I am considering buying a SWFA scope or Nightforce as I want a repeatable turret scope. I have always used Leupold scopes and have a VX6 that is very clear and performs exceptionally well in low light. I do understand that some of the Leupolds have had tracking and RTZ issues, but what are your opinions regarding the quality of the glass on the SWFA and Nightforce versus a top of the line Leupold. Low light performance is critical for me where I hunt so that is also a major concern.
I welcome your opinions.
Thanks,
Dan
all eyes are different as are all situations.
Also these manufacturers are all making several different products. your VX6 1-6x24 will have different qualities than your 3-18x52 ro whatever it is. but generalizing (all generalizations are wrong on some level):
Top end Leupy glass is going to be a touch better than nightforce which will fall somewhere aroud VX2-VX3 in my eyes. (Haven't seen the VX3i, or VX5 yet), and nightforce maybe a touch better than SWFA.
the latter will be probably be too close to call in most instances.
Unfortunately they don't let me mount them on my rifles and run around cabelas at night hunting the mounts with a bunch of fake Christmas trees around them to see which one would work the best for my situations.
That being said... Glass is only one feature in a scope and although it is the most apparent feature, it probably isn't the sole factor you should base your decision on...
I've not used a Nightforce. The only SWFA that I've had is the 3-9X42SS HD. Though possibly a touch behind top end Leupold for viewing deer at last light, it was plenty good for actually shooting a deer at any legal light. Since I value dependability,ruggedness,and repeatibility of adjustments above just a view,I deem the SWFA superior to any Leupold. I have gathered through my research that NF is even more better.LOL
My friend has an older NF. I have a3x15 swfa. While hunting bears one evening we put the rifles side by side and watched until dark. To both of us there was little difference to the point where we couldn't see any more. They both worked fine. I am not sure if NF has changed or improved their glass on newer scopes. Leupold has very good glass but their quality is not very good right now in terms of returning to, or retaining zero. As has been pointed out on many of these optic threads, the scope is an aiming device and reliability should be the main concern. If you are shooting really late, or early,get a scope with ban illuminated reticle. Both NF, and SWFA have them.
Both the NF and SWFA scopes will be reliable and repeatable performers. In absolute low-light conditions, the NF's illuminated reticle will be an advantage when it comes to actually making a shot versus being able to see the animal.
To my eyes the SWFA (non-HD) glass is a noticeable step behind even a VX2 Leupold in low light but about the same in mid day; that's from shooting through multiple examples of each in low light, where we intentionally kept shooting until dark to see what scopes kept working the longest.
The fixed 10x and 1-4x SS that I picked up on Black Friday are no different and reinforce my earlier observations. They are also somewhat cheaper or similarly priced to a comparable VX2 (Mark AR) or VXR Patrol; what I see is that Leupold uses better glass, but SWFA has the reputation for more reliable adjustments. Depends what you want your money focused on IMO.
When you ask an open ended question without specifics you get GI GO, as in garbage in garbage out.
Nightforce, SWFA and Leupold make different levels of scopes at a variety of price ranges all with differing performance levels. For example: SWFA makes non-HD scopes in fixed powers 6x, 10x, 12x, 16x and 20x, plus 1-4x24 and 3-15x42mm variables. These are nice scopes, and are bargain priced and deliver a great value for the $ spent. SWFA also makes scopes with HD glass 1-6x24mm, 3-9x42mm, HD 10x42mm and 5-20x50mm with glass that rivals the best that you can buy. But these scopes generally lack some feature sets like illumination or zero stops that the best scopes will have and charge dearly for. The best of the lot the 5-20x50mm is geared more to LR shooting and gun games than a pure hunting type optic.
Nightforce makes 3 levels of scopes that would find interest here. The SHV line, which features 20 year old technology (3x zoom range) wrapped in a reliable package that NF is known for. The glass is just OK, and performs a bit below the SWFA HD glass listed above. The NXS line is again nearly 20 year old tech, with SFP reticles, but most offer zero stops and illumination, and glass that's above average but still a bit below SWFA HD offerings. But NF reliability, zero stops and illumination generally make up for what it lacks in overall glass quality, but I still think NF's reticle selection generally sucks compared to other makers. NF's ATACR line is a big step above any thing SWFA offers in terms of both feature set and glass quality. But the price reflects that, and even the smallest ATACR is geared more towards gun games than hunting in it's weight and feature set.
Leupold is the hardest to define. They make junk, over priced junk, and really overpriced junk. For a company that once had the market cornered up until the early 2000's to see how far they fallen compared to the competition is a sad epitaph for a formerly great company. Just compare a Leupold Mark 6 3-18-44mm @ a street price of $3150. compared to NF 4-16x42mm F1 at a street price of around $2300. and tell me the Leupy is providing some extra value for it's $850. bigger price tag??
When you ask an open ended question without specifics you get GI GO, as in garbage in garbage out.
Nightforce, SWFA and Leupold make different levels of scopes at a variety of price ranges all with differing performance levels. For example: SWFA makes non-HD scopes in fixed powers 6x, 10x, 12x, 16x and 20x, plus 1-4x24 and 3-15x42mm variables. These are nice scopes, and are bargain priced and deliver a great value for the $ spent. SWFA also makes scopes with HD glass 1-6x24mm, 3-9x42mm, HD 10x42mm and 5-20x50mm with glass that rivals the best that you can buy. But these scopes generally lack some feature sets like illumination or zero stops that the best scopes will have and charge dearly for. The best of the lot the 5-20x50mm is geared more to LR shooting and gun games than a pure hunting type optic.
Nightforce makes 3 levels of scopes that would find interest here. The SHV line, which features 20 year old technology (3x zoom range) wrapped in a reliable package that NF is known for. The glass is just OK, and performs a bit below the SWFA HD glass listed above. The NXS line is again nearly 20 year old tech, with SFP reticles, but most offer zero stops and illumination, and glass that's above average but still a bit below SWFA HD offerings. But NF reliability, zero stops and illumination generally make up for what it lacks in overall glass quality, but I still think NF's reticle selection generally sucks compared to other makers. NF's ATACR line is a big step above any thing SWFA offers in terms of both feature set and glass quality. But the price reflects that, and even the smallest ATACR is geared more towards gun games than hunting in it's weight and feature set.
Leupold is the hardest to define. They make junk, over priced junk, and really overpriced junk. For a company that once had the market cornered up until the early 2000's to see how far they fallen compared to the competition is a sad epitaph for a formerly great company. Just compare a Leupold Mark 6 3-18-44mm @ a street price of $3150. compared to NF 4-16x42mm F1 at a street price of around $2300. and tell me the Leupy is providing some extra value for it's $850. bigger price tag??
Good post.
I've recently done side by sides of an SWFA 6x, 3-9 (HD) and a VX2 3-9. The VX2 and 6X are about the same to my eyes. Any difference will be in the reticle, not the clarity or light transmission of the glass. The SWFA 3-9 with HD is a tiny step up. Honestly though, I can't imagine a scenario where the outcome of a hunt would be any different for any of them. When it gets REALLY dark (heavy overcast and rain right at 30min after sunset) the very dark lines in the SWFA reticle are better than the duplex in my opinion.
Honestly what the SWFA and NF offer in performance and reliability over the Leupold makes the glass quality a moot point. All three have plenty good glass for any legal hunting situation. If your hunting in really low light I think the reticle will be a more important factor than the glass.
Honestly what the SWFA and NF offer in performance and reliability over the Leupold makes the glass quality a moot point. All three have plenty good glass for any legal hunting situation. If your hunting in really low light I think the reticle will be a more important factor than the glass.
thanks, this is info I'm looking for.
Good post but now I need to look through an swfa 3-9HD as I was under the impression the NXS glass was not too bad.
Good post but now I need to look through an swfa 3-9HD as I was under the impression the NXS glass was not too bad.
They're pole vaulting over mouse turds, or repeating what they've heard versus what they've measured.
Old NXS glass was actually REALLY good.... in resolution. Everything is a give and take and NF at the time decided to put their efforts to resolution. Actually lay a 3-15x NF side by side with ANY other scope and measure what you can actually resolve, and it will match or beat any scope. They don't have the color "pop" that others like S&B have, but they are still very good. They were better than any Leupold of the time, and only the VX6 has caught up.
The "new" NXS's like the 2.5-10x42mm and especially the ATACR's have world class "glass".
Good post but now I need to look through an swfa 3-9HD as I was under the impression the NXS glass was not too bad.
I've got the SWFA 3-9HD, 3-10VX 3i, 3-10 SHV, 2.5-10 NXS, and an ATACR F1 I can compare for you. Nothing at all wrong with Nightforce glass in any of their product lines though.
I have the 2.5-10 x 42 nxs with digilume and it seems pretty good to me. Is the SHV glass the same as the NXS glass???
Good post but now I need to look through an swfa 3-9HD as I was under the impression the NXS glass was not too bad.
They're pole vaulting over mouse turds, or repeating what they've heard versus what they've measured.
Old NXS glass was actually REALLY good.... in resolution. Everything is a give and take and NF at the time decided to put their efforts to resolution. Actually lay a 3-15x NF side by side with ANY other scope and measure what you can actually resolve, and it will match or beat any scope. They don't have the color "pop" that others like S&B have, but they are still very good. They were better than any Leupold of the time, and only the VX6 has caught up.
The "new" NXS's like the 2.5-10x42mm and especially the ATACR's have world class "glass".
I’ve noticed the same. Brightness and contrast isn’t great in the old NXS line, but resolution has always been plenty good.
I have the 2.5-10 x 42 nxs with digilume and it seems pretty good to me. Is the SHV glass the same as the NXS glass???
Darn close, if not on par.
"They're pole vaulting over mouse turds, or repeating what they've heard versus what they've measured."
Hey Form.....that never happens on this forum. We are dealing strictly with professional opinions from actual use don't you know.....well I know you know
I got a chance to peer through a SHV F1 4-14x50 with the illuminated reticle yesterday. Very impressed with glass quality - great resolution, color and clarity. Easily on par with my LRHS 3-12.
Thanks, it’s good to hear from someone who actually owns one of them.
How are you liking the trijicon 1-8x jimmyp?
First, can we quit calling the SWFA 3-9 an HD? It doesn't have HD glass just the turrets are from the HD line not the classic. Yes the glass is better than the classic line but not quite as good as the HD.
I have examples of all 3 SWFA scopes mentioned so far. Most of my experience is with the 5-20 as I've had it since the introduction. You won't be wanting on the quality of the glass. It's very good and the illumination is nice. What you will be wanting is a larger reticle at low power. This wasn't designed as a hunting scope. If you're looking for lightning quick acquisition of critters this probably isn't the best, hell most ffp high mag scopes will be in the same boat so no knock on it.
The 3-9 SWFA is a great scope that I'm liking a lot. I just need more time with it. Ordered another on Black Friday along with 2 more 6X. There's a difference in the glass between the 2 but you won't see much of a difference on a sunny day at noon. Right now the 3-9 is on my 24" 260 and will see time calling coyotes, low light and night time.
And to add to what form said about resolution, I have an IOR 4-14 that is an amazing piece of glass, it just doesn't have "pop" . I handed my 28" barreled 260 to my friend when we were hunting last weekend and told him it was almost cheating. This was in the last 3 minutes of legal hunting light. His comment was "holy schmit" It's fairly flat but I'll take it over accented blues and yellows that some scopes have. My Zeiss Terra has "pop" but it doesn't make it a good piece of glass.
260madman,
You need to bitch to SWFA. They apparently think their scope has HD glass: SWFA SS HD 3-9x42 Tactical 30mm Riflescope
https://swfa.com/swfa-ss-hd-3-9x42-tactical-30mm-riflescope.html
No. They cleared the air on it a while ago in their optics forum. Just the turrets are the HD line of turrets. Truthfully I haven't read their description in a few years.
The trijicon 1-8 accupower although heavy was a good decision, the FFP reticle is good at 1 and 8. Glass about VX6 and dead nuts on with dial, I am very happy with it. The red is day light visible.
I have an SWFA 10x42 which is First Focal Plane reticle. The cross hairs very fine meant for precision shooting in day light. The turrets track flawlessly and the glass is great for my eyes. For low light you need a lighted reticle if your going with a first focal plane. At low power the FFP reticles are about worthless dawn and dusk. You might want to consider a Second Focal Plane reticle for shooting in poor light.
I have an SWFA 10x42 which is First Focal Plane reticle. .
?
I have an SWFA 10x42 which is First Focal Plane reticle. The cross hairs very fine meant for precision shooting in day light. The turrets track flawlessly and the glass is great for my eyes. For low light you need a lighted reticle if your going with a first focal plane. At low power the FFP reticles are about worthless dawn and dusk. You might want to consider a Second Focal Plane reticle for shooting in poor light.
Sigh.
I have an SWFA 10x42 which is First Focal Plane reticle. The cross hairs very fine meant for precision shooting in day light. The turrets track flawlessly and the glass is great for my eyes. For low light you need a lighted reticle if your going with a first focal plane. At low power the FFP reticles are about worthless dawn and dusk. You might want to consider a Second Focal Plane reticle for shooting in poor light.
I’d like to get a scope like yours, but in SFP. I like the fixed 10x, but want a good reticle for dawn and dusk. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks!
I have an SWFA 10x42 which is First Focal Plane reticle. The cross hairs very fine meant for precision shooting in day light. The turrets track flawlessly and the glass is great for my eyes. For low light you need a lighted reticle if your going with a first focal plane. At low power the FFP reticles are about worthless dawn and dusk. You might want to consider a Second Focal Plane reticle for shooting in poor light.
I’d like to get a scope like yours, but in SFP. I like the fixed 10x, but want a good reticle for dawn and dusk. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks!
I have an SWFA 10x42 which is First Focal Plane reticle. The cross hairs very fine meant for precision shooting in day light. The turrets track flawlessly and the glass is great for my eyes. For low light you need a lighted reticle if your going with a first focal plane. At low power the FFP reticles are about worthless dawn and dusk. You might want to consider a Second Focal Plane reticle for shooting in poor light.
this is a joke...no one can be this dense in real life.
Three posters have suggested a mistake with K31Scout's comment: "I have an SWFA 10x42 which is First Focal Plane reticle."
Just so it is perfectly clear:
SFP is second focal plane, and FFP is first focal plane. Both refer to the focal plane that the reticles exist in.
THIS APPLIES ONLY TO VARIABLE POWER SCOPES.
I have an SWFA 10x42 which is First Focal Plane reticle. The cross hairs very fine meant for precision shooting in day light. The turrets track flawlessly and the glass is great for my eyes. For low light you need a lighted reticle if your going with a first focal plane. At low power the FFP reticles are about worthless dawn and dusk. You might want to consider a Second Focal Plane reticle for shooting in poor light.
this is a joke...no one can be this dense in real life.
Oh yes they can. lol
Sorry about the misinformation; brain fog. I got it backwards.
The trijicon 1-8 accupower although heavy was a good decision, the FFP reticle is good at 1 and 8. Glass about VX6 and dead nuts on with dial, I am very happy with it. The red is day light visible.
I think I've narrowed it down to this for my 7-08 Montana. I like the 2.5-8 Leupold for Montana's and this with illumination would be more compact, probably more reliable/rugged and still give the same power range I'm used to, all with a usable reticle.
I have the 2.5-10 x 42 nxs with digilume and it seems pretty good to me. Is the SHV glass the same as the NXS glass???
When I talked to Nightforce they said it was the same glass.
I have no idea if the glass on the SWFA SS HD 3-9 is "HD", "ED" or whatever. But is different than the 6x (no HD in the name). The 6x is very good, but appears a bit muted in the colors when comparing the two side by side.
I found it for $1250 in a gun shop, but they cannot advertise the price due to Trijicon’s MSRP agreement. I bought it because Formidilousis said he had been unable to break one yet. It’s in a badger unimount on an AR right now. The green is said to be not as visible.
Good to know. Thanks Jimmy.