We sent one of each to Frank Galli of SnipersHide to put them through the paces down at Rifles Only. Here is some of his initial feedback.
------------------------------------
Super Snipers arrived and as luck would have it, we have an 8 day Precision rifle class with a group of Rangers. As always happens, a Leupold on the Mk11 Mod0 broke so I have the 3-9 mounted on that rifle. The Ranger is going to use this scope all week. His quote zeroing it just now, "way too easy".
-------------------------
Scope has been awesome so far, the shooter is really enjoying it, class is still going on and the Super Sniper continues to march while others have not been so lucky.
Tonight we did a short night fire and the SS through a PVS 26 is outstanding, really beats the system's supplied scope by a wide margin, hands down heads and tails above what they are using.
Went to 1,000 yards with it this morning and on the flat base of the Mk11 Mod 0 the scope had all the elevation necessary, about 11.2 mils, the scope topped at 11.8 if I recall correctly.
But its been trouble free and operating flawlessly for the class, 8 days of torture and nary a complaint
-------------------------
They give them, Leupold 3.5-10X FFP M3 stuff, which the guys liked the SS better, I had them check it out and give their opinion, the SS clearly won the night. (and the lower rings of the SS offset it really bad compared to the others, and still it was a better picture.
So far about 3 down this week, one hard core, two with annoying issues but enough to be dangerous operationally... bad enough when they get back they will have to be replaced, as they aren't holding zero, one even bouncing roughly 4 MOA every single day, at first he needs to add the 4 MOA & then if not that day, the next he has to remove it. Those with stripped screws don't do anyone any favors either.
The SS is smoking them easily if you ask me or them.
-------------------------
I spent the day shooting the 10X HD and like it alot, the 3-9X worked out perfect for the soldier, it was tits on and worked out great for him.
You guys scored with the design and the fact that both are under $1000, well under I might add, make them not only a great buy, but a best buy if you ask me.
I played with the tracking all day and it couldn't have gotten any more accurate, first rate. I even took the caps off to look inside, burly, really nice big brass wings, not like the cheesy plastic junk in the IORs.
----------------------------------
The soldier who shot the 3-9X42 shot it out to 1,000 and I shot it out to 800 and both of us commented on how there was no issue with the parallax, in fact he was quite surprised by the fact, and checked it over and over to be sure he was seeing it right.
Its very good for a fixed system.
----------------------------------
Summary,
These scopes are dead nutz on target, they are the right size, have the right features and address the "Under $1,000. decision" in an outstanding way.
You see it in the reticle and dial it, the round hits exactly where you want it too.
The clarity is excellent, as the scope has been moved to a new company for SWFA and they are producing a well made product at a reasonable price. Edge to edge clarity is first rate, there no issue with eye relief as it's quite forgiving.
The size is perfect for an SPR type rifle or even a hunting rifle and will work on your tactical rig for an entry level scope. I have the 10X HD on a light tactical bolt action and really like the way it looks on the rig. The parallax for the 10X is where the power ring is for the 3-9X so you have a similar set up.
I just shot the rifle out to 800 and it's flawless, dial on my dope, hold for the wind and it hits in the middle. No trying to figure out why my dope isn't right.
The 3-9X on the Mk11 worked great. The training continued, the soldier had confidence in the optic so everything worked out perfect from the use and abuse standpoint. In fact the soldier was part of a 3 way tie for top gun --- no issues.
So your tester put a new scope through it's paces for a few days. But all he really tested were the adjustments. And "as always happens, a Leupold on the MkII Mod0 broke..." Gee, sounds like Leupods are very unreliable. Must be the most unreliable scopes made, etc. Funny the services use alot of them. The US Army has used them since the mid 80's after getting Leupold to build a scope with the specs they wanted and worked as it should. In fact, the Army just did that again with the new 1.1-8X, Mk.8. Nobody else could make one that worked as it should. So how is that possible ? The above comments don't say which Leupold. It also doesn't say how old it was or what it's history was. Nice try RD. Too bad some of us know what real level playing field testing looks like. E
I know these real life tests are terribly upsetting to you so perhaps you should ignore them. Granted Form and his ilk subject scopes to demands far greater then you would in 10 lifetimes, however the SWFA SS scopes are being tested against scopes intended for the same use and abuse. Actually, they seem to fail miserably.
Most people don't like to shoot, and most people that shoot generally aren't twisting knobs. When you start spinning knobs up and down and working over the springs in a scope, that weeds out the junk. I thinking plunking holes in a paper target at 100yds is boring. Therefore I shoot distance and "use" the scope. Most scopes just don't last in that application. Comforting to hear SWFA do, especially considering their cost!
E. the scope that does come with M110 is (IMO) a POS. We had to have guys tape the battery compartment so it wouldn't vibrate loose, screws for the W/E would back out or strip, wouldn't hold zero, wouldn't track correctly and a bunch of other problems. Honestly about the only thing I liked about it was the TMR reticle. When given the option everyone in my detachment replaced them with a Nightforce.
So your tester put a new scope through it's paces for a few days. But all he really tested were the adjustments. And "as always happens, a Leupold on the MkII Mod0 broke..." Gee, sounds like Leupods are very unreliable. Must be the most unreliable scopes made, etc. Funny the services use alot of them. The US Army has used them since the mid 80's after getting Leupold to build a scope with the specs they wanted and worked as it should. In fact, the Army just did that again with the new 1.1-8X, Mk.8. Nobody else could make one that worked as it should. So how is that possible ? The above comments don't say which Leupold. It also doesn't say how old it was or what it's history was. Nice try RD. Too bad some of us know what real level playing field testing looks like. E
Nice try RD. Too bad some of us know what real level playing field testing looks like. E
What would you know about "leveling the playing field" when your "testing" consists of 4 Leuolds scopes. Your "tests" consist of flipping though the pages of the latest Cabelas catalog.
I have shot a leupold vari x 2 on my 243 for about 11 years. it has the target knobs, and I am hunting coyotes with it year around. Longest shots have been 600yds, with a lot of shots between 300, and 500 yds. I have never had a problem with the quality of glass, but have found that over time the erector springs begin to fail. I also had a 3 inch POI change occur this spring between 6x and 18x. It took sending it back twice to get it fixed. I bought a SWFA 3X15 this spring and have been running it through the gauntlet, to see if it would hold up. After the initial sight in, I twisted the knobs along ways in every direction, and have done so several time since, often practicing out past 600yds. Usually about 5 to 5.5 mils. The short of it is,that after nearly 4 months, I have yet to resight the gun. That was never the case with my leupold. It was often off just a little bit, but that little bit on a coyote at 500 yds is generally all it takes to miss. The quality of the glass has been exceptional, and I like the metal internal parts, as opposed to plastic, or nylon, no question. A stouter more reliable scope. If anything changes, I will be the first to post it.
I think I only 15 of them,though more are en route.
Pard had the shot of the day today,hitting a sub basketball sized rock his 2nd attempt,in swirling winds with his Montucky 223AI(OEM spout punched),75 Hornie HPBT and 6x MilQuad...at the 1425yd line.
Their erectors track like they have eyes and I flog on them daily.
Getting ready to load 90gr Skinners for a pard's Montucky 243Win,wearing a 6x MQ and will have it out past 1K,here directly...................
Hip shot a 90gr Skinner out the Montucky 243,then bumped the charge 1gr,shut it down and loaded 50 Virgin Lapooey 308's wearing false shoulders. A square kiss is at 2.790" COAL,which couldn't be better news and they tripped the chronograph at exactly 3300fps.
Gunned a hasty 250yd zero,slapped around some 400yd paper and took it long. I was thinking it was a 6x MQ,but it's a 6X MD and has 62.5 MOA remaining on the erector from zero ala LW's. That's 1575yds on the erector and it'll reach right at a mile with the windshield added. 5 Mils of full value wind happens at the 1675yd line.
That bullet is far and away the best 10" pitch and yet another Sleeper is capably arranged. There were 500 of 'em in tumbler,getting their pretty coats on.
Could be that the covers aren't fitting tight enough? I've had to put a wrap of tape on before the cover because of that. Only on the obj.end of two scopes though.
So your tester put a new scope through it's paces for a few days. But all he really tested were the adjustments. E
Well, I guess I owe you an apology cause "the only thing that broke were the adjustments". After all, that doesn't effect the scope performance in any way right ? Man alive E, that has to be one of the most ridiculous things you've ever sad.
Originally Posted by RDFinn-notes from Frank Gali @ Snipers Hide
Super Snipers arrived and as luck would have it, we have an 8 day Precision rifle class with a group of Rangers. As always happens, a Leupold on the Mk11 Mod0 broke so I have the 3-9 mounted on that rifle. The Ranger is going to use this scope all week. His quote zeroing it just now, "way too easy".
But its been trouble free and operating flawlessly for the class, 8 days of torture and nary a complaint
-------------------------
They give them, Leupold 3.5-10X FFP M3 stuff, which the guys liked the SS better, I had them check it out and give their opinion, the SS clearly won the night. (and the lower rings of the SS offset it really bad compared to the others, and still it was a better picture.
So far about 3 down this week, one hard core, two with annoying issues but enough to be dangerous operationally... bad enough when they get back they will have to be replaced, as they aren't holding zero, one even bouncing roughly 4 MOA every single day, at first he needs to add the 4 MOA & then if not that day, the next he has to remove it. Those with stripped screws don't do anyone any favors either.
The SS is smoking them easily if you ask me or them.
-------------------------
I spent the day shooting the 10X HD and like it alot, the 3-9X worked out perfect for the soldier, it was tits on and worked out great for him.
You guys (SWFA) scored with the design and the fact that both are under $1000, well under I might add, make them not only a great buy, but a best buy if you ask me.
I played with the tracking all day and it couldn't have gotten any more accurate, first rate. I even took the caps off to look inside, burly, really nice big brass wings, not like the cheesy plastic junk in the IORs.
----------------------------------
The soldier who shot the 3-9X42 shot it out to 1,000 and I shot it out to 800 and both of us commented on how there was no issue with the parallax, in fact he was quite surprised by the fact, and checked it over and over to be sure he was seeing it right.
Its very good for a fixed system.
----------------------------------
Summary,
These scopes are dead nutz on target, they are the right size, have the right features and address the "Under $1,000. decision" in an outstanding way.
You see it in the reticle and dial it, the round hits exactly where you want it too.
The clarity is excellent, as the scope has been moved to a new company for SWFA (read that NO LONGER TASCO...E) and they are producing a well made product at a reasonable price. Edge to edge clarity is first rate, there no issue with eye relief as it's quite forgiving.
The size is perfect for an SPR type rifle or even a hunting rifle and will work on your tactical rig for an entry level scope. I have the 10X HD on a light tactical bolt action and really like the way it looks on the rig. The parallax for the 10X is where the power ring is for the 3-9X so you have a similar set up.
I just shot the rifle out to 800 and it's flawless, dial on my dope, hold for the wind and it hits in the middle. No trying to figure out why my dope isn't right.
The 3-9X on the Mk11 worked great. The training continued, the soldier had confidence in the optic so everything worked out perfect from the use and abuse standpoint. In fact the soldier was part of a 3 way tie for top gun --- no issues.
Wow... that thread is damning. The first poster and then the guy down at the bottom bought 2 and both broke. Loopie gots probs.
The only high dollar leupold I have came from Premier Reticle with the front focal plane reticle; but those days are long gone.
Seems like the SWFA SS's are looking better all the time. All my hillbilly friends got em years ago because of internal elevation and of course price... and they track. Just wish they would make some lighter weight versions for brush hunting up close.
Seems like Nightforce is trying to get some lower priced models out there...
Again, nice try RD. Let's see here. We have some brand new SS scopes being tested for SWFA. We have a few Leupolds of uncertain origin also being tested. So where is the level playing field ? You know, new scopes, same number, same testing procedures etc. Then we have comments made by the guy who didn't do the actual testing. He's reporting what others have said, according to him. Anybody know this guy ? First I've heard of him. But I have followed the testing done by guys like Barsness. He uses new scopes and puts them through the same tests on the same rifles. Unlike anybody who tests Chris Farris's scopes. That brings us to Chris, the scope salesman. I have no faith in anything he claims is better. Why ? Because when the Zeiss Conquest were new he claimed over and over how they were much better than Leupolds. But he never mentioned that Zeiss had alot of returns on them for the first few years. In short, he has a history of advocating something new to be alot better than the old standards like Leupold. When in fact, when tested on a level playing field, they had little to offer and some problems or drawbacks of their own. BTW, just because a hunting scope or a well used tactical scope doesn't track perfectly every time doesn't mean it is broken. It has to refuse to track to be broken. Not a once in a while imperfect adjustment. All scopes break down in time if used enough. Adjustments loose some of their perfect tracking ability, and they will all break down from recoil or being bounced around in the field. Nobody makes a scope that will last forever under hard use. E
Optical Rules apply to all Makers. There is no such thing as a "bright" 20x wearing a 42mm objective,nor is there a "dim" 6x wearing same. Of course glass/coatings can run the gamut,but a Snoopy 6X will smoke a High Zoot 20X in light gathering. Hint.
Joe Average is over headstamped,over scoped and under bulleted. Hint.
A guy makes his own "luck" and you can very much have your cake and eat it too...if only obviously. The 6x42 will do it all and then some and it's sole concession is a non-illuminated reticle. I'll always happily walk away from Fluff and let others "enjoy" the JipJap schit. Rugged/reliability will never not bear fruit and is the ONLY way to reliably connect dots. Hint.
Nightfarce hype is lost upon me and their fascination with JipJappery bullschit,is mind numbing.
A guy can reliably learn a LOT,by simply shooting.
Hint.................
E,
You are in soooooooooo far over your head,that you are typing from another Galaxy.
John B is absolutely CLUELESS In regards to Hard Use glass and round count,as compared to Frank and that by light years. That is my being utterly charitable and as a BEST case scenario. Hint.
You should start another Account,just so you can take notes and apply same,less the temptation of tickling a keyboard under the grandiose Delusion,that you've a first clue...because you certainly do not.
Sorry, but apparently I have to post something like this now and then, because you're still wandering around in the mists of the 1990's, and continue to put words in my mouth.
I've tested the SWFA scopes thoroughly, and am a fan--and not because Chris Farris sent me any. Instead I bought them. The ONLY Leupold I've found to track as well after a lot of shooting is the 10x40 Mark 4 I've had for several years and shot a bunch on several rifles. But for a reasonably-priced, tough, accurate-tracking scope the SWFA's are leading the pack.
Sorry, but apparently I have to post something like this now and then, because you're still wandering around in the mists of the 1990's, and continue to put words in my mouth.
I've tested the SWFA scopes thoroughly, and am a fan--and not because Chris Farris sent me any. Instead I bought them. The ONLY Leupold I've found to track as well after a lot of shooting is the 10x40 Mark 4 I've had for several years and shot a bunch on several rifles. But for a reasonably-priced, tough, accurate-tracking scope the SWFA's are leading the pack.
So you bought a scope and tried it for yourself? Fascinating concept, it would be interesting if it caught on.....
One of the reasons I hang around the Campfire, aside from all the fascinating and civilized posts, is the Classifieds, which is where I buy a lot of scopes which started to bore their previous owners. That way I can test the hell out of them without some company's consignment deadline interfering. In fact, I often do the same thing with rifles.
Holy chit.. How long did E claim that leupold put real diamonds on their lenses, and that Zeiss was selling used up scopes because each one was impact tested thousands of times before it left the factory.
I'm sorry if I offended you Mule Deer. I was simply attempting to compare your testing methods to those who have tested for SWFA. I was not aware of your testing of the SWFA scopes. Odviously, I need to renew my subscription to Rifle Looney News and see what you found with them. E
Why should I ? I trust Mule Deer to do fair and unbiased testing. I'd rather pay him and people like him for their experiences so I can make good choices in my equipment. E
Why should I ? I trust Mule Deer to do fair and unbiased testing. I'd rather pay him and people like him for their experiences so I can make good choices in my equipment. E
E,
So if that's the case, why wouldn't you trust Frank's assessment?
Two reasons why I would not trust Frank's assessment. First of all, he made the comment about the failed Leupold and said that was usual. Why ? What's that got to do with testing a new scope or scopes ? However, if he wants to test one model by one manufacturer against another, he needs to do level playing field testing. He didn't. For the record, lots of other shooters here have bought and run the SWFA SS Scopes. Most of them appear to use the fixed magnification scopes. Therefore I'll buy the that they are a good scope and a real deal price wise. But that doesn't necessarly apply to the variables unless they have been tested under like conditions against other well known scopes like the same level Leupolds. I am aware of no such testing. What I have seen are comments like Frank's about Leupolds in general. Or FormD's comments that he has "broken" several VX-R Patrols. Such comments are not similar to the experiences of others that I've known. It has gone so far as some in the tactical crowd saying in any given match, they see "30-40% of the Leupold fail (models and histories not mentioned) vs. almost nothing in the way of Nightforce or S&B. Who make nothing but high end scopes BTW. Funny the people I know personally, some of whom shoot tactical competition, haven't noticed that about high end Leupolds vs. other high end brands So I'm suspicious of tests by such people as Frank and FormD. E
As a hunter/shooter do I have to just pick one: reliable or bright. How does the Nightforce stack up optically? If forced to pick I know which one it would be...
I purchased a Nightforce 12-42X56. On another occasion I had the pleasure to compare a Nighforce 5 1/2-22X56 with some of my scopes. The two Nightforces are in a league above my Swarovski z5 5-25X52 for normal day and low light. The reliability of Nightforces is legendary.
Two reasons why I would not trust Frank's assessment. First of all, he made the comment about the failed Leupold and said that was usual. Why ? What's that got to do with testing a new scope or scopes ? However, if he wants to test one model by one manufacturer against another, he needs to do level playing field testing. He didn't. For the record, lots of other shooters here have bought and run the SWFA SS Scopes. Most of them appear to use the fixed magnification scopes. Therefore I'll buy the that they are a good scope and a real deal price wise. But that doesn't necessarly apply to the variables unless they have been tested under like conditions against other well known scopes like the same level Leupolds. I am aware of no such testing. What I have seen are comments like Frank's about Leupolds in general. Or FormD's comments that he has "broken" several VX-R Patrols. Such comments are not similar to the experiences of others that I've known. It has gone so far as some in the tactical crowd saying in any given match, they see "30-40% of the Leupold fail (models and histories not mentioned) vs. almost nothing in the way of Nightforce or S&B. Who make nothing but high end scopes BTW. Funny the people I know personally, some of whom shoot tactical competition, haven't noticed that about high end Leupolds vs. other high end brands So I'm suspicious of tests by such people as Frank and FormD. E
Ah. In other words, if people who have vast experience formulate opinions that differ from yours, their conclusions are not valid.
I know these real life tests are terribly upsetting to you so perhaps you should ignore them. Granted Form and his ilk subject scopes to demands far greater then you would in 10 lifetimes, however the SWFA SS scopes are being tested against scopes intended for the same use and abuse. Actually, they seem to fail miserably.
When do you reckon the Military contracts are gonna start rolling in for SWFA.
To say anything in that post is a "test" would be stretching, and not by a little.
Good to see the Leupold Derangement Syndrome. Carry on, fellas.
Two reasons why I would not trust Frank's assessment. First of all, he made the comment about the failed Leupold and said that was usual. Why ? What's that got to do with testing a new scope or scopes ? However, if he wants to test one model by one manufacturer against another, he needs to do level playing field testing. He didn't. For the record, lots of other shooters here have bought and run the SWFA SS Scopes. Most of them appear to use the fixed magnification scopes. Therefore I'll buy the that they are a good scope and a real deal price wise. But that doesn't necessarly apply to the variables unless they have been tested under like conditions against other well known scopes like the same level Leupolds. I am aware of no such testing. What I have seen are comments like Frank's about Leupolds in general. Or FormD's comments that he has "broken" several VX-R Patrols. Such comments are not similar to the experiences of others that I've known. It has gone so far as some in the tactical crowd saying in any given match, they see "30-40% of the Leupold fail (models and histories not mentioned) vs. almost nothing in the way of Nightforce or S&B. Who make nothing but high end scopes BTW. Funny the people I know personally, some of whom shoot tactical competition, haven't noticed that about high end Leupolds vs. other high end brands So I'm suspicious of tests by such people as Frank and FormD. E
Ah. In other words, if people who have vast experience formulate opinions that differ from yours, their conclusions are not valid.
Why should I ? I trust Mule Deer to do fair and unbiased testing. I'd rather pay him and people like him for their experiences so I can make good choices in my equipment. E
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Ohremicus,
Sorry, but apparently I have to post something like this now and then, because you're still wandering around in the mists of the 1990's, and continue to put words in my mouth.
I've tested the SWFA scopes thoroughly, and am a fan--and not because Chris Farris sent me any. Instead I bought them. The ONLY Leupold I've found to track as well after a lot of shooting is the 10x40 Mark 4 I've had for several years and shot a bunch on several rifles. But for a reasonably-priced, tough, accurate-tracking scope the SWFA's are leading the pack.
Two reasons why I would not trust Frank's assessment. First of all, he made the comment about the failed Leupold and said that was usual. Why ? What's that got to do with testing a new scope or scopes ? However, if he wants to test one model by one manufacturer against another, he needs to do level playing field testing. He didn't. For the record, lots of other shooters here have bought and run the SWFA SS Scopes. Most of them appear to use the fixed magnification scopes. Therefore I'll buy the that they are a good scope and a real deal price wise. But that doesn't necessarly apply to the variables unless they have been tested under like conditions against other well known scopes like the same level Leupolds. I am aware of no such testing. What I have seen are comments like Frank's about Leupolds in general. Or FormD's comments that he has "broken" several VX-R Patrols. Such comments are not similar to the experiences of others that I've known. It has gone so far as some in the tactical crowd saying in any given match, they see "30-40% of the Leupold fail (models and histories not mentioned) vs. almost nothing in the way of Nightforce or S&B. Who make nothing but high end scopes BTW. Funny the people I know personally, some of whom shoot tactical competition, haven't noticed that about high end Leupolds vs. other high end brands So I'm suspicious of tests by such people as Frank and FormD. E
Ah. In other words, if people who have vast experience formulate opinions that differ from yours, their conclusions are not valid.
Few things in hunting equipment have changed as much as rifle scopes over the past 15-20 years. I still use a lot of Leupolds, mostly fixed-powers and in particular fixed 6's. But ALL brands of scopes have changed considerably since the 1990's.
Yes, Mule Deer, I do understand that. My comments about the Zeiss Conquests refers to them in the 90's when they were hyped a much better than similar Leupolds. As you have pointed out, they haven't been like that for some time. I just mailed off a check so I can recieve Rifle Loony News and I'm looking forward to your next book on hunting optics. E
They have made things more rugged--but it's impossible to make lightweight scopes more rugged than scopes beefed up in the right places. A Leupold 6x36 is pretty tough, but not as tough as a 6x SWFA, even when both cost $300.
The new book is titled MODERN HUNTING OPTICS, and will be available from Deep Creek Press, www.riflesandrecipes.com.
IIRC... from some of your magazine articles scopes are getting way better in recent years????????????
Where is the light weight hold-zero-and-track, 300 $ scope?
You would think these scope makers would get a clue and make things more rugged.
There is no free lunch. However scopes could be A LOT better at what scopes are supposed to do- hold an aiming point consistently and adjust correctly every time. But we will never see that because very few actually shoot. Even here with a board full of aficianados all anyone crows about is "glass". One of the least important attributes of modern scopes. But it is "seen" by every singe dude who doesn't shoot. People buy scopes (and rifles) so they can pull it out of the safe and brag to their buddies about the "glass".... To "see" zero retention, tracking, correct and consistent adjustments when actually used would require people to go and shoot, which would lead to worn out barrels and rifles that don't look brand new.
In other news.... Last week two 3-9x42mm SS's went through just shy of 2,000 rounds on top of Recce's, with 99% of those rounds being dialed. Will check zero on both tomorrow, however they were still zeroed as of midday on Friday. As expected here were no weird calls or unexplained shots the whole week. To be fair a Bushnell 3-12x LRHS performed correctly for a few hundred rounds as well as a couple NF's and a Leupold 10x40 M3.
They have made things more rugged--but it's impossible to make lightweight scopes more rugged than scopes beefed up in the right places. A Leupold 6x36 is pretty tough, but not as tough as a 6x SWFA, even when both cost $300.
The new book is titled MODERN HUNTING OPTICS, and will be available from Deep Creek Press, www.riflesandrecipes.com.
Yep, the trade off is weight. I'm a 6x fan. I like to dial. ...and...I like light weight. The past couple of years I'm becoming a bigger fan of the simple long range duplex in a fixed scope for hunting. It's not as precise as dialing but for hunting ranges once you verify "the dot to the where" they are quick and efficient. Again, I like to dial and have no intentions of stopping, but a simple lrd in a fixed scope has a lot going for it in a rugged package for hunting.
There is no free lunch. However scopes could be A LOT better at what scopes are supposed to do- hold an aiming point consistently and adjust correctly every time. But we will never see that because very few actually shoot. Even here with a board full of aficianados all anyone crows about is "glass". One of the least important attributes of modern scopes. But it is "seen" by every singe dude who doesn't shoot. People buy scopes (and rifles) so they can pull it out of the safe and brag to their buddies about the "glass".... To "see" zero retention, tracking, correct and consistent adjustments when actually used would require people to go and shoot, which would lead to worn out barrels and rifles that don't look brand new.
I always get a kick out of this "very few actually shoot" mentality, and that those "who don't shoot" are bottom feeding idiots.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that "those that shoot" are a very minute part of the big game hunting population, therefore most diehard big game hunters are not "shooters". Would you buy that? I'd go so far as to say that 95% of big game hunters (myself included) are more of a set it and forget type turret/scope guy, and they get along quite well in the field by doing so. I've only had one scope lose zero in over 40 years of hunting.
If your world of "shooters" is strictly a tactical one, then fine. But to classify everyone who "doesn't shoot" as a bunch of bumbling fools is, well, foolish on your part. I'm beginning to think the only thing bigger than BS's mouth is your ego.
I'd go so far as to say that 95% of big game hunters (myself included) are more of a set it and forget type turret/scope guy, and they get along quite well in the field by doing so. I've only had one scope lose zero in over 40 years of hunting.
IIRC... from some of your magazine articles scopes are getting way better in recent years????????????
Where is the light weight hold-zero-and-track, 300 $ scope?
You would think these scope makers would get a clue and make things more rugged.
You know, this may sound bizarre, but manufacturers of consumables are in business to make money and they also have a pretty good idea of how long a product will last given how much use it is likely to see use. Would it be nice to see a $300 scope last a lifetime ? Sure. A toaster oven last a 100 years ? Of course. My point, it is unlikely we will ever see any of those things because there isn't a big enough demand for them. The SWFA, IMO, is sort of a jewel so to speak, because Chris buys factory direct, doesn't have huge advertising costs (compared to others) and the product sells itself. I remember Chris saying that he would raise the cost per scope before he compromised the quality.
The most experienced big game hunter I know is a set-and-forget guy. I don't know how many big game animals he's killed but it's probably well over 1000 and may be closer to twice as many. That's not much compared to some who shoot commercially for meat or eradication, but it's a lot, especially when almost all of his hunting is for trophies.
He prefers a multi-point reticle, which he considers plenty for most big game since (as another friend of mine once pointed out) all you really have to do to kill big game is hit a volleyball-sized target. He doesn't shoot much beyond 600 yards, but out to 600 he is deadly. He prefers using a reticle because he's seen even some very repeatable scopes not be when it's below zero, and he also hunts a lot of high altitude where his rifle/scope (and everything else he carries) needs to be as light as possible.
While he doesn't shoot as much as some people, because he's out hunting far more than some people, he shoots more than enough to be very practiced with the system he's chosen. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but he's killed more trophy big game animals than all but a handful of the hunters in the world, including those who post on the Campfire.
The most experienced big game hunter I know is a set-and-forget guy. I don't know how many big game animals he's killed but it's probably well over 1000 and may be closer to twice as many.
While he doesn't shoot as much as some people, because he's out hunting far more than some people, he shoots more than enough to be very practiced with the system he's chosen. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but he's killed more trophy big game animals than all but a handful of the hunters in the world, including those who post on the Campfire.
With all the "guys that really shoot" here on the 'fire, I, quite frankly, find that hard to believe......
I always get a kick out of this "very few actually shoot" mentality, and that those "who don't shoot" are bottom feeding idiots.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that "those that shoot" are a very minute part of the big game hunting population, therefore most diehard big game hunters are not "shooters". Would you buy that? I'd go so far as to say that 95% of big game hunters (myself included) are more of a set it and forget type turret/scope guy, and they get along quite well in the field by doing so. I've only had one scope lose zero in over 40 years of hunting.
If your world of "shooters" is strictly a tactical one, then fine. But to classify everyone who "doesn't shoot" as a bunch of bumbling fools is, well, foolish on your part. I'm beginning to think the only thing bigger than BS's mouth is your ego.
Let me see if I follow..... I have an ego because a guy asks why normal lightweight scopes aren't better at holding zero and tracking, I state the reason- that being that the vast majority "look" at glass, not actually shoot it to see if it works, you agree that a "minute" part part of hunters actually shoot, going so far as to put a number to it (95%)... And that means that I'm the one with an ego problem...?
Is that about right?
Forgive me if I could give two flying flips what dudes who shoot less rounds in a year than I, and those I work with shoot most mornings before breakfast, thinks they "know" about scopes.
There is nothing wrong with set and forget, or BDC reticles, etc. But there is a better way. Not because I say so, but because targets and a timer don't lie.
If those "die hard big game hunters" want to talk to me about finding those "exceptional" animals, I'm all ears. But those "95%" of hunters trying to "talk" actually using that gun, is akin to me trying to "tell" you all about those Texas scrub brush Muley's.
The afore mention SS's several thousand rounds later and no shortage of unkind handling...
Damned few folks have a grip on the big picture,which you express accidentally. That would include rifle,glass,mounts,bullets,barrels and how to apply same towards animals,with a stop at the reloading bench to add more humor.
A "bumbling fool",is very much selling your complete and total ignorance well shy,of it's impressive designator.
Easy to discern,who bangs around more than a smidge and who's all hat and no Ranch.
There is no free lunch. However scopes could be A LOT better at what scopes are supposed to do- hold an aiming point consistently and adjust correctly every time. But we will never see that because very few actually shoot. Even here with a board full of aficianados all anyone crows about is "glass". One of the least important attributes of modern scopes. But it is "seen" by every singe dude who doesn't shoot. People buy scopes (and rifles) so they can pull it out of the safe and brag to their buddies about the "glass".... To "see" zero retention, tracking, correct and consistent adjustments when actually used would require people to go and shoot, which would lead to worn out barrels and rifles that don't look brand new.
I always get a kick out of this "very few actually shoot" mentality, and that those "who don't shoot" are bottom feeding idiots.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that "those that shoot" are a very minute part of the big game hunting population, therefore most diehard big game hunters are not "shooters". Would you buy that? I'd go so far as to say that 95% of big game hunters (myself included) are more of a set it and forget type turret/scope guy, and they get along quite well in the field by doing so. I've only had one scope lose zero in over 40 years of hunting.
If your world of "shooters" is strictly a tactical one, then fine. But to classify everyone who "doesn't shoot" as a bunch of bumbling fools is, well, foolish on your part. I'm beginning to think the only thing bigger than BS's mouth is your ego.
There's nothing wrong with using information gleaned from the "tactical" crowd to improve gear for the "hunting" segment, much as the "tactical" folks have fairly recently adopted techniques that they picked up from "competition" shooters. And, I wish more hunters got out and shot a whole lot more than they do. Shooting skills are not improved by reading online forums and gun magazines, only by actually shooting.
I, for one, had a good chuckle when I read Formidilosus' comments. A couple of years ago, I picked up a Zeiss Diavari 2.5-10x42 for its glass, and it's sat in the safe ever since. Oh, sure, once in a while a buddy will ask me to bring it out to the range so we can compare its glass to other scopes, and we ooh and ahh like girls looking at someone's new engagement ring. Otherwise, I haven't figured out an application for that scope for me, so I really should just sell it.
You've certainly convinced me to give the SS a try. Wondering if the glass on the 10x works well enough in low-light. Have heard the 6x is the best for light, simply for diopter size, and that some 20's don't work for much beyond full sun.
You've certainly convinced me to give the SS a try. Wondering if the glass on the 10x works well enough in low-light. Have heard the 6x is the best for light, simply for diopter size, and that some 20's don't work for much beyond full sun.
I shot the crap outta this 10x rear-focus model on a .50BMG. The scope survived, but the glass would still suck for first and last light shooting for me. It is light-years ahead of the 20x, but the 6x is, to my eyes, light years ahead of it as well.
I've yet to see a SINGLE soul of the incredible fortitude requisite,to pass on arranging POA/POI correlations,after having seen that light. I mean it is a very lovely theorum,that fretting an initial zero only to arrange MANDATORY guessing on every shot after that,just may lose some luster in extrapolation. Read that again.
Have had 100's of folks throwing rigging off of cliffs and cutting checks,after just a single poke. The astute could NOT refrain and only the most bumbling of boobs could proceed in such a compromised fashion.
I can't remember if I've beat Zeiss up yet,or not.(grin)
A scope's SOLE purpose is to steer bullets and it is incredible,how many folks swoon all the things that don't bear fruit.
That's a mighty bold statement. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would say a scopes SOLE purpose is to generate income for the scope manufacturer.
How one uses is it is totally subjective. I have a couple that are used entirely to compare with other optics. My Bushnell 6500 is sorta for braggin' about. I have not had the rifle it's on out of the case in over a year; but I own it. I have a Swarovski I have little confidence it, but like its weight and low light performance so keep it. Sometimes it seems like it uses centimeter adjustments and other times it seems like 1/4" clicks. The manufacturers couldn't care less what we use our scopes for.
I have a couple that are used entirely to compare with other optics. My Bushnell 6500 is sorta for braggin' about. I have not had the rifle it's on out of the case in over a year; but I own it.
When it's all said and done,you will have said a LOT more than you done.
I understand that you MUST be an ass 23/7, but could you at least answer my query? What is the light-gathering on the 10x like? How well would it work in low-light shooting? Is the 6x so much better as to make the trade-off in magnification worth it?
I wish they made an 8x. That is what covers my hunting the best.
Thanks, Ready. It's a big factor for what goes on the hunting guns.
Larry, you are a very poor salesman. And once again, showing that whatever your handle, you lack any ability to interact socially. Thanks for clarifying that again. I'm slowly learning....
Like it or not, it is the way you come off and perhaps you don't mean to anymore than if I was a champion 24 Hours of Lemans driver telling auto makers how they should make all daily drivers.
Facts are often unsettling,especially when they burst bubbles.
I'd greedily take that kind of feedback,over whether or not zero shifted after being in a case inside the house for a year,or how "unimportant" adjustments are.
It is a curious constant,that the fluff Joe Average swoons the most,is easily amongst the worst of the ilk and can be blown out of the water for like funds. That is how/where dots get connected.
I've never been lucky enough,to have adjustments/tracking/zero retention not matter. That may be due to the fact that I'm not a Fence Hopper charging haybales screaming "Get Some!",as I approach the feeder and start whittling on a box of ammo that's going to last me a few more years.
A gent can learn more by shooting,than one can by not shooting and it's never been tough to sort who do and who don't.
Just pay out slack on the line and watch the show.
Oh I've likely murdered more than a few things with straight 10x glass,but have never been in the A/O which would allow it to be a Utilitarian Killing Glass,no matter it's reticle.
I, for one, had a good chuckle when I read Formidilosus' comments. A couple of years ago, I picked up a Zeiss Diavari 2.5-10x42 for its glass, and it's sat in the safe ever since. Oh, sure, once in a while a buddy will ask me to bring it out to the range so we can compare its glass to other scopes, and we ooh and ahh like girls looking at someone's new engagement ring. Otherwise, I haven't figured out an application for that scope for me, so I really should just sell it.
I have one of those and its my favourite scope...It is excellent in low and/ or difficult light conditions, and has been utterly reliable in some really foul weather. It is also borely dependable holding zero to the point you forget about it..
Forgive me if I could give two flying flips what dudes who shoot less rounds in a year than I, and those I work with shoot most mornings before breakfast, thinks they "know" about scopes.
Yeah, ego problem. Forgive me if I could give 3 flying flips about your tactical, schist hanging off the reticles for hunting scopes. I'm sure your lack of ego will understand.
Have had a few pards take that bait,but they are utterly useless as POA/POI intersections go,which of course negates them from any serious discussion,about anything serious.
Zeiss very obviously has glass well figured,but their riflescopes are a folly,at best.
Though in fairness,I think more than highly of my binos,spotter,lenses so labeled.
Have had a few pards take that bait,but they are utterly useless as POA/POI intersections go,which of course negates them from any serious discussion,about anything serious.
Zeiss very obviously has glass well figured,but their riflescopes are a folly,at best.
Though in fairness,I think more than highly of my binos,spotter,lenses so labeled.
Horses for courses! I don't dial with it as I have no need.
I do need something I can tell a button Roe buck from its sibling sister as they browse in and out of cover at last light..I also need something that won't fog in the rain/cold and I do want something that will hold zero without babying..that Zeiss does all that for me and is not too big or bulky and best of all has a German No4 reticule in the FFP, which again prefer..YMWV, and I have no issue with that as I am not out to convert anybody..
I've never found the transition from bino's to 'scope,to be anything other than seamless.
After you've tasted the ability to slip a bullet wherever you wish,from spitting distances,to multiple zipcodes away...it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to go backwards and refrain such bolstered connect percentages.
Zeiss is exceptional in observation(bino's/spotters),but bottom rung in POA/POI correlations(rifle scopes).
Got a swfa 10x because they don't have any 6x now (I wonder why). Put it on my 223 AI and will see how I like it. If I like it, it will find it's way on an AR and I'll get a 6x. it definitely changed the way the gun feels bc it's much heavier and longer than the a 3.5x10x40 Leupold that I had on it. I like the mrad reticle and the feel of the turrets. Will shoot it some this weekend out to 600 and see how it does. I'm expecting nothing short of it doing exactly what it's suppose to do.
By God...I just might take a rifle out of a case,once this year and see what all the fuss is about,myself.
Mailing off another bolt handle today,for one of them there 223AI's and will likely remove the Leupie MK 4 upon it and go 6X MQ instead. Received a bolt handle today as well,for yet another of them there 223AI's and can't stomach the notion of shooting it with a 16x T-Series aboard and will 10x MQ it.
Brass,bushing and dies arrived today for a 6BR build,which should be done the day the parts arrive the Plumber's and reckon I'll try me one of them 6X MQ's aboard it,just as soon as I get home.
Zeiss is exceptional in observation(bino's/spotters),but bottom rung in POA/POI correlations(rifle scopes).
Stick,
Out of curiosity and clarity, is that your experience with the Victory Diavari/Varipoint or with the Conquest line?
I have a handful of Diavari's, but admittedly haven't had aftermarket turrets installed. I've just zeroed and left alone. Has worked well for feral hogs. Especially with the illuminated reticle.
The Swarovski's I picked up recently have been pissing me off. The two Z6 scopes with turrets on hand have been absolutely horrible in regards to POA/POI.
The Zeiss strength is in gawking at schit and that's it. They are no peach in Creature Comforts,let alone POA/POI correlations,nor eye-relief or ease of acquisition.
Swaro is Teutonic for "JUNK" and they've never shown me a thing.
Now if/when application DEMANDS illumination,you just gotta do,what you gotta do. Have mentioned more than a few times,that the 6x MQ with 1/10Mil center illumination(only),would be a wicked good bastard for stopping heartbeats.
There are no shooting hour mandates in my A/O and I've some serious 6x42 LOVE there.
I've never found the transition from bino's to 'scope,to be anything other than seamless.
After you've tasted the ability to slip a bullet wherever you wish,from spitting distances,to multiple zipcodes away...it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to go backwards and refrain such bolstered connect percentages.
Zeiss is exceptional in observation(bino's/spotters),but bottom rung in POA/POI correlations(rifle scopes).
The transition from bino's to rifle is usually seamless, except when it isn't..We don't have the latitude of an antlerless deer season so we have to be able to accurately sex each animal before pulling the trigger..
The video clip below off Youtube shows a typical Roe stalking scenario up on the Scottish borders. "Culling" is a more appropriate term as usually you are shooting to a management/cull plan for the ground, and under pressure to get numbers in from a limited number of visits.
That's a doe with two kids. Wind forward a few months and it will be winter and those kids won't be too much smaller than mum.
One of the kids will be a buck with antlers about the size of your knuckle, and despite glassing first, you still need to be able to establish which is which through the scope just as your about to pull the trigger.
And you won't usually be several zip codes away either. Most will be taken within 100m and in this context 150m would be a long shot.
The style of shooting your talking about would be much more appropriate to stalking Red deer out on the open hill above the tree line. That's where your approach/ expertise/equipment would pay dividends.
I am the first to admit a fancy scope is often a crutch; I was thinking back to then I was in my 20's and was shooting an open sighed SLR at ranges that today I'd want a good scope for..
For all my faults I am a realist, and I have settled what works for me in my circumstances..I don't claim "its the best" nor do I close my mind to what others use, but I am broadly happy with the kit I have and my ability to kill deer with it..
Maybe somebody can answer me a question. We no longer get the SWFA line of scopes imported over here, least not under their own name.
However, I have been told one of our big wholesalers, Edgar Bros, imports some of the line and rebrands them..Does the scope below look like the 10x42mm SWFA offering you guys are talking about?
Maybe somebody can answer me a question. We no longer get the SWFA line of scopes imported over here, least not under their own name.
However, I have been told one of our big wholesalers, Edgar Bros, imports some of the line and rebrands them..Does the scope below look like the 10x42mm SWFA offering you guys are talking about?
In the past I think it was offered with Mil turrets, although they only seem to list 1/4MOA on that web page..
yep, that "appears" to be it. If mil-dot reticle, it'll have moa knobs. that one has side focus, over here they're also sold with rear parallax adjustment, which I've come to prefer on a fixed power.
If they were, I'd imagine SWFA would have a [bleep] fit. From what I understand the SS are proprietary designs exclusive for SWFA and with contracts accordingly. These weren't just thrown together from a spare parts bin.
Maybe somebody can answer me a question. We no longer get the SWFA line of scopes imported over here, least not under their own name.
However, I have been told one of our big wholesalers, Edgar Bros, imports some of the line and rebrands them..Does the scope below look like the 10x42mm SWFA offering you guys are talking about?
In the past I think it was offered with Mil turrets, although they only seem to list 1/4MOA on that web page..
yep, that "appears" to be it. If mil-dot reticle, it'll have moa knobs. that one has side focus, over here they're also sold with rear parallax adjustment, which I've come to prefer on a fixed power.
The 20x42mm below definitely has the rear parallax adjustment:
If they were, I'd imagine SWFA would have a [bleep] fit. From what I understand the SS are proprietary designs exclusive for SWFA and with contracts accordingly. These weren't just thrown together from a spare parts bin.
EB are probably the biggest importer/wholesaler for shooting kit in the UK, so are not likely to be doing anything underhand.
If anything, I think they might have an agreement to sell certain SWFA scopes rebranded to EB..They used to sell the 6x42mm, but discontinued that, although I have no idea why as it is probably the most useful all rounder..
Generally, the discussions regarding the SWFA SS riflescopes revolve around the fixed 6x & 10x. I'm familiar with the fixed 10x as I've a couple on hand.
What about the variables? Specifically the 3-9x42mm and 3-15x42mm and their eye relief and eye box. How easy are they to get behind throughout their magnification range? Any case of tunnel vision (blackouts around the edges)?
Typically, fixed scopes are more robust than their variable counterparts. Any issues with the variables holding up and keeping POA/POI, or are they just as hella stout as the fixed Super Chickens?
I have been running the SS 3x9x42 Mil-Q on and AR and another on a 243 AI. The AI version is now on another AR. I have no trouble at all with the eye box, love the reticle and like many others would like an illuminated version.
Tracking is spot on time and time again. IMO a great value for the $$$. I may try one of their 5.5-20's with illuminated reticle soon.
The onboard 10 mils + erector gives a guy ALOT of room to run.
I'm torn between a 6x42 Leupy with LRD or the SWFA. I have an older M8 6x42 that I love and have owned nothing but Leupold. Might have to give SWFA a try for my upcoming hunt.
I'm not a long range shooter or even one who would twist dials (I think).
I've dabbled a little bit with the fixed Super Chickens. Had a 20x, and now own a 6x and 10x both with MQ. Round counts are low on the 6x and 10x though. Recently sold a 3-15x42 to a bud at work.
The 3-15x doesn't tunnel, but the eye relief changes. Overall a nice scope BUT that SF is not something that makes me warm and fuzzy for anything other than a plinker. Its not like a turret cap... the guts of the scope are beneath that cap. I'm not saying that SS is any worse than another brand, but I'd rather have the rear-focus.
That said, when it was time to buy a variable I was directed towards the 3-15x over the 3-9x. Even so I plan to try a 3-9x sooner or later.
Generally, the discussions regarding the SWFA SS riflescopes revolve around the fixed 6x & 10x. I'm familiar with the fixed 10x as I've a couple on hand.
What about the variables? Specifically the 3-9x42mm and 3-15x42mm and their eye relief and eye box. How easy are they to get behind throughout their magnification range? Any case of tunnel vision (blackouts around the edges)?
Typically, fixed scopes are more robust than their variable counterparts. Any issues with the variables holding up and keeping POA/POI, or are they just as hella stout as the fixed Super Chickens?
I've had a 3-9 for some time now, and it's first rate stuff. I prefer it over the fixed power SWFAs. Jury is still out on the 3-15, as I've only had one for a couple months, but I like it so far.
I'm torn between a 6x42 Leupy with LRD or the SWFA. I have an older M8 6x42 that I love and have owned nothing but Leupold. Might have to give SWFA a try for my upcoming hunt.
I'm not a long range shooter or even one who would twist dials (I think).
Leupold fixed power all the way for a hunting gun.
The SWFA scopes, while great for dialing, are simply too bulky for a lightweight hunting rifle and make it really top heavy and awkward. The 3-9 isn't too bad for bulk, but I'm not real happy with the eye relief for a hard kicker and/or rifle which may be shot from really cramped or awkward positions such as are a part of life in hunting.
I'm strictly a fixed power/dot guy for hunting. Just too much stuff can go wrong with exposed turrets.....even those that stay lined in can get moved by brush or when pulled from a scabbard.
Just used a 6x milquad to make a quick offhand shot at a bear at 75 yards. I have three of the milquads and had a mildot as well. I prefer the milquads and mil adjustments. Have 2 of the 6x and one 3-9. Will buy another 6x and these are all used on big game rifles. For brush work, a standard Leupold duplex is hard to beat in my opinion but the milquad does a lot of things well too.
Can you tell me what you prefer in the Mil-Dot and also is this preference for hunting or just shooting or both. Thank you
The Mil-Quad is too fine and "busy" for my eyes.
I could probably get by with it for the range, but for field use (my SWFAs are used for varmints, steel, and targets of opportunity) in variable conditions and lighting, I prefer a bit heavier reticle.
Yeah, I will. We're hoping to have copies by November, and will be announcing it then, both here and on some others sites.
I turn wrenches by trade. The insides of things that turn via 60cycle power; is my bread and butter since the canoe club engine room days of my misguided blue collar youth.
I simply cannot envision what goes on inside scopes. I hope your book will have some cut-away pictures.
I am too frugal to cut open what few I own...
Not even a tasco "world-class" ! HA
This thread has been one of the more useful that I have read on these forums. Confirmed some of my suspicions.
Can you tell me what you prefer in the Mil-Dot and also is this preference for hunting or just shooting or both. Thank you
The Mil-Quad is too fine and "busy" for my eyes.
I could probably get by with it for the range, but for field use (my SWFAs are used for varmints, steel, and targets of opportunity) in variable conditions and lighting, I prefer a bit heavier reticle.
The mil-dot on the 6x aint too far off from a good duplex reticle.
I haven't used the 6x SWFA, so can't comment there. I personally don't have a use for one, as I don't want turrets or bulky scopes strapped to my hunting rifles, and I like a little more magnification on my fun guns.
I was concerned they may not balance too well on lighter rifles, but with the weight right between the hands it works well. I am paying about a 10 ounce premium to carry them and it is worth every ounce to me.
I have the 10X Super Sniper, and it is UBER. The first one I had, had some pretty schitty glass in it. But this more newer version is plenty good and it tracks beautifully.
Carl Ross or Rutledge let me use their 3-9 version at the Icebreaker a couple springs back, and it was UBER as well. Tracked perfectly and the glass was substantially more clearer'er than my fixed power versions.
Jordan's rifle has the 3-9, which is significantly less bulky than the fixed powers, and has more positive adjustments than the non-HD fixed powers as well. All around better scope, IMO.
A guy can pack a phugging engine block up a mountain if he's so inclined. Doesn't mean it's something I wanna do. Note that the rifle pictured is a WSM Montana, which is already ergonomically not my cup of tea with it's weird perch belly. If it works for him, good. The last guy I saw shoot a WSM Montana with a mediocre eye relief scope during a hunt bled profusely from the face after doing so.
I've had both the MQ and Mil-Dot in the 3-9x... and believe the Mil-Dot is the more usefull 'hunting' reticle. The FFP combined with the MQ made for an aweful difficult to see reticle when the magnification was turned down. They were both on 9x 99% of the time. I'm not a fan of the 3-15 for the same reasons mentioned by Jason.
The 10x is probably perfect all around glass, but I prefer the 12x for my needs.... as I've not had a situation arrise where I can't find stuff in the glass. I've tried to go 6x more than once.... but coyotes look damn small at 450 on 6x. For BG, they work fine to 300-400 or so. Which I suppose, works 95% of the time...
How does the SWFA 6x42 compare to the Leupold 6x36 ? Is better in Low light conditions ? Same for a comparison with the Leupold 6x42 in low light conditions ?
You're the only hard charger around here. What with your 40,000 posts and everything. Whatever happened with that John Burns challenge thing? You sure charged out of that.
A guy can pack a phugging engine block up a mountain if he's so inclined. Doesn't mean it's something I wanna do. Note that the rifle pictured is a WSM Montana, which is already ergonomically not my cup of tea with it's weird perch belly. If it works for him, good. The last guy I saw shoot a WSM Montana with a mediocre eye relief scope during a hunt bled profusely from the face after doing so.
At 7.5 lbs all up, it's the lightest engine block IN THE WORLD. I'm actually not really sure how it got up on that mountain. It's certainly too heavy for a guy to carry up there without motorized assist. Mysterious.
I have to say I was put off by the big black tube initially. But after trying it, I won't go back.
Even on something as dainty as this Anschitz, it handles really well.
Every time I hand that rifle to somebody their initial response is something along the lines of "Holy fugg! Got enough scope for this thing?" But after they shoot it they usually say "That setup works really well."
I made it abundantly clear to my family that they will buy me one for my birthday this month. My 22LR can is on order. My plan is to sneak in with the granola crowd in the Beartooths this year, and lay waste to all the rockchucks I find.
Fuggin' scope will be bigger than the gun but I bet she'll reach waaaay out there!
Just a heads up for anyone looking. SWFA 10x42 Factory refurbished on flea bay for $249.99 I bought one several weeks ago so I dont need it or I would be buying it .
Jordon there is probably 25 to 30 years age difference on my eyesight from yours (sadly) There was just too much happening with the reticle at early/last light for me. I don't doubt others would be pleased.
Pard from the hills of Apalacha stopped by a few weeks back. Being east of the MIssissippi his thoughts about gunning long range requires cannon's to seal the deal. Having never fired a AR I handed him one with SS 3x9 and told him to point it at the steel plate plate down there at 600. Hold 3 mils and let her fly! He asked what's Mils (LOL) After tutorial he let her rip and banged the steel hard with junk ammo. The grin on his mug was priceless.
I made it abundantly clear to my family that they will buy me one for my birthday this month. My 22LR can is on order. My plan is to sneak in with the granola crowd in the Beartooths this year, and lay waste to all the rockchucks I find.
Wicked!
I have thought about doing the same, but with a centerfire and no can...
Just a heads up for anyone looking. SWFA 10x42 Factory refurbished on flea bay for $249.99 I bought one several weeks ago so I dont need it or I would be buying it .
if yall dont mind, I am going to write down the phrase "texas twatorium" and hope and pray that I have an opportunity to use it in conversation one day.
A 6x42 Leupy with dots and M1 would be hard to beat on a hunting rig. The SWFA 3x9's are huntable but they are not my fav for that purpose.
RTA
Funny, that's exactly what this scope replaced. I'm not looking back.
Quick drive by.....
I've hunted with Leupold 6x36's and 6x42's with duplex, wide duplex, fine duplex and LRD as well as 6x40mm MK4 M3 with duplex. They are very good optics for killing. I also use both mil dot and Mil Quad versions of the SS 3-9x42mm. When it is too dark to place the mil quad reticle in the 3-9x42mm on an animal, it is too dark to do the same with a duplex in a Leupold. The mil quad is an inverted #4 with the thick posts. Bracket that around what you want to hit and it's easy.
As for weight, I just can't see it. Some act like its a 72mm Ziess. It does everything that a scope is supposed to. Which is something that most scopes can't claim. It stays zeroed, adjusts consistently and correctly and gives some options in range that a Leupold 6x doesn't.
The "glass" in the SS 6x and 3-9x42mm is very good. There is no noticeable difference between them and comparable Leupolds side by side at last light.
I know you've had extensive time behind the SS 3-9x42mm. Have you had first experience with the SS 3-15x42mm?
How's the eye relief and eye box on both the 3-9x42mm and 3-15x42mm? The spec sheet on the 3-9 shows the eye relief to be only a smidge over 3" at 9x.
How easy are both scopes to get behind throughout their magnification range? Any case of tunnel vision at any magnification settings(blackouts around the edges)?
The issue isn't so much the weight of the scope. The issue is where the weight is located in relation to the rest of the rifle's weight. Also the sheer size of the scope is a factor (especially the fixed powers or 3-15) when used on a light, slim rifle.
Bolt a 20 ounce, bulky scope to a Ruger 77 300 Mag, and it's not going to have nearly the same effect on handling as when it's bolted to a slender Kimber 84M. The Kimber is easily overwhelmed. It's like loading a dead moose on the top of a Suburban vs. loading the same moose on the top of a Yugo. Which one is going to handle the load better driving in traffic?
I see tunneling (change in mag with no change in FOV and increased black ring size in the view) in the 3-9x42 from about 4x down to the 3x. No signs of tunneling in the 3-15x42.
Regarding the 3-15, I found that it had too critical an eyebox above 12x or so for my taste, one of the reasons I no longer have mine. I think that's hard to avoid with 15x and a 42mm objective.
Not everyone who shot it felt this to the degree I did, but I didn't even like to use the top of the magnification range for slow fire paper punching.
While the SS apparently has great tracking it doesn't have much eye relief at 9X. It also varies greatly between 3 and 9 on the eye relief. I can't stand that. Might work for you guys shooting gas guns but doesn't work for me shooting in field positions when trying to hit something while lying on one side of a canyon, trying to shoot to another. I gave my sample back.
As for putting one on a Mtn rifle that is absurd! Balance would be so bad it wouldn't even be enjoyable to shoot. I tried several scopes on mine and finally settled on a 2.5-8 with a B&C. I had this reticle added and I guess Leuplod gave it their bullet proof treatment. I took a pretty bad tumble off my Mtn bike two weeks ago with the rifle on my back. I came home just knowing that it was ruined.
It was off 1/2" at 200 yards! Guess it is pretty tough.
I don't doubt that Leuplod is having some quality issues but they still make a pretty nice scope for the money. They are about the only ones that understand eye relief too.
Been working with a couple of Vortex scopes. I like everything about them except their lack of adequate eye relief for magnum use.
A wise man would take a look at the Leupold VX 3 4.5-14 LR 40mm objective, 30mm tube CDS. Had a TMR installed at the custom shop and mounted it on my lightweight Creedmoor.
As per usual,there's some pretty phuqqing hilarious Window Licking Schit here! Fascinating constant,that them who Whine the most..."do" the least and it be rather easy to correlate Whine pitch/volume to "experience" in regards to the crux. That if only as per ALWAYS. Hint.
Very MUCH enjoyed the Rifle Tip Over notion. FUNNY schit! Last time I checked,I had more than (1) rifle and even more than (1) scope. Hint.
The only thing funnier than that,was the 4.5-14x nudge! What a piece of phuqqing schit they are. Points awarded to Dumb Phuqqers dumb enough,to convince themselves or others,that I've not suffered that stench. Hint.
I'll make this easy. Phuqq variables. Hint.
I've heard of a Montucky and rumor is,that they are simply at their best when wearing ruggedly reliable glass,of stellar tracking and copious travel latitude. Conjoin a useful reticle in same and one is then "cheating" inherently. Hint.
The Montucky simply becomes SINISTERER +P,with the install of a FF in either MQ or MD. Some malign the MOA/MIL arrangement,but the middle is always the middle,as a "worst" case scenario. If the first poke gets duped by atmospheric(s),the correction is easily seen and subtended. 5 Mils of wind,is a fair amount. 5 Mils of ele,not so much. Very easy to realize a Hasty Chart,that'll utilize the 5 Mils of ele and to locate it separate from an Erector Chart. Hasty Charts go on the fore end,Ele Charts on the butt. I'll greedily take FF MD erector travel latitude,arrange POA/POI crosshair intersections in regards to drop and slide wind on the reticle. Hint.
The MQ is tough to whoop,as it doubles Ele Subtension(of the "traditional" MilDot),while adding obvious ability to holdoff in more finite fashion. That reticle alone,typically yields more latitude than many erectors,after their zero. Hint.
Funnier than phuqq,that adding weight at the fulcrum now "RUINS!!!" "balance"?!? There are some seriously STUPID Dumb Phuqqs here. Just WOW!
I doubt I've been around much more than 20 or so MR/Montuckys wearing same and all got vastly SUPERIOR and in non-lineal fashion,in regards to inherent abilities added in extrapolation,to the modest ounces added. Read that again. Hint.
I know...I know,'Raider and the rest of the Do Nothing Kcunts are in the "Get Some!" FULL Barbed-Wire Mode inside the Texas Twatorium and this stuff is really "tricky"! Poor poor stupid phuqqing Hoalie should buy one and beat her face with it,in the hopes that the swelling would keep the drool inside her head. Laughing!
Now if only to really give the Window Licking Whiners,something to phuqqing Whine about.
Pard's 17RAR Compact/6XMQ FF...though Bob now makes a 25MOA rail,which only sweetens the pot. Hint.
'Nother Montucky (Dick Rifle),built EXTRA Heavy. Laughing!
So you Joe Average Stupid Phuqqers keep on Drooling and harboring your fears of a Tip Over,as you feverishly lick windows and try to convince yourselves that you're on the right track. FUNNY schit!
I hear through the grapevine that #16 recently hit the porch and I reckon so will #17 and #18,before I arrive home. Starting to look like it's gonna take 50 of 'em or so,to scratch the itch.
Poor poor stupid phuqqing Hoalie should buy one and beat her face with it,in the hopes that the swelling would keep the drool inside her head. Laughing!
I was running one on my .50BMG before you found out they were cool. Remember back when some other gear was the end-all be all?
Appreciate his delivery method or not, he is correct. But just like with scopes, most seem more interested in focusing on things that matter the least, versus the things that matter the most.
Originally Posted by FOsteology
Formidilosus,
I know you've had extensive time behind the SS 3-9x42mm. Have you had first experience with the SS 3-15x42mm?
How's the eye relief and eye box on both the 3-9x42mm and 3-15x42mm? The spec sheet on the 3-9 shows the eye relief to be only a smidge over 3" at 9x.
How easy are both scopes to get behind throughout their magnification range? Any case of tunnel vision at any magnification settings(blackouts around the edges)?
The 3-9x is solid. Eye relief and eye box are good, no noticeable tunneling. I've used them on rifles up to and including 338L's and even shot sidegun have not had a problem with eye relief.
The 3-15x is a bit tighter to get behind, as are most higher magnification scopes. I haven't shot them on any 300's or 338's but didn't notice anything about eye relief or eyebox that would dissuade me from them.
I'll make you a deal, buy the 3-9x42mm in mil quad, or 6x in same, shoot the dog piss out of it and if you don't like it I will buy it from you for a fair price, scratches and all. Or I will send you one of mine and you can beat it to hell and see wtf.
When do you reckon the Military contracts are gonna start rolling in for SWFA.
SWFA purchased the SS line after it fulfilled a Navy contract. So I guess that doesn't count.
We'll, according to Chris they had a contract for the 3-9. Also, there were quite a few fixed fxxkers that came back on rifles from the sandbox. They weren't privately purchased either and they we're beat to hell. I worked as a contractor at a .mil base and spent a lot of time in the arms room when units demob'd. Gear shouldn't look like that but it does. Who'd have thunk a rifle could bend like a pretzel.
I'll make you a deal, buy the 3-9x42mm in mil quad, or 6x in same, shoot the dog piss out of it and if you don't like it I will buy it from you for a fair price, scratches and all. Or I will send you one of mine and you can beat it to hell and see wtf.
Where the rubber meets the road!
Is anybody willing to do the same with a Leup??? Of special interest is option B, and I suggest it goes to Big Boxer.
Much obliged for your observations and input. I also appreciate the kind and generous offer. I already have a fixed 10x. If you had a 3-15x42mm on hand I'd likely take you up on your offer to give it a quick finger and eye fondle.
The couple fixed 10's I've had have served well. Just very once in awhile I get the itch for a tad more magnification for small targets at distance.
The issue isn't so much the weight of the scope. ..... It's like loading a dead moose on the top of a Suburban vs. loading the same moose on the top of a Yugo. Which one is going to handle the load better driving in traffic?
prairie goat; Good afternoon to you sir, I trust this finds you well this cool September afternoon.
I'll begin with a mostly sincere apology to you and all in the thread as we can't get SWFA scopes up here - no importer I'm gathering - so I've not so much as even held one....
We do have moose however and while it's not a Yugo - I do offer a Canuck redneck transportation device.
The Civic they told me, was never quite the same again.
All the best to you this fall and good luck on your hunts.
The issue isn't so much the weight of the scope. ..... It's like loading a dead moose on the top of a Suburban vs. loading the same moose on the top of a Yugo. Which one is going to handle the load better driving in traffic?
prairie goat; Good afternoon to you sir, I trust this finds you well this cool September afternoon.
I'll begin with a mostly sincere apology to you and all in the thread as we can't get SWFA scopes up here - no importer I'm gathering - so I've not so much as even held one....
We do have moose however and while it's not a Yugo - I do offer a Canuck redneck transportation device.
The Civic they told me, was never quite the same again.
All the best to you this fall and good luck on your hunts.
Dwayne
Ha! Good stuff Dwayne! The suspension looks a wee bit bottomed out.
I would imagine the back of whomever lifted the moose up there was never the same again, either!
The issue isn't so much the weight of the scope. ..... It's like loading a dead moose on the top of a Suburban vs. loading the same moose on the top of a Yugo. Which one is going to handle the load better driving in traffic?
prairie goat; Good afternoon to you sir, I trust this finds you well this cool September afternoon.
I'll begin with a mostly sincere apology to you and all in the thread as we can't get SWFA scopes up here - no importer I'm gathering - so I've not so much as even held one....
We do have moose however and while it's not a Yugo - I do offer a Canuck redneck transportation device.
The Civic they told me, was never quite the same again.
All the best to you this fall and good luck on your hunts.
prairie goat; Thanks Billy and David for taking the "photo interlude" in the spirit it was offered.
One of the two fellows who got the moose onto the Civic is only a few inches taller than my towering 5'6", but he's a very mechanical sort of gentlemen, so I can only guess what kind of guy ropes and trusses he and the other chap used to load it.
If foggy memory serves, they roped it on through the open windows, but the doors might not have worked properly with the moose on the roof either.
Thanks for the returned good wishes on the season Billy, I appreciate it.
It's already been a grand one in that I managed to call in a small herd of elk this morning and though the 4x5 bull didn't have enough points for me to shoot - we're in a 6 point zone - any morning that I can watch some elk feed and talk for almost 20 minutes makes a good start of a season for me.
Oh, I saw 3 rams on the way down the mountain too, one of them was OK and the other two were youngsters. Nice to see though.
Thanks again to both of you and again good luck on your hunts.
A wise man would take a look at the Leupold VX 3 4.5-14 LR 40mm objective, 30mm tube CDS. Had a TMR installed at the custom shop and mounted it on my lightweight Creedmoor.
Perfect for a lightweight, long range-capable rig
A not so good scope for a lightweight rig. I tried it- terrible.
IF I were going to buy a long range scope for a lightweight rig I would chose the Zeiss 3-15 HD5, 18 oz and a full 3 1/2" eye relief across the board. Mounted one the other day and was impressed.
Hoalie you "daring" "trend setter" you,lemme letcha' in on a little "secret"...Stupidity ain't a trend,it's a PLIGHT and the differences are stark. Hint. Laffin'!
This schit is all "new" to me.
Just saying.
Laffin'!
You couldn't afford to keep me in lens caps...bless your heart. PS and by the way,you are drooling,again!
Hint.
'smith,
I doubt I've had much more than 100+ Reuplods. Might even have got a scratch on one,as I was taking it out of the case.(grin)
Newest on is a PEACH.
You might be right...I prolly shoulda ordered more 75MOA 1913 extended rails.(grin)
Oddly enough,none of these CLUELESS Window Licking Kcunts have shot a MR/Montucky with said glass and I too,am enjoying the schit out of that humor.
Imagination and Pretend are VERY "real" to many and they're on an EPIC tear here.
Laffin'!
Smells like a Brux 1-8" contour dupe at 20.3" in 6BR with a 105 'Max kissing 'bout here and wearing .0025" constriction.
Hoalie you "daring" "trend setter" you,lemme letcha' in on a little "secret"...Stupidity ain't a trend,it's a PLIGHT and the differences are stark. Hint. Laffin'!
This schit is all "new" to me.
I am going to "imagine" and "pretend" that you were not acting like something else was the cat's azz for steering bullets when I put that SS on my rifle.
I doubt I've been around much more than 20 or so MR/Montuckys wearing same and all got vastly SUPERIOR and in non-lineal fashion,in regards to inherent abilities added in extrapolation,to the modest ounces added. Read that again. Hint.
Agree.
Originally Posted by 32_20fan
FOst,
I see tunneling (change in mag with no change in FOV and increased black ring size in the view) in the 3-9x42 from about 4x down to the 3x.
Also agree. I leave it on 4x for close quarters stuff, and go up from there as distance increases or object size decreases.
While the SS apparently has great tracking it doesn't have much eye relief at 9X. It also varies greatly between 3 and 9 on the eye relief. I can't stand that. Might work for you guys shooting gas guns but doesn't work for me shooting in field positions when trying to hit something while lying on one side of a canyon, trying to shoot to another. I gave my sample back.
As for putting one on a Mtn rifle that is absurd! Balance would be so bad it wouldn't even be enjoyable to shoot. I tried several scopes on mine and finally settled on a 2.5-8 with a B&C. I had this reticle added and I guess Leuplod gave it their bullet proof treatment. I took a pretty bad tumble off my Mtn bike two weeks ago with the rifle on my back. I came home just knowing that it was ruined.
It was off 1/2" at 200 yards! Guess it is pretty tough.
I don't doubt that Leuplod is having some quality issues but they still make a pretty nice scope for the money. They are about the only ones that understand eye relief too.
Been working with a couple of Vortex scopes. I like everything about them except their lack of adequate eye relief for magnum use.
Actually the 8400 balances better with the SS than with the FX3 that preceded it. And prone on 9x with 7WSM full-house loads shooting 162's at 3050 fps is not a problem if one uses a bit of sense regarding scope setup, shooting position, and cheek weld.
It seems a might bit far back, as in the ocular is actually over the comb.
I have nothing against SWFA and from all reports they are good quality optic at that price point but from the picture that scope appears to be impossible to properly mount.
Could you hang a picture of the rifle shouldered with the right eye relief?
It seems a might bit far back, as in the ocular is actually over the comb.
I have nothing against SWFA and from all reports they are good quality optic at that price point but from the picture that scope appears to be impossible to properly mount.
Could you hang a picture of the rifle shouldered with the right eye relief?
My body morphology dictates how I mount a scope not how it looks in a picture on the campfire, of course I know way less than many of those from Texas, Montana, California, and Colorado on the forum... So if you have a short fat neck....
anyhow these all fit me perfect the glass is at the right place for my shoulders, neck, and eye. Remember "I am just sayin is all"...
It seems a might bit far back, as in the ocular is actually over the comb.
I have nothing against SWFA and from all reports they are good quality optic at that price point but from the picture that scope appears to be impossible to properly mount.
Could you hang a picture of the rifle shouldered with the right eye relief?
John,
Haha, the scope is mounted so the ER from prone on 9x, and from standing on 4x, is ideal for me. It does have a long ocular assy, but it's not a problem. I was able to dig this up on my PB account...
Haha, the scope is mounted so the ER from prone on 9x, and from standing on 4x, is ideal for me. It does have a long ocular assy, but it's not a problem. I was able to dig this up on my PB account...
Which means your stock is about 3/4 of an inch too long. It baffles me why most can't understand this. It is almost like arguing with libtards.
It looks to me like eye relief may be a problem. Another post noted eye box issues.
No eyebox issues on that scope. Have one on my 6.5mm Creedmoor. I brought two relatively inexperienced shooters to the range with me today. Neither had any problems getting behind the 3-9x42 SS SWFA. Interestingly, I couldn't coax either of them to try my Kimber Montana 7mm-08. Reason given? They didn't like the scope (compared to the SWFA). The Kimber is wearing a Leupold 6x42 FX3. They both looked through this the rifle and watched the others hits on steel at 500yds.
Negative. The scope was set up for wearing my typical late-season -35 F hunting clothes, since this is a hunting rifle, which requires a bit different positioning during summer months. It works fine for me, either way. I wouldn't complain if the scope had a touch longer ER at 9x, but I'm not worried about it at all. I've not had a problem in several hundred rounds shot mostly from prone, with much of that shot at an upward angle (worst case ER scenario). EB is not an issue at all.
It's too bad the stock's too long, or I would have really rung the bell!
I have no problem with the eye box on the 3-9, but I'm not happy with the eye relief on 9x when mounted on harder kickers. ER at 9x is listed at 3.03". Folks like Jordan might not have an issue, but I use a light hold and wear glasses so 3" just doesn't work for me on hard or fast kickers.
I have no problem with the eye box on the 3-9, but I'm not happy with the eye relief on 9x when mounted on harder kickers. ER at 9x is listed at 3.03". Folks like Jordan might not have an issue, but I use a light hold and wear glasses so 3" just doesn't work for me on hard or fast kickers.
Main reason why I inquired about the 3-15x42mm as the listed spec's show the ER to be much more generous (3.8" at 15x).
Jordan, I've been shooting my SWFA 3-9 which is on a lighter weight 7mm Remington prone as well. No issues on any power yet. Probably buying more of the 6x but if the right deal for a 3-9 came by, I'd buy it also.
It seems a might bit far back, as in the ocular is actually over the comb.
I have nothing against SWFA and from all reports they are good quality optic at that price point but from the picture that scope appears to be impossible to properly mount.
Could you hang a picture of the rifle shouldered with the right eye relief?
John, Haha, the scope is mounted so the ER from prone on 9x, and from standing on 4x, is ideal for me. It does have a long ocular assy, but it's not a problem. I was able to dig this up on my PB account...
The perspective in the first picture looked really far back although I don't think I could shoot that setup without get smacked sooner or later.
I do get a laugh when Lil Fish posts one of his rifle menageries and the scope mounting is all over the place.
I am glad the scope is working for you but if (when) you get whacked it would be the right thing to come back and fess up. We won't hardly laugh and I know you can take a little ball bustin.
If one gets careless with the prone position I could see the ER on 9x being a little on the scarce side under certain shooting conditions, though it hasn't been an issue for me thus far. I'll let you know if it ever becomes an issue, although I'm doubtful.
I'm not brand biased, I simply experiment and gravitate towards what works best for me.
If one gets careless with the prone position I could see the ER on 9x being a little on the scarce side under certain shooting conditions, though it hasn't been an issue for me thus far. I'll let you know if it ever becomes an issue, although I'm doubtful.
I'm not brand biased, I simply experiment and gravitate towards what works best for me.
One of several reasons I like reading your opinions on the gear you use. Doesn't appear you've had much trouble killing stuff yet.
Yeah what's obviously needed here is a Campfire Central Intelligence Scope Mounting Action Committee (CCISMAC,for those who speak in tongues), to ensure scope mounting compliance and uniformity as required.
It could be run like Congress which means it will not function at all but can make lots of noise.
A mission statement must be drafted and approved.
Standards simply must be met otherwise what's the world coming to?
You should probably just move it forward and make everyone else happy.
Well that really does seem to be the best answer, good thinking.
Originally Posted by starsky
Don't be ridiculous. Every scope on every rifle should be set up the exact same way no matter who is shooting it.
More truth to that than most understand.
Originally Posted by BobinNH
Yeah what's obviously needed here is a Campfire Central Intelligence Scope Mounting Action Committee (CCISMAC,for those who speak in tongues), to ensure scope mounting compliance and uniformity as required.
It could be run like Congress which means it will not function at all but can make lots of noise.
A mission statement must be drafted and approved.
Standards simply must be met otherwise what's the world coming to?
I think if we form a committee we will be right back where we started with lots of different opinion, most of which are wrong. Sounds exhausting and chaotic. I really think we just need a Scope Dictator or SD.
I will talk to Rick Bin about this but I am pretty sure I will be named SD. I expect I will be given banning powers so the first one of you smarties that refers to the SD as a Stupid Dick is going to get the hammer.
I'll say one thing about you JB SD or whatever moniker you desire is you have a good sense of humor and took a lot of crap with more grace than I would have. A lot of folks from other forums won't even come here because of the "tough crowd" so to speak.
Negative. The scope was set up for wearing my typical late-season -35 F hunting clothes, since this is a hunting rifle, which requires a bit different positioning during summer months. It works fine for me, either way.
Makes sense to me. Must take some serious garb for that weather.
In fairness however,I'm ALL ears in regards to anyone with a pfhugging clue,who displaced a Fixed Pfhugger to suffer a 4.5-14x Reupold in exchange?!? Would LOVE to hear that "thinking"!
Maybe Hoalie will flaunt some more of her Imagination and Pretend,so Burns can scream "Get Some!",as she kicks in another outhouse door and riddles the seat with an AR mag dump,while SquatToPee claps her hands. Pun(s) be pfhugging intended. Laughing!
The depths of Dumbpfhuggtitude espoused by Idiots doing their best,is simply off the pfhugging charts.
Stevens 200 '06 and K4,so as to avoid Tip Over.
I read a F&S Article today,mentioning that a certain 6BR receiver and barrel made it to the Plumber's today and will be headed back to the house,tomorrow.
As an aside,no doubt that Burns cravings are Proprietary.
John my comments were TIC even tho I supplied no smiley icons...
I like the dictator idea though! Screw opinions!
I read Big Stick's post....you just can't buy this kind of entertainment at any price, anywhere....and I seen Don Rickles "live" in Las Vegas!
I agree. We need to petition Rick Bin to get BS posting privileges back.
Actually he does his best work when he is throttled back to one or two posts every 48 hrs.. It gives him time to sober up and come up with new material, and change up his delivery a bit..
Otherwise it is the same ole crap over and over and over and over and over again..
I like the one post/48 hrs myself if just for the humor..
Actually he does his best work when he is throttled back to one or two posts every 48 hrs.. It gives him time to sober up and come up with new material, and change up his delivery a bit..
Otherwise it is the same ole crap over and over and over and over and over again..
I like the one post/48 hrs myself if just for the humor..
No worship. Someone that is knowledgeable, buys a lot of stuff, uses it, and posts the results with pictures here, good information. Nothing is sacrosanct!
Just got home and went to opening Mail,which included a Feiwerkbau 300 S. Slammed a BKL 30mm mount I had laying loose upon it(none of my 75 MOA Annie 54 rails would mate,which bums me out) and a 6x Fixed Fhuqker MilDot. So I hastily gunned come-ups,established a rough zero and had Sister do her thang.
(3) R-10's from the 20yd line,went into a ragged hole and then I zero'd it at the 30yd line.
The ability to have finite parallax control,conjoined with copious erector travel,ABSOLUTE zero repeats and UNreal tracking,do not hurt the equation.
Cain't see the FWB 300S scattering one,but if it do,I'll [bleep] same if only in fairness.
Have yet to see one bobble and there's more than a few kicking around,in these parts.
Hint.
You've been led to water.
Just sayin'.
Ooops...shoulda added the BHOTP(Baddest Hummer On The Planet) too.
Went with a 10x MQ Fixed Fhuqker there. McMillan and .920" inlet,RB trigger,LW .720" at 18" for Floatitude,yada,yada...the usual. The LW's snug bore makes more speed with the same lot,than the much longer CZ American 452 HB,if only for conversation.
![[Linked Image]](http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r74/RDFinn/SWFASS.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/537/xUEsPq.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/911/0G4BK2.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx87/Vereor1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsa2ac8f28.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx87/Vereor1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps468d90c6.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s1281.photobucket.com/user/dhaagensend/media/StateArmsFifty004_zpse13c2938.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.shootingsports.edgarbrothers.com/images/postprocessed/opti-42129_18.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i1272.photobucket.com/albums/y397/The_Jerbel/7WSM/DSCF0099_zps8978b21c.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s756.photobucket.com/user/16bore/media/94d690fd-94a8-4614-a1c6-77e3534bd3dd_zps0db67c7e.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s756.photobucket.com/user/16bore/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps6efa8c66.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s756.photobucket.com/user/16bore/media/swfa6x45_zpsa7796634.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s756.photobucket.com/user/16bore/media/42ed2c93-ab4a-41d5-9c2e-1a09cec029f3_zpsf69f00de.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s756.photobucket.com/user/16bore/media/dde7199b-06ef-48f7-a04c-5ebb98803e44_zpsf2c49b50.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/912/SFhvBD.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://s273.photobucket.com/user/deflave25_2008/media/P1010102_zps336f5e1c.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s273.photobucket.com/user/deflave25_2008/media/P1010116_zps9be8fb88.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s273.photobucket.com/user/deflave25_2008/media/P1010144_zps6f5be6e5.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://i670.photobucket.com/albums/vv70/robertham1/6B60CD49-F962-4D8A-BEDC-5534F95B3C1E_zps0mcoem6l.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/diemnddave/IMG_0002_zps46e41221.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/diemnddave/IMG_0008_zps9f529af1.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x83/BC30cal/hunting/CivicMoose_zps537a93ab.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/826/2jiy.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/845/4nan.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/905/gurOaw.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/537/6MzTbc.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/673/TWQ6MK.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/909/R1taq4.jpg)
So if you have a short fat neck.... ![[Linked Image]](http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff205/Jimmyp50/shortneck_zps85563f20.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i1272.photobucket.com/albums/y397/The_Jerbel/7WSM/9A475A81-FC8E-4EDE-B40E-BBEECBAA12E7_zpsjhtnxu4d.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s15.photobucket.com/user/Canazes9/media/2014/SepTember%20Range%20Day/IMG_4056_zps4eebf70b.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://i1272.photobucket.com/albums/y397/The_Jerbel/7WSM/null_zps3892fd3f.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/844/alhu.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/907/bIYsGx.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/673/dgSdXL.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/673/jkKvUL.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/540/c3RNdv.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/540/3LDpQV.jpg)