Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics SWFA SS hype

I put a 10x42 on a .300 RUM, and the RUM killed it in about 50 shots, groups opened way up. Spent the coin for a Nightforce 3.5-15x50 and the groups shrank back down, instantly, and have stayed there.

I still have a 16x42, which has never been used on anything bigger than a .308, and it still seems to work as far as an aiming device, as long as you ignore the internal objects that sometimes float into view

Had a 300wm that killed 2 Burrises in less shots - combined...

Any make of scope can have failures including ss scopes. Having said that I would have liked to have seen your mounting system....

It's not just you, the 20x's are duds. I picked up a used one once just for doing load development and at 300 yrds the glass just wasn't clear enough to see the targets well. Sold it and replaced it with a 12x which was much better, .

the 20x I have is plenty useable as a range load development scope. only problem is the clicks don't move the amounts they should and the reticle has right shift as you dial down. the 20x is a limited use scope. its not going to be very bright just because of its power and objective. I need to send mine back and see if they can get me one that tracks as it should.

No hype that I've really seen. A lot of us have agreed the glass isn't on par with upper level scopes, but where the SWFA SS excels is in it's ability to track precisely. Every fixed power SS i've owned has tracked flawlessly and always returned to zero perfectly. Much much better than any Leupold rifle scope I've ever seen. SWFA also has stellar customer service. Yes, I had to return a broken 16xSS once. They emailed me and said the reticle that was in my scope was discontinued, but I could pick any fixed power SS scope and any reticle I wanted. I thought that was great service and it didn't take long for them to have a new scope right to my door. I was extremely happy with their flawless service. Also, on a side note, I told them that it was my fault that the scope was broken and they said, "no big deal, pick which new rifle scope you want and we will send it out asap".....

When you talk about sub par glass leave the 3x9 outta that, it has awesome glass

Three buddies have SS’s a 6x and two 10x. I’m not impressed at all with their glass or clarity.

The resolution on the 6x and 10x is actually pretty good.

I was actually able to see .264 dia holes at 400 yards in optimum lighting conditions with the 3–15 version.

The glass on the 3-9 holds it own in optical quality against a swaro Z3.

What part of $299 leads you to expect Swarovski glass?

I have a straight 6x Swarovski and it does present a fantastic view. But you won't find me cranking its adjustments like I do my 6x SWFA scopes.

I find these comments somewhat funny. I thought the scope was used for seeing and aiming to hit the target? Wouldn't that make the glass quality most important?

Different priorities, I'm primarily a big game and predator hunter and was raised on the MPBR (Maximum Point Blank Range). I sight my scope for the cartridge/load appropriately, know the trajectory and hold accordingly. Works surprisingly well out to 450-500 yards, although lots less room for error beyond 400, wind becomes a real factor.

I need a reliable, compact and lightweight scope. Since 1990 the Leupold Vari XIII, VXIII, V3 or V3i has been all I have needed. The one VX3 2.5-8x36 has been to South Africa twice, somewhat abused in the Land Cruiser and by the hunt staff. AOK. I am proud that my rifles wear scopes that bear the golden ring.

I guess I'm not interested in the SS line. There is definitely a SS cult on the Fire though.

My first SWFA was a second-hand 16X Older style with mildot reticle and 1/4 moa turrets. I did find the image slightly grainy through this one. Considering 16X and only a 42mm obj, along with lower grade glass, it was no surprise. I still did a lot of 1000+ yard shooting with it. It was absolutely serviceable.

Down the road I sold it, and purchased the new (at the time) 10X and 12X MilQuad, with .10 mil turrets. With these, I find the image quality to be fine. Mirage might wash you out in certain conditions, but that goes for any glass.

I have no trouble seeing and holding on a 1-moa target at a mile with the 10X and 12X. And they have enough travel for a dead-on hold at a mile with a 308 Win, with a 100-yard zero. They are mounted on 40 and 45 Moa bases.


Fresh paint day for a 308 with a 12X onboard,

If you can't see game through SWFA glass - you prob need medical attention.

Some people seem to think that if you can't count hairs or notice the split ends in a deer's butt hair at 1000 yards - they can't be shot.

No.

1: Vari-X II glass and Nightforce adjustments/reliability.

2: March/Swarovski/Kahles glass and Barska (or other Chicom blister pack) adjustments/reliability.

Think about it.

I always feel like the “they’re known for ruggedness, not clarity” type comments to be a bit misleading.

The 3-9’s glass is fantastic, let’s get that out way first. My eyes like it better than nightforce glass, but your eyes might disagree.

As for the normal fixed line, I have only looked through and shot with two different 10x ss scopes. They were both exceptionally clear—for the price. I think they’re on par with leupold vx3 glass, and definitely better than the vortex vipers I’ve owned and looked through. Not alpha glass, but they’re also $300 so let’s not get carried away with the comparisons.

My friend uses his swfa for nighttime predator hunting without issues, and keep in mind it’s a 10x scope with a 42mm objective and no illumination.

As for the weight: find me a scope under $500 and under 19 ounces that will track as reliably and as accurately as a swfa and I’ll concede that they are heavier than necessary.

Yes, they’re heavy compared to a set and forget scope, but only by a few ounces, and I can deal with that for reliability. I don’t think they are the best option for brush hunting, but I’ve used my 3-9 for that and don’t feel like I’m at much of a disadvantage. Try taking your set and forget scope to 1000 yards and let me know how you do.

Reliability on the dialing is great with them. That combined with the amount of adjustment they have sets them apart from a lot of scope.....and nothing even close at their price range. A little time at distance with a .22 on a still day really lets someone see what's up on erector travel....and even a touch of wind makes a person appreciate the reticle they come with.

It's like so many other things on this forum. We all tend to besmirch things for what they are not as opposed to appreciating things for what they are. Different jobs require different tools AND most tools are not a one size fits all. They, like other scopes, serve a specific purpose with some crossover. They are a good buy for what they are and what they do. Heck, they are a good buy as a "crossover", for lack of a better term, for that of which they are capable, no more, no less.

The reason I first gave one a try was for the rear parallax adjustment.

The side parallax on most scopes is not convenient to a southpaw, in a prone/bipod position. The rear parallax is.

A side benefit is that the scope is slick over the loading/ejection port on a lefty boltgun. Easy in, easy out.

Funny how perspectives differ. Would you still think the glass quality is most important if the scope could not be relied upon to consistently "aim to hit the target"? The interesting thing is, that neither glass quality nor mechanical function are discrete "yes or no", "black or white", "on or off" type of characteristics. There is a scale of optical quality and a scale of mechanical reliability and precision. We all have to decide where on each scale we require our scopes to fall. For me, I'm happy with the optical quality of almost any of today's scopes, so middle of the scale or higher is perfectly fine for my needs. When it comes to mechanical reliability and precision, I demand that my scopes hold zero and adjust correctly. Not just most of the time, but every time. That means that for me, I want my scopes to fall in the top end of the mechanical quality scale. Others may have different priorities, and that's fine with me.

So to use your phraseology, I guess I'm just not really interested in the Leupold line, for the most part (except for very specific applications), but there definitely is a "golden ring" cult on the Fire and elsewhere.

Agreed.