going to fix the eye relief problem on their ultralight. Want to replace a few Leupolds before they give up the ghost in the field.

That is all they are missing for my needs.

Same day Barrett introduces the Fieldcraft in 280ai.

And agree. I would like to see that as well.

Maybe about the same time they start using their 1-4x short turrets on the fixed power models.

So much trashing of Leupold on this site. Now, they all have to be replaced before they fail in the field.

SWFA is a small operation. I think sometimes people forget they aren't a major optics company. They sell firearms, optics and accessories.

None of my SWFA's have failed so far. Owned them for a while. I have had 7 broken leupies from my Weatherby's so far. Four on my 378 and 2 were MK4's

They won't be changing anything
That scope is just a re badged Sightron with a few grooves milled in the ocular housing
That in itself is good because those scopes are rock solid, I have used one extensively for over 10 years and never even noticed the eye relief until it was cried about on here.

It ain't crying, but OK.

The current Ultralight is not intended for hard kickers, although I do agree that it is a very nice little scope (as was the little Sightron that was mentioned earlier).

I do not think SWFA is quite done introducing new hunting scopes, but I suspect a lot depends on market response to scopes out there now. I assure you, they pay attention to what people say. Still, they introduce products one at a time and focus on getting them right, which takes time.

I know what I would like to see next and I gave them my feedback. We'll see what they decide to do.

ILya

I got one of the ultralights this week. I will have a harder time seeing the tiny turret than seeing the reticle in twilight.

What did you mount it on

Ever thought that swfa might not see the issue with the scope. And they wanted it that way

So far nothing.
I built 6 rifles in the last month.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...ing-rifles-for-october-hunt#Post13124567
I leave to go hunting in a couple weeks.
That scope's only hope for 2018 is if I put a Husq Mauser action together with a Bartlein barrel, Timney trigger, 2 position M70 safety, and a Bordon stock.. this week.
I have the reamers and the Bartleins to make that a 25-06, 6.5-06, or 280AI. I would be inclined to do the 280AI.

Might not be exactly what they wanted, but it obviously was okay for them, especially as opposed to having something new worked up at their expense. There's probably more like that out there than one would suppose. Still looks like a reasonable choice for .22s or other light kickers for those who don't need high power and brightness at the same time.

Should have parallax adjustment if meant for .22, huh?

Correct. This scope was intended this way. Now, that does not mean they will not have some other models aimed at a different market niche. However, this particular design will get a new BDC reticle shortly.

ILya

I have never designed and sold rifle scopes so what is the advantage to such a short eye relief? I believe that is the chief complaint about this scope. So is it not possible to build this scope "for its intended purpose" and give it more eye relief to gain more customers?

If Castle_Rock is correct and this is just a cosmetic redo of an existing scope, that would explain the design. Can't just snap your fingers and change the eye-relief; everything's connected as they say. If, on the other hand, it's new, then the ER is either a compromise to achieve the other optical goals, or a giant boo-boo that will turn some buyers away, but obviously not all. Like it or lump it; buy it or don't; can't see them changing it now.

Castle Rock is wrong.

There is a Sightron that is physically similar in many regards, but the specs are wildly different.

weight, diameter, travel, eye-relief are all vastly different...all expect weight favor or the Sightron btw.

Dave

Somebody was out of focus the day they reviewed the ER specs.

I think you might find that I am correct if you do a bit of research, there have been a couple of Sightron models in the 2-10 range

I emailed them and got a response. For now at least this is the only ultralight they will offer.

It won't be the first time I'm wrong, but I'll be damned if I can find anything in their current line-up that mirrors the SWFA, other than what I already eluded to. Care to enlighten me with what scope your speaking of?

Castlerock is referring to a now discontinued Sightron SII 2.5-10x32 Compact that they used to make several years ago. I have one for a while and then gave it to a friend of mine who still has it on a 7.62x54R boltgun. Great little scope.


Castlerock is referring to a now discontinued Sightron SII 2.5-10x32 Compact that they used to make several years ago. I have one for a while and then gave it to a friend of mine who still has it on a 7.62x54R boltgun. Great little scope.

The current somewhat similar offering that Sightron has is the S-Tac 2-10x32. The S-Tac is a very decent scope, but it is built on a 30mm tube and weighs 16 ounces. It is still very compact and comes with very generous and flexible eye relief. The plex reticle is about same size as in the SWFA SS ultralight, while HHR2 gives you a BDC and a some MOA ranging hashmarks.

ILya

I can smoke they made something close several years ago....but I was fairly certain nothing available today was a "rebadged" Sightron.



p.s. Looked up an article about the "compact" sightron (no longer available) you mentioned. Looks like even it had considerably more eye-relief than the SWFA....3.5-3.8 if Randy Wakeman is to be believed.

I was ready to buy one over labor day weekend when they had their 10% off sale but then read about BDC reticle coming soon..

While I do not thin there is anything re-badged there, if memory serves me right, the little SIghtron had less eye relief than Randy claimed. If I were to make a guess off of my recollections, I'd say around three inches and Midway still has a "discontinued" webpage for it that lists it as 2.9 - 3.6".

ILya

They need ta come out with a 3-9x40 hunting scope.

SWFA guts in a Leupold 6x42 body, low elevation knob, MQ, capped windage. $299. They wouldn't be able to keep them in stock.

I'd be in for several. For my hunting, I'd prefer a heavier subtensioned reticle with closer spacing of the heavy posts than the current two.....but I love the current two on targets and at distance.

I looked that Sightron up. Looks decent, but I have no notion of how reliable they are. One reviewer liked it pretty well, but the finish marked up very easily. For $50 more, I'd get a closeout Tract Tekoa 2-10 T-plex, and carry a few extra ounces. That T-plex is an excellent hunting reticle, with the posts coming in close to center, unlike a lot of duplexes that might as well be crosshairs.

yes please!

It’s the scope everyone on the Campfire (myself included) has been begging for, but no one seems capable/inclined to make. I’ve given up hope it’ll ever happen, and use a 3-9SS as the next best option.

+ add illumination, reduce the ocular diameter, and apply a hydrophobic coating to the lenses...

...and double the price.

Double the price again and make it a 3-12x42mm and/or 50mm FFP variable.

Just to be clear, SWFA 6x guts are a little overbuilt to make it survive constant turret twisting and parallax adjustment and probably will not fit in a Leupold 6x42 body.

If you reduce ocular diameter, you reduce FOV.

In the grand scheme of things, none is inclined to make it because there is not enough market for it, unless you are all going to buy a hundred of them each.

ILya

It can be 30mm

It can, but fundamentally it is still a matter of someone believing that there is enough of the market for it. The reason SWFA SS scopes do so well is that they appeal to both tactical and hunting markets to a reasonable degree. Within the tactical world SWFA has a bit more name recognition, but they seem to be getting better known within the hunting world as well. Perhaps, this is the time to expand their hunting line and they seem to think so too, hence the 2.5-10x32 Ultralight that they introduced. Whether you agree with it or not, it is definitely aimed at the hunting market and it definitely the first SWFA-branded product aimed primarily at hunters, albeit more at AR and intermediate caliber applications than the traditional hunting world.

Perhaps, we will see more of the hunting specific products from them. That having been said, is I were to offer an advice to them, I would not elect to introduce a fixed 6x scope for the hunting world. I'd go with a a variable of moderate mag range and with known good internals so that it can be offered in a variety of options with covered turrets, exposed elevation turret, different reticles, etc. Personally, I would also really want a FFP version, but I am probably alone on that.

If I were to configure a near perfect general purpose scope with hunting an occasional precision shooting in mind, I would likely go for a 2-10x or similar FFP design in as light of a package as possible, with a simple illuminated dot, a small tree reticle, a covered windage turret and an exposed low profile elevation turret.

Burris XTR II 2-10x42 is somewhat close, but a bit heavy and the reticle is not ideal. A very solid scope otherwise.

ILya

The development of the Super Chicken didn't have much to do with the type of hunting most have in mind. At least 4 legged animals.

My ideal scope is the current 3-9x42 HD with both turrets capped. It can be FFP or SFP - if I'm shooting far enough to use the reticle, the scope will be on 9x anyway. To me, the current 3-9 is very close to perfect.

If SWFA had designed the 2.5-10 with "normal" eye relief, it would've worked just as well for AR guys, but also worked for a wide variety of other hunters. As it is, it's really only practical for 22s and the small market of AR guys who want as light as possible variable "hunting" scope. If they would've designed the scope with more eye relief, it would've tapped into the much larger ultralight hunting market.

For a general use hunting scope, all SWFA needs to do is put a low profile, capped windage adjustment on their 3-9, and add a zero stop to the elevation. Some more eye relief would also be nice (~3.75-4" at 9x). If they want an ultralight hunting scope, build the 2.5-10 with generous eye relief and matching turrets/reticle.

Pretty much agree. I own 2 of the 3-9x42. I would prefer them in second focal plane. The reticle on 9X is great for hunting. IMO it gets pretty hard to see in timber under 6X.

Great scope the 3x9hd. I have it on my 300 WBY. But it is no lightweight

[img]https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/80155.jpg[/img]

The profile of this scope and the specifications seem identical
I am a big fan of SWFA scopes and they are on my two main working rifles, I hope they don't mind me speculating like this but I am doing it because I love that scope, and believe that they wouldn't be backing this design if they didn't think it was worthy
I just moved the Sightron to my CZ 452 this weekend because I wanted a scope that I could use low mounts on which is difficult with the high handle on the CZ

That is the scope I have on that 260AI now, it certainly is heftier than the 2.5-10 Sightron

Bump for iddave, I forgot it had a run on my 270

Yup!

I'll grant you that it looks pretty physically similar Castle....even if the specs don't mesh up.

I stand by my statement it (SWFA UL) isn't a rebadged Sightron, but then again the world would be pretty boring if we all saw things the same way.

That's a pretty clean little Ruger you got there. Very nice.