Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics SWFA Black Friday

Waiting to hear your opinion of the 3-9HD. Is it better than the standard scopes and if so, how much?

I'll find out on Monday, which is the day after the sale ends. SWFA shipping takes forever to get to me, so my first ordered 3-9 won't arrive until then.
I went ahead and took a chance and grabbed another.
If they dont impress me, I'll sell them. But, many claim VX3 quality glass, so that's good enough for big game hunting for me. I'll report my initial thoughts Monday.

Just checked tracking and looks like Saturday is now the expected delivery date.....I'm excited to see what I think.

Scope came today actually and I was able to compare it directly with a 6x SWFA and a Bushnell LRTS 3-12x44 LRTS. I had the LRTS on a brand new Barrett Fieldcraft 243. The 6x mounted on my old (my dads new) Howa Alpine 243 and the SWFA 3-9x42 HD on a tripod.

Here's a quick rundown...........first I'll say the 3-9x42 SWFA is awesome in all regards, so much so that I just ordered my third based off todays 3 hour evaluation alone.



Comparing to the fixed 6 tonight. 3-9x has Zero notable edge distortion, 6x has quite a bit. Both bright and clear in the center of picture during good light conditions. 3-9x glass really shines in low light. Reticle is "better"/bolder in the 3-9x. 3-9x looks like a much nicer scope "if that matters" on the outside. The glass has notably better depth of field when viewing, things appear a bit more "3D" than the fixed 6x. Resolution in the center of the scope is as good in the 6x as the 3-9x when both set on 6x. 9x View in the HD is amazing. Slight tunneling at 3x.......didn't bother me. 4x and it is gone.

Conclusions of my first impression............3-9x is AWESOME for a rugged hunting scope with glass better than a Leupold VX3 and not at all far away from the Bushnell Elite 3-12 LRTS.
The fixed 6x for $199 is absolutely unbeatable at that price. Being a bit "glass snobby", I much prefer the 3-9x although the glass in the 6x is more than adequate, sans a bit of "fishbowl" and edge distortion. Resolution where it counts is Excellent in the fixed 6x as is the field of view.

Comparing directly to a 3-12x Bushnell LRTS, the SWFA 3-9x was VERY close in all regards. In some ways, I prefer the SWFA 3-9 HD. Guess, that's why I just bought a third one having only peered through my first ever just this afternoon for several hours of comparison......up until dark.


This comes from my 36 year old opinion and my Dads 60 year old opinion. He is keeping the 6x that i mounted on his new to him (my old) Howa Alpine 243. He is also ordering another Fixed 6x tonight for his other hunting rifle........Kimber 84m Classic 308 to replace a 3-9 VX Freedom CDS Leupold. Bottom line, the glass is "good enough for him" in the 6x. I agree, it's good enough to kill up until legal light is past. He is also Not a glass snob and only cares that it tracks correctly and is rugged, which the SWFA 6x checks those boxes perfectly.

Hope that helps.......

Anyone dissapointed in the "fixed classic series" glass...............the 3-9x is pretty great. I don't think you can beat the overall scope, glass included for $449.

Buy them up boys.............SWFA 3-9x42 HD for the win. (I know others like them a bunch and have for years, but I'm a slow learner evidently) For big game rifles, your wasting your money on anything else in my opinion.

Glass is notably "nicer" in the 3-9x than the classic series...........bottom line. However, only if you care about those things. It's not "knock your socks" off better, nor is it $250 better............but it's a nicer overall scope in general asthetics, turrets, glass quality, size, etc.

Thanks. If only those god awful turrets were gone.

Excellent report. I think you just cost me some money.

Thank you, I think.

That jives with my experiences. Good review.

Glad to help.
Thanks to Jordan and many others who had the LRTS bushy and 3-9x SWFA long before I have, I'm able to experience how "good" they both are.
With the current prices on those two particular models, hard to buy anything else for a dialing/hunting scope.

Already have a 3-15 and a 3-9; just ordered a 6x for my .22. I always thought a fixed 6 would be too much for “in the woods.” I spent some time looking at squirrels and birds through my 3-9 set at 6x at 10-20 yards while deer hunting, and I think the fixed 6 should work pretty good.

If you’re on the fence about buying any of these scopes, grab one before the sale is over. If you don’t like it, you can sell it here easily.

Rolled the dice on a 2.5X10 UL for a RAR 243.....reckon we’ll see what fuss is all about.

I bought an Ultralight too, going to try it one a 527, or alternately put it on an AR.

I did the same for a model 7 7-08 the Plex should match the 162 eld x with in a half moa to 500 which is way better than minute of deer.

I went plain Jane for $249...

Great prices on SWFA scopes and soon to be over. I plan to purchase another 6x or 10x for my 22 rimfire.

3-9x42's are on backorder. But you can still order one.

After comparing the 3-9x42 HD to several other "higher end/mid grade" scopes I have laying around the last few days on my scope comparing tripod...............for my eyes, the 3-9x42 SWFA punches WAY, WAY, above it's price. Even at the original $599 it's a H#LL of a scope.

If your on the fence and like a scope with great depth of field or "contrast", this scope will NOT dissappoint.

So, I now will have 4 of these 3-9x42 HD SWFA scopes. I need to do some more comparing with the LRTS 3-12's I have, however, I think I like the 3-9x42 HD better.

My eyes really appreciate depth of field/contrast, I don't particularly care for a "flat image", even if it's crystal clear..............that's probably why I wasn't impressed with the Tract Toric 2-10(not to mention the tunnel vision/tiny field of view in the TRACT).

I compared the SWFA HD 3-9x42 to my "old favorite" 4.5-14x44 Meopro, and prefer the SWFA. It has the same depth of field/contrast as the Vortex Viper HD LH 1.5-8x32 scopes that I love (directly compared on a rainy day this morning). The SWFA is "brighter" with white colors (looking at a picket fence)...........the Vortex Razor HD LH and SWFA 3-9 are virtually indestiguishable from each other, except white colors "popped" more with the SWFA.

Incredible scopes.............but, everyone has different eyes, and different preference for what they prefer to view......resolution vs contrast. The SWFA is excellent in both regards. My eyes prefer contrast/depth of field............guess that's why the sightron Big Sky models, Meopros, Razor HD LH, and now this SWFA HD really make me smile.

Get One..............or MORE!!

I ordered my 4th yesterday afternoon before they showed "Backorder"..........I don't like waiting for things, so I hope I snuck in before they went out of stock. SWFA's inventory/website hasn't always been the most accurate in my experience.
I have 30mm Fieldcraft rings that are supposedly backordered, even though they say in stock.

While I appreciate the virtues of the SWFA's, and all the man-love going on around here for them, in my side by side comparisons the LRHS runs circles around the SWFA in every conceivable way (except for $$$ and weight), although I do prefer the MQ reticle. I'd spend the extra $$$ for the LRTS Doug has on sale every time.

The 2.5-10 ultra lite with the bdc reticle has disappeared. Not even down at the bottom with the backordered scopes. 25 offerings of SS's this morning, now only 24. ??

I picked up another 3-9 HD to replace a 6X SS on a Tikka 6.5 creed. When carrying a rifle one-handed those fixed SS windage turrets get pretty darned annoying, but on range toys the standard fixed SS scope are hard to beat.

I'm real interested in hearing more opinions of the UL on hunting rifles.

I still wish they would bring out a 3-9 HD w/o the windage knob, couple ozs lighter, and standard duplex reticle.

I would agree, except that there are a couple of attributes where "runs circles" would be an exaggeration IMO; the SWFA 3-9x is pretty close optically to the LRHS, and the mechanics of both seem to be pretty much on par.

It's better except money, weight and reticle. LOL