Here are some of the new models of SWFA SS scopes

[u][color:#000099][size:14pt]SWFA SS NEW MODELS[/size][/color][/u]

Pretty cool finally seeing the light with sfp reticles. I wish they offered the 3-15 model in the moa/moa configuration. That would be an awesome long range scope.

Nice! I just bought 3-MOA/Mil dots. I wish they had a 3-15 MOA/MOA as well.

I was really hoping to see the 3-9X42 with a low profile, capped windage turret and zero stop.

Probably not going to happen, but I can dream.

Well.....Hope in one hand and SCHIT in the other. [bleep] idiot. Nobody wants to talk about your stupid SCHIT. Do you know a single [bleep] thing about rifles. Didn't think so! I also figured out who you are. Larry!

As long as we're dreaming let's get some more eye relief and illumination.

David

So the advantage of the SFP would be relative reticle coverage at different magnifications? Would it affect the DOPE corrections, meaning only useful at certain magnification?

Maybe still try to score a 6x for a 22LR, wondering about the SFP 3-15× MQ for a 243 and subtensions

Yep, I'm Larry Root. You solved it, Sherlock.

That would be nice as well

Don't mess around with it. Get the 3x15 ffp. That way you can use your reticle for windage holds at all powers, not just one power in a sfp. That goes for verticals holds with the mil quad as well. This is the best reticle I have ever used in a hunting and target combination.

That 10X MOA version should cause all sorts of excuse making.




Travis

What is it that scares you about the Mil/Mil version ? So long as the reticle matches the adjusters it just a different form of measurement.

The world I live in thinks in inches and feet. I was out calling some coyotes the other day. decided to pull out my 243 ai with nightforce MOAR NXS scope on it. found a rock at 995 yards and took some cracks at it. The rock was approx 4 moa by 4 moa. so its a 40" rock roughly. quick easy and no math in my head. if your spotting for a guy with a pair of binculars in your hand isn't it easy to say 8 inches right? of course it is, are you seriously going to figure out mils by at 850 yards?

just as you said its simply another unit of measurement. I think in inches and feet. use what works for you.

I would also liked to seen a capped windage 3x9, These SFP scopes they have come out with are going to be alot more useful that most think. your going to get a reticle that works great on LOW power.

He'S had the benefits of a ffp scope explained to him a hundred times. He isn't going to get it. Save your breath.

I'm still trying to figure out how he knew the rock was 4 moa x 4 moa.........

Someone needing multiple "cracks" at a 4MOA target inside 1000yds,with a Modern scoped boltgun,REALLY should be asking questions,instead of giving "answers".

Hint.

Now whether mil/mil,moa/mil or moa/moa...your "daunting" 8 inch correction at 850yds,is still only 8 fhuqking inches. Sliding the reticle that "much",with any of the lot,is a literal fhuqking breeeze.

The "BIG" fhuqking difference comes in with the .25MOA erector increments,as opposed to 1/10Mil(.36MOA) erector increments. The .25MOA erector will require 4-fhuqking "clicks" and the 1/10Mil 3-fhuqking "clicks". Hint.

Laffin'!

The middle is always the fhuqking middle and folks stumped by that,should hold pat with Tiddlywinks.

Pass the MQ Fixed Fhuqkers,their more tactile adjustments(as opposed to their MOA/Mil versions) and inherent unerring simplicity,conjoined with static subtension that is without limits in it's application...be it near or far.

Just sayin'.

Anybody run the fixed 10X? I'm not sure I want that much magnification when something suddenly appears at less than 40 yds.

The 10X Mil Quad is funner than heck in open country. Even on a slow poke Creedmoor it was good for a friggin' mile with a 20 MOA base.

The fixed 6x is the answer to that dilemma! :-)

Either that or I reckon you could run the 1-4X and just keep it on 4x...

Chris

I have them on an AR10, .223, and my 300 WM. Can't explain it but it has a better FOV than they should! If my shots on norm would be closer ranges than the 6 would suit you better IMHO.

I was thinking about a 10x SS for a .22 rifle. Looks like a winner...

I have 10X MQ on a 22 and like it.

I'm going to sneak in a 3-15 for Christmas.

Those of us stuck in the city are shooting at 100 yards where 1" = 1 moa.

My millirad scopes are worthless to me. The turrets are in .31" clicks or something.

All those mili reticles are useless too.

I don't know anyone and have never met anyone who wants this millirad stuff, or this first focal plane stuff that makes the reticle disappear for close running shots.

What?

What an ignorant comment spoken by someone who shoots 15 rounds a year. Brilliant!

Huh ?

Que?




Tony

SayWhat?

Isn't that a mixed metaphor?
Going from "ignorant" to Brilliant"?

Clark,

Your shots are under a 100 yards and you're even commenting about adjustments?

?

It is not metaphor--it is sarcasim.

If you are stuck in the city shooting 100 yards, this is probably not the best topic for you to comment on.

Perhaps a pop gun, complete with cork and string. (only a little sarcasm)

I am at the South end of Mercer Island using the Issaquah range for 11 months a year.
One month a year I stay in Eastern montana for deer, antelope, and elk.
Sometimes two months a year when I go in the spring for prairie dogs.

I sighted the 6.5-06 Dumoulin I built this year to 100y and worked up loads at Issaquah. Then in MT I made marks on the turret to 600 yards before hunting started. I then shot a doe at 629 and 250 yards with that rifle. The 300WM Mosin I built was sighted in to 500 yards in MT and shot a buck at 250 yards. The 6mmRem I built never got past Issaquah.

I typically build 3 rifles a year, but I buy a lot more scopes than that.

You buy more than three scopes a year...and you haven't found what works yet?

How good IS your reading comprehension?

Is this not an accurate quote?

Out of context.
I am at 100 yards for 10 to 11 months of the year.

Only cause you won't drive an extra 45 minutes up I-90 to Stampede Pass..... there's all kinds of LR shots to be had there. But you won't find a covered concrete bench, coffee pot and snack bar, or a bunch of wankers in a circle jerk over Fred's new Cooper.... all of which seem more desirable to you than field fired empirical dope or reliable scope adjustments.

Who is Fred?




Travis

Clark's life-partner with a new Cooper.....

Holy crap! Today's posts in this thread made my day.

Isn't that a red herring fallacy?
What ARE your standards?

Dogshooter, please leave me out of your publicly displayed homosexual fantasies.

I like first round hits at... at 1/2 mile via 12x SS....

Of course, that requires actuall shooting.... and use of the wares in question.

Dogshooter,
I am sure you are proud of you shooting, but the standards I am talking about are for forum decorum.

Before you post, edit your post.
Check that it is helpful and polite.
Edit out any bragging, insulting, logical errors, or extraneous information.

Dogshooter,

I was looking at the 10x and 12x. Leaning toward the 12x now.

Have you had a chance to compare the two?

GB

They 10x is as high as I would go. The 12x isn't bad, but comprised in comparison.

GB.... Once again, I concur with Form. 10x is best on most rigs, and seems a bit brighter side by side. A buddy of mine has a half dozen 12x SS's scattered from T3s to Steyers to AR10s to a 15lb Long Range 7 Rem... and loves them all... to each their own.

I've been running the 3-12 LRHS lately, and it's awesome.... but a guy could have three Super Snipers for the dough.

SWFA reticle subtensions link.

http://www.opticstalk.com/swfa-ss-reticle-subtensions_topic32312.html

the 20% off seems interesting, not sure why I need 15 power where I hunt but I do like the looks of the MilQuad DM thing.

Lol....I had to read it twice myself. I couldn't believe someone who shoots 10-11 months a year at 100 yards is even in a discussion like this. Then again that's how the net goes it seems.

Kaleb, I probably know some things about this topic that you don't.

I got a SWFA super sniper scope when Chris Farris his first picked some components from an Asian factory catalogue and imported his own brand. That was a long time after Gale McMillan did that and sold them to the marines. Any email I got from Gale was many computers ago.

I told Chris light transmission was terrible.
I have not measured it. I am not an optics engineer, but I have worked with them on attack helicopter night vision 15 years ago. I put in a lot of effort to get 120 db of dynamic range without any flicker at the bottom of night mode. I worked direct, contract, consultant, and firm fixed price contract under a statement of work. All the optics calculations were first time for me, and not a conditioned response. That was real work, doing new math.


I knew Chris from his ads in SHOTGUN NEWS and his posts on the shooter's forum in the 1990s when the WWW gun forums got started.

My father was chief engineer of a military and gun designing fortune 500 company. He mostly subcontracted the fire control [not the trigger like a Rem700 gunsmith would call it, but the aiming system] to Hughes Corp. But he did make an anti backlash split gear in an aiming system. You can't afford that in your scope nor your guitar tuning keys.

Clark, not sure this is a comment on current SWFA scopes regards the light transmission?

What does any of that have to do with you saying that mil rad scopes are worthless to you because you shoot at 100 yards?

Absolutely bewildering...

1 moa = 1.05" at 100 yards (rounded nearest 1/100th)
1/4 moa = .26" at 100 yards (rounded)

1 mil = 3.6" at 100 yards
1/10 mil equals .36" at 100 yards.

So, zeroing at 100 with 1/4 moa leaves a max mechanical error or 1/8 moa, or .13".

Zeroing at 100 with 1/10 mil leaves a max mechanical error of 1/20 mil, or .18".

That's a difference in precision of .05" at 100 yards, or .5" at 1000 yards.

That's what all the fuss is about? It's such a small difference it is irrelevant for all practical purposes. That small difference is lost in the wind, your pulse, etc.

I'm migrating to mils, because I prefer the system of tenths.

Some folks just want to share a word or two.

You don't have to convince me. .. ..

And if one zero's with the mechanical error to the left, spin-drift will walk it back toward center on the way downrange.

Could you please explain the max mechanical error! It seems to be 50% of the click amount and something about that seems wrong. Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.

Well, chances are your scope clicks will not fall dead on at 100 yards. But the most you could be off is half of one click value. If it was over half value, you would go one more click, and be within a half-click value.

Here's an example of 10 shots at 100 yards. Group is .664" wide, about 2/10 mils.

The center of the group is about 1/20 mil right of center.

I adjusted windage left 1/10 mil, putting the center of the group about 1/20th left of center, leaving spin-drift to bring bullet a little to the right.

I didn't think there could be that much error per click! I hadn't read much about the amount of error so you forced me to do some searching. I found this



form this article http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/08/13/tactical-scopes-mechanical-performance-part-1/

Thanks! I should have searched first! Sorry!

I wasn't referring to mechanical error in the scope itself.

I was trying to relate the fact that the zero on paper most likely will not be EXACTLY on the aim point.


So if you are within 1/2 click value you are about as close as mechanically possible. If you adjust a click toward point of aim, you will cross center and be off on the other side more than 1/2 click value.



If you are off between 1/2 and one full click value, it would make sense to adjust one more click to be within 1/2 click value from point of aim.

I got ya! I misread your post! Sorry!

That is one tractor trailer-sized load of bullsh**.