Originally Posted by T_Inman
Originally Posted by acy
any decent scope is going to have glass that is good enough to do what rifle scope glass is supposed to do.

Your point is fair enough though I can’t say that I 100% agree.

Just last month I had a deer at last light that I could clearly see through my Meopta 15x56 at 50 yards, in timber. For the life of me I couldn’t even pick up its outline in my SS 6x42 mil-quad and certainly couldn’t have made a responsible shot. Good thing it was a spike and I had no desire to shoot it anyhow. I can think of 3-4 other such instances. They’re awesome mechanically but the glass is sub par in low light and wasn’t “good enough” for me.

I can certainly respect your analysis. Are you going to swap out the SWFA? If so, what are you going with? My main goal in that statement was to try to make it clear that my emphasis is on the internals. Seems like some people are more interested in the glass than anything else.(Not suggesting you are one of those guys) "Doesn't track, isn't repeatable and barely holds zero, but damn, it has great glass."----- That's not what I'm interested in. I, too, have passed up shots on animals a couple of times that I could pick up with my binoculars, but not the scope. Life is full of tradeoffs.

Edit to add that the Meopta scope I mentioned in my original post has glass as good as any I've personally seen in a scope. As it was getting dark this evening I was watching several deer at the far end of my pond, about 250 yards, against a mixed pine and hardwood backdrop. I could check for antlers with my binoculars for a couple of minutes longer than I could with the scope.

Last edited by acy; 11/14/22.