Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics SWFA 2.5-10x32

I received my 2.5-10x32 today.

First observation; that thing is tiny!

Low light performance was respectable. It, and a few others such as a Burris FFII, NF 3-10 SHV, Leupold 6x36, SS 3-9 HD, and a Vortex 1.5-8 HD LH would have worked well beyond sunset +30 here, when viewing a few close targets (<100yds) in eastern woods. If there are no real deer to look at (they left today just after sunset), I look at one target in the woods and then come back to an archery hog target. I see how long I can find the hog, identify an aimpoint and place the reticle. It’s a brown hog that blends in pretty well. I usually do this a few different times in different conditions to see any consistent trends. The little SWFA did better than I anticipated.

Eyebox is not very forgiving at all on higher power settings. Glass is ok. Nothing special, but nothing to hinder it as a sight for shooting either.

I’ll mount it on a rifle shortly and shoot with it.

I will keep mine on 6x for the most part and I really liked the eyebox at that magnification.

Received mine yesterday, yes it is tiny! Even sitting next to a 6x36 it looks minuscule. Nice compact scope but the critical eye relief will likely be a deal breaker for me. Short eye relief doesn’t mate well with rifles that have some recoil! I’ll mount it on a rifle just to check it out but likely as not it’ll go back for a refund.

I got mine last week, and first impression out of the box was that it was not very clear on 10X. I spent more time the next 3-4 days with it comparing to an older 3.5-10x40 Leupold, a 3x9 EFR Leupold, and a VX-1 2-7x33. It came in last place for clarity. There's a old brick school a couple hundred yards away, and the brick & mortar stood out better with the other three. Also a kid's green dinosaur ride with a white eyeball that was a good test for clarity. The eyeball seemed to be more blurry with the SWFA.

It did have a huge field of view on 2.5X compared to the other three, and from a practical stand point it would be just fine on the lower powers as dusk settled in from a hunting standpoint.

I laid it on the lower half of the Talleys on a S/A 700 with the front ring turned forward for a better fit with the 3.5-10 Leupold. As I moved the power up only to 3-4 I had to start creeping up the stock, and on 10X I had to move my head up a bunch. So then I switched the front Talley the other way around to get more room to move the scope back. I set the scope as close the the front as I could, with the rear of the scope almost to the turret, but still had to move my head uncomfortably forward enough to get a full field of view.

I tried to like it, but it just didn't work for me. I called them for a return number yesterday & sent it back today.

I really think a VX-1 or 2 in 2-7x33 is a better fit in this class, and only weighs a half ounce more than the SWFA UL at 9.9 ozs.

I stole 275heaven's 700 pic for reference. I had my scope as far back as possible, more so than on his, and it still wasn't enough.

Any reviews from someone who has actually shot thier rifle with this scope? Pretty sure aalfs review is enough for my decision. But i care more about how it was used vs the weight pics. Real wod use wins

Mounting it in a comfortable position is a concern as aalf described. It will definitely have to be as far back as I can get it.

It won’t win a clarity competition but it’s fine as a sight. I like clarity too, but it only matters so much in a scope. We’ll see if I can live with it.

Any indication this scope has the same rugged internals as the SS scopes ? If not it's just an over priced Tasco with short eye relief.

Mine started on a .223 and now sits on my 30-30. No issues being on either, glass is good enough for what I need and the adjustments have been spot on.

How does it compare to the Burris mini/compact/shortmag scopes? I have a 4-12 and a 4.5-14 and other than the eyebox being a little finicky to get behind I like them for an ultralight.

I've got a couple Tasco 3-9x32's from the late '70's I can say the same about. They're still in use and they still work as they should.

No dog in this fight, yet, but I can see a place for this if it proves to be extra reliable. I like/need a lot of ER, so I doubt I'd put one in conventional mounts, but on a rail, on a light kicker should work. The real question is if it's worth the extra dough vs. the other scopes I already have experience with that have better ER, a performance history, and for much less dough. Lots of scopes will work just fine for decades as set and forget on light kickers.

The SWFA UL is meant to spin turrets. Very positive clicks, lower-profile turrets, and caps to keep them in place. I'd love it more if it had more eye relief. The Leupold CDS elevation turret spins way too easy. Tape is cheap, but I'd not trust it to stay put.

The clicks are almost loud to a fault. They remind me of cards in bicycle spokes.

Haha. I agree.

They need to come out with a 3-9x42 version and good eye relief.

If their is a god, please lord let it happen!!!!

How much would you pay for one?

ILya

I would think $400-$450 would be doable, looking at the rest of their offerings? If they made a 3-9x42 that held zero as well as their other scopes, had 3.5" of eye relief and weighed 13-15 ounces, I would definitely be in for several.

^^^^^^This

If they capped windage and elevation on the current 3-9 I'd think they would be close to that 15 oz.

Yeah, with a plain well defined regular old duplex.
Where do I click "Buy it now"?