Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Anyone want an SS hunting scope?

They should stick one of those scopes on a 7lb .30/06, load up some stout 180s, and make every nerd on that scope design team fire a magazine full of rounds out of it... prone... off a pack.

I bet there’d be a need for a suture kit.... and a new drawing board....

I know a lot of people who hunt with ARs chambered for the likes of 6.8SPC, 6.5Grendel, 300Blackout, etc.

For those applications, anything with more than two inches of eye relief is plenty.

I suspect that this will be an excellent scope for that use.

Personally, I am partial to the 6.5Grendel and it seems to work just fine on pigs.

I probably would not put this scope on a safari gun, but there are plenty of other scopes out there for that.

ILya

nose to charging handle is incorrect way to hold the gun imo. Standard eye relief works best on those.

Nose to CH works wonders for me. I prefer to drive the gun rather than let it drive me, especially on a fighting carbine...

I hope that with this ultra-light scope, SWFA is not going to blemish its reputation. There is no free lunch with scope weight, as is obvious by Leupold's failures. If this scope is durable, then it will gain a good rep. If not, the SWFA just hurt themselves with a Leupold clone.

I know a lot of people who hunt with ARs chambered for the likes of 6.8SPC, 6.5Grendel, 300Blackout, etc.

For those applications, anything with more than two inches of eye relief is plenty.

I suspect that this will be an excellent scope for that use.

Personally, I am partial to the 6.5Grendel and it seems to work just fine on pigs.

I probably would not put this scope on a safari gun, but there are plenty of other scopes out there for that.

ILya

nose to charging handle is incorrect way to hold the gun imo. Standard eye relief works best on those.

I don't disagree,but I can't for the life of me figure out why you wouldn't just design it with a slightly larger ocular if needed and at least 3.5" eye relief. I really prefer 3.75"-4" because it increases options on where it will work. I just see no advantage to such short ER at the disadvantage of maybe one ounce more weight.

Bears a startling resemblance to one of my favourite hunting scopes

2.5-10x32 Sightron

As a general disclaimer, I do not do product development with SWFA. I have a cordial relationship with them, so I often get to see prototypes before they are released, but that is largely it.

If I were a betting man, I would bet that they looked at the one part of the hunting market that is actually growing and tried to make a scope for that application. I suspect, that they were also trying to get the weight under 10 ounces, so every little bit of weight saving makes a difference. As has been pointed out earlier, there is only so much lightening you can do on the insides before you sacrifice durability, so I suspect the eyepiece was the next logical place to streamline things without sacrificing quality.

To be brutally honest, if I were them, I would probably do the same thing. People simply do not buy 32mm objective scopes for conventional big game hunting rifles any more. If you want to introduce a lightweight scope, you have to look outside of the 30-06 boltguns.

I have seen this before: what people say they would do and what they actually do are not the same thing.

If I were to run a poll here on how many people would buy a 12 ounce 2.5-10x32 scope with 4" of eye relief and then went on to build that scope based on positive feedback, I would go bankrupt.
The number of scopes I would sell would end up at best one tenth of the number of people who said they would buy it.

ILya

Why would you want more than 2.55 inches of eye-relief?

Vortex Razor HD LH 2-10x40...R.I.P.

[quote=R_H_Clark][quote=koshkin]I

I have seen this before: what people say they would do and what they actually do are not the same thing.

If I were to run a poll here on how many people would buy a 12 ounce 2.5-10x32 scope with 4" of eye relief and then went on to build that scope based on positive feedback, I would go bankrupt.
The number of scopes I would sell would end up at best one tenth of the number of people who said they would buy it.

ILya

You’d sell a schitt load more of them with 4” eye relief than you will with 2.5”.... that’s for phuggin sure.

you mean all the people saying they want fixed power scopes? Then when I post about the cameraland exclusive S&B fixed power scope, they complain. The whole fixed power thing is so overplayed it aint even funny. I am not sure SWFA needed to go the ultralite route. I think they would have sold plenty of robust 2.5-10 models they could have if they kept the weight even at 1 pound or less. Think about the rifles you really care about saving weight on. they are going to have more recoil than heavier guns simply because they are lighter. If I am putting together a light rifle I am probably going to just pick up a tikka t3, in one of the big game calibers. on that gun I will be wanting a scope with 3.5" or a tad more. Leupold makes scopes with eye relief in that range without huge eye pieces.

nose to charging handle means you have to shorten the stock way too much on an AR, it just don't fit right. and I am not going to shoot my gun like that.