SWFA SS 2.5-10X32 Ultralight

That might be a winner, no big stupid turrets, no ocular the size of sticks neck, priced right too...

Sure, just as soon as one gets tested for tracking, recoil and impact resistance, exposure to Kryptonite, and chainsaw vibration. Also want to know what church the designers go to and the bra size of the receptionist at the factory.

Or, just put that reticle in a 6x42.

Eye Relief (in): 3.33 - 2.55

Nope....

Well, it seems that they listened to those who complained about the size and weight of the SS line. If it's durability and reliability are on par with the rest of the line they may have a great set-it-forget-it scope for those who don't like to dial. I know someone must have asked for it but I still see the plex as downside. An option for the MQ or MOAQ would be preferable to me. Eye relief seems a bit short...

Why would you want more than 2.55 inches of eye-relief?

Except for the the reticle and knobs, they sure didn't listen to the people here. Why not a 6x the same size and weight? A Weaver K6 looks better to me, for half the bucks.

Well I got excited because I was looking for a low power scope for my 375 H&H. Then That. Nope.

Come on, be a sport. Having two eyes is vastly over-rated.

To be sure, it looks like they were trying to hit it all with one swing. Trying to please everyone at once leads to...you get the idea.

Honestly, I’d have expected that description on April 1. It needs HD glass, 3.5” of eye relief and the repeatability of their other scopes. Wouldn’t care if it doubled the weight.

It was looking good until I got to that part.

I am looking for a scope for a 223 truck gun and this would work. I would have preferred the MQ. I will wait and see how these are holding up.

Wonder what the glass is like?

40mm would be nice

Wonder how that would work on an AR.
Without cantilevered mounts?

Yep.... a 3-9×42 would be excellent with more eye relief.
I hope they make it happen with a expanded line in the near future.

Better be able to really crawl up on a stock.

Oh...so close.


Hard pass.

I'll pass

Or mount the scope where it should be in the first place!

Tough crowd...

A 2.5-10x32, 9.5 ounce scope, for under $300 bucks? Sounds like a good deal to me and a lightweight option for lightweight rifles like, say, a Kimber Montana.

are these japan built does anyone know?

This...

It might work on an AR, or a rifle with an adjustable length of pull, but I would have to cut my stock to get the proper eye relief distance with that scope mounted in normal rings for the high end magnification to be useful.

Also, if mounted on a really light rifle with any horsepower, the recoil might make you a pirate or honorary member of the Scopahoe Tribe. Waiting for a fixed 6 or one with a little larger objective having more eye relief.

Chris Farris knows our group of hunters better than this. I’m surprised that they spec’d this scope with such short eye relief. This is what caused the poor popularity with the Leupold ultralight scopes.

I want four inches of eye relief, a 36mm to 40mm objective lens and a one inch tube with a reticle that is easy to see in low light and has elevation hold overs I can get used to. I also don't want it to weigh over 14 0z.

You suppose the eye relief numbers could be a typo or just wrong?

Bears a startling resemblance to one of my favourite hunting scopes

2.5-10x32 Sightron

Glad to see the move in that direction. I hope it proves to be as rugged as their other scopes. The eye relief is a deal killer for me though.

Being as I broke a 1-4 Phillipines made SWFA in less than 30 rounds on a Kimber Montana I'd sure hope this thing is Japan made. Regardless no interest with eye relief that limiting. I'll suck up an extra 1/2 pound for the 3-9 SWFA.

I agree. I like light weight but trade offs have to be considered.

SWFA could put a decent LW (lighter weight) hunting scope together by using the 3-9 style eleveation turret on the 6x, capping the windage on the 6x, and trimming the tube length a touch....it has a built in sun-shade on the front of it.... This should maintain the integrity/reliability of the scope as well and be minor cost/production changes using known components.

Fail.

Fail.
There must be a surplus of common sense over at SWFA.....'cause they sure aren't using any.

It would be a POS because you can't make a 9 ounce scope, unless the internals are as light, cheap and inconsistent as a Leupold.

I tend to agree with this.

Leupolds without turrets hold up just fine.

Had they gone straight 6x and mil-quad they would have been onto something.

Yea,they usually do,once you use their equivalent cost in ammo to get them sighted in.

Any chance that the eye relief is a typo?

It seems awfully odd. I didn't know anyone even tried to make a scope that short since the 1970s.

If it were 3.5-4.3 it would make a lot more sense.

Who's gonna be the first to try one and report back?

Why can’t I find it on their website? Is this a joke? I did a quick search on opticstalk, didn’t see anything about it there either.

It's a joke guys.

Find ya one of these.

https://swfa.com/swfa-ss-2-5-10x32-ultralight-rifle-scope.html

I'm not much of a riflescope user, I only have a few of them on rimfires and AR's. Still I was curious about this so I went to a couple of sites like Vortex and Leupold and looked at specs. Most 2X10 scopes had eye relief around 3.2 - 3.5. The Leupolds did have 3.8 in. but they were 1000 dollar plus scopes compared to this 300 dollar scope.

I would think a scope like this would be ideal for a light .260 build or similar to keep the optic weight down without worrying about recoil. Still, is a half inch of eye relief that huge of a thing for a scope 700+ cheaper?

I can understand on a sharp kicking gun and possible out of position shots not wanting to cut yourself, but I thought everyone had a 6.5 creed nowadays.

Might get one for an AR.

3.3" is marginal for safety with anything with even moderate recoil. 2.55" is hazardous, especially prone or at the bench. Get twocked in the eyebrow a time or two and you'll understand.

I'll wait for Jordans report after his statistical analysis is done, before I make a decision whether to purchase or not

This.
Plus Form, Mule Deer, cummins, and of course Ringman.

We don't need any testing to determine that products we've never seen or used suck. It's been proven many times here.

Normally most of the crowd will wait to hear the opinion of one of about 3 members, then parrot that opinion til they're blue in the face.

Absolutely!

I first saw them on my laptop, with its smaller screen, and I thought they suck....and, coffee wasn't ready, yet....

Had coffee been ready and I was on my new high-powered desktop, it would have gotten a much better rating....

Who's getting one to test out for us all?

One extreme to another? From a 14" long, 20 oz. fixed, to a 10" long 9 oz. variable.

Wouldn't the argument that a scope must be a bit heavy to be dependable still apply?

I was thinking 10-12 years ago that I should think outside the Leupold box, but it only gets more confusing.

I don’t need any testing to convince me sub-3” eye relief is a deal breaker....

But, I’d bet on one long before I’d bet on a similar offering from Tract, or Athalon, or GPO.... or Leupold, or Nikon, or Burris, or Zeiss.... etc.

It really is too bad about the eye relief.... I’d have been in for a couple from the get-go.

I’d settle for a 1” version of the 6x MQ. I wouldn’t mind compromising on the elevation range of adjustment either; 60-odd MOA of internal adjustment is miles-enough for me. Sub-16 ounces would be great. Slightly less obtrusive turrets too.

I'm a huge SWFA SS fan, but this is a pass for me. I currently use a SS 3-9x42 with the mil dot reticle on my main hunting rifle and I absolutely love it. It tracks well, is tough (holds up to a lot of abuse), has good enough glass, and has a reticle I really like.

I was excited to see a "hunting" scope from them as the only things I could think of that would make the 3-9x42 a better hunting scope would be capped turrets and lighter weight. However, I saw this thing and it looks like it went back to 1995. I'm not a fan of the standard duplex reticle (I like the mil dot and the mil quad a lot better as I can range with it, use it for holdover, etc.), I'm not a fan of the 32mm objective, and I don't think the eye relief would work out well on any heavy kicking firearms. IMO there are already enough great hunting scopes available for half of the cost of this thing that offer better features. If you don't want the tracking that comes with the SS line, there are quite a few good hunting scopes out there. I'd rather buy a Burris Fullfiled II and save the other $150.

+1 The 3x9 MQ is tough to beat for a hunting scope that lets you shoot long if you need to.

I played with the prototype and thought it was quite nice. I'll have a first look article up shortly and I plan to do a more thorough test when I get a production model here.

Eye relief is pretty flexible, but it is a bit short for a rifle with kick. It will do great on lighter recoiling rifle and on hunting ARs. When I played with it, I thought it would be just perfect for micro actions like CZ 527 and other similar guns.

Somewhere earlier in this thread, someone mentioned an older Sightron S2 2.5-10x32. I had that scope which has similar eye relief on a 7.62x54R and never got touched. I gave it to a friend who still has it on a similar rifle and no issues there either.

The scope is made in Japan if memory serves me right and a lot of effort was put into keeping it very trim without sacrificing durability. This scope has probably the slimmest eyepiece I have seen to date, so the eye relief has to be a bit shorter to maintain good FOV.

Basically, it is not a general purpose hunting scope. It does have its niche and I expect it to do quite well within that niche. Ultralight scopes are far and few in between, so I am pretty curious to see how this one pans out. The most obvious first application for it might be on 300 Blackout boltguns and hunting ARs that I see used more and more by either young hunters starting out or by people running suppressed for night time hog hunting. There, this scope's size and weight are really appropriate.

TO give you an idea of size, in the picture below, it is on the left, next to Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8x32. If you want a compact hunting scope with long eye relief, the HD LH is an excellent option, but note the difference in eyepiece diameters.



ILya

Thanks for sharing. Good insight.

Now, can they make a general purpose scope? Something like the 3-9 HD, but with capped windage, lower profile elevation dial, reticle good for dark woods and with some windage reference, all in the <15oz range.

You are welcome.

I am sure they can, but whether the market needs it or not is arguable. It is a very saturated marketspace. Were you lookign for a FFP or SFP design? If SFP, you really should be considering Vortex Razor HD LH 2-10x40. You can always add a Kenton elevation turret to it if you want to dial.

There are not that many ultralight scopes out there, so I am kinda happy to see SWFA make this one. I like tweener scopes and did an article on these many moons ago:

http://opticsthoughts.com/?page_id=79

What is available with scopes of this type has changed dramatically, so I should probably do a follow-up of sorts. At the moment, for rifles with kick, my tweener scope of choice is Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8x32. The new SWFA may very well become my go to option for really light weight applications where recoil is not an issue.

For example, I am teaching my six year old daughter to shoot and for her every little bit of extra weight counts. When she graduates from using iron sights, the ultralight SWFA will go on her rifle.

ILya

Oh how I wish that were true.
Agreed on the the 6x with mil-quad and mil adjustments - if they had proper eye relief.



Exactly! Reminds me of the scopes Remington includes on their package rifles. Totally unusable eye relief at higher magnifications. Those scopes immediately get round filed, or used as a Carlos Hathcock vs NVA sniper target (i.e. try to shoot through the scope without touching the housing).

By next year, it'll be all the rage on the Barret Fieldcraft series, here on the ol' 'Fire.

But will it be in 6 Creedmoor by that time instead of the current fav 6.5?

Except for incorrect and inconsistent tacking, and intermittent zero shifts.


I believe I, and those I shoot with are up to six (6) Vortex HD LH’s. None have worked correctly. A couple seemed fine out of the box, but within reletively limited rounds showed issues.

Vortex Razor HD LH 2-10x40...R.I.P.

Not DOA, but definitely DOB “Dead Outta Box”...So much for Vortex owning the dial a dope scope market..Who’s next?
Form, is way better than “Consumer Reports” for us guys who want good schit. 😎

Absolutely spot on.

Amount this report surprises me:

0%

The 3-15x42 did not have those issues.
I'll check the 2-10x40, now that I am curious.
It is definitely staying zeroed, but I'll revisit the turrets.

ILya

Form,

Are you going to wring-out one of the new Ultralights?

I hope that with this ultra-light scope, SWFA is not going to blemish its reputation. There is no free lunch with scope weight, as is obvious by Leupold's failures. If this scope is durable, then it will gain a good rep. If not, the SWFA just hurt themselves with a Leupold clone.

I’m sure I’ll see one at some point, but a SFP, duplex reticled scope with .25moa adjustments doesn’t really fit into a use I or those I shoot with/hunt with have.


I think it’d be useful to see if it holds up, but not enough for me to buy one.

I’m on my 4th scope in less than a year on my 84M 338 Federal. Actually, I just put an old Burris FFII I had on it. I also have an SWFA 6x that is currently not in use. It’s just not a good fit for that rifle. But it does work. Would like something as I described above. Maybe an FX3 6x42 would survive on that rifle.

Wow, tough crowd here. Personally I have been quite impressed with my 6x mq and 3-15. This particular model does not excite me but I suspect it's the beginning of a few new models. Personally I would be quite happy with an illuminated 6x. Not many market holes in the overcrowded optics world but a reasonably light, reasonably priced 4 x 32 would be nice.

People barely buy 4x hunting scopes these days and I bet three quarters of the ones who do will never buy anything but a Leupold. Very little chance of recouping your investment if you introduce one.

ILya

I wonder how strong the market is for a scope that tears big gouges out of the shooter's forehead every time they touch off a round when it's mounted on a rifle with more than 10 ft lbs of recoil?

I guess you could drag a Caldwell Lead Sled afield and 50 lbs of lead shot with you...but then the light weight hunting scope with 2.5" of eye relief would be a moot point.

Hey Form., Did they loose zero during firing,or only after twisting the turret?

It's already blemished,if by nothing except the specs on this scope.

I like the concept of the SS 2.5-10x32 Ultralight & I especially like the small ocular bell diameter that allows low mounting on bolt action rifles w/ a high bolt lift. I have several rifles where I think this scope would work out extremely well except that I can't live with the extremely short eye relief.

Given the trade off between eye relief & field of view in scope design I do not understand why most scope makers sacrifice eye relief to gain maximum possible field of view & it's even more difficult to understand in a 2.5-10 variable where you can gain all the FOV one will ever need by backing the power down (47.2 ft @ 2.5x at 100 yds for this scope). In 50+ years of using rifle scopes a large FOV has always been well below having a minimum of 3.5" of eye relief in my list of priorities for choosing a rifle scope.

They should stick one of those scopes on a 7lb .30/06, load up some stout 180s, and make every nerd on that scope design team fire a magazine full of rounds out of it... prone... off a pack.

I bet there’d be a need for a suture kit.... and a new drawing board....

Why should they do that if that's not what it was intended for? Probably just fine on an AR. If somebody buys a scope with inadequate relief for their use I'd say that's their own fault. Having said that, it sure seems like they could have designed in more relief.

If it’s built for an AR.... then it ain’t a “hunting scope”... it’s a “lightweight AR scope”.

You wanna call it a “hunting scope” it better be able to ride an ‘06..... or a 7 Mag.... or a .270.... etc. Sub-3” eye relief ain’t gonna cut it on any of those.

Make it uphill prone to get extra sporty.

I know a lot of people who hunt with ARs chambered for the likes of 6.8SPC, 6.5Grendel, 300Blackout, etc.

For those applications, anything with more than two inches of eye relief is plenty.

I suspect that this will be an excellent scope for that use.

Personally, I am partial to the 6.5Grendel and it seems to work just fine on pigs.

I probably would not put this scope on a safari gun, but there are plenty of other scopes out there for that.

ILya

nose to charging handle is incorrect way to hold the gun imo. Standard eye relief works best on those.

Nose to CH works wonders for me. I prefer to drive the gun rather than let it drive me, especially on a fighting carbine...

Nose to Charging Handle (NTCH) is the way the Army still trains, and it works for training a consistent cheek weld and sight picture. Back to back World War winners, and all.

Nose to bolt shroud on an ‘06 don’t work nearly as well....

It's definitely not a Leupold clone. If it was, it would have adequate eye relief despite it's other Leupold shortcomings.

I don't disagree,but I can't for the life of me figure out why you wouldn't just design it with a slightly larger ocular if needed and at least 3.5" eye relief. I really prefer 3.75"-4" because it increases options on where it will work. I just see no advantage to such short ER at the disadvantage of maybe one ounce more weight.

I do not shoot quite NTCH, but I do run my AR stocks with a little shorter LOP than I do my boltguns. Still, I am not sure how that is relevant for this discussion.

ILya

As a general disclaimer, I do not do product development with SWFA. I have a cordial relationship with them, so I often get to see prototypes before they are released, but that is largely it.

If I were a betting man, I would bet that they looked at the one part of the hunting market that is actually growing and tried to make a scope for that application. I suspect, that they were also trying to get the weight under 10 ounces, so every little bit of weight saving makes a difference. As has been pointed out earlier, there is only so much lightening you can do on the insides before you sacrifice durability, so I suspect the eyepiece was the next logical place to streamline things without sacrificing quality.

To be brutally honest, if I were them, I would probably do the same thing. People simply do not buy 32mm objective scopes for conventional big game hunting rifles any more. If you want to introduce a lightweight scope, you have to look outside of the 30-06 boltguns.

I have seen this before: what people say they would do and what they actually do are not the same thing.

If I were to run a poll here on how many people would buy a 12 ounce 2.5-10x32 scope with 4" of eye relief and then went on to build that scope based on positive feedback, I would go bankrupt.
The number of scopes I would sell would end up at best one tenth of the number of people who said they would buy it.

ILya

What caliber is that rifle chambered for?

ILya

You’d sell a schitt load more of them with 4” eye relief than you will with 2.5”.... that’s for phuggin sure.

Don't need no stinking eye relief with a 6.5 creedmire, they are recoil-less

He saved me from buying one as well

you mean all the people saying they want fixed power scopes? Then when I post about the cameraland exclusive S&B fixed power scope, they complain. The whole fixed power thing is so overplayed it aint even funny. I am not sure SWFA needed to go the ultralite route. I think they would have sold plenty of robust 2.5-10 models they could have if they kept the weight even at 1 pound or less. Think about the rifles you really care about saving weight on. they are going to have more recoil than heavier guns simply because they are lighter. If I am putting together a light rifle I am probably going to just pick up a tikka t3, in one of the big game calibers. on that gun I will be wanting a scope with 3.5" or a tad more. Leupold makes scopes with eye relief in that range without huge eye pieces.

nose to charging handle means you have to shorten the stock way too much on an AR, it just don't fit right. and I am not going to shoot my gun like that.

No, it is not for sure at all. If they make scope with this eyepiece diameter and 4" of eye relief, everyone will complain how the image looks too small. If they make it heavier, everyone will complain that it is too heavy for an ultralight. Sometimes you have to make compromises.

The market is weird that way. We'll see how this scope does for SWFA. If my guess is correct and target market for this is hunting ARs, they should do well with it as is.

ILya

That is a good example. Same for everyone clamoring for a fixed power 4x scope. And for everyone who claims they are OK with an objective lens smaller than 40mm.

Outside of a few budget scopes and most of these simply do not sell. Leupold faithful keep the 2.5-8x36 alive. People who want a premium model, buy 3-9x36 Swaro. People who are on a budget, get a 2-7x35 Fullfield II or Diamondback. Nothing else in this size range seems to sell. Maybe Nikon 2-8x32.

ILya

You go on and on about the camerland scope but I don't ever remember anyone asking for a $2,000 fixed 6x with those features...ever. A 6x swfa scope with capped windage and or 6x swfa hd with capped windage has been talked about. People say they'd buy that. Big difference between asking for $4-$800 scope and $2,000.

Dear SWFA,

A 3-9x40 or 2-7x32 , 1 inch tube scope with a low profile elevation knob, at least 3.5 inches eye relief, and plain duplex please. Use your beefy erector system and weigh between 12 - 15 oz and you have perfection. A solid light weight fixed 4 or 6 with duplex and simply hold over hashes wouldn't suck either. In other words, please duplicate some of the basic Leupold offerings with more ruggedness.

Miniscule ER is a poor place to compromise, at least IMO.

Leupold VX-5HD 2-10x42 just about fits that bill. 30mm tube and 16 ounces.

Leupold has many great offerings that people don't have confidence in.

I know you are trying hard not to criticize but it isn't like it would be impossible to make it have an ocular just large enough for what is considered normal eye relief. It's not like you have to choose between the smallest ocular in the industry with one of the shortest ER's in the industry or some huge ocular design that adds 4 ounces. It seems an ounce trade off with a slightly larger ocular for 3.5 would have been a better choice IMHO.

I am not trying anything. I am simply looking at it from a different angle. I assure you I gave SWFA all sorts of critical comments, but eye relief was not among those. Mostly, I wanted them to make a version with side focus at the expense of an ounce or two of weight and I want additional reticle options. Perhaps, I might still be able to talk them into it.

Short eye relief, where appropriate, offers some interesting advantages. My favorite general purpose airgun scope, for example, is MTC Viper Connect with 1.2"of eye relief. It is almost long enough to be comfortable on 22LR, but only if I take the eye piece cover off. I am trying to get MTC to make a version of it with just a hair more eye relief (1.5" would do) and then it will be my go to choice for the 22LR as well.

From a system design standpoint, there are good reasons to have short eye relief, when the application allows for it.

ILya

I don't have a big game hunting rifle application that will allow for it.

Just to be clear,I wasn't accusing you of being biased at all. I do understand your points. I just think that longer ER would have made a more versatile and desirable scope for more people. Not saying that it won't be enjoyed as is by many that can use such a configuration.

No reason to keep beating the horse,as it is close to death.I mainly wanted you to know that I appreciate and respect your comments.

It would be great on a 14/221 for shooting flying squirrels..............

Yea,that extra FOV would come in handy.

If the parallax was set for 50 yards it would be a good pricey .22 scope.
But that's about it for me.

All fair points and thank you.

I'll talk to SWFA and see what else they have planned. They are pretty tight lipped about this stuff, so we'll see if I can pry anything out of them.

I expect to have one of the production scopes here toward the end of the week, so I'll set it up on one of my ARs and head to the range. Fair warning: I am not going to set it up on my 458SOCOM. Razor HD LH 1.5-8x32 lives there. It'll go either onto the 223 or the Grendel, but it may also spent some time on a rimfire rifle.

I'll let you know what I think and how it stacks up.

ILya

Put it on a light weight hunting rifle as its intended for (say a 30-06) and let us know how it works out

YES THIS. I say split the difference and go 2.5-10 also NO PARALLAX adustment. this is not needed on a 10x max power scope. its just more complication that doesn't need to be there. I purposely buy nightforce 2.5-10 models that are not parallax adjustmable. that why I don't have to care about it.

It has had a couple of thousand rounds of 7/08 and nearly 800 260's
I never even noticed how short the eye relief
Was til I read this thread
Sure enough it is about 2.5 inches
I love the scope and as I said it has been a favourite for over 10 years

Scope's a goner no matter what you tell SWFA or what they have planned. DOA. LOL. What a goob...LOL. Two and a half " ER. "Hey Boss, got a great idea to loose some money on". LOL . Now if they could have put the low end power down in the negative range like Swaro did with their new and amazing Z8i 0.75-6 x 20 they'd really have a winner. 2funni

This...^^^^^^^

One of their 3-9×42HD MQ's with capped lower profile turrets would be awesome. I would literally replace all of the scopes on my hunting rifles with that configuration. I love my 3-9HD - probably my favorite, but scotch taping the turrets for piece of mind while hunting kind of sucks. I'm even okay with the extra weight for their reliability.

I agree, though I don't think that the people who said they would buy a scope then not buy it are being less than honest. If you say you can build the next Gold Standard scope (w/specs given) a lot of posters will say they would buy one to encourage the builder to move forward with the project.

It is not a matter of honesty. People say things that they believe when they say them. However, what they do when the time comes to make a purchasing decision, is frequently different. That is one of the reasons why large companies that rely exclusively on focus group feedback screw things up.

ILya

I set-up that same exact scope on a friend's sporterized Mosin and also never had issues with eye relief.

I will try SWFA's scope on one of those as well. I am not awash in lightweight bolt guns and I do not own a 30-06, so I can't do that test. I do have a light-ish Mosin, so I can use that as a platform. Wth all that, I really think this scope was intended primarily for hunting ARs and I will start with it on there before I try it on a boltgun. That is where this configuration makes the most sense, I think. Why people assumed that this scope was meant for ultra light 30-06s is not clear to me.

Do you mind if I ask how heavy that rifle is? A buddy of mine is a huge 7-08 fan. He's been trying to convince to get one for a while now.

ILya

2.5 inches of eye relief is a definite show stopper for me as well. As mentioned earlier in this thread, if a scope maker would duplicate Leupolds scope specs with rugged, reliable tracking, that would satisfy a large portion of hunting rifle scope buyers. I believe this, even if it added a few ounces and $100 to the price of the scope. Of course the ideal situation would be for Leupold to make these corrective changes to their scopes. If they did and it was verified that they tracked on the money, they would not have to worry about Vortex or any scope company getting into their market share. I just can't go with a top heavy 20+ ounce Hubble on my 7 pound and less rifles. I have a Blaser K95 that I use to hunt Roe deer. This year, I realized the need for a larger objective and illuminated reticle. After weeks of researching for a scope for that rifle that would not compromise it's great handling qualities, carried up and down the mountains, I came back to Leupold, a VXR 3x9x50. With that scope, the rifle weighs a quarter ounce under 7 pounds, only 2 ounces heavier than it did with the Ziess Conquest 3x9x40. Most of my hunting rifles have scopes with a 40mm Obj,, some smaller. Until SOMEBODY makes that scope that those have been describing in this and other threads, I will hunt with my current stock of Leupolds. RJ

Just add this to the list of strange SWFA moves...apparently meant to fill such a specialized niche that the product is useless for nearly everyone. For example, the SWFA 12x32 mil binoculars. So close, yet so far.

For lots of folks, and especially in Texas, hunting for them is what I consider bench rest shooting. So they can probably get away with a little less eye-relief as shooting is very static for them.

I still can't stand short eye relief when I'm benchresting off the windowsill of my blind.

All this nagging and no one but koshkin has even touched or tried one yet. Unbelievable.

Mark my word: by this time next year, this very scope will be all the Campfire rage on Montanas and Fieldcrafts, for the hard-chargers of course. Only because it connects all the dots of lightweight, ruggedness, and a great view for hunting both glass and simple reticle.

But how do you know it's reliable, has good glass, etc.? They had to do something to get it that light!

In theory, it would be great on my 84M in 338 FED, but I'm not going to lie, touching off the trigger with only 2.5" of relief might get sporty.

I can read the specs on a new ford ranger and know without touching or seeing in the flesh it's not what I need. Scopes are not any different.

A couple of members have called SWFA and verified the inadequate eye relief. You don't need to touch or try one to know that it won't work for you if you've ever been smacked in the brow by a scope with in-adequate eye relief. RJ

Yep like ffp scopes that have reticles that wash out on low power

What’cha wanna bet?

Glass, tracking, toughness, reliable adjustments, etc..... don’t mean Jack Schitt.... if the scope eats your face every time you touch the gun off.

Think I will just stick with my Leupold and Redfield 2-7x32 set and forgot scopes. They hold zero just fine and have useable eye relief. The AR crowd can have this scope.

I've been shooting a 6.5 pound 30-06 since 1994, and I've never come close to getting bit. If one knows how to properly mount a scope for their mounting position, then it's not a problem.

I suspect you don't have a scope with 2.5" of eye relief on your 6.5 lb 30-06, either.

The "properly mounting a scope" excuse is as silly as the "I never feel recoil in the field" saying. I.e., you can't overcome physics.

Things happen. You might have to shoot from a cramped position, or severely uphill, or from your opposite shoulder where you're not comfortable. You get scoped. A comfortable amount of eye relief is cheap insurance to minimize those instances.

I'm not sure as I never weighed it , but it is definitely a
Lightweight, the stock is hollowed out and slimmed down as much as is possible and it has a 22 inch shillen no2 on it

Where I do most my hunting the AR is not the hunting rifle of choice. A 9.5 ounce scope appeals to the guy looking to save weight because he spends more time carrying his rifle than shooting in rugged terrain. I'd like the objective lens to be around a 40mm on a 10X scope, but I'd give this scope a shot if it had better eye relief on my elk rifle as it would get me under 7 lbs affordably.

You're probably right as it will perform well on an AR-15 rifle. However, I don't think it's a scope most people who are heavy into AR's will like. Most of those shooters will want BDC or Mil reticle and exposed turrets from my experience.

I've been wondering who the target market is for these as well.

I briefly thought it'd be nice on the slick little 22-250 1-8 Ruger I got from Whittakers but the single aiming point Mmmm, Naaa.

Another Weaver 2-10 Tactical Grand Slam, dials , dots, eye relief, $100 less, I'll carry the weight.

I guess I'm not the target market....

Yeah I'm not really seeing the appeal on an AR, either. If I'm scoping a carbine/cool guy setup, it's nice to have 1x magnification as an option on the low end, and illumination is handy, plus a mil/mil setup is never a bad choice. If scoping a varmint AR, this isn't the right scope. If just wanting a cheap basic scope with no turrets or BDC for a truck gun that might get stolen, a Burris or whatever that can be purchased 100 dollars cheaper would probably work just as well. No need for a small eyepiece on an AR, as the optic sits pretty high and there's no need for bolt handle clearance (and what's the small eyepiece going to save, 1 ounce maybe?). It might be fine on a 22 LR that won't get dialed, but otherwise I just don't see the appeal with the short eye relief.

Once again, never puked a scope, "and I have twisted turrets", and have never had scope nose or scope brow.... fuuck am I dreaming?????

I also found out a couple weeks ago lead sleds break scopes and stocks!!!! After 15 years and literally 100's of rifles I've never seen it, not 1 time!! Must be living right..... grin

One might be the berries on my .218, .223s or perhaps .243, but they are all satisfactorily scoped as I write. No reason to change. I really don't think they will go over with the short eye relief. That can be re-engineered.

Not possible. You must not shoot much! Some people just have all the luck?!?!

In reality, if one mounts their scope correctly for their shooting position/style and has a consistent and proper form, they will not get "scoped" because it becomes nearly impossible for the gun to actually recoil that much without moving the body along with it. I maintain that if someone has gotten scoped, they didn't have it set correctly for their form to begin with, or they have inconsistent form.

And the obvious target demographic is the same group that would buy the Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x32 if they could afford it and didn't care that it weighs 19 ounces and also has "short" eye relief on high power.

That may be true... if one shoots from the same static position all the time. You don’t have that option with a “hunting” scope. You need to be able to shoot uphill, downhill, standing, prone, off make-shift rests, left handed, whatever....

Haha ya I don’t have a 500 yard range in my yard, I don’t carry rifles much, and I don’t hunt much!!! Grin

Dear SWFA,

Please call the persnickety folks on here and reassure them that your poor designs are really ok for the tactard crowd on a budget.

Also, fix that dead chicken graphic on the side. Or is that a buzzard?

Happy Trails

I'll call BS on this theory.

Yeah, but come on, you probably don't use your rifles for lawn darts, dive into foxholes or slip and fall and chuck your rifle over a cliff to save yorself all the time either. A scopes got to be able to take that shyt if you're a "hard charger" you know.

Well, I've been shooting since I was 5-years old, so that's over 40 years now. Yet to ever get bit by a scope. And I might have shot more than a few times off a pack, prone, prone bipod, and uphill while hanging by my toes. And over two decades of that has been with a very lightweight 30-06 shooting 180 CoreLokts. And for most of those decades, it was with cheap Tasco scopes that didn't have more than 3" of eye relief.

Here's the easy solution: put the scope on low power, measure the eye relief, and set the scope for your consistent mount with head low and down and forward into the gun so that it lines up correctly that way. If you plan to always carry it on say 4x power, then set it that way. Which means the scope will be far forward. When you need to shoot on high power, you won't be able to "crawl the stock" any further forward much anyway, and you won't be able to get enough further forward to get "bit" by the scope. This naturally makes the scope work better in prone positions anyway when you would usually be using the scope on high power and said position tends to force your eye forward slightly. You'll get a natural view of the high power's shorter eye relief and still won't be close enough to the scope to get bit.



I still hold to my prediction: this scope will be the Campfire darling by next year's Tax Day Sale (so long as it is durable, decent glass, bold reticle, etc).

Have you personally gotten scope-bit? If so, tell the story and we can diagnose what went wrong.

Have you personally gotten scope-bit? If so, tell the story and we can diagnose what went wrong.

Haha oh ya I’m lucky I kill everything off my couch!!!

Of course I have. I've been at it since 1971. Inferior eye relief sucks, every time, any where.

I guess I started shooting in 70 or 71 and I've never been scope bit. Short eye relief is something I've always been aware of and avoided on anything with recoil to speak of though. Saw my dad get bit bad when I was very young and the blood running down his face left an impression on me that has served me well all these years.

Details?

Steep uphill, unlevel ground, prone.

That would be the worst-case scenario.

How many inches of eye relief do you feel is minimum for safe shooting?

I know I want alot more on my scoped 12 gauge pump slug gun than I need on my .22's. Eye relief ain't all about what's safe either. Alot is about whether there's enough to position the scope correctly on your rifle without having to resort to some goofy azzed extended rings or picatinny rails.

I like 3.5 'ish.

3.5-4.0" Is what I like.I see a lot of people setting kids up with short eye relief scopes because they usually go cheap setting up guns for kids.Bad move,nobody likes getting slapped by a scope.You will likely develop poor shooting skills and a flinch.

If you've never been scope bitten, you're either shooting VERY heavy rifles, or not hunting much... both my cases of "magnum eyebrow" came in the field in hunting positions.

I've never been scope bitten and don't own a rifle all up over 8.5 pounds, most in the 7-7.5 pound range. I've been in the woods a time or two...

Or you have the scope mounted so far forward that under any condition other than max stock crawl and minimum magnification the view is reminiscent of that through a paper towel tube.

I’ve been hit my fair share. Not fun. Usually when goofing around with some odd angle field position shot.

Is the DD scope exam over with? Did I pass?

Me too Greg, 338's, 338 RUM that was light had a habit of bouncing off peoples face, but never mine...

Maybe your (and GregW's) glass is scared of you guys ugly mugs..........it's possible......I've seen pics.

Haha! Im not saying I'm cooler or better than anyone, just never happened to me. God damn I swear everytime Jim Shockey shoots a critter hes bleeding!! haha

The couple of times it happened to me it didn't even draw blood. Maybe because I"m hard headed. True about Shockey...ha!

Not everybody hunts like you. I shoot most of my critters offhand, once in awhile from a kneeling or sitting position and have never shot anything from prone rested over a pack. Rarely do I take a shot from a prone position even when varmint hunting {woodchucks here} shooting most from a sitting position with bipod. I do shoot up alot at tree squirrels but that's mostly with a .22 rimfire.

I reckon you guys that get whacked are just suffering from tunnel vision so bad when you're about to shoot at a critter you aren't aware of what you're doing. I think it's called buck fever by some folks.

Exam over. Pass but with only a D on the report card.

A correctly mounted scope wouldn't have bit ya.

Thank God. If you'll send me your address I'll send my rifles up to you so you can get them set correctly for me. Please? I did not realize that every time someone gets scopebitten, it's because the scope isn't mounted correctly. I've got it now though.

Too funny... I'm a "stock crawler" so all my scopes are set about as far forward as possible, and all have generous eye relief.

Never got scope eyed,but I have had my nose bumped a couple of times shooting a 300 Win Mag with a scope that had barely over 3" of eye relief.Didn't hurt,but it's enough to make you think about it each time I shot at the bench.Changed to a scope with 4" of eye relief and that problem went away.

What it boils down to for me, is could jeff_o maintain proper ear weld on the recoil pad given the eye relief and mounting area of this scope.....................................

I've been scope bit, and I've puked (cheap) scopes for unknown reasons(s). The minimum distance I'm comfortable with on a rifle with a good amount of recoil is 3.5" at least.

Ahh....I'll come down to your place for free and set them up, just show me where a couple muleys happen to live!

I'm worse at guiding than I am at setting up rifles/scopes.

Someone needs to buy one and connect the dots......hint.

Standing by for a report!

well lookie there, made in japan that does answer at least something.

Scott will be unavailable for the rest of the day as he conducts tests on his new scope. Thank you for the understanding.

Sorry boys the eye relief is as short as advertised. My last purchase was a Mini 14 that actually shoots good so I wanted to put a little more magnification on it. I figured this would be a great carbine scope and even if the eye relief was short, it would work on that rifle.

It barely works on my Mini 14 with 13.25 LOP. I don't think this is going to work on many rifles. You can see how far back I had to mount it.

I bet it would go great on a NULA 300 Weatherby mag I had my hands on.

The turrets have loud audible clicks. The glass looks good to me but I'm not a scope snob. The finish looks like a spray on bed liner.

I will probably take it out shooting tomorrow. I'm sure it will function flawlessly. It's a decent little package for $299 but it's achilles heel is the eye relief which is a pretty big flaw. It's going difficult to even mount on most rifles.

If you put it on your 338 Federal, you will shoot your eye out.

DakotaDeer will be along shortly to tell you your scope mounting skills suck.


Think how bad it will be if you wore glasses.........

Ha ha, noted!

Connect more than dots....

My skills do suck. I never claimed to be good, I just get lucky occasionally.

It was a joke scott. DD posted earlier that the reason people get scoped is because they don't know how to mount a scope. Luck trumps skill anyday, anyway!

Interesting posts, not to mention entertaining (both accidental and intended).

I think that I will try one on my little .257 AI. The old 2-7x32 Nikon that has been on there for about 20 years took a beating on my Coues deer hunt year before last. Despite the heroic efforts of Nikon's warranty techs, I am a little bit leery of it's overall health.

I had a guy today asking me for an AR scope recommendation,and he is not a he's not a tactical kind of guy.

I know buddy.

I get questions about AR hunting scopes quite a bit. For a lot of younger hunters, bot gun is not a default choice at all. I remember when varmint hunters discovered how accurate heavy barrel AR-15s can be. Then predator hunters realized that you can have very good accuracy without a very heavy barrel. Now, with all the intermediate AR-15 cartridges (not to mention 7.62x39 in an AK), ARs are here to stay when it comes to big game hunting as well. Just about anything that can be reasonably shot with a 30-30, can be shot just as well with 300Blackout, 6.8SPC, 6.5Grendel, 30AR, 7.62x39 etc.

ILya

Those AR's are getting more popular all the time. The flat brim hat wearing mall ninjas love to spray ammo at our range.

I've thought about building an ultralight AR for mountain hunting for no other reason than to do it....

I can get it no more than 7.5 pounds work scope....

The most accurate rifle I own is an AR-15, custom....

I was just messing around Greg. I've become very fond of using an AR when we go on a pig whacking weekend.

Send it to me and I'll run it on a Model Seven and a Kimber Montana. It'll work just fine.

Mini scope mounting has two drawbacks that you ran into: can't get it low unless you remove the peep sight, and the rear mount base is further forward than on any bolt action. Both work against a short eye relief scope.

Do you have a short-action bolt gun that you can mount it on and take a pic?

It won't matter though,as many will use a one piece mount on top of the rail that will allow a good bit more adjustment. It should be fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of your charging handle,and the smaller eye piece would help there.

I will reserve judgment on whether I can use one or not until I see one in hand. Regardless,more eye relief,even at the penalty of a larger eye piece would have been preferable to me. It would seem that SWFA is continuing in the tradition of giving us ,not what we want at all,but what they believe will work well.

I didn't say I wanted to get rid of it. I actually said it was a nice little scope if you read my post. You are right, it should work on a short action bolt gun. The front ring will likely be right up against the ocular bell but it will probably work. Also many rifles now have picatinneys and that would work.

The question remains: what does it have that makes it a good buy for me (collective me)? So far, all we know is that it is a very light variable that tops out at 10x. Reliability, durability, glass, and tracking are all unknowns. At $300 ($349, not on sale), it faces a lot of competition from others that weight just a few ounces more and have established reputations, good or bad.

Thanks for taking one for the team and starting the process. That Mini ought to give it a good workout. Before they added the buffer, they were considered scope killers. I'd like to know what the eye relief is at 6x.

I put a rail on the Howa Mini I bought for my grandson to use while he's small, just for the mounting flexibility. Right now it's got a scope on it but if he can't get a good view through it, I'll put a Vortex Sparc II on the rail until he can.

Why don't you just buy one, put it on a rifle,and put 500 rounds thru it,and then report back in a couple of months with your findings. Beats all the hand wringing on this thread. Many here over think things too much, and shoot too little.

It's a rare thing for someone to be banned on this site but spouting such heresy puts you at risk.....

Oh I know bud. Just a general comment I made....

It's shot every single bullet I've ever run into itty bitty groups way out there. And it's a 223....

Simple; I don't need a scope of any sort just now with three "good" ones sitting idle, and this one's specs don't cut it for me, so I'd be doing it just to find out something I don't need to know. For $300, I could get three Hawke Endurance 2-7s (4.5 inches of ER) from Doug, and know what I was getting into. You go ahead though, since it seems important to you.

Scott, could you compare the glass to any other scope? Worse than x or better than y.

Nope . I won't ever own another sfp scope, but I did the exact thing I told you to do with the ss 3x15. Bought one when they first came out,and have shot the crap out of it ever since. Piles of critters and lots of lr steel. Same with the 3x9. I can make confident assertions on both. The reason, I have shot them alot. ,way more than typing about them

It is 117F in the shade here, so it was a nice quiet day at the range with all the snowflakes hiding indoors.

I set up the production SS UL on my 223 AR and put about a 100 rounds downrange. 20 or so from the bench and the rest standing, sitting, etc.

As configured, with the scope and silng, but no magazines, it is 7.6lbs:


The receivers, BCG and the barrel are not lightweighted, soIf I really wanted to build a dedicated ultralight AR, I can probably get it to weigh around 6lbs together with this scope.

One interesting thing to keep in mind is that with its eye relief as is, you do not have to use a one piece mount. There is plenty of rail space to use a two ring set-up. I do not have any 1" rings of appropriate height, but I will be getting one on order shortly. For now, it is in an ultralight mount that I am not a big fan of, but it works well enough.

ILya

Nice....

I suspect you are in the Phoenix area....

I'm not too far SE of you if so....

I am on the outskirts of Los Angeles, Greg.

Here is a summary of my first impressions with some pictures:
http://opticsthoughts.com/?p=2258

ILya

So SWFA is adding a BDC reticle? That's the first step in the right direction. Now they just need to give it functional eye relief.

I may buy one for my Colt 6720. It does have the ultralight barrel. That would free up the Kahles CL 2-7 I use on it now for a different light weight rifle.

Can anyone tell me the name of this forearm? I have seen them on rifles and thought it might be nice for my Colt.

Maybe I was a bit confident in my locale, should have said desert Southwest....

R H Clark ,Probably a brigand arms hand guard

Yep. That 3-9 is impressive, but its price is close enough to the SHV, which is a better hunter IMHO, that I'd likely go with that instead. The 3-9 is on sale now, which would be tempting, if I had any money left, which I don't this month.

Appreciate it.

Good review. This morning I decided to remount the scope on my Mini using the picatinny rail Ruger provided instead of the Ruger ring mounts. It works much better and made it easier to get behind the scope.

Correct. That's the lightest handguard I know of. This way I can have a medium weight barrel and maintain the balance I like.

The barrel is a 16" SPR profile from AR15Performance (0.8" behind the gas block, 0.72" in front).

A Faxon ultralight barrel is a pound lighter, for reference.

ILya

I don't understand though why they didn't just use the MOA Quad retcile design that they already have.

I can see their thinking in going with a BDC instead of the MOA Quad, in that the purpose of this scope isn't really to dial, so having matching reticle and adjustments isn't of utmost importance. Another reason to go with a BDC over an MOA reticle is that an MOA reticle isn't intuitive for shooting at specific yardages, where bullet drop would match up to say 300 and 400 yards. A MIL reticle, on the other hand, will often fall into place quite nicely with intuitive yardages. For example, an average 168 grain 308 load or 75 grain 223 load can be easily sighted in to where one mil low = 300 yards, two mils low = 400, and so on, which makes for a really intuitive BDC reticle. A reticle with MOA graduations isn't going to fall in line so nicely.

Though the above paragraph is a moot point when it comes to this scope, as a person will have a hard time figuring out what hash mark to use when they're in fear of being whacked in the dome with the eyepiece every time the trigger is touched off. The short eye relief is a completely asinine design - making the scope useless for the vast majority of users, all to try and save an ounce.

^ What he said but I would prefer to keep the small ocular diameter & I think you could do that & have usable eye relief at the expense of a decrease in FOV.

Assuming the scope is reliable & has decent optics I would be a buyer w/either a PLEX or BDC reticle if it just had close to 3.5" of eye relief @ all power settings & it wouldn't bother me if the magnification topped out @ 8X or it weighed a couple of ounces more.

Excellent post. Agree on all counts, especially the 'short eye relief is a completely asinine design-making the scope useless for the vast majority of users, all to try and save an ounce " part.

I can't quite figure out if they are planning more reticles or not. That BDC reticle I posted a drawing of is definitely happening. I am going to do my best to get them to add to reticle options, but I make no promises.

Having played with it a little now, I think I am pretty clear with what the scope is intended for and I am good with that. I think that is a reasonable niche to pursue. Why the decided to not pursue a general big game hunting market with it, I do not know, but given how saturated that market is I am not surprised they are going for something a little more specialized. Whether that is a good idea or not, only time will tell. As I looked through all the different potentially comparable scope options out, I realized that there really isn't much out there in this weight range.

Leupold used to have a few offerings, but their number was really cur down when they consolidated a bunch of stuff into the VX Freedom line.

I think SWFA has found a pretty decent market niche with this scope.

Re-designing it for more eye relief effectively means making a new scope. It is not a simple matter and I do not see that happening any time soon unless they decide to add a second model.

ILya

I see a very limited niche with that eye relief

You know they have an app for that, actually several and they seem to work pretty well. Seems to me an MOA system will mirror pretty closely to what you can do with a MIL system, but the yards or meters per dot/hash might not be the same. All it boils down to is I don't want a BDC reticle calculated for some cartridge I might not be using, I'd rather just have a plain MIL or MOA reticle where I figure it out.

What was the market niche that couldn’t equally be filled if the scope had another inch of eye relief and ounce of weight? I don’t buy that the ultralight AR builders would flock to this scope over one with more eye relief. Besides, if that was the intended market, why didn’t SWFA market it as such? Could’ve called it the “Ultralight AR Special”.

If the scope had decent eye relief and they put a good BDC reticle in it or made it mil/mil, I’d certainly buy one to try....and if it proved to be reliable I’d buy at least another three more without hesitation. As it is, I have zero interest. Hopefully they’ll come out with something different to meet the needs of the “precision hunter” and “everyday hunter” niches, which are an awfully large contingent of folks, and I suspect they could find some market share with such a scope.

The "niche" is nothing more than an afterthought.....

Shame it's such a swing and a miss. I would change things about their other offerings but like them well enough to use multiples of each. I can't think of a reason to buy this scope.

Yep, I’ve used MOA reticles and they pretty much suck for this use, as the yardages turn out to be something like “1 MOA low = 243 yards, 2 MOA = 282 yards, 3 MOA = 319 yards, 4 MOA = 355 yards, 5 MOA = 389 yards,” which translates into a big confusing mess in the heat of the moment when an animal is about to step over the ridge, and you accidentally aim with the wrong hash mark. By the way, those are the drops for a 308/168/200 yard zero.

BDC reticles like the LR Duplex certainly aren’t perfect, but they’re simple and work pretty well for big game with most reasonable speed/reasonable BC cartridges. For example, a 2” high @ 100 sight in with the same load as above in my environmental conditions ends up with 1st dot = about 310, 2nd dot = 400, top of post = 500. Easy to remember and fast to get on target when you’re tired, cold, and have minimal time to make a shot on a big bull elk that hesitated for a second before topping the ridge before leaving the country.

Overall, Mil/Mil is where it’s at. Use as a BDC, or for the normal ranging/dialing/spotting purposes.

I strongly suspect you are correct.

Disregard-posted this in the wrong thread.

This^^^

Miniscule eye relief has killed this scope. RJ

Exactly.

The smaller diameter objective would allow the bolt on my 1955 22LR Marlin to clear. Not sure the 100 yd parallax would be optimal for a 22LR though. There is a niche for you......

I had it on my 10/22 for a bit when I was playing with the prototype and it worked well enough, but at 10x, the image is not at optimal sharpness at 50 yards. Once you dial it down a touch, it seems fine. For a plinker 22LR scope it should work fine. I spent some time shooting offhand at varying distances, most of it between 2.5x and 4x and it worked quite well.

I do agree that 100 yards parallax setting makes a better fit for larger/faster rimfires like the 22WMR et al.

ILya

I won't argue that one, I prefer a MIL/MIL scope as well.