Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics SWFA 3-9 HD or 3-15

There are many SFP 3-9x scopes out on the market. Or are you specifically looking for SWFA's reticle in a SFP scope?

ILya

I am extremely well aware of this. I own them already. I just want SWFA robustness, I also think FFP is the place for very much higher scope power and that SFP is a better fit for optics in this power range. I don't give a crap what the hash marks measure when I am on low power. its point and shoot. When I want to use those hash marks on a 3x9 I will be at max power everytime. I till think that model is a great scope and might buy one anyways though. I just think SFP is a better fit.

Well over half the animals that I have killed with the 3-9x SWFA using the reticle for wind or elevation has been on less than 9x.

CC is a retard. Always has been, always will be.....

CC is basing his analysis on a parking lot analysis on a dreary day, not killing stuff Formid....grin...

most rifles shoot without hold over to 250-300 yards. Also at that distance your not going to be needing to do any hold off for wind either most likely . If I am shooting beyond that distance I am jacking the scope to max power instantly, 9x isn't too much power, I routinely max out my NXS compact on 10x to make shots at 300 and beyond. I am simply not taking shots at 4, 5 6x or whatever x besides max if I feel I need more power. shoot however you want, I am just saying I would rather a low power scope like that be second focal plane. if you want it first, to that I say fine. I don't need anyone elses approval. its still a good scope either way and I may buy one anyways.

greg GFY, your on block like mtn boomer.

Another vote for the 3-9, the 3-15 is a large scope.

Like!

Retard. LOL

One of the main advantages of FFP is that there is no compelling need to pay any attention to what exact magnification you are on. Dial it to whatever is appropriate for the situation.

Ilya

No need to get offended. Am I wrong? I've killed bunches of stuff with both scopes, in all conditions, and your assessment is about like a parking lot assessment. I know you think you're an optics guru so I know it's hard for you to take. No need for the drama...

He's been whining about SWFA 3-9s, it seems, since before the Mil Quad!

koskin, aren't you an optics guru? one of the down sides of FFP is you can't see the f'ing reticle on low power have you considered that? Now this particular scope discussed isn't aweful at low power, like so many other FFP scopes. but if it was SFP the reticle sure would be bolder for low light. Also those wonderful little ticks that measure exactly the same no matter the power. What happens if you can't make out the little ticks on the lower powers? What good is it for them all to match in measure? the fact is it doesn't. I never said FFP doesn't have its place, its place is very high powered optics 6-24, etc. If you have some sort of reason to be off max power and need the features of the reticle. That could be dialing down for mirage, or shooting moving targets. ie tactical shooting, FFP is your choice. but then again most people are using their scopes at the gun range and NOT out in the field or in the desert. My hunting scopes are either set to lowest power(most of the time) and only dialed to MAX power when I need the features of the reticle. I could care less what the reticle measures at 7.25x power, because I am not using the scope with the reticle at that power. shots are either point and shoot. ie under 300 yards, OR beyond that at which point I am flicking the scope the max power. This is a hunting forum not a tactical forum. Thats how I do it, The use for FFP in the field I have personally found is colony varmints. but then again I am normally just guess my followup shots, ie missed 5 inches right. next shot add in 5 inches to make up the difference. I don't take the time to think oh am I holding a certain exact amount.

^Case in point.

Though I've never seen a 3-15; the 3-9HD is quickly becoming a favorite of mine. Used it last week on pronghorn in WY. Worked perfectly. My 12yo liked it well enough he's bugging me to put one on the rifle he uses.

The butt-hurt is sure strong in the "hunting/truck window sticker capital" it seems...

Noone is telling you how to hunt or which scope to use or how to use that scope. Do whatever rocks your boat.

However, this being a public forum, a healthy discussion of different preferences does not hurt.

Weirdly enough, I have considered how FFP reticles look on different powers. I have spent a fair amount of time designing reticles for a few different companies covering a good range of both FFP and SFP scopes.

Well designed FFP reticles usually look like a simple plex or #4 on low power. Various compensation and ranging features start becoming prominent enough to easily see as the magnification goes up and where exactly in the mag range it is really depends on which scope it is and who designed the reticle. There are some designs out there I am not hugely excited about and some that are very good. Overall, everyone is getting better at this since the competition is significant.

I have a couple of the SWFA 3-9x42 scopes and with them the hashmarks are quite usable from 5x onward which is about right, IMO, for a scope of this type. It is really not all that complicated to make a FFP reticle that maintains good visibiity across the power range.

ILya

agreed, the problem we see here is group and pack mentality. Its like global warming. everyone agrees so it must be correct. I personally feel the industry is too fixated and that most shooters would be generally best served with optics that have less power than the ones currently being pushed. For a hunting scope I see no need for a scope to be greater than 15-16x on the high end. I can shoot half MOA with a 3.5-15x nightforce @1000 yards. If I was always shooting that far might I pick a scope with more power, probably. but 1000 yards is really too far for anyone to be regularly shooting at big game animals, and 15x on the high end still gets the job done. When I shoot at an animal and the shot requires hold over or holding off or anything more than point and shoot. I am not rushing a shot of this nature. If you use a scope of 15x or less there is no reason not to just crank the scope to max. So what changed in the optics business? why were all the older scopes SFP? because they were generally less power and were designed for hunting. FFP has been popularized by tactical shooting and PRS style shooting. which is a totally different shooting dynamic. Maybe a quick shot at 400+ yards at something moving is desired. In which case there is a good reason to not be on max power to make that shot. Since the optic maxs at 25x on the high end, its desired to not be on max power because of mirage OR because more FOV is desired. Again all benefits of FFP.

both scope designs have a trade off. No one seems to care to acknowledge this around here. its like FFP or nothing. You yourself said the markings on FFP aren't useable on the lowest powers. they are only use able at mid to high power. That is still a trade off and most definitely not usable at any power like so many people claim. For a hunting scope, you need ONE thing most importantly, you need to be able to actually see the reticle on the lowest power and in the lowest light because that is when animals are most likely seen. early in the morning or late in the evening. Low light performance is a huge deal. illuminate the reticle some would say. Ok what if the scope got left on and the battery is out? what if the battery isn't working and is dead because you forgot to replace it? The illumination argument is monkeying around too much and its not ideal anyways in low light.

lastly, koshkin, what scopes do you feel offer FFP AND acceptable reticle visibility on the very lowest power without illumination? the 3x9 SWFA scope isn't bad, what others?

Bushy LRHS with circle of death

Can't argue with that logic......

I hear ya. I would only agree with you on the 4.5-18 version. I would NOT agree with you on the 3-12 version. I think the SWFA 3x9 is better on lowest power in low light than the LRHS 3-12, I still hate to see bushnell quit making the LRHS models though 3-12 or otherwise.