adding obvious ability to holdoff in more finite fashion. That reticle alone,typically yields more latitude than many erectors,after their zero. Hint.
Funnier than phuqq,that adding weight at the fulcrum now "RUINS!!!" "balance"?!? There are some seriously STUPID Dumb Phuqqs here. Just WOW!
I doubt I've been around much more than 20 or so MR/Montuckys wearing same and all got vastly SUPERIOR and in non-lineal fashion,in regards to inherent abilities added in extrapolation,to the modest ounces added. Read that again. Hint.
I know...I know,'Raider and the rest of the Do Nothing Kcunts are in the "Get Some!" FULL Barbed-Wire Mode inside the Texas Twatorium and this stuff is really "tricky"! Poor poor stupid phuqqing Hoalie should buy one and beat her face with it,in the hopes that the swelling would keep the drool inside her head. Laughing!
Now if only to really give the Window Licking Whiners,something to phuqqing Whine about.
Pard's 17RAR Compact/6XMQ FF...though Bob now makes a 25MOA rail,which only sweetens the pot. Hint.
'Nother Montucky (Dick Rifle),built EXTRA Heavy. Laughing!
So you Joe Average Stupid Phuqqers keep on Drooling and harboring your fears of a Tip Over,as you feverishly lick windows and try to convince yourselves that you're on the right track. FUNNY schit!
I hear through the grapevine that #16 recently hit the porch and I reckon so will #17 and #18,before I arrive home. Starting to look like it's gonna take 50 of 'em or so,to scratch the itch.
Hint.
Good talk.
Laughing!.............
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
Poor poor stupid phuqqing Hoalie should buy one and beat her face with it,in the hopes that the swelling would keep the drool inside her head. Laughing!
I was running one on my .50BMG before you found out they were cool. Remember back when some other gear was the end-all be all?
Appreciate his delivery method or not, he is correct. But just like with scopes, most seem more interested in focusing on things that matter the least, versus the things that matter the most.
Originally Posted by FOsteology
Formidilosus,
I know you've had extensive time behind the SS 3-9x42mm. Have you had first experience with the SS 3-15x42mm?
How's the eye relief and eye box on both the 3-9x42mm and 3-15x42mm? The spec sheet on the 3-9 shows the eye relief to be only a smidge over 3" at 9x.
How easy are both scopes to get behind throughout their magnification range? Any case of tunnel vision at any magnification settings(blackouts around the edges)?
The 3-9x is solid. Eye relief and eye box are good, no noticeable tunneling. I've used them on rifles up to and including 338L's and even shot sidegun have not had a problem with eye relief.
The 3-15x is a bit tighter to get behind, as are most higher magnification scopes. I haven't shot them on any 300's or 338's but didn't notice anything about eye relief or eyebox that would dissuade me from them.
I'll make you a deal, buy the 3-9x42mm in mil quad, or 6x in same, shoot the dog piss out of it and if you don't like it I will buy it from you for a fair price, scratches and all. Or I will send you one of mine and you can beat it to hell and see wtf.
When do you reckon the Military contracts are gonna start rolling in for SWFA.
SWFA purchased the SS line after it fulfilled a Navy contract. So I guess that doesn't count.
We'll, according to Chris they had a contract for the 3-9. Also, there were quite a few fixed fxxkers that came back on rifles from the sandbox. They weren't privately purchased either and they we're beat to hell. I worked as a contractor at a .mil base and spent a lot of time in the arms room when units demob'd. Gear shouldn't look like that but it does. Who'd have thunk a rifle could bend like a pretzel.
Talking to you is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
![[Linked Image]](http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/diemnddave/IMG_0002_zps46e41221.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/diemnddave/IMG_0008_zps9f529af1.jpg)
