Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics SWFA ultralight made in?

Where are these made? Searched but couldn't find anything.
Look damn similar to the Sightron S-Tac 2-10x32 which is made in the Philippines. Wondered if the two share the same bloodline.
Looking at the SWFA for a Kidd barreled/triggered 10/22 hunting rig. Mostly interested in the back reticle. Wish they'd just throw the damn MQ reticle in it and be done....

Japan.

I’m thinking that one is Philippines actually?

Nvm it is Japan

Why the hell aren't they making the MQ reticle available in this? Seems like a no brainier.

Right?! With a 30mm tube, a milquad and an exposed turret on top 👌🏽

Because they listen to people that don’t really shoot...?

Can't please all of the people all of the time, heck, here on the fire not even some of the people some of the time.

The donut 1-4 illuminati is from the Phil.

Perhaps because they regard it mainly as a set-n-forget scope for hunters, not a dialer.

As long as I've been here, people have been nagging them to build a lightweigh, reliable scope for hunting rifles, sans tall turrets, parallax adjustment, etc. Seems they've done that, and recently added a multi-point reticle and rimfire model. Hopefully, enough of those will sell to keep them in the lineup. If they think that a dialing version will sell, they'll cobble one together. A rimfire version with an exposed elevation turret would be nice, handy for making changes, but scaled for smaller rifles. They're SFP I believe, so that may be a problem for some.

Hard as it may be for "serious" shooters to understand, not everyone wants or needs to dial for hunting, and by actual test, the MQ doesn't work well for me under lighting conditions I often encounter in the woods, so much as I like it for other shooting, my deer rifles wear scopes I can aim with under all conditions. This has been debated to death here, but I know absolutely that early and late, on the shady side of wooded hills, I can't see the MQ well enough to make the quick shots that are typical in that kind of cover. Ordinary duplexes, especially ones with the heavy sections close to the center, do work.

One thing I've noticed...and appreciate about you...you know how to cut-to-the-chase.

The eye relief seems pretty iffy.

I thought so too at first, but JB's comments on his convinced me that it ain't all that bad compared to some others commonly in use. At 3x, which is where I'd set one for hunting, it should be fine. The long tube would help. Don't need any right now, but they're on the list for future purchase.

Not anymore, didn't they discontinued it?

It's going on a 10/22. Even with the mini-mags I don't think the recoil will make it unmanageable. If it does, I'll switch back to the CCI standard velocity.

Plus he has a really nice looking quilt square for an avatar. It highlights his softer side quite nicely.

Don't try those Velocitors or Stingers though. Might give you the dreaded 'scope eye!'

Ha. Well, there is that.



In truth they absolutely needed a plain duplex reticle scope. They tripped a bit with the eye relief for some, but it’s not an issue in use. Where they screwed up is not in offering a BDC reticle, but in NOT offering the mil quad reticle right after the duplex.

There are a bunch of SWFA’s that have been sold because of a few people people putting obscene use on them and sharing the results. The problem with the UL is that those people aren’t interested in a SFP, BDC scope with MOA adjustments. So there hasn’t been that use put on them, and consequently there hasn’t been the push that there could be for them.

Alaska Lanche has as much use on an UL as probably anyone, yet had they offered a MQ/mil adjustment model there would be half a dozen dudes on this board alone with thousands of rounds on them by now.

Been tempting fate and living on the edge with a 6 creed in a FC; haven’t gotten bit yet!

It is made in Japan.

There is no design commonality with the 2-10x32 S-Tac.

I've been testing then to add Mil-Quad reticle to it, but that also involves changing the turrets to Mrad clicks Wich is a more significant design effort.

I really think they should. That would make it sorta like Nightforce 2.5-10x32 at half the weight.

I am really liking the one with the BDC reticle although I have a Plex one as well. I have been trying to get a measure on whether lack of parallax adjustment makes a difference here and for me it does not seem to. The BDC scope has 150 yard parallax and it does behave measurably better at 600. At closer distances, I am on low power anyway and both work fine there.

ILya