Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Failures & known issues -- SWFA SS scopes

Ahh yes, 7 of them you say. No wonder you're so smart. Dumbass.

back on topic...if SWFA would put a #4 in the SFP for their 3-9 they would put Leupold out of business. Hell I love the view through a Leupold, love the damn reticle, nothing to dislike about the appearances of the scope, its just sad the things fail for no reason. I would buy Leupold first everytime if they actually ever did produce a product where 100% of their scopes would be trouble free from a wandering zero, and incorrect dialing say for just 4000 rounds of normal use on something no bigger than an 8 pound 30-06. I will say however that the most entertaining and enlightening conversations on the optics forum always occur in the evening after everyone has had a few drinks. Reminds me of the story of why the brain surgeon had a few before his next operation to keep his hands steady.

A 3x9 with lower turrets and a mildot reticle would be hard for me to pass up.

I be happy with a 3-9 with a standard duplex reticle...........

Have either of you two tried the current 3-9?

I have not. I'm currently looking at options to my Leup VX3 with CDS. I'm a pretty simple guy, and in the small minority - I'd prefer a simpler reticle.

For me a 3-15x42 SFP with low profile pop-up locking turrets, bold post #4 lit dot reticle, and NF or SWFA tracking would be my dream hunting scope.
Makers take note.

I don't need to.

I think in yards and inches and don't plan on shooting over 5 or 6 hundred yards.

There's a couple of reasons I don't like the tall exposed turrets. One is they are too inviting to the prankster's I run around with.

Ordered my first 6x today.

I just put a SS 6X on my 84M. Spent quite a bit of time at dusk comparing to my VX2 3-9. Optically, it tough to distinguish. Looking into darker sections of the woods there seemed to be times where either would appear a tiny bit better than the other. Bottom line, that's awash. I do prefer the duplex reticle on the Leupold. I have to move the SS around a bit to find the center when looking into darker woods or against a darker hide. I had a few deer in the woods who cooperated for my comparisons. A darker doe was a little harder to see where the lighter fawns were easy with either. The SS reticle is not ideal for my tastes, but I think it will be usable.

The 3x9 is a very very good hunting scope, and the mil quad, or moa quad reticle is quite simple. Either hold over , or dial. The reticle is not too busy, like some reticles.

So neither of you have ever actually used the product at hand, nor even looked through one.... yet you feel obligated to comment about them on a thread that's clearly asking for actual experience...... AND making suggestions on how it could be improved.... classic.

Thinking in yards and inches has nothing to do with using a Mil-based reticle.... but you probably knew that too.... since you've never done that either.

It would be nice if people only commented on what they used. Think I will go opine on vortex scopes since I have never owned one.....

I think the 1-4X or the 1-6X reticle in the 3-9 or the fixed 6X, with the illumination, and a capped low profile windage turret would make a very, very good hunting scope.

Have they discontinued the mil-dot in the 3-9? I don't see it listed anymore.

I don't think they've sold the MD version of the 3-9x for a few years.

Follow-up thread here: LINK

I wish the 1-4x had covered turrets.

I wish the 6x had the option for covered turrets.

Other than that, no complaints from me about the one's I own and use.