Anyone running one of these?

http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-3-15x42-Tactical-Rifle-Scope-P62238.aspx

looks like a lot of scope for the money, whats the story on em?

Well, it's not the exact scope, but a variation of it.

SWFA Super Sniper 10X:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nky0voYC7gQ

Not an expert on scopes, but it seems that low cost fixed power scopes are always going to be better than middle range variable scopes in terms of quality. So maybe keep that in mind if you use the video review as a comparison?

These guys: link may give you a couple dollars worth of their two cents.

Been looking at one myself. Good reviews on the Optics Talk forum at SWFA, but I'd be interested in hearing from others as well.

Looks like it got everything but zero stop

Should've stopped at- "looks like a lot of scope".

Have beat on all save the 20x and burned out one (at least 8 or 9) barrels trying to break one.

The scoop is that the zero retention, tracking, durability and reliability are what they should be.

I agree with their durability (I hqve a 10X). That said, the optical system is not at all special, particularly for the price.

Can you expand on the "optical system" comment? Which models?

And what is better for the price?

Thanks,

Jason

For several years I was compensated to work on new products for these folks.
My task was to take the first offering from the manufacturer, break it, record how that happened, and make product improvements.
This process would continue until the folks at SWFA got a product they would judge good enough to put their personal names on.
Some of the abuse we subjected the products, particularly the SS line, both Legacy and HD would scare the average person. Would you take your scope for a swim, park it at the bottom of a lake for a month, then expect it to work? Or throw it repeatedly from a 35 foot tower onto hard ground, kick it down range....and back, mount it and then expect 100% function? We did this and more to the products.
There is the old original SS line of 10, 10M 16, and 20x, which are not the same as the newer HD versions or the MRAD stuff.
The HD and MRAD were in development for something like 8 years before everyone was happy with the end result.
These are not made in the same factory as the legacy scopes.
If you knew where the new units are made then you'd ask "why such a bargain?

For the record, I was never able to break a legacy 10M scope, but I did wear one out. These are still made by the original mfg to the best of my knowledge and are still one of the better buys in the optics world.

Who sells the legacy scopes? A google search didn't turn up any results.

Thanks for the info.

Just to clarify for my understanding... the 3-15x is made in the same plant as the old fixed power scopes. The 3-9x and HD (including 10x HD) are made in another plant in Japan, some speculate that its L.O.W.

Are you saying that one plant makes tougher scopes than the other? You can get the mil-quad in both lines of scopes.

I've been personally informed by other insiders that the fixed power scopes and 3-15x are without a doubt tougher than the 3-9x and HD scopes. This isn't to say that the 3-9x and HD scopes are not strong enough.

Now, I don't know the reason why the one plant builds a tougher scope... design, QC, spec? Don't know but if you have the info I appreciate your thoughts.

And what is the difference between wearing a scope out and breaking it? Slow degradation vs. catastrophic failure?

Thanks,

Jason

I don't know that I would say that. I haven't seen a drop of difference in performance.

That's good to know Formi as I still really like the specs on the 3-9x and trust your eval.

I've only owned two Super Chickens. A 20x a few years ago and a 3-15x now. Haven't been able to test the 3-15x yet. Its just sitting in a box.

I was ready to buy a 3-9x until I started digging a little bit, then got the feedback that I mentioned. In hindsight I think I said more than I should have. Both scope lines seem rugged enough for the vast majority of users.

Jason

When you say you've burned out barrels trying to break one, on what rifles chambered for what cartriages ? And what did those rifles weigh ? How many rounds did that take ?
I have friends that have burned out barrels on one extensive PD shoot by simply shooting the rifle with a hot barrel. On the other hand, another friend couldn't find a variable scope that would hold up to the recoil of one of his 7.5 lb. 338's more that 140 rds.
It may sound impressive to some that a scope can survive being kicked down the street or thrown out a window. Or left at the bottom of a lake.
I'm impressed with scopes like Leupold's Mk.4's, 10X scopes those seals survive being repeatly submerged in submarines and can survive 1500 g's, 5000 times. E

What's better for the price depends upon what one focuses on. As I said, I have the 10x SS. The primary complaint is that optical system is very difficult to get behind. Particularly, there's a shadow that floats around the view no matter where one places one's eye (verified by several others looking through the scope). It reminds me a bit of a Tasco Varmint scope I have when I turn it up to 10x. The scope has been returned to SWFA for eval, and returned to me with neither comment nor adjustment; this is just how they are, it seems. This is certainly not the worst thing in the world, it just doesn't belong on a $300 scope manufactured any time in the past 10 - 20 years.

Thus, in terms of the optical system, the following scopes I have or had, which cost me the same or less money, are better:
Redfield Battlezone,
Leupold VX-2,
3 Nikons (a Buckmasters from ~5 years ago, and 2 Monarchs that are older than that),
Simmons Whitetail Classic (close; this one has fishbowl effect pretty significantly).

And, of course, my Weaver Tactical and Leupy VX-3 Long Range are significantly better scopes. They cost more, though.

In a 3-15, I'd take another Weaver Tactical over the new SWFA of the same magnification and extremely similar specs.

I don't know how many baby seals I could club to death with any of the above scopes; I haven't done any of that sort of thing in recent memory. I suspect that, given the rough service I subject at least some of my rifles to (in the field, in vehicles, in precision rifle matches, etc.), I'll be able to tell you in several years whether anything has failed. The SWFA will not fail, I am sure, mainly because it sits in the closet rather than on a rifle.

I can understand that complaint. Critical eye position. That's not something I expect on a fixed power.

Jason

Somewhere north of 70k combined rounds in the last few years alone. One 3-9x42mm sat on a Recce M4 through four barrels (12-16k), a bit over 2k rounds of 7.62 from gas guns, 250+\- rounds of 300 Jarret, 100 rounds or so of 300WM, and now resides on a 308 with about 800 rounds on it. Around 8lbs for the 300J and WM and 8-10 for the Recce's and 7.62 gassers.


The least amount of rounds on the newest 3-9x42mm is nearing 10k. The most is..... A lot.



E,
I'm not attached to any scope. I shoot most scopes made, and I get to see the utter failure of the vast majority. The scopes that I see just plain work day in, day out are:

NightForce NXS
SWFA SS
Leupold Mark 4 and M3 Ultra fixed powers
Bausch and Lomb 10x military model

The Bushnell HDMR 3.5-21x50mm is building a very solid reputation.


I have had and see generally great service from Leupold fixed 6x's as well.


Scopes are aiming aids (not observation devices) and as such must-

Retain zero no matter what
Adjust consistently and correctly every single time
Be extremely durable and reliable
And be usable (eye box, eye relief, etc)


Any deviation from that, is a failure.

The above assumes adequate "glass", "brightness" and "clarity" from the start as these are the easiest to produce, yet matter the least on average.


I'm not attached to any scope and rest assured that if any of those scopes start showing problems I'll be the first to announce it.





MZ5,

How old is that 10x?

I've only used the 10x and 16x MOA/Mil models both SWFA and the old Tasco's (not exactly the same), the 6, 10, 12, and 16x Mil/Mil models, the 10x HD, 1-4x, 1-6x, 3-9x, and 5-20x, but none have had a bad eye box as what you say. Have also batted every other scope you mention and the SWFA's take the cake handily for the already stated reasons.

A couple of guys over on snipershide have 'shims' for zero stop....


I received my shim set but haven't put them in the 3-15 scope yet


http://forum.snipershide.com/sniper...zero-stops-swfa-super-sniper-scopes.html

I bought it from them (SWFA) about 2 1/2 years ago. It _seems_ to possibly be older than the purchase date implies, only because the Tasco name appears on a couple of paper items the scope came in/with.

'Everybody knows' that SWFA scopes are better than this, but my experience is my experience with them. I'd like to try again, but the combination of super-tight returnability policies, this experience, and lack of inventory status on the site (last I looked was months ago, but at least then they also would not estimate delivery even if you called them) makes it very difficult indeed to do so.

First of all, thank you for the details.
Pretty much what I thought. Alot of shooting with heavier, tactical style guns and not much from really light rifles or magnum sporters. Lots of emphasis on repeatable adjustments which doesn't mean much to many of us.
The other thing is the lack of controled testing. If you were to say you ran 2-3 of each of the above against 2-3 in the same price range and design from other makes under the same conditions, then I'd say your testing was really worth something.
Be that as it may, your experiences and the details of it, are certainly worth considering. E

C'Mon man!

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.

Negative. All the fixed powers are made in one plant in Japan and the variables are made in another, also in Japan.

Are the fixed-powers still Kenkos?

Sorry RD, but this is wrong.

The classic fixed powers are made in one plant. The 3-15x is made in the same plant.

The HD scopes, 10x HD, and 3-9 are made in another.

Easiest way to tell is to look at the turrets. Each plant has its own design. The 3-15x has the same turrets as the classic fixed scopes. The 10x HD and 3-9x have the same turrets as the other HD scopes.

Its been discussed and confirmed several times by SWFA at OpticsTalk.

Jason

I thought all Kenko scopes were made in the Philippines?

Ok, this is all I will say and that is " all the "classic" fixed power scopes come from one plant and all the new variables come from a different plant". As I said earlier, I am friends with Chris Farris. Sorry I can't say anything further.

I only know what Kenko put on my 'classic' 10X, before they shipped it across the sea to SWFA.

Does this mean you don't think that an assembly facility can mix and match parts from different suppliers?

MZ5,

If you have info on this parts swapping, please spill the beans. Otherwise, what's your point?

Swapping of parts is possible but unlikely. More importantly SWFA has confirmed that the 3-15x is made on the same chassis and the same plant as the fixed power scopes. You can find this info with some interweb digging but I suspect that you already know this.

No sense arguing or speculating. Contact SWFA for yourself and please post the findings. Get the info from them, the most reliable source not me or anyone else.

I don't want to get in an endless debate over this. Or get into your "Weaver is better than SS" debate Is this where we are headed? The 50mm Weaver being superior? If so, let's start another thread because I'd be interested in that discussion.

Where the Classics and HD scopes are made really doesn't make any difference in the end. As long as they do what they are supposed to, and the cost is acceptable.

J

What I said wasn't speculation or rumor. Small parts, such as turrets, could be used on 100 different scopes. Funny, Chris and I were chatting about "google commando's" thinking they know where/who makes his scopes. In the end it wouldn't make any difference if I told you exactly who makes each model because all that matters is they perform as expected.

Thanks for beating me to the appropriate reply, RDFinn.

A good example of what I said as irrelevant information would be Bushnell's high end tactical scopes and the recognition they are getting among serious competition shooters such as Formidilosus . Before he started posting here everyone thought Bushnell Elites were a small jump up from snail chitt. Now, George Gardner and Pat Sinclair come along and folks start listening. If you were armed with the information that these scopes (and Nightforce scopes) were made by Light Optical Works, would that make any difference to anyone what so ever ? Of course not.

RD,

When was this conversation? After the 3-15x42 came out, or before?

The Classic fixed powers were made in one plant and the HD variables were made in another, until this year. Your statement was 100% correct, last year. The 3-15x came out this year. The 3-15x is made in the non-HD plant per SWFA.

I just want to make sure you knew this and we are talking about the same timeframe as things have changed.

If you're saying that the 3-15x42 is in fact made in the HD factory, per Chris, then I retract all I have said and will forward this on since it contradicts what I've been told. And no, my info did not come from Google or the internet (hint), but good guess!

Jason

I had this conversation (via email) at 1554 this afternoon with Chris. I didn't ask him specifically about fixed, fixed HD, original 3-9 or so on and so forth. He said, once again, " all fixed power "classic" come from one plant and the newer variables come from another. Whether fixed HD's and variables are made together I don't know cause I didn't ask. Maybe that's where some of the confusion lies.

RD,

I appreciate the clarification. Would you feel comfortable confirming that the 3-15x42 is made in the Classic factory with Chris?

In the end, as long as the scopes perform that is all that matters. But when we say that the 3-15x42 is made in the HD plant, everyone assumes it has HD glass. This just adds to the confusion, speculation, and unfortunate comparison to other scopes with HD. I think this just takes away from a great scope.

SWFA has said that this is not the case... it is not HD but its still a great scope. Other people here and elsewhere have stated that the 3-15x out-resolves the 3-9x which is supposed to be HD. I don't know this from firsthand since I don't have a 3-9x but the other posters have proven to be reliable and credible.

What I don't want to do is put SWFA or those that helped with the SS scopes on the spot and ask for "what is the name of the factory". I think that simply stating that the 3-15x is based on the Classic chassis and made in the same plant clears the matter up, if that is the case as I believe. They have stated so in the past so I don't think its a big deal for them. But since Chris is your friend it would be nice to get the confirmation from him.

I think the 3-15x is a killer scope no matter where its made, but I don't expect it to be HD or made in the same plant as the HD plants scopes. I just wish I ordered 2 or 3 on Black Friday instead of 1!

Jason

Wow,

The Leupold Delusional Syndrome runs strong in this thread.

I get that the SS is cheap but it hardly ranks with the VX-3 in terms of, well anything.

Heavy with sub par resolution is not really a wining proposition until you figure in price (it is a Tasco, guys, Oops not suppose to say 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.

Might the answer be:
They're not focusing on the same areas of 'performance'
?

That's an extremely foolish assumption, as far as I'm concerned. Assembly plants can mix and match parts and meet various specs at will, or else they're not very useful as contract manufacturers/assemblers.

Form., the examples you cite are from hunting scopes of uncertain age. None of which were designed from the ground up as tactical scopes. Anybody can take an old VariXII, which has been around since the 70's, add an M1 turret and call it good for tactical matches. Your 6-18X scope has always been either that or a VXII. The 6.5-20 has also been around a long time as a hunting scope. I know because I had one over 20 yrs. ago. in the VariX III model. The 3-9X you cite might be a new model, but it may not.
I have seen no controlled testing, only impressions that do not take into account the ages of the tested scopes, their costs, the VariX/VXII's were alot cheaper than the SWFA scopes, or their design features. If you want to claim the SWFA scopes are better than the current VX3 Leupolds, you need to buy 6 new ones and run them with the same round counts on the same rifles. Just like you did with the 6 new SWFA scopes. You haven't done that.
Nor have you done that with the Nightfoirce, S&B and Leupold top of the line tactical scopes. Yet you insist that the Nightforce and S&B scopes are significantly better than the comparable Leupolds.
And you keep insisting that in any given tactical match, 30% of the Leupolds will fail. Maybe so. But no where do you do any controlled testing or comparisons of new, not used, scopes.
You could easily say that you are very impressed with the SWFA scopes and cite their track record. But when you say they are better than anything else out there in their price range, you are going too far. E

One actual owner/user being told they don't know anything, by some folks that actually don't know anything.
Classic.
Next thing you know, everyone's Swaro binos will be fogged up too.

I'll buy your argument. Let's say "some", as the HD thing seems to get brought up often Must not having anything else better to do, huh?

Still waiting on you to provide the details from SWFA, not your assumptions on mixed parts. Or are we just going to continue to go back and forth with this endless debate and no relevant info from you?

Prove me wrong. Spill the beans MZ5

I'm actually going to try a SS 10x mil/mil..

Crazy, huh?

Don't do it!

You will end up like me, replacing everything you own with these horrible "Tasco" scopes.

Get rid of my FFII's?

No freaking way.

Like Mule Deer said.....

You ladies have fun figuring out where they were made.... I'm going to go figure out how this thing likes to ride on the Plastikka...



Tanner

OH, I didn't know that is what you had. In that case of course you wont be replacing scopes, but I bet your new scopes will all wear a SS badge.

My Tikka's both (soon to be 3) love these scopes.

Well maybe they don't, but I do.

I see you're following Boxer/Big Stick's lead again which is probably a good thing. He just bought 6 SWFA SS's to replace a bunch a Leupold's for some good ol R&D.

I've used SS scopes for a few years now... I way prefer the 3-9s to any of the fixed powers.

Tanner

I prefer the 3-9 to the fixed powers as well, though I haven't been around a 10x HD.

I don't give a flying rat's ass where they are made.

Tanner,

I thought you was using the DNZ on the Finnish Tikkler, or is that a different SL?

BTW, how's the 7RM T3 working for you?

Jason

EDIT - after looking at that pic it looks like the scope would hit the back of the DNZ.

My buddy has his standard T3 Lite 7RM sorted out with his scope, we hope. Long story with a VX-II. I'm looking forward to seeing how it shoots with handloads and new optic.

J

*LOL*

I bet you will like it. I really like the 3-9, and am saving up for a 3-15.
The mil-quad reticle kicks ass.

Re-read post #8414868 (one of mine) in this thread. I told you then and I'll say again:
I can only tell you what Kenko put on my scope.
As a hint: I'm confident Kenko put it there because it's their QC marker, with their name and location.

Earlier question...

Is the SS 10HD $400.00 better than the 10? It was for me. It tracked better than me using it for dot drills. The classic series are great for durability but I have only bought the 3-9, 10HD and the 5-20.

I sold the 10 HD to fund an SS 5-20x50 (Illuminated). Optics Talk has so many responses on the SS line that I recommend scouting around over there.

I am a fan of the SS higher line for sure. Never had any issue but if one did, SWFA would take care of it, I am certain.

Cameraland, SWFA and occasionally Euro Optic are the only people I buy from other than gun nuts from here, OT, LRH and the Hide.

Still opening Mail.




Just poked it on a NEF 22LR that shoots fair to middlin'. Only 36.5 Mils total ele travel,which is slighter than the 6x's latitude...though 10 Mils in the glass pads things a bit. Should be able to get out to 75 or 80yds.

Thinkin' I'll throw another 6x that's s'posed to be here somewhere,aboard a Beeg Krunchenticker and see WTF.



Finally gots me one of them fixed Roopold 6x's,to see WTF the fuss is all about and just slammed it aboard a rifle that was in the mail too. 8x57 J on a Kar98,but wished I coulda afforded the "S".



Hopin' it'll stay sub 3.5MOA at 100.

Laffin'!

Still cain't find my bulk order of UV Yarn,for Chrome Dredging Pursuits...and might just haveta quiz the Cook in the AM,to get a location on same. UglyStik,Danielson mono and a Tokushima Coffee Grinder(nothing but the best),to be unleashed in the pre-dawn morn'.

F&S says R&D is fun and they certainly don't miss much.

A leetle more R&D in the books...Castin' & Blastin' today.



A 50yd zero,granted 23.1 Mils remaining erector travel,ala 25MOA extended DIP 1913. Sister had the hot hand and sluiced a coffee cup at the 550yd line,while chasing some wind. 20Mils on the erector,the balance on the reticle.





After running up and down the total erector travel scale,dozens of times(burned only .2MIL windage,from mechanical center,to establish zero)...it printed back to where it started.



Initial impressions are more than positive,though I'm craving a 50MOA extended 1913 rail,so as to eek more goody.

This NEF seems to shoot.

Pretty decent NEF and looks like the glass works too. are you shooting rem thunderbolts?

fixed

Gunning Stingers,sorted by case luster.

From a 250yd fireform zero,the reticle will get it to 1300yds+ at "0" elevation...along The Milford.

Gunning Stingers,sorted by case luster. [/quote]


LMFAO!!!

Don't laugh!

I used Stingers with my CZ 453 when I ran out of elevation with a 20x Super Chicken and rail. Didn't want to use the reticle for holdover, but this would have been the better route.

Never thought about sorting by luster though. Maybe this would have helped with schit accuracy from them Stingers?

J

Trying to cover bases for R&D. Orange is 10x,yellow 6x.

22LR,223 Krunchenticker,7-08AI,308 and 7 Whizzum. Next 6x will go on a 308 Krunchenticker,next 10x a Chub 223AI.

Mebbe the mail will cooperate tomorrow and more will show.



It's ALL about the luster.(grin)

In fairness,I opted to go Retrostalgic on the Jarhead Return.



So far,so good on the Fixed [bleep] with 2000-ish rds whistled through 'em.

Tried or going to try any of the HD versions?

John

I'd drive a HD 6x,were it an offering...but am largely done with all variables.

When the dust settles,a scope is just a place I keep my crosshairs until I need 'um. I've less than zero interest in eyefhukking schit through a rifle scope(ANY rifle scope) and have looonnnngggggggg been at ease in the transition from bino's to crosshairs.

Gimme rugged reliability and great erector tracking................

10x on the wizzum?

Schit...got sidetracked polishin' feed rails on a 22-250AI,loadin' K-Hornet and scopin' a 39A.

Yellow is 6x's,orange is 10x's and I'll not be looking for more X's. Whizzum is yellow and 6x,which is well beyond cheatin'. Can see myself stocking up on 6x's,with a dozen or so,for giggles.

Haven't really throwed 'em around "that" much...but nothin' is "mint".(grin)

'Nother showed yesterday.

MOA erector(162MOA available) and standard fare Mildot Reticle(which has always sucked ass). Decided to slum it aboard a slumming 308.



The MilQuad reticle is sooooooooooo where it's at.

Ran outta yellow tape,for some reason.(grin)

Schit...no yeller tape to be found,so red it is in regards to MOA/Mil Fixed [bleep].



Got Skinners loaded and will see how things track,here directly,after lunch.



Gona be another rough day.(grin)

I'm with you on the 6x HD. If they offered that I'd be all over one. I have the 16x I bought for long range play and load development. For those purposes it works fine but it has the most critical eyebox I've experienced and glare can be quite bad as the sun goes down.

The terrain where I hunt now is so open, I'm thinking I could easily run a 10x HD so may give one of those a whirl.

Currently running a Vortex 4-16 HST. Glass is much better than the 16x SS and, so far, it has not let me down tracking or RTZ but I am well aware of the SS having a reputation for being more reliable. Knew that going in and figure if the HS-T pukes I'll use that legendary Vortex customer service and then give something else a try...

John

Wellllll...given even a passing thunk,a guy KNOWS going in,that a 16x 40mm is gona be dim and critical,as a minimum.(grin) That no matter who makes it,not that they's all equal. BT/DT.





I've not shot the 4-16x HST,but the 30mm 4-16x capped HS,is a [bleep] POS.

As Utility Glass goes,10x is my ceiling,because when you exceed it...the concessions arrive in non-lineal fashion.

Anybody ever put one of these heavy bastids on a 452?

I have a SWFA SS MRAD 16x on a Salvage BVSS .308.
Works well, simple, solid and priced right.
I can't afford $1000 for one scope and I have other rifles for hunting.
Only been used for playing during bright summer days so hasn't been Battle-Tested.
If I were to buy another I'd get a 10x.

SLM,

I had a 20x Super Chicken on a 453. Wish I had a better pic for ya, but this is it.

CZ453
Rimfire Tech 20 MOA rail
Warne rings
backwards-ass pod

The 20x was dim, but I knew that before buying it. At the time (2009) the 16x was really popular. I think dudes wanted more than 10x, but brighter image than the 20x.

Even with the dim image, I shot the schit out of the set-up. Lots of rounds fired learning to read the wind and tons of fun shooting a 22lr at 200-300+ yards. Even more fun when the marine layer and fog roll in to help "read the wind".

That CZ and scope are long gone, but just thinking about it makes me want to put another Super Chicken on top of a rimfire. Next time I'd go 6x, 10x, or 3-15x. Have a 3-15x sitting in the box right now.

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

Was just doing a weight extrapolation,for the girls...using some knowed quantities.

6x42 non-A/O butt nekked...11.4 ounces.




6x42 A/O butt nekked...13.2 ounces.




6x42 Fixed [bleep] butt nekked...20.9 ounces.



I'd not begin to think of goin' past 10x and pulled a Mk4 M1 10x Leupie offa my Anschutz,to accept same and am beyond delighted...due the extry range afforded the S/S.

Go DIP 25MOA extended rail,Warne Maxima low's and 10x MilQuad on the CZ.

i have a fixed 10x on a cz455. it also sees knock around use as a test scope that gets moved from rifle to rifle. i've been very happy with is thus far, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone looking for the features it offers in the price range. for the money, i feel they are hard to beat.

Boxer,
Maybe I missed it in an earlier post, but are you just experimenting with the SS scopes, or are you replacing your Leupolds?

I think I read in one of your posts that you were a big fan of the 6X Leupolds. Are you keeping those for hunting and just using these as target scopes, or do you plan on packing the extra weight of the SS hunting?

You mentioned you are getting away from variables. Are you just being careful or have you had problems with them?
Thank you.

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.

Shot the initial S/S Fixed [bleep],knowed the next generation went to schit and never gave 'em a thunk after that,until they were mentioned elsewhere...not long ago. Figured "[bleep] it" and give 'em a shot,to see WTF,so got a small herd to kick around upon various platforms,if only in fairness.

Have I yanked Leupolds to make way for 'em? Yep. Am I having a Leupold BLOWOUT Inventory Reduction Sale? Nope. Would I trade some 6x42's for 6X MilQuad's? Yep. I've a hunch,that I prolly gots a couple/few scopes.(grin)

I have never been in love with variables and likely never will. That being said,not all variables are equal and I certainly hold some in much higher esteem than others. I've seen an Alder,but am not much into cases,so am more than a BUNCH comfy with exposed turrets.(grin) The SS variables ain't for me...mainly because they are variables.

It's prolly been a coupla decades,since I've shot on a "real" Range. I like Real World findings/results and that means clangin' & bangin'/runnin' & gunnin' MPAJ as situations dictate. Been flogging on the herd daily.

Hint.

I am waiting for the video with you beating the SS 6X scope against a rock, then shooting it.

Thanks for the reply.

Big Boxer, maybe you've mentioned it and I missed but I assume the big six SS is too much for your taste on the Montana?

Aboard a 7 Whizzum Montucky and assuming a 250yd zero with case forming loads(intial poke of 300Whizzum's necked and headspacing a false shoulder at 2980fps),the MilQuad reticle grants 1300yds+ of possibility,as ele goes...less touching a turret.

Playing around in the front yard yesterday,for some pards that had some reticle questions. Picked out an arbitrary Critter,most could fathom in it's relative sizing,as a knowed subtension designator quantity. This as a holdoff extrapolation,in less than pristine conditions.(grin)

10x MilQuad here,aboard THE Sleeper and slumming worst case scenario ammo(schit BC and compromised velocity),as opposed to say Warp Nine Skinners. Anywhoo...the LRF read 947yds,with the wind at full value left to right. That is a 3.5 Mil correction in 10mph.



MPAJ Belly Benchrest via Harris swivel and an overview of conditions along The Milford,at that moment.



Gawking through wind/waves/water and the ease in which the requisite holdoff is granted,while holding rifle butt in one hand an camera in the other. I be talented.(grin)



Now for conversation,The Hurt Locker would require less than half that windage holdoff with the 162. Just sayin',that boolits prolly matter.(grin)

The no bullschit and Zero Fluff reticle,is a veddy veddy good thang,affording much in the way of opportunity and is a breeze to hold hard with. It's bane,is due it being fine,that one can lose it in low light...which is a tradeoff that rates a thunk. In a perfect World,I'd be able to get the glass without windage turret,as I'm a notorious slider of wind upon the reticle and so very seldom dope it via erector(only to check tracking).

As per always,the 30mm hurdle is mounting things low in relation to the bore,as most systems are beyond proud in their height. Rail/rings are notoriously a Goat [bleep] there,which is a shame.

It's all I can do,to keep from poking one aboard C-Note(came close 3 times yesterday)...but I'm in Fire Form Mode with it too and the 6x42/M1 is doing nice things there,like they do. However,once the formed 75A-Max start flyin',I'm gonna really be wishing I had that reticle at my disposal. I'd love to see a 6x42 Leupold wearing that reticle,with 1/10 mil adjustment on an M1 ele and no windage turret,with say a 1/10mil illuminated center. THAT would be the schit.

C-Note.



The MilQuad reticle would get it to 1075yds and 5 Mils of full value 10MPH wind occurs at 1400yds+.

I wouldn't wanna be a thang.(grin)

Never thought a die hard Leupy Groupy would have seen the light.......or looked for it......

It's the reticle for me. Mildots suck ass...so the interim(schit) versions never began to rate a thunk,but this reticle transition do. Nice that they've improved both the parcel and it's reticle. Win/win.

Couldn't stand it.



Operation Fire form is over and Operation Watch THE [bleep] Out is about to unleash,via fullhouse 75A-Max.

Gonna get ugly.(grin)

Chris had lots of help for improving the SS (two of them used to post here) and the reticle design. Mechanical integrity was job 1.

Want to trade for a Savage in 25-06?

.160 APA rings
.290 Seekins base (front)
.450 total height (front)

.400 Talley height (front)

.050 difference. Not bad. Main problem is that the APA rings and Seekins base will cost more than the scope.

TPS Aluminum in super-low...

'Finn,

He NEEDED lotsa help...because they was 100% schit for a good while.(grin) Glad it's sorted.










SLM,

I've killed more schit with a Salvage,than any Salvage Lover I know.(grin)










'smith,

Tough to beat Warne Maxima's for Lowtitude.




Especially in conjunction with a 2pc base,instead of a rail.



Jered and Glenn is both good people.










'223,

I've TPS too and Warne's is lower.

Yeah, but steel is only sweet if you like rust bluing, of course... it is usually dry where you are. You're in Texas, right? LOL

I believe the Warne's are .250, TPS is .230, versus .160 for the APA's.

TPS are .228" for the 30mm super-low. Not sure how that compares to the others.

Can you provide a link to these rings? I looked at the APA site but couldn't find them.

CR

Good old Leupold Dual Dovetails 30mm lows are one of the shortest of the bunch at .060".

See post #26 in this thread, which is followed by a post by Jered so I assumed it was accurate, but haven't verified.

.750 to center line, less .590 (15mm) = .160

http://forum.snipershide.com/snipers-hide-rifle-scopes/135125-apa-rings-review-w-range-report.html

Thanks, I looked at the APA site but don't see any options for height when ordering. I did see in the link you posted that Jared will make a custom height if needed. Their design does lend itself to being made lower than standard cross bolt designs.

CR

I was using my 16X SS with 30mm low Burris Signature DD's with the eccentric inserts, and a 40/thou shim under the rear that I fabricated from sheet metal.

This setup yielded over 100 moa of useable 'up' from a 100 yd zero. And it put the scope about as low as possible, which didn't hurt with the HTG stock.

I never really thought about attempting long range shooting with a .22LR, but after reading this thread and giving it a thunk, it makes sense.

Shooting a .22LR at 300+ yards seems like a great way to learn about reading the wind, and a hell of lot more economical to boot. My kids will no doubt have some fun with it.

Got a CZ 455 American synthetic, DIP 25MOA extended rail, Warne Maxima low rings, and a Super Chicken 10x MRAD in route.

I personally get a bigger kick out of long range shooting with a 22 than with the big guns. No recoil and little noise = fun.

I've had the same experience. I've only had my SS fixed on one rifle one time when I was out hunting, and it got bumped and moved me a couple clicks of windage. I saw it and put it back, but this experience plus my experience having it move in a comp are prime reasons I look hard for locking turrets. AFAIK, SWFA SS scopes do not offer this feature, but perhaps some of the newer ones do.


It'll make it several ounces heavier.



It doesn't cover any more of the target at high mag than it does at low mag; that's how FFP works.

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.

Shane,

I've long been a fan of live centers and as far as I'm concerned,ALL rings should wear 'em.

The ability to center windage alone,is a huge advantage.










'ology,

It's funner than that.(grin)

This kinda goes back to what I term the 1:1 Wind Ratio...the distance at which a 10mph full value wind,shifts impact 10MOA. With the above Anschutz and the pallet of ammo I'm whistlin' through it,that threshold is at the 210yd line. Often intellesting to extrapolate that ratio,to other boolits/chamberings,if only as a barometer of relative evaluation.

Prepare to schit your pants,via the newfound fun. My only wish is,that my Anschutz wore a 50MOA rail,so I could eek even more goody outta the equation.

It's a riot!










'goat,

The LR Rimfire Tourney is a gas. The bastard with the best ammo,best dope and most erector/reticle latitude...do reliably win.(grin)

It's ALL about the wind.

Hurricane here currently,shot this frame but minutes ago.



It's rough.(grin)

Might as well get a Yodave trigger kit on the way also.

Got one in route.

Damn good thing I have a sheit load of .22LR ammo on hand as the boys are going to put a serious dent in my hoard!

Don't buy extra clips, they have to reload every five and it slows them down.

You aren't kidding! When I first bought them a S&W M&P-22 they went through 5k CCI mini-mags the first weekend. As hard pressed as it is to find affordable .22LR, they'll have to slow down a bit.

Put a zero-stop on it. Give it a twist when you get ready to shoot. Snipers are trained to look at the turret when they flip the safety off.

MZ5,
Thanks for responding to my questions.

thats the truth ... a MKII or 10/22 makes short work of a brick.

Agreed, and that's basically how I found and fixed it (except I didn't/don't have a zero-stop shim in it). I just prefer to have 'em lock.

I finally got my 3-9 mounted and to the range yesterday. I am impressed. I have minimal experience with a ffp scope, and none with mil quad.

I was shooting several rifles, and the glass seemed at least as good as a VXII 3-9X40 I had with me. Sighting in at 200 took three rounds: one at 50 to make sure I was on paper and make minor adjustments, one at 200, measure the point of aim to point of impact difference on the reticle and dial it in for a bullseye on the third round. I reset the turrets to zero, and started shooting groups.

If it is as tough and reliable as others have said, I think I'm going to have a new favorite scope. I'll stretch its legs a little more at longer range in a few weeks, once I get a little time!

I agree, I'd prefer to have a cap myself. I don't like M1's for the same reason, but a zero-stop is the remedy, sort of.

Crow, which SS did you buy?

TAK, I bought the 3-9X42 on sale black Friday. I'm looking at the 3-15 next.

I just edited my previous post to correct my oversight.

I'm looking hard at the same two scopes.

I'm digging the SWFA 3-9.

If you enjoy rimfire long range, never give it a try with a subsonic suppressed 300 whisper or blackout. While cheap on powder (8 grs of bluedot) I have burned through 500 208 A-max in an afternoon of plinking. I stock up on blems when I find them for that reason.

If they would trash the windage knob and get the ZS shim worked out it'd be all good!

A guy over at Sniper's Hide is selling a kit for a ZS for most of the SWFA SS scopes. The problem with a factory ZS is they can't know your gun or where exactly it'll zero. That plastic shim kit comes with a variety of sizes, you just pick the appropriate pieces and sand to fine tune it once you get your rifle/scope dialed in.

Sounds like a good job for a 3D printer. I'll have a look when things slow down at work. Easy to print the thickness needed or a shim stack.

Jason

FWIW, I just sold my 3-15. It was just too much scope for hunting and not enough for tactical comps. I now am rocking matching 3-9's on my hunting rifles and am much happier.

For my comp gun I am going to go to either a SWFA 5-20 or a Bushy 3.5-21 G2DMR. The 3-15 seems to be tweener that I can't find the right use for. It is a shame because I really liked the 3-15 package.

As always, YMMV.

I like the 42mm part vs. a 50mm on most other tacti-cool scopes, but you're right... different needs and wants.

Mentioned this on another thread but once I install a rail, low rings, and 50mm I have needed a kydex taco in the past. A 42mm with low mounts sans rail lets me avoid the taco, but might not be suitable for the same application as the railed 50mm. A 42mm on a rail usually isn't any better than a 50mm anyway since both have good clearance with the rings stacked on the rail.

I haven't always been able to get the 50mm as low, even without the rail. So yeah, mebbe the 3-15x is a tweener. Good for applications where you can run it low.

Jason

'ology,

The PMTJ on the CZ's is a better route than the yodave.










Anywhoo...I'm 'bout 3500rds into Fixed [bleep] Territory after today and all is well. Got to shake The Hurt Locker out to 1142yds and it stole the show. Purty good day,for seein' what do what in the wind and more importantly why.

Conditions sorta changed.(grin)




A coupla more 6x MilQuad's got solded today,for some reason.(grin)

I have and, no.









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.











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.














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....














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.











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.

looks like it is thick and bold enough for low light work. Would you agree ?

Form,
Thanks for answering my questions.
A friend ordered the 3-9 and the 3-15.
I'll go look at his when I can.

Completely.

Formi,

Do you have any details on the actual designs? Gimbal and leaf spring? Or something like Swaro and Simmons use with springs at the end of the erector?

Throw the technical stuff at us if you have it. Would like to hear what you know about the details. We've been speculating that the designs are better, but as of yet nobody has spilled the beans as to what "better" actually means.

Thanks,

Jason

I will not buy another variable scope ever. I am done with them. Sell variables, replace with fixed.

jimmyp,
I'm reading here that a lot of guys are getting away from variables.
I'm not trying to be a smart alec, but would you tell me why you decided to? Formidilosus said that the variable SS work, so, esp. since the are the same weight, (6 vs. 3-9) what is the downside of the variable?
i guess I just need to hunt a fixed and see!

Look at Weaver's EMDR. It's very similar. Also very useful for hunting toward higher mag, but not so great for the conditions I described at low mag. Certainly as good as a fine to possibly medium crosshair, but those aren't great for hunting under the conditions I described.

BTDT. It is not designed properly for low powered use.

Nor is it similar...

LOL! Nearly identical in layout and in every subtension/dimension, actually.
This does highlight how different people's subjective impressions of objectively-measurable realities can be, though. I'm going to use this exchange (anonymized, of course) in a communication challenges training seminar this afternoon.

Have you ever used a Mil quad reticle?

Hard to imagine someone believing that this-





Is nearly identical visually as this-




If they've actually used both. So while I agree you should use this exchange in your seminar, maybe instead talk about wrong impressions. Of course if someone had actually spent time with either they would realize that there is quite a bit of difference visually between a hollow post reticle and solid posts, over twice as thick posts, thicker crosshairs, and 4 posts versus 3.....

You must be using trick photography.......lol

My super chicken 10x42 arrived this afternoon. Still awaiting the CZ in order to get everything mounted. However, a quick finger fondle and gawk through the scope leaves me with a positive first impression.

I'm not a fan of cluttered reticles (dots, hashes, christmas trees, etc.) so I'm still a little hesitant and on the fence on how whether or not I'm likely to warm up to the MRAD. For my intended purpose, should be better than fine once I get past my comfort level and prejudices.

Turrets have positive clicks. Scope appears to be stout. Might be able to pound tent stakes into the ground with it and still keep rocking.

Only one way to find out......

Yep, those are great comparison pics alright!

As it happens, I've just had an opportunity to look through a milquad. It disappeared against shadowy/dusky and mixed basalt and palo verde, but then so does most everything that's not illuminated, so no surprise. No doubt it's still better than the emdr would be without illumination in other situations.

Everyone found the exchange humorous. ...and declared the reticles similar, based on the images I had from SWFA & Weaver (sorry, didn't have your photos then). But then, they're mostly not shooters.

I have not seen a SS in person, but from the pics that reticle looks too thin for a fixed version. Seems like you would need a first focal plane in darker backgrounds.

As a hardcore Utility Rifle's reticle,the MilQuad is gonna leave a bunch to be desired for killing. It's not worth a [bleep] in heavy cover or low light. If you can skirt them concessions,you'll be fine...but it'd be amongst the last reticles I'd want in a typical Booner Bear scenario. Hint.

Now as Niche Play Toy's go,it will serve a useful role in the Fun Department.

That is where the 3-9 comes in. Drop it to 3 or 4x and the heavy posts make a good lowlight reticle.
On 9x, not so much.

I got everything in this week, and put it all together and spent some time this morning slinging lead down range.

I agree with Boxer. It's definitely not a reticle I'd personally choose for hunting. However, for punching paper and objects at distance with a lowly .22lr, it's a hoot!

I've got one coming with a mil-dot reticle that is going to ride on my main "hardcore utility rifle". We'll see how much I like it for that purpose...

I think Fost' was wrong about being able to pound tent stakes with this beast.

I think you could drive railroad spikes with it.

Dam they are big and stout.

Fost', how was the bolt clearance with the lows?

Looking at mine it looks extremely close?

Mine arrived today and I'm impressed with the glass quality. I like the reticle too..

It should be great for my Creedmoor.

It is close on mine, but doable without issue.

Fixed has always been far warmer and far fuzzier.

A Duplex cain't be beat for Killing.

So Stick, you're saying that the Mil-Quad is great for target messing around, but you'll go fixed Duplex for the killing fields?

The MilQuad is a simplistic/sound premise,that will easily excel at Fun...but you WILL get bit in tough light and heavy cover,if it is your only pitch.

POA/POI intersections are very easily arranged with the boring/"lowly" Duplex and that well proven fact,is beyond more than just comforting. I've copious disdain for Heavy Duplex,mainly because I suffer a few...but Vanilla Duplex cain't be whipped.

Oh I'll certainly schlep MilQuads from hell to breakfast,but the Duplex is in no danger of having it's thunder swiped for Killing. I can see me with a dozen or more 'Quads in the larder,after the dust settles,as steering mechanisms for various Play Toys...and especially rimfires.

Trying to treat 'em fair now and flog on 'em with various platforms,that ain't too nichely in nature.

Pun prolly be intended.(grin)

Those dots/dashes look awfully small in that pic can you see them against a target?

Mike

Built a "RC2" plate for my Manfrotto ballhead,that I leave here at work...which are affixed to Manfrotto legs. Thought I'd left a plate in the 'head,but didn't so had to improvise and adapt. Built a rail which affixes said plate and mates Badger Max50's,which secure a 6x MilQuad Fixed [bleep].

Anywhoo,I had it on a fair MuskOx this afternoon at 5300yds and small change today and had several sets of eyes subtending same.

Took pics with multiple systems,including newest Iphone and a Canon 1D MK4 wearing a 24L II. Will try to find a card reader and load some pics,if only for conversation.

For some reason...the glass is selling well.(grin)

Looking forward to it!

The pic Form posted above I don't think I could see the hashes well enough to use. I'm prolly in need of reading glasses for up close but can see a clearly a looong way off.

Mike

That was from a 3-9x42mm set on 3x. No, the mil marks are not usable at 3x. About 5-6x is where they become really functional.

Thanks Form I may have to get tacticool and come to some of your training classes.

I've never used any reticles besides plain/target and Duplex.

Mike

P.S. I mean no disrespect by using the word tacticool

Do you have any pics showing them at higher or max power? Please don't feel the need to go to any trouble if you don't have them. I'm sorta considering one for a go anywhere/hunt anything rifle and the only thing keeping me from it is the reticle in low light.

Rabid,

It seems noone has a card reader with 'em,but I'll try to finger sumptin' out. There has been a purty good Storm brewing with windchills in the -60 realm and mebbe that got 'em moving around a bit and they'll crowd closer.

Mils is for steering boolits...not "measuring" distances anyhow.










pointer,

Go fixed and never look back.

Hint.

I'm guessing for hunting you'd suggest a Leupold over a SS, correct?

Thanks Larry

I'm thinking Remington 541-X .22LR with 10X SS for 200 yard matches.

Mike

6x




9x




Trees are around 900-1,000 yards away and pics are taken through two planes of glass.

Thanks!

That is much better.

I can see those well enough to give that a try.

Mike

Received a 3-9x42 with mil-dot reticle today. So far I've mounted it up and peeked through it out the windows of the house, and the scope really impresses me! The turrets, adjustments, glass, and fit/finish are all fantastic for a scope in this price range. Very excited to put it through the paces!

pointer,

Lotsa Leupold's suck and especially for Killing...but that can be said of ANY Maker. The Fixed [bleep] gotta alotta things right,but the reticle isn't gonna be as nearly forgiving as many,for heavy cover and low light. That mainly because it ain't designed to do them thangs.

Is there Leupold glass/reticles in which I've much faith?

Oh yesssssssss.(grin)










Rabid,

I believe you will be tickled and then some,as that melding is a Good 'Un.

Scored a card reader today and will hang pics,mebbe tomorrow night,of the MilQuad at various distances(Fox's face at 11 Mils and a MuskOx at .2 Mils).

If only for conversation.










Jordan,

I assume that's the glass we yacked about?

How much "up" in total travel,do it house?

Spill your guts after the dust settles.

Form- Thanks for the pictures! Too bad it only muddies the waters for me...as I think I could make that work.

Boxer- I think I'm reading between the lines well enough! Thanks.

Had a SD card failure and seem to have lost pics. Will try again tomorrow and see WTF.

Duplex lines is the easiest to read between.(grin)

Yup, that's the one.

Took it out for a little play time today, despite the gale force winds. Had several rigs out for the fun, but it was definitely a .625 kind of day *grin*

The scope seems pretty happy to ride on top of the Montucky 7WSM, balancing the whole rig quite nicely. Steering 162's through the gusts was especially entertaining, given the fine crosshair and the bold posts of the mil-dot reticle. I'm liking the glass and the reticle so far. I think this reticle may be a great compromise between a LR shooting tool and something that rides on a utility hunting rig. The turrets are very solid and repeatable, though to be fair one still needs to measure each scope's tracking, even if it is a SWFA SS, as this scope moved POI up 3.045 MIL at 101 meters (30.8 cm) when 2.9 MIL was dialed in, making for a 5% greater shift than expected. It's no problem to account for such things, as long as a guy knows what he's got. Repeatability and RTZ was flawless throughout the day while going back and forth from 101m, 501m, 595m, and 704m. Total elevation range in the erector assy is 23.3 MIL, with 13.3 MIL usable from a 101m zero, while riding in Talley LW's. Glass is crisp, and fit and finish is excellent, especially for a scope in this price range.

Time will tell if the scope continues to impress, but things are looking good so far.

As I've mentioned prior,I take the adjustment "values" of all glass with a grain of salt. I gun 100yd paper in good conditions,to establish how things track and what the values are in actuality...instead of proposed. From there,I'm looking for lineal shifts through the erectors travel and a return to zero,with bigggggggg input shifts between pokes.

That don't take long and the warm/fuzzy is either immediate or never. Hint.

On a variable,I gun on different powers...to see how much things move around with zoom selector shift. There's lotsa reasons why I LOVE fixed glass.

I'm averaging better than 23 Mils of useable on the Fixxed [bleep],aboard mounting systems without inclination. The tilted schit,really reaches and then there's always 10 Mils on the reticle for frosting.

Disappointed that I lost them images,as it's intellesting to let the Subtension Crowd suffer in their range "finding".(grin)

Yup, hitting the upper and lower erector stops a few times between shots makes for a good test of the scope's tracking integrity.

Regarding the variable vs. fixed- I'll take what I can get. But if I'm rolling a variable with a marked reticle of some sort, it's gonna be FFP.

23 MIL useable is a lot of friggin "up", but 13.3 will get me to 1430 meters at my locale, sans reticle. Another 5 MIL in the reticle will go beyond a mile. Plenty far for 9x glass on a Montana. If I had 23 MIL it'd take me to 1860 meters, and another 10 would get to 2175m. That's 2378 yards, which is a bloody long ways off

I'll admit that it caught me slightly off guard tonight when I compared the SS 3-9, set on 6x, side by side with the FX3 6x42. The optics in the SS were brighter and had better resolution, while the Leup LRD showed up slightly better than the SS mil-dot against dark backgrounds, a little beyond twilight. The mil-dot was still useable, but not as bold as the LRD, which makes sense since it is a much finer crosshair.

The surprising thing is that while observing out of the window with the SS, I could clearly see a plane passing up high, with its safety lights flickering every second or so. When I watched the same plane with the FX3, I couldn't make out the plane itself, but I could see the lights flicker, and was able to track the plane that way.

I thought the optics in the SS would pale next to the FX3, but that doesn't seem to be the case so far.

Coupla scenes from today...as Fixed [bleep] reticles go,if only for conversation.





Had 19 MuskOx on another camera and will load 'em later.

Looks to be your scope is crooked.

Prolly needed a 3rd hand,to keep things straight...though it were a beautiful day and hovering around right at 0 with modest wind. Have had a buncha 35mph+ winds and cold ambient temps(-45).

Odd that noone is espousing range "determinations".(grin)

just having fun with/u

The 3-9, to me, is a step up optically from the SWFA fixed scopes.

It's pretty impressive optically, that's for sure, but it's also double the price of the 6x and 10x fixed scopes.

Did you get any word about the 3-9 zero stops? I'm interested in a set as well, but last time I looked the fellow was not yet set up for them.

Also, you might want to check out the AAD scope covers. A buddy recently picked up a set. While expensive, they are absolutely great thus far. I'll likely buy some and give them a test. They look really well built, especially compared to Butler Creeks, which have absolutely gone to schit.

3x



6x



9x

rick',

DO understand that my feelin's is tender and your behavior has been reported to a Moderator. You may now expect an Imaginary Pretend Ignore,by John Burns.

Laffin'!











Jordan,

You need a Fixed [bleep] MilQuad on a GOOD 22LR.

Hint.









'goat,

I finally remebered yesterday,to order another dozen BC's.

They may get scratched.(grin)

That'd make for a lot of fun. Got a line on any? *grin*

Nice 100 degree temp swing,here at the house...even in this horrid weather.



Will mount the 6x Fixed [bleep] back aboard it's rifle and run it through it's paces in the AM,along with some other new trinkets.

Gotsta love a 2 week Cast & Blast.

Since its sitting in the closet, what would it take to relieve you of its burden?

Bolted it back aboard The Bitch Bastard [bleep] last night and after I'd swung it 5000+ MOA of elevation and who knows how much others flogged upon it these last 2wks(I handed it out to whoever was intellested,to play with)...it ended up .5 Mil high at it's pre-determined 200yd zero,after torquing max 50's with a trusty bar wrench to Double Bloody Knuckles tight. That after 3000+ air miles,-45 ambient temps and ZERO love on any level.




Shot it out to 1K+ in the early morn' calm and all is well. Then rattled 200rds through it in the course of the day,just to see WTF.

Cain't point a feenger anywhere,but am still tryin'.(grin)

75 gr Amax?

Noone LOVES the 75 A-Max more than I...but that being said,I don't drive ogives below case mouths.

Was whistling the Hornie 75 HPBT today.

1000 yds is a pretty good poke with that bullet, is performance close to the Amax?

The 75A-Max stands alone and is THE pinnacle.

It was right at the transonic slip at 1K,as per yesterday's weather/atmosphere. They dig purty good and reliably break shoulders.

Clearly a faked pic. You can't possibly kill sumpin' that size with a .223 and 'match' bullet....I should know, I read it here and other places on the innanet.

Nice buck, btw.

How far do you normally shoot the deer at? Most of your hunting pics look like pretty damn dense cover.

NOONE loves 10yd broadside pokes,more than I and I've zero interest in backing up to make things "sporty". I've been well beyond great with a rifle for many many moons and crushing schit has never troubled me and likely never will. It's over before it even starts.(grin)

Never killed a Buck much closer than 15yds or much further than 500yds this past Season. Neither had a chance.(grin)

Closest...223/75A-Max.



Furthest...6-284/105 Hornie HPBT.



Distance becomes largely moot,if you adhere some basic constants and punch the primers requisite to them assure dots are always connected.

Such things interest me.

Is the side focus a needed option on the 10x SS or just another knob to take up space?

Parallax adjustment can be moot or a blessing and them particulars depend upon several things. Firstly,is the magnification and in broad brush strokes,anything greater than 10X is gonna NEED parallax adjustment. Secondly,is the application of the glass.

None of the 10X Fixed [bleep] come without parallax adjustment,so you've options as a default. You can get that adjustment in (2) locations,as per your whim and dat's either forward of the ocular in a regular zoom ring's typical location,or as a side focus knob. Now I've got lotsa scopes(actually more than that) and personally rather like the zoom ring locale of the parallax adjustment on the 6X and 10X Fixed [bleep] . Much of that due to the lesser footprint and the balance due the fact,that modest X's require modest corrections as a worst case scenario. As X's increase,you'll become more and more glued to parallax adjustment,no matter it's locale,as it's da' nature of da' Beast. This of course assuming your pursuit(s),involve more than a single engagement distance.

So the X's,the application and engagement distances is what's gonna determine how often you finger [bleep] parallax adjustment. Now as Killing goes,I simply set parallax akin to how the Makers default a non-parallax adjustable glass,less serious concession. Dat's the nice thing about the zoom selector parallax location,as you can literally set it and forget it. Now were I in a Tourney gunning Hummingbird lips at the 10yd line with the 10x Fixed [bleep],I'd be at ease in the modest parallax adjustment it'd take,to afford winning the works.(grin)

Cheekweld is oft discounted in contending parallax and will bear lotsa fruit with boring regularity. Hint.

Soooooooo in summation,you cain't get a 10X Fixed [bleep] without parallax adjustment and it's locale preference is gonna be a function of your wants/needs. I've got lotsa glass wearing both side focus and adjustable objectives,but REALLY like the adjustment at the zoom selector's location.

The more you know whatcha' like and why,the better you can help yourself with the choice. I am not a scope fiddle [bleep],as my tag(s) have long been punched,while others are still dicking around with schit and trying to acquire a victim in their glass.(grin) Have seen me do it...and often.

Less is more.

Hint.


(Addendum: Just took a coupla pics)


Towards starboard is 10 Meters,to port is Infinity. Total travel from lock to lock is a kchunt hair shy of 1/4 evolution.

OK, I get it now, I thought the ones w/o side focus did not have AO at all. Your pics show the rear style clearly, and I think I would like it better there also.
Thanks.
I am hung up on variables but the simplicity of a straight 10x is appealing. Elk in the timber is the only use it may not work well for me. But I don't sneak around in the thick stuff much anyway. Thinkin' I could make it work.

I've seen pictures,paint a purty picture and a few thousand words.(grin)

I have a blonde confession to make, I was a blonde up through. Early teen years!

Got my fixed 10 in the other day and haven't really had a chance to look through it, rifle not drilled and tapped yet, anyway I carried it outside at lunch and was looking through it, not great, can't seethe reticle to save my life, start cranking on the adjustment ring, nothing know I just got some reading glasses maybe I need to go get them, then I stop and think!!!!!, ding ding ding that's always helpful I was cranking on the objective adjustment the scope eye piece focus adjustment was ran all the way out short of falling out.

Ran that joker in about three cranks voila, I now see a reticle with mils and a few abbreviated duplexes.

Was beginning to think I had lost my marbles, was too funny not to share.

As a side note got my EGW 20 MOA base for my 541-X now just have to take it to the smith to get it D&T'd.

Mike

Bought a CZ 455 Varmint 22 LR with bull barrel and Boyd's Evolution stock today. Considering mounting this scope. Everyone happy with it on their 22 LR?

Flogged on my Anschutz 54/10x Fixed [bleep] combo,here purty hard these last few days and it remains veddy,veddy...veddy impressive.

Hd the Hurt Locker out to 2000+ yards today,playin' in the wind. THE Sleeper out to 1100yds and beat on C-Note purty good too.

Hope to have another 6X in Monday's mail.(grin)

So you are using the 6X and not the 10X.......I need to go back and read the thread again, ha.

10x on my Anschutz 54,10X on THE Sleeper... and 6X's on BBMFER,C-Note,Hurt Locker,308 AR-10 and Dick Rifle.

Never mind......appears these Warne rings fit the DIP rail:

http://warnescopemounts.com/product/rings/

What are the lowest 30mm Talleys that will fit on a 700 Rem?

Some of the SS are on sale today and tomorrow. 3-9, 16, 10 HD, etc.

SWFA SALE

MANY THANKS CROW!

Crowkiller, Thanks for the heads up. Picked up a SS 3-9x42. The saving paid for a good chunk of the AR trigger , also on sale!

Been BEATING the absolute [bleep] outta a few of 'em and have as of yet,lose a zero or have a tracking issue.

The round count is obscene and the handling has been none too gentle,for them who fancy themselves as dissenters.(grin) There's been 10's of thousand of MOA/Mil's rattled through the erectors collectively and that'd be a gross understatement.

Hint.



Though in fairness,I've only got 6x,10x and 12X...as variables do not interest me.

As you were,Bitches.

Move up to a fixed 16X and you will Thank me later Boxer

you will be Very surprised

Nice flock of Super Chickens!

'6,

16x has less than zero interest,as the modest jump from 10x to 12x hurts in the light gathering and optical splendor departments. I've various other Makes of fixed 16x glass and am largely done with them,though I reckon there will always be a Retrostalgic soft spot for the MK4 M1 16x.

10x has long been my fixed magnification Utility ceiling and that constant will be static for many moons...if only because suffering glass beyond same,reiterates just that.(grin)

Playing in the driveway,earlier tonight with a 12X MQ Fixed [bleep],trying to get set-up,with him on the move. Never quite happened,but you get the idea. The harsh sun to my back,was doing no favors and I hit the shutter early,figuring sumptin' was better than nothin' and it was the only frame I could collect. It's certainly no prize.



As per always,6x cain't be whooped for Utility.










Shane,

I've a hunch there will be more than a few more,before the dust settles.

Have a few more Sleepers to slam together,as well as a few that ain't quite as "sneaky".

Everyone who's shot mine,has purchased same and that just might be why they are currently outta MQ's.(grin)

Is that Bigfoot?

+1.

I have the SS 16x and while mechanically very good, the glass leaves much to be desired for general use. I now keep it in a PEPR mount and use it on my ARs for load development and long range play on steel from very controlled conditions. For anything else, the eye box is too unforgiving and there is way too much glare. if I were doing it again, I would go with the 3-15 or the 10x HD for general use.

I have the Bushnell LRHS which is superior to my 16x SS in every aspect, and I don't mean by just a little bit. Also have a Vortex 4-16x HS-T which is a significant upgrade from the 16x SS. It will stay in the stable provided it continues to be mechanically sound. So far, tracking and RTZ have been reliably spot on. Will continue to monitor the HS-T mechanics�

Due to the LRHS's characteristics, it is at the top of the line up for every day use on my Stiller. The HS-T will stick around for a spare.

John

I like the SS scopes.

When it came time to choose one for my 375 VM2 I chose the
SWFA SS HD 5-20x50 Tactical 30mm Riflescope.