Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics SWFA Ultralight 2.5x10x32

Anyone have? Like or not?
Thanks

Can`t believe not one sold so far, with folks looking for light weight variable scopes. Not much on the web about them either.

There was a used one in the 24hr classifieds a few weeks back...

You apparently missed the discussion about the very short eye relief, which makes it a poor choice for anything with appreciable recoil, despite its other (assumed) SWFA charms. I like all I can get, and a scope that won't allow me to rack the bolt without ducking is a no-go. Probably fine on an AR or .22.

I have one, and so far like it. The adjustments are dead-nuts, which are more important to me than optics, but the optics are pretty decent as well.

The eye relief is a little short at maximum magnification, but not nearly as bad as many make it out to be. SWFA lists 2.6" at 10x, which is exactly what it measures on my scope. This sounds pretty short, but a LOT of popular variables in that range don't have ER much longer. Most shooters simply aren't aware of it.

The very popular 3-9x40 Burris FFII, for example, averages 2.75" on 9x. (I have several 3-9x FFII's, and that's what they all measure.) Even my pair of Nightforce 3-10x42 SHV's measure 3.1" on 10x. Both the Burrises and SHV's have proven more than sufficient on rifles that recoil with 30+ foot-pounds.

The only thing that bothers me slightly so far is the relatively wide space between the posts of the plex-type reticle. This seems to be a trend among plex reticles these days, exactly why I don't know, because on quite a few scopes the "posts" are so far apart you might as well use plain crosshairs. Luckily, the SWFA's reticle isn't that widely spaced.
.
I put it on a very accurate Tikka T3 Super Lite in .260 Remington, and it's working great so far. Will report more as shooting continues, probably on some other rifles as well.

That makes it sound like a good choice for my 10/22 CSC. The 6x42 SS on it now is a bit heavy, and the adjustable comb would let me get right behind it.

Glad to hear the knobs work correctly.

They are tiny scopes!

They are so light and tiny they feel like a toy. I agree on the eye relief deal not being that bad

Thinking that a 2.5-8X of the same would be perfection.

Good rimfire scope unless you like 2.5 inches of eye relief .

Who uses a Fullfield II as their gold standard ? Not I.

Who said anything about the 3-9x FFII being a "gold standard"?

I merely pointed out that it was very popular. I know a bunch of people who use them on rifles up to .300 magnums. Most hunters crank their scopes all the way up when sighting-in, yet I haven't heard any of them complain about getting whacked by their scope.

A LOT of variables don't have pretty short eye relief when cranked all the way up. Many shooters don't know this because many scope companies only list the MAXIMUM eye relief on variables, which on every variable I've measured is at the lowest magnification.

2.75" wouldn't cut it for me on a 308, let alone a 300 mag. Maybe I've more of a bobblehead when firing.

also I would add this to mule deer's comments. why are we worshiping at the holy alter of eye relief. if its so awesome why aren't we all running scout scopes? there are downsides to more than what is needed eye relief. 1) and no one ever says this, the further the image from your eyes the smaller the object in the scope appears. I noticed this after using japanese optics like bushnell elites and nightforce, when I would switch back to leupold. I kept looking and checking the power ring on the leupold and thinking is this scope turned up all the way. longer eye relief is generally more critical to get behind and allows more stray light to influence the image. I personally would probably limit this SWFA scope to 270 win or less. but the reality is if you are having trouble with getting hit by any scope with over 3" of eye relief you don't have the optic mounted correctly for the way you hold the gun, OR you are holding the gun improperly. OR heck just you less gun. with modern bullets you don't need a 300 ultra boomer anymore anyways.

I've never considered myself the sharpest pencil in the box but if people would learn to lock their face onto the stock when they shoot they wouldn't get hit in the forehead by the scope.

I guess skill is less important than gadgets these days.

I have one of the Ultralights as well and I tested three prototypes for SWFA as they were going through the BDC reticle development.

I really like this little scope and the one I have here has been on a good range of rifle varying from 22LR to 7.62x54R and it never hit me in the face with any of them. It is still less eye relief than I would want on a kicker, but aside from that, it seems perfectly serviceable.

The rimfire version with 50 yard parallax should be coming soon as is the BDC reticle. The BDC reticle is bolder than the plex, so it will be better in low light.

ILya

Well thanks guys for all the input. Looking to place one on my 7x57. Use would be for woods hunting here in northern Wi.

I`m reading FOV at 2.5x, 100 yrds is 47 Ft. Is that correct?

Thanks again

Yep. Burris FFIIs pretty much suck for eye relief, and you couldn't give me a scope with less eye relief, especially if it were to be used on anything generating more than single digit recoil.

Just when I thought you couldn't dig your idiocy hole any deeper...

Swfa memorial sale has them marked down to $279

A rimfire model will be very tempting, especially on sale days. It appears to have plenty of tube, and a small eyepiece, both very helpful.

I can do okay with a 100yd parallax setting on lower powers with a .22, but at 10x it might be a problem.