Instead of having people wade thru post after post in the old thread, I figured that it would be best to start a new one and reference the old.

If you want to read the old thread, go here: link to old thread

You can see that the thread went sideways, but there was still some good info and some normal Campfire fun and BS.

Note that the feedback seems to be focused on the Classics (1-4x, fixed powers, 3-15x) and the 3-9x HD. I don't think there were comments on the other HD scopes.

First the "known issues". These are not the "failures", as I see them.


Older fixed power Classics:

1. Built-in sunshades could unscrew. Easy fix, if willing. Not observed with recent examples.

2. Mushy clicks.


All fixed power Classics:

1. Glare off of exterior ocular lens. Given the price and mechanical performance, I don't think this is too out of line.

2. On some 10x scopes, distances indicated on the rear parallax ring are not always correct. Easy fix, if willing.

3. 20x too dim. Not surprising, but worth noting for those not familiar with exit pupil, lens quality, etc.


3-9x HD:

1. Turrets too stiff on some scopes.
2. Tunneling on 3x (ok on 4x).


Other:


1. Paint specks reported in two scopes. Certainly not good, but not a “fail” per se. I hadn't heard about this one before.

Disclaimer:


The info provided is simply my summary of the info provided from users here at the 'Fire. It's not a huge sample size. However, I think the criticisms are still relevant. These are the "known issues" and not the "failures". And, I think it's safe to err on the side of caution and say that these criticisms are ok to throw out there for people consider, even with the relatively low number of samples/responses.

I'll update the thread with the "failures" after I sort thru the feedback.


One last thing for now. I've owned at least 8 scopes in the SWFA line. The 6x, 10x, 20x, 3-9x, and 3-15x. I've been mostly happy with all of them, with the 6x and 3-9x being my favorites. No major issues, or failures. Prior to that I had some Leupold scopes, but have gone away from them. I will attempt to be impartial as possible, but keep that in mind.

Ok....

Looked further into the history of these and found some interesting info. All you-tube, but backs up what some here are saying. Originally designed for a military contract. Didn't win, but hung in for consideration. Known for taking being able to take a beating, excellent tracking and RTZ. Enough out there to back it all up and I couldn't find any that didn't.

Soooo, I'll eat a little crow on the durability issues, of which tracking and RTZ are components. Do I need one for Eastern Deer hunting? Definitely not. However, the being able to take a beating is never a negative. Would like some different reticle offerings, but will probably pick one up just to fool around with.

I've used the fixed 6 and 10 power scopes. The 10 is used for paper so the parallax ring being off never bothered me because I always adjust parallax by looking at the target. The fixed 6 I use for hunting and pretty much leave the parralax set at 350 yds where IMO coveres my bases nicely for point and shoot out to 500ish yds that I've designated as my limit. I'm liking the 6 a lot more than the 10 and think I will get another one when the black Friday sale comes along. I have not had any issues with either scope other than the parallax ring not matching the numbers. IMO all variable power scopes inherently have more issues than a fixed power scope and so I've steered clear of the variable SWFA scopes.


Trystan

I don't understand why SWFA doesn't put the same MQ reticle in the 3-15x as they do in the 3-9x. Same goes for the turrets. The 3-9x is a nice package IMO (limited experience speaking).

The 6x is tough to beat to test the waters, if you don't need a lot of magnification. I've had a few and they definitely fill a niche, from 22lr, AR15, or even shooting to 600 yards and beyond with harder kicking rifles. They are usually very easy to sell on the used market as well, so the risk is pretty low.

If you can wait until Black Friday, you can get some good deals, as previously mentioned. I really like the 3-9x and will probably get another. That said, the 6x is a good substitute and doesn't give up much to the 3-9x in my mind. Tunnel vision on 3x makes it a 4-9x to me.

Jason

I don't think a definitive study on long term scope durability, zero retention, tracking, etc. has been done. At least none that I've seen.

What we're left with is a bunch of anecdotal reports. Some of those reports come for credible sources, with hard use, high round counts, and a lot of turret use. Frank Galli and other instructors have recommended SWFA scopes, based on observations in their classes and field use. Here at the Campfire, we have Boxer, Formidilosus, Jordan, and many others with extensive use of SWFA scopes. So even though we don't have data from a test study, these scopes have established a solid reputation. Difficult to quantify how good, but the reports seem to indicate that they are as tough as anything else. The advantage is that they cost much less than a Nightforce, for example. And frankly, the Mil-Quad reticle is simply awesome, but preferences vary.

So all that to say that this thread won't be able to provide objective, measured data on failures, causes, rates, etc. Everyone will need to do their own evaluations, and review the notes of those mentioned above. And review against other scopes, if that is desired. Still, I will summarize the feedback from the last thread, regarding failures.

Even though these scopes have a solid reputation, they aren't perfect.

One thing to mention is the vernier scale, and movement of the zero point reference. Wasn't sure if this was a failure, or just an annoyance. I figure you'd only be off a click or two, but that is up to you and how you use the scope.

I've only seen this on the older scopes, and others have mentioned it as well. Samples from the past couple years don't seem to have an issue with this.

The first image below shows the reference point in the correct orientation. The second image shows that it is loose, and rotated. To check this, I run the turrret all the way up (or take it off), then grab, squeeze, and twist the scale. You may hear a crunch or crackle. If it breaks loose, it's a simple fix with glue or epoxy.

JG I have your answer. If the 3 x15 had a thicker reticle like the 3x 9, it would be too thick on its highest power,and would cover up the target,especially a small steel, ect. On 15 x I definitely wouldn't want the reticle thicker than it is. I rarely go past 10x anyway,even on coyotes out to 500yds. I shoot less power than most.

The 3x9 turrets would be a definite improvement on the 3x15.

If the 3-15 is FFP then its reticle remains the same size relative to the target at every power. Too thick at 15x means too thick at 3x as well.

My fixed 6x and 10x's have been 100%. My 1-4 illuminati cat tail came unscrewed from scope, was never loc-tight'ed in. 3-9, windage turret is mush. One 3-9 was VERY hard to turn magnification ring.

Point taken. But if the reticle were thicker to begin with, wouldn't it become too thick on the highest power. I guess that would be a personal decision.Different people like different thickness of reticle. I understand your point on the FFP though.

Sounds like you over-tightened the rear ring.

Not necessarily. The difference is in application between the magnification limits. For example, if I'm deer hunting and I know that I'll be using 3x for 0-50 meter shooting, I don't mind a 4 MOA reticle because the kill zone has a diameter of about 20 MOA at 50 meters, and the additional contrast helps with quick shooting and low light. But crank that scope up to 15x for 500+ meter shots in good light conditions, and I'm usually shooting targets that are 2-3 MOA or smaller, so a 4 MOA reticle is far from ideal. A 0.1-0.2 MOA reticle is better suited to that use.

So a reticle that covers 1 MOA at 15x may be too thick, but far from too thick at 3x, despite having the same angular subtension at both magnification settings.

I have two 3-15s and love them. Took one bouncing and slogging around Prince of Wales a year ago. No issues. Lots of tripping. At times almost tossing the rifle forward and bushwacking to it....repeat. I dial both out to 800 and back often. No issues.

I would like to ask......why is everyone sooooooo hot on the 3-9X? I really REALLY like Xs. I never held or used a 3-9 SS. Been in the cart and almost purchased often. But 9X to me.....is a very very limiting factor in a gun that will go beyond 300 yards. But this is a "Campfire Thing". Everyone on here seems to like 2.5-8X or 3-9X. Maybe I'm just a dumb kid from a new era.....

This was with the rear ring spun too tigh too loose in the middle etc. Ridiculously hard to turn. My other 2 are perfect.

Can't believe the most common and catastrophic problem with the 6xmq hasn't been mentioned. I was aiming at a deer last season when it occurred. It was mounted to a Montana which was part of the problem being so light. The extremely heavy swfa made the gun top heavy and caused the gun to flip 180deg upside down and caused me to miss a once in a lifetime buck. I added 10lbs of lead to the stock of my svelte little Kimber and it seems to have solved the problem. Still,it's a Known issue with these scopes that deserves being mentioned.

This is a serious problem, i can relate I put a 6x S.S. on my 270 Ti and after shooting out to 600yds it flipped also. Junk scope.

Yep, the Tipover Chronicles!

I reviewed the posts from the old thread. I'm not sure what to make of it all since the sample size is low. But, my take away is that there were more issues than I expected. And from dudes that I feel are credible, don't hold punches or show favoritism. For whatever reason, I usually hear more about issues with the 1-4x Classic, but there were other models mentioned.


For conversation purposes:


If I counted correctly, there were 14 reports of issues, total.

Scopes that failed to hold zero or track properly = 11. Of those, 4 were the Classic 1-4x. As a side note, a member here had the same 1-4x model fail, but reported it elsewhere. Of the remaining 7, there was one 3-9x and one 3-15x. I believe the 5 left were fixed power Classics.

There was one report of side focus knob issue on the 3-15x. I've noted that the SF knob on that scope seems pretty delicate.

There was one with canted reticle (3-15x), and one bad out of the box. Not sure if these are "failures", or QC issues. Either way, I added them to the failed tally.

J

What are you shooting at? Moose or mice?

I generally prefer to use less magnification for less wiggle, wobble and heartbeat feedback from the sight picture. I practice so much at 300 yards on smallish targets with "only" 6x that a deer looks pretty big when I'm drawing a bead.

Saturday I mounted an old Vari-X II 3-9x40 on a Rem 700 in 308 Winchester. I set it up for point and shoot out to 200+ yards with a mild load. On 6x the reticle is 4 moa from the center to where the duplex thickens, which is just about the right hold for 300 yards. I tacked up a blank sheet of letter size paper at 300 and plunked four shots into .72 moa holding center with the transition point of the duplex.

If you prefer more magnification then go with it, but don't think you have to have it to do well. (Barring eyesight issues and the like of course.)

Up until recently I had a 3-9 on my hunting rifle. It occurred to me I have shot every animal I have ever shot with the scope on 3x. I don't find myself shooting far so I may be in the minority. I just put a 6x on, we'll see how it goes. Not sure what to do with all those extra Xs!

Funny.... I just went back to a 3-9 SS on the main hunting rig (7 Mag). I had one years ago with the standard Mil-Dot... and like you, I found I always had it on the same power.... though that was maxed out at 9x. So, I dumped it and got two fixed 10x SS for just about the same money.

The past couple of years we've been hunting elk a lot more... and I can appreciate the virtues of a little lower power when you're deep in the schitt.

I will say the new 3-9 with the MQ is noticeably brighter and more crisp than the older MD version I had... and it's better optically than a 3.5-10x40 VXIII I had laying around.