Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics SWFA 3-9x42 vs 5-20x50

Is the low light performance of the 5-20x50 better than the 3-9x42? Love my 3-9x42 and it has performed flawlessly, but yesterday watching deer from the stand in the last few minutes of legal light at 65 yards I could not see them through the scope at 5-6x but I could see them easily through my 10x50 Leupold BX-4 binos. A bit concerning as I was watching the does through the binos waiting on a buck to come push them and if one had done so there was no way I'd have been able to shoot him. Yes it was overcast and cloudy, so darker than normal at o'dark thirty, but still. At 65 yards I think I should still be able to make that shot if legal, got me wondering if the 5-20x50 would be an upgrade in low light at low mag? I have found myself wanting more than 9x on the top end a few times too, though it hasn't cost me anything.

Would a 3-12x44 LRTS be an upgrade in low light? Hmmm

Maybe. I think the 3-12x44 LRHS glass is better in low light than the SWFA 3-9.

The down side on the LRTS is you'll probably lose the reticle in low light. Illuminated version may be better if the illumination is low enough. I haven't used either of the LRTS's, only the LRHS, so I'm guessing on this.

Often I read people saying that the glass in any scope is good for way before legal to way after legal.....it's not true. I write the time of sunrise -30 minutes and the time of sunset +30 minutes on my left hand with an ink pen when I hunt. The difference in a clear day and an overcast/rainy day is huge. The difference of being over a field or in the woods is huge. IF the reliability are the same, you'll never be sorry for using better glass if comparing 2 scopes.

Well idk how it happened so quickly, but I now have this on order for my stand hunting whitetail gun (weight be damned) - Meopta Optika 6 3-18x56 with the 4D Dichro reticle, FFP, capped windage, exposed locking elevation. I'm pretty excited about it, I had ordered one when DVOR first offered them but cancelled it after it was a month in and still no shipment. Form tested a different model thoroughly on Rokslide with good results.

The LRTSi glass is better than the 3-9 SWFA’s to my eyes. Additionally, the LRTSi’s reticle is thicker than the standard LRTS reticle, enough so that it is visible even in fading light. That being said, the illumination is very well done. On its highest setting, daylight visible and on its lowest setting just barely visible at last light with settings for every condition in between.

John

If they have the same HD glass and are on lowest power to gather more light then the 3-9 should shine brighter due to the larger exit pupil..

I don't have either one (although the 3-9 is in my near future) so take that for what its worth..

I have that one with #4 illuminated. Its a little on the heavy side, however I like it so far. I hunt 90% hardwoods and the 56mm with illuminated dot really helps out. I have sat in my stand after legal shooting time and have watched deer long enough that my son gets to wondering if I'm ok. I have had S&B klassiks, Zeiss V6 and this meopta while not on the same page as those in low light, it definately get you pass legal times. The main thing I liked about it is the price tag. I paid $575, meopta was offering a 15% discount, from Doug and it arrived in 2 days. The glass is still very good for the price and I sat long enough to watch several Does about 50 - 60 yards away with just the dot. Following them back and forth.

I had both HDs. The 3-9 was tried and I traded it back in to SWFA for something else. The crosshairs were just too fine for my tastes. I still have the 5-20 x 50 HD illuminated. Can't say one way or the other on low light performance as I have 69 year old eyes. BUT the crosshairs are a bit thicker and easier to see from 5X on up. If the light is too low for good crosshair visibility against a dark animal then the tiny red dot in center will make the difference.

The reticle in the 3-9x is thicker than that in the 5-20x.

Well the Meopta wasn’t the answer.

Just got back from comparing the SWFA 3-9x42 to the new Optika6 3-18x56 FFP In low light...the Meopta is going back. 1 of us felt the SWFA was at worst as good as the Meopta at last light with both on 9x looking at deer and a tree line at 350 yards from 20-40 minutes after sunset, with myself and one of the others thinking the SWFA was brighter. All 3 of agreed the reticle in the SWFA was easier to see. Just going to leave good enough alone, though I am still tempted to take a look at a SWFA 5-20x50.

75% of my hunts were productive in the afternoon cause I was hunting a food source( clover and wheat) so having a green background makes a world of difference than maybe a brown background so take that into consideration. I was using my Leupold FX3 6x42 LRD and could pick up deer easily way beyond legal shooting hours, and my reticle wasn't hard to see either. It's all I use now for afternoon hunts. The reticle in the LRTS is crap for low light.

Not the LRTSi, with either illum turned on or off.

John

Next up to battle the SWFA 3-9...a Loopy (GASP!) Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44...

Bite the bullet and get a 3-12x50 S&B Klassic. powdr