Originally Posted by Dogshooter
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
The 3-9x HD is optically what I would call “very good”, and to my eye is about Conquest level, slightly better than VX3. The resolution of SWFA scopes is likely their optical strong point in my mind.


The SS 3-9 is probably the best all-around optic for under $1000. It covers a lot of the bases for sure. I could do without the windage turret, and I’d love to see a zero stop.... ala LRHS. But as-is, I still think it’s the best option for a Western style big game rifle, that needs to be LR capable.

SS 5-20 is a tank, but it’s also incredible for the money. It’s a great optic for a belly-gun.


I like this evaluation because of the qualifier "Western style big game rifle, that needs to be LR capable." I went out west in 1972 and probably won't go again. For my hunting in Pennsylvania and occasionally in Indiana, if I zero the rifle at about 175 yards I am an inch high at 100 yards and an inch low at 200 yards. This is all I need and I never need to touch windage and elevation after sighting in. I have some variables that I am taking to the range now to try out just in case I decide that I need more than 6x to engage the 300 yard target at my club's range (the issue is: does shifting point of impact as the power changes and additional parallax associated with the variable scope offset the availability of more power?). I would not shoot at an animal more than 300 yards away if I had the chance because that is the furthest at which I can practice. I might have a 300 yard shot across a field in Indiana in the next few years but there is a lot of wind blowing across that field.


I looked up the SS 3-9x42 HD on the SWFA website. The first thing I noticed was the turrets which I don't need. The second thing I noticed was the reticles which look like upside down German No. 4 reticles with hash marks that I don't need. Then I looked at the specs. It weighs 19 ounces which is 3 or 4 ounces heaver than the scopes I use but not enough to make any difference and I would like a little more weight if I am going to be shooting at a little more range. It is 13.1 inches long, only a little longer than my current scopes and about as long as the 3-9x40 Conquest I used to use. Finally I looked at the eye relief which varies from 4.13 inches to 3.03 inches, that is from great to unusable. For me this is either a very large 3x scope or a useable 9X scope depending on where the 4.13 inch eye relief is. The eye relief and reticle choice means I can't use it for the shooting and hunting I do. I would not choose it over the older 3-9x40 Conquest with either a #20 or German #4 reticle.


I am tempted by the Nightforce SHV 3-10 with the Forceplex reticle, but I am unsure about the eye relief and whether it is overbuilt for my use. I would have to at least look through one first. The scopes that I am looking at right now are the Tract Toric 2-10x42 and the Tract Turion 3-9x40. They both come with more than competitive glass for their price, an excellent hunting reticle in the T-plex and constant eye relief of about 4 inches. Based on the reticle choice and constant eye relief I would choose either over the SS 3-9 HD if I decide to replace my 6x42's. They both have mechanicals built in Japan. If I am lucky this year, I will shoot between 500-1000 rounds of .308 at the range and maybe some 6.5 Creedmoor, if the rifle is built in time, with two shots at deer. This shooting is spread over 3-4 rifles. With this level of use and the reports from hunters who use them harder than I ever will, I don't expect durability to be an issue. In shooting so far they track well when sighting in and the optics are fine in bright daylight as all optics are, but the image on the 6x42 keeps luring me back as it did with the 3-9x40 Conquests before them. If any of my scopes fail, I will do what I did with a couple of scopes in the past from other makers that failed, put a spare scope on the rifle and send the failed scope in for repair. After all, I am never going downrange.