Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics SWFA Black Friday

Nah they sent an email yesterday.






Deals include $300 off the SWFA SS 3-15x42, $500 off the SWFA SS 5-20x50 HD, and our famous fixed-power riflescopes at their lowest prices EVER! Plus, look out for deals on select Vortex, Magpul, Bushnell, and Leupold products.


Black Friday is almost here: be ready!

Wonder what the 3-9 will be?????

I’d bet on 20% off, no free accessories on those.

I’m curious to to see as well, hoping for a decent sale on the Ultralights too.

Not only is it viable; but, in my opinion, it is almost perfect, with one exception. When your eyes start going down hill. Then, you can switch to the 10X and then you're cooking with fire.
[/quote

Well unfortunately at almost 46 my eyes are heading that way especially in low light. Would the 10X be better? Having never used a fixed scope the thought process is that it will allow for quick reaction and ranging on coyotes and pigs that are on the move, anywhere from 50-300 yards. I will do some target shooting with it but mostly hunting.

Somehow you edited my quote and the other guy's quote. So, to answer your question and put my answer in contect, here are the two you intended to quote chefcreed:

Having re-posted that, the answer is, yes, the 10X would be and is better for those of us with diminishing eyesight. The subtensions appear larger and thus the reticle is larger and therefore more usable. It is, in essence, the same thing with a larger font to put it in the common vernacular. Field of view is slightly smaller. However, you just don't notice it and you have the same reticle in a more usable and "readable" format. Because of field of view being smaller, it will not be as quick to acquire a moving target as would the 6x; but, it works and works well.

[/quote
The subtensions appear larger and thus the reticle is larger and therefore more usable. It is, in essence, the same thing with a larger font to put it in the common vernacular. Field of view is slightly smaller. However, you just don't notice it and you have the same reticle in a more usable and "readable" format. Because of field of view being smaller, it will not be as quick to acquire a moving target as would the 6x; but, it works and works well.[/quote]

This is interesting. I'm thinking about getting a 6x42 MOA-Quad because I find the reticle in the 10x42 MOA-Quad a little hard to see. I'm hoping the 6x will stand out a little more.

So you think the details in the 10x are a little larger and clearer? Like a FFP scope?

The reticle subtensions SWFA publishes say the fine lines in the 6x are twice as thick and the center dot is 4x larger than in the 10x.

WTF?

This is interesting. I'm thinking about getting a 6x42 MOA-Quad because I find the reticle in the 10x42 MOA-Quad a little hard to see. I'm hoping the 6x will stand out a little more.

So you think the details in the 10x are a little larger and clearer? Like a FFP scope?

The reticle subtensions SWFA publishes say the fine lines in the 6x are twice as thick and the center dot is 4x larger than in the 10x.[/quote]







Swing and a miss

Swing and a miss[/quote]

So I'll take another swing.

I have a 10x42 MOA-Quad. The lines and markings of the reticle are a little finer than I find easy to use. SWFA's information about their reticles indicates that the 6x reticle has bolder lines, so I'm thinking about getting one.

Big Sky seems to be saying he finds the 10x reticle to be "a larger font."

I'd appreciate it if anyone out there with both would comment about how they compare.

Please stop fugging up quotes and get a 6X Mil Quad.


quote=Circles]quote=Girlhunter][quote=Circles
[/quote
The subtensions appear larger and thus the reticle is larger and therefore more usable. It is, in essence, the same thing with a larger font to put it in the common vernacular. Field of view is slightly smaller. However, you just don't notice it and you have the same reticle in a more usable and "readable" format. Because of field of view being smaller, it will not be as quick to acquire a moving target as would the 6x; but, it works and works well.[/quote

This is interesting. I'm thinking about getting a 6x42 MOA-Quad because I find the reticle in the 10x42 MOA-Quad a little hard to see. I'm hoping the 6x will stand out a little more.

So you think the details in the 10x are a little larger and clearer? Like a FFP scope?

The reticle subtensions SWFA publishes say the fine lines in the 6x are twice as thick and the center dot is 4x larger than in the 10x.[/quote







Swing and a miss[/quote

So I'll take another swing.

I have a 10x42 MOA-Quad. The lines and markings of the reticle are a little finer than I find easy to use. SWFA's information about their reticles indicates that the 6x reticle has bolder lines, so I'm thinking about getting one.

Big Sky seems to be saying he finds the 10x reticle to be "a larger font."

I'd appreciate it if anyone out there with both would comment about how they compare.[/quote]

I've almost canned all the Leupolds and SS classics.
the glass in the classics suck. Guess for 22lr and guns that I don’t hunt Big game with they will do in a pinch but I’m almost 100% Nightforce on my hunting rifles.
That said for 200$ I’m tempted to scope a couple 10-22’s and old 30-30’s.

Well, apparently I've over-explained. The 10X Mil Quad reticle is bigger and much easier to see and use than is the 6X Mil Quad reticle. Even a few years ago when I still had better than 20/20 eyesight, that was true.

If you do all of your typing completely outside of the last "[quote]" you won't be a) misquoting people; and b) it will appear as it does when others quote posts. As a matter of fact when you select the "quote" button, your cursor will be located exactly where necessary to type outside of someone else's quote. Just a helpful tip.

An SS on a 30-30 would be like putting 44’s on a Hugo.

Man, your SWFA classics must be quite different from mine, because the glass in mine is quite decent. Not S&B quality, but certainly serviceable.

I think the glass in the SS classics is fine also, I’ve used a 1-4 and 3-15 quite a bit. Recently acquired a 6x and 10x, haven’t used them much but I don’t think the glass quality will be a problem

Given a reticle subtension in the 10x of 0.05 MRAD and 0.07 MRAD for the 6x, the apparent relative reticle size between the two scopes is a simple calculation:

Size10x/Size6x = 10x/6x * 0.05 MRAD/0.07 MRAD = 1.19

So the reticle in the 10x appears 1.19x larger than the reticle in the 6x. But there are other factors involved, like the 10x having hollow diamonds that are solid in the 6x, making the reticle in the 6x appear bolder. All things considered, the reticle in the 10x appears slightly more visible to me in good light, but the reticle in the 6x is a bit easier for me to see in poor light. This could have something to do with the smaller exit pupil in the 10x.

Thanks for the splaination on what TBS was saying. LOL

I hate the glass it’s obviously 1/10th the price of Nightforce but it sucks. It’s gray and cloudy rains like a mfer most of the hunting season.
the first half hr of the day and the last half are lost in my eyes with the crap glass in the classics. Some are less repulsive than others but non are to my standards.
It’s not uncommon to see the elk slip into timber at the first legal minute. I Pursue them in the timber with that type of light and the glass is useless.

Got a single shot 30-30 that I use 165 grain Ballistic tips in and it’s bad to the bone.

😎😎😎😉

I’d offer to sell you my 3-15x40 but with the sales getting better and better the scopes hold very little value. They hit the door step and loose a larger % of Value than a new car.
If a guy buys a SS classic he should plan on keeping it as it’s not going to bring crap for resale.

That said the SS HD 3-9 intrigues me and they seem to hold their value, don’t seem to sale second hand often and sell quickly when offered.