Anyone have? Like or not?
Thanks

Can`t believe not one sold so far, with folks looking for light weight variable scopes. Not much on the web about them either.

There was a used one in the 24hr classifieds a few weeks back...

You apparently missed the discussion about the very short eye relief, which makes it a poor choice for anything with appreciable recoil, despite its other (assumed) SWFA charms. I like all I can get, and a scope that won't allow me to rack the bolt without ducking is a no-go. Probably fine on an AR or .22.

I have one, and so far like it. The adjustments are dead-nuts, which are more important to me than optics, but the optics are pretty decent as well.

The eye relief is a little short at maximum magnification, but not nearly as bad as many make it out to be. SWFA lists 2.6" at 10x, which is exactly what it measures on my scope. This sounds pretty short, but a LOT of popular variables in that range don't have ER much longer. Most shooters simply aren't aware of it.

The very popular 3-9x40 Burris FFII, for example, averages 2.75" on 9x. (I have several 3-9x FFII's, and that's what they all measure.) Even my pair of Nightforce 3-10x42 SHV's measure 3.1" on 10x. Both the Burrises and SHV's have proven more than sufficient on rifles that recoil with 30+ foot-pounds.

The only thing that bothers me slightly so far is the relatively wide space between the posts of the plex-type reticle. This seems to be a trend among plex reticles these days, exactly why I don't know, because on quite a few scopes the "posts" are so far apart you might as well use plain crosshairs. Luckily, the SWFA's reticle isn't that widely spaced.
.
I put it on a very accurate Tikka T3 Super Lite in .260 Remington, and it's working great so far. Will report more as shooting continues, probably on some other rifles as well.

That makes it sound like a good choice for my 10/22 CSC. The 6x42 SS on it now is a bit heavy, and the adjustable comb would let me get right behind it.

Glad to hear the knobs work correctly.

They are tiny scopes!

They are so light and tiny they feel like a toy. I agree on the eye relief deal not being that bad

Thinking that a 2.5-8X of the same would be perfection.

Good rimfire scope unless you like 2.5 inches of eye relief .

Who uses a Fullfield II as their gold standard ? Not I.

Who said anything about the 3-9x FFII being a "gold standard"?

I merely pointed out that it was very popular. I know a bunch of people who use them on rifles up to .300 magnums. Most hunters crank their scopes all the way up when sighting-in, yet I haven't heard any of them complain about getting whacked by their scope.

A LOT of variables don't have pretty short eye relief when cranked all the way up. Many shooters don't know this because many scope companies only list the MAXIMUM eye relief on variables, which on every variable I've measured is at the lowest magnification.

2.75" wouldn't cut it for me on a 308, let alone a 300 mag. Maybe I've more of a bobblehead when firing.

also I would add this to mule deer's comments. why are we worshiping at the holy alter of eye relief. if its so awesome why aren't we all running scout scopes? there are downsides to more than what is needed eye relief. 1) and no one ever says this, the further the image from your eyes the smaller the object in the scope appears. I noticed this after using japanese optics like bushnell elites and nightforce, when I would switch back to leupold. I kept looking and checking the power ring on the leupold and thinking is this scope turned up all the way. longer eye relief is generally more critical to get behind and allows more stray light to influence the image. I personally would probably limit this SWFA scope to 270 win or less. but the reality is if you are having trouble with getting hit by any scope with over 3" of eye relief you don't have the optic mounted correctly for the way you hold the gun, OR you are holding the gun improperly. OR heck just you less gun. with modern bullets you don't need a 300 ultra boomer anymore anyways.

I've never considered myself the sharpest pencil in the box but if people would learn to lock their face onto the stock when they shoot they wouldn't get hit in the forehead by the scope.

I guess skill is less important than gadgets these days.

I have one of the Ultralights as well and I tested three prototypes for SWFA as they were going through the BDC reticle development.

I really like this little scope and the one I have here has been on a good range of rifle varying from 22LR to 7.62x54R and it never hit me in the face with any of them. It is still less eye relief than I would want on a kicker, but aside from that, it seems perfectly serviceable.

The rimfire version with 50 yard parallax should be coming soon as is the BDC reticle. The BDC reticle is bolder than the plex, so it will be better in low light.

ILya

Well thanks guys for all the input. Looking to place one on my 7x57. Use would be for woods hunting here in northern Wi.

I`m reading FOV at 2.5x, 100 yrds is 47 Ft. Is that correct?

Thanks again

Yep. Burris FFIIs pretty much suck for eye relief, and you couldn't give me a scope with less eye relief, especially if it were to be used on anything generating more than single digit recoil.

Just when I thought you couldn't dig your idiocy hole any deeper...

Swfa memorial sale has them marked down to $279

A rimfire model will be very tempting, especially on sale days. It appears to have plenty of tube, and a small eyepiece, both very helpful.

I can do okay with a 100yd parallax setting on lower powers with a .22, but at 10x it might be a problem.

I have used a lot of different scopes on various rifles. I have never had a scope get me, under any circumstances. I have always been puzzled on how people keep getting hammered by a recoiling scope. I tend to think that longer eye relief may not make a difference, if you are mounted wrong on the rifle.

👍🤣🤣

At 10x it starts losing sharpness at about 60-70 yards. To shoot groups at 50 yards, I dial it down to 8x or so.

Rimfire model will rectify that.

ILya

Finally took the plunge and got my hands on one of these. Glad I did and ignored the concerns about eye relief. Once I saw Mule Deer post about it not being as bad as its being made out to be I picked one up. 3 shots from bore sight to sight in (should have been two but yours truly adjusted the windage the wrong direction between #1 and #2 shot like an idiot.

Anyways eye relief is a non issue for me on this rifle granted its a little 6.5 CM but still for a niche rifle like this is a perfect fit.



Even comes in under advertised weight

Damn that's light!!! I agree more folks should listen to reliable sources

Interesting scope, also curious about the similar maven. What sort of rig is that your scope is on ?

As Alaska stated eye-relief is a non issue, I mounted mine on a Tikka rimfire--perfect fit.

How du you keep it from bobbing up against the roof of the safe? Ankers awaay?

More info please.

Unbelievably impressive light weight for a scoped high power bolt action rifle.

Ilya, do you have idea when the BDC model will be released?

June, I think.

Thanks.

Mounting length is advertised at 5.8, anybody have one of these on a long action without reversible mounts? If so, hows it working out?

Hope you keep us up to date on how it works for you.

Will do!! Just worked up a load with 130 ELDM out of the 16.5” barrel. 2780 fps. To verify load I shot 3 then went from zero to top of elevation back to zero (58 moa total in just Talley with no canted base so the 70 moa claim is VERY conservative) 3 times and put it back on zero and it was exactly where I left it. This load is just barely sub MOA during load work up and the two 3 shot groups (I know not a real indication of anything) but should work well for the 400 yard and in this rifle is going to be doing. If I want to shoot at distance consistently I have better tools for that job.

Overall still glad I got it and a perfect match to this little rifle. Someday I hope they put a MOA QUAD or better yet make this thing MILs which I know isn’t likely gonna happen but a guy can dream

What is that rifle. Am I reading the scale right at 4lb 13.1 oz.? I love toting lightweight rifles. That is why I like single shots. Looks like that would be a joy to carry.

Liking mine on a BFC 6 creed. A CH shy of 6 pds ... not as light as lanche’s montana but I think I’m less than 17 Benjy’s into it for the whole package.

Yeah it’s 4.1 pounds ( 4 pounds 2 oz naked) but it used to be 3 pounds 9 oz when it was a 358 win and a fluted barrel. I went with a slightly heavier contour, haven’t fluted the barrel yet, and of course going from a 358 diameter bore to a 264 diameter leaves a lot more metal (weight) on the barrel.

But I can now suppress it and it is a bit kinder in recoil so it’s all a trade off.

Shot it in any position other than on the bench to assure eye relief will work in a field environment?

That is too cool

Prone off a pack and sitting off a pack as well as sitting arms on my knees and of course standing unsupported.

Likley some part of a function of shooting with a suppressor knocks down some of the recall as well and it’s only shooting 130 elds at just under 2800 fps isn’t a crazy recoil generator even in a 5.6 pound scoped/suppressed rifle.

Hope that helps.

Was that rebarrel job done by the fellow out here in the valley? Thinking about having a rifle rebarreled

I am really thinking about one of these for the 358 Winchester

Apparently, the version of the 2.5-10x32 SS with BDC reticle just landed at SWFA, so they have all three types in stock:

- original 2.5-20x32 with Plex reticle and 100 yard parallax
- new rimfire version with Plex reticle and 50 yard parallax
- new BDC reticle version with 150 yard parallax.

When I tested the prototype of the BDC reticle, I thought there was just a touch more parallax error at 500 yards than I liked, so I asked the to make it set for 150 yard. That should make the BDC tree work better.

I'll take a look at a production scope with BDC reticle next week.

ILya

Might have to give one a try with the BDC.

Do you have the subtensions for that reticle? I poked around a little on SWFA's site but couldn't find them.

Thanks, Ilya, I've been waiting for that.

I fully agree with that. I like compact scopes and this little bugger has really been growing on me. Besides, so far these seem to be holding up very nicely.

ILya

ILya,

Good news on the BDC reticle. Am looking forward to your report.

They shoot off bags until a hunt requires them to lean forward over something in a position approaching prone or a sharp uphill shot with their scope closer to their nose or brow.

Man, I'd have trouble keeping that rig from trying to stick to me.

What does this scope offer better than a M8 6x36?

I've played with the prototype, so I have some mileage with the reticle. I just want to see it in a proper production scope.

They did a clever thing with the reticle by making the lines in the holdover portion of the reticle thinner than the primary aiming point. That way, the main aiming dot stands out a little better and the whole thing really works well in low light.

My only contribution to this scope is the 150 yard parallax. I could never figure out why hunting scopes with BDC reticle are not focused a little further out. It really helps with parallax when you are using holdover, while at closer distances, the difference is negligible, especially on lower power.

ILya

SU35,

Adjusts easily and correctly.

Ouch.

Well for a start it has 2.5 and 10 power options, and a better reticle than any thing out of Beaverton

I have a lightweight 22 that I want to put the rimfire version on, but I'm kind of holding out for a BDC rimfire version. Any word/rumors on something like that?

Not that I am aware of.

ILya

Thanks!

It is interesting that the top and side posts are heavier and it will help in low light. The lower post and associated drops are thin enough to help with precision at longer distances. I need to pick one up and give it a go.....

Agreed. The Maven is 2-10x38, about 1.5 inches longer and about 2 ounces heavier, Japanese glass and decent 3 inch constant eye relief. From what I understand, Maven is like Tract in that they are a direct supplier. About the only downside to that is the lifetime warranty is moot if the business goes under, but that's the chance we take with any business. Try to get a Western-Auto lifetime guaranteed tool fixed today. Anyway, I'm wondering how these two scopes compare as well.

Ilya:

Don't want to make assumptions...units on reticle diagram are MOA? Since the scope is 2nd FP, units are for 10x?

Scott

Wholly subjective.

At 10x mounted on my Ti/280 AI, I'm afraid my eyebrow would not like it very much.
Also, At 6x I can do anything a lesser x can.

This is the real question here..

Best answer here so far, and only advantage....

Correct.

ILya

Yeah, this reticle looks like it was designed with hunters in mind (And there isn't many anymore).
I would be interested in seeing one in person.

I have not tested the Maven RS2, but I liked RS1. RS2 has something funky going on with the specs as I recall. FOV specs not matching or something like that. I remember making a note to look into that, but I havn't had a chance yet. Generally, with RS2 being a couple of hundred dollars more expensive, it is not really that direct of a comparison. Still, I will need to get my hands on one with IHR reticle and test it. I don't use MOA reticles very much, so I will need to find the time when I have a few MOA scopes on hand to do a side by side.

In general, I want this category of scopes to proliferate further. I do not think there are enough of them and I have been trying to convince manufacturers to keep them in production. Unfortunately, these are seldom big sellers, so bean counters do not like them. I have two Vortex HD LH 1.5-8x32 scopes, a couple of SWFA's SS Ultralight 2.5-10x32, and an older Bushnell Elite 6500 1.5-8x32 (for scout-type applications). I am trying to convince one of the high end-ish scope companies to make a very premium tweener scopes. Hopefully, they will make one. That is a niche that is largely empty at the moment. I think a truly high end scope of this type could do well in a broad range of applications.

As far as being a direct supplier goes, both Maven and Tract do the same thing as SWFA has been doing way before: work directly with the factory and sell the scope themselves. That has always been the business model for SWFA's SS scopes.

ILya

OUCH!

In the higher end bracket, the 2.5-10x32 NXS is a likable scope especially for those who like to dial. It's no longer in production though....and is of course heavier.

Have since used the original duplex SWFA dialed out to 500-600 yards a few times now. Yes even prone up hill shooting the 4.8 pound (including scope and rings) rifle. Eye relief is plenty and not an issue for me atleast. Glad JB (Muledeer) expressed this as not being a huge issue and blown out of proportion.

The scope seems to dial and RTZ just fine. While the BDC is cool a MOA QUAD reticle is still way better for my uses, maybe somday? (Insert Aerosmith's "Dream On")

Got this fella as the last of 17 deer our group were able to bag in 6 days. Good times had by all and still def digging this little scope for this little rifle. My wife and I will be using this setup on caribou later this month.

How is the standard plex in low light? The standard plex looks a little thin in Ilya’’s review. The BDC appears heavier. Agree with the MAO or Mil quad!

Details on the rifle? **Found the details on the rifle. Forgot you had it earlier in the thread**

Thanks; that's very useful information, not the usual speculation (which I've done myself a time or two, no doubt!).

Now I'm gonna have to figger out which rifle "needs" one, since all are satisfactorily scoped at the moment. Maybe a .22.

Anyone got a photo of this scope without the turret caps?

Is there anything in particular you want to see of the adjustment turrets?

Just wondering how the turrets are marked and if they have plenty on room to dial and maybe add a turret label from custom turret systems?

https://opticsthoughts.smugmug.com/Optics/SWFASSUL/n-fPQ957/i-Pb63gD6

So recently I've had some time to wring out my SWFA ULTRALIGHT a bit more! Turns out the 100 yd advertised parralax is way off at least on the one I've received being more like 40 yds! For me this is a deal breaker because I intended to use the scope to hunt and dial out to 500 yds on a lightweight rig. With the parralax being set on 40 yds I can't get this thing to focus at 200 yds worth a damn and it gets worse further out. My next move is seeing if I can get the parralax nut loose and I'll set it closer to 150 yds. Anyone else experiencing this problem?



Trystan

Why don’t you just call SWFA?

Sounds like you got a rimfire version.

Thanks Form! When I ordered mine I didn't even know they had a rimfire version. Is the rimfire version a recent addition? I ordered my scope on the black Friday sale last November

PS: I'm intending on setting parralax to 150 ish yds regardless so would be doing that with either one! I'm guessing the rimfire version is the same scope just parralax adjusted to 50 instead of 100?

The rimfire is a recent addition. They did not have it back in November.

Did you adjust the eyepiece correctly for your eye? This is a common problem if the eyepiece is not set-up correctly.

If that does not help, I am sure they will swap it out for you.

ILya

Thanks!

ILya, yes I adjusted the eyepiece properly and even smudged just a bit in an attempt to get some kind of focus at 200 yds. When I achieved focus at 200 yds the reticle line was thin, faded, and blurry. I attempted focus at 200 yds with the scope turned up to 6 power

I will give SWFA a call tomarro


Trystan

I don’t find it too thin. Shot it at distance at 10 pm the other evening without issue picking up the reticle in the dark rock I was shooting at.

Will likely pick up the BDC version for my wife if there is a Black Friday sale for that model in a few months. However no rush to get rid of the 3-10 weaver that is currently on hers.

A question for those who own or have used this scope, since the size is comparable to the VX3i 2.5x8 in size how do the optics compare in clarity and low light resolution?

Thanks for the specs on the reticle. I see yardage marks on the hold over points. What velocity and BC do they correspond to?

They had to use something as a baseline. Just wondering what it was?

The rimfire version is the exact same scope with only a different parallax and reticle? There's a $30 difference in price so I'm curious as to what else could be different.

The rimfire and standard model are the same price. The one with the extra marks on the reticle is more, as one would expect.

Got it. Thanks.

55gr 223/5.56

I will check my notes, but I think I used a government profile 55gr FMJ at 3150fps for the ballistics at some moderate altitude.

That's the most common plinking ammo. Out to 500 yards most 5.56 loads are pretty close.

ILya

...and the hash marks are similar to the MOA values used on the Leupold LR reticle with the scope is at the highest mag. It should also cover some pretty common hunting rounds with muzzle velocities in the 2700 to 2800 range, if I'm not mistaken. Plus, all the reports are that it tracks...

Thank you. Did you design the reticle?

No, not this one.

They pretty much had it worked out when I first saw it. I made a couple of very minor tweaks changed the specific BDC holds very slightly since the majority of 5.56 ARs out there have 16 or 18 inch barrels, so I re-worked the holds for slightly lower velocity to better correspond how typical commercial ammo behaves with barrels of this length range.

Then, I did some testing to make sure the holds work as planned.

Aside from begging them for a few years to make something light weight, that is pretty much the extent of my involvement with this scope. I hope it does well for them. I would like to see more variations of this design. There really aren't that many lightweight and durable variables out there and this one looks very promising to me.

My Ultralight with the BDC reticle just arrived, but I have to go on a work trip until Friday, so I will start testing it when I return.

ILya

I found my original notes:



ILya

Arriving today for my build was

Talley Lightweight 2-Piece Scope Mounts with Integral Rings Remington 700
Product #: 735279 Talley #: 920700
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1781129972?pid=735279

The bell of the SWFA ultralight interfered with the scope ring when I tried to move the scope all the way back. I cut some scope ring out of the way.

As you can see, the rem 700 short action 260 Rem rifle with scope weighs 6 pounds 15.5 ounces

That is after I tapered and shortened the Bartlein barrel down from 4 pounds to 2.2 pounds.

You must hold a rifle in a much different way than I do
This is essentially the same scope on the same action that I hunted quite a few seasons with

It looks like a Mil-Quad version of the 2.5-10x32 Ultralight is in the works.

ILya

Sweet! Any other changes to it?

Not that I am aware of, but I am sure we will know soon.

ILya

I think I’m going to put one on a mini Grendel. A mil quad and an adjustable AO or side focus would be sweet.

👏

I doubt we will see adjustable focus in this one.

Keep in mind that the three existing versions of this scope have different parallax settings. The rimfire is 50 yards, plex is 100 yards and BDC is 150 yards. I assume the MilQuad version will also have 150 yard parallax. That keeps it pretty decent parallax-wise out to 500-600.

ILya

When SWFA has their cyber sales late next month, I do believe I'm going to pick one up for my rimfire.

I have a CZ 527 chambered for 6.5 Grendel that I would love to have one of these on.

Be a good match. Both scopes I had on mine were too heavy for that little rifle, and one was also way too bulky. Both my FC and Alpine are lighter.

Do you still have your rifle? and if so, what do you shoot through it? Still haven't had a chance to shoot mine.

I couldn't wait for the big sale and grabbed one when they were 11% off and free shipping. Overall I like it but feel it has a short eye relief.

I did too.......soft mounted it in Talleys on a 700 short action, and the eye relief sucked.

I sent it back......

For a rimfire, doubt the ER would be a deal breaker.

Regardless of cartridge, I couldn't get a full field of view on 10X w/o seriously crawling the stock.

Darn eye relief

Since I posted to this thread I have been shooting an ultralight with BCD in 250 Sav and without BCD in 260 Rem.

What I noticed was the rear lens would fog up when I took it out of the truck in 27 degree weather.
Both of them.
I wiped them off with a kleenex and started shooting at 200 yard targets.

I had a VX6-HD with magnetic lens caps in 6.5-06 that did not fog up.

I killed a couple animals with the 6.5-06 at 250 yards and 450 yards. Not because of fog up, but better windbucking cartridge.

Awesome....does that mean the turret adjustments are going mil too??? Fingers crossed. I will be picking up two when they are actually released. Hopefully by tax day sale?

I don't have a timeline. I would assume we will see mrad adjustments.

ILya

I put one on my stubby 6 Creedmoooo Fieldcraft. No issues with eye relief. Can't say I'm too impressed with the glass though.

Be a dandy AR optic with MQ. If I can cope with ER it would make a perfect optic for a couple Montana's and my k-hornet

Any updates on the release of the mil quad version?

I havn't talk to the in a while, so I am not sure. Getting a new reticle made usually take some time.

ILya

For the time being....haven’t shot it yet as it’s for a 243, not bad if you don’t mind creeping up a little.

Horrific scope for offhand hunting.

No doubt the deer I shot this fall agree with you Nor does the caribou, but I admit that was prone off a pack.

Still can't get over rolling out a scope like this with such horrid eye relief. It could have been the answer to the discontinued Zeiss Conquest 2.5-8x32.

So in short, not a 1 second shot, thanks for proving my point. God knows how skittish those Sitka's are.

I picked up one of these on the Black Friday sale, and can't understand this thing about eye relief. I don't have it mounted yet, but playing around with it looking across the street at objects 500 yards away, the eye relief seems fine. So far the glass seems fine up to 8x. past that to 10x, the picture gets a slight bit distorted, but still usable.

I think I am going to mount this on my 6.8 AR and move the VX3 2.5-8 from it over to a Ruger #1 in 338wm. I really don't anticipate any problems using this scope off hand, which about half of my shots are.

Girlhunter obviously has a lot of experience with this scope. Tell us more.

He’s probably going to be picking up his FIL at the airport any day now and can tell us all about it.

In my experience, most hunters have no clue about the actual eye relief of any of their scopes--or how to measure it, and thus how it might matter one way or another.

Anyone have experience with this scope other than being hateful? I mounted one on my brothers rifle but no experience as of yet.

I bought one on sale a couple of weeks ago and put on my Fieldcraft 6.5X55 and never gave the eye relief a second thought. Not a big kicker, but fair recoil in a very light rifle. I didn't even know there was a problem with eye relief until I read this.So far I like it, tracks great and appears to have decent glass. Shot about 25 @ 10X off the bench and didn't need one band aid! Nice scope Waiting for the next sale to get a couple more.

👍

Yes. On a 6x45 (shown) and a 25-204. I like them....even when shooting offhand, LOL. Mine are both duplex. I would NOT use them on a heavy kicker.

You seem more than happy with rifle you bought off me.

Do you need to know Pythagorean's theorem to know your ladder is too short to reach the roof?

John, you've had good things to say about this one and also the Burris FF II 3-9x40. Other than the few extra ounces the Burris weighs, is there a compelling reason to choose this one over the FF, or is too early to say?

Thanks.

John, I hope you don't get frustrated with the questions I often ask you, but when I think I can learn, I get inquisitive. Let's take this hunter for example.

I tend to stay further back on the stock than most people I know. Right or wrong, that's my position of comfort. In order to be where I like to be, rather than craning in, it takes a scope with what I call good eye relief. Something in Redfield Revolution/Leupold VX-2 range. Those scopes have an advertised 4+ inches of eye relief. I switch over to guns with scopes closer to the 3 inch range and I have to crane forward to get the right picture. In my layman's terms the scopes with greater eye relief are easier to get behind and I am further back on my stock where I prefer to be when I get the picture I want. If it matters, most of my scopes are positioned as far back in the mounts as possible.

Am I missing something?

Yes! Love the rifle.

I mounted mine on a CZ 527 today. I'm one of those guys who has to mount scopes somewhat further back than most, so I started with the turret yoke almost against the back ring. Turned it up to 10x and find that there is plenty of eye relief, I actually can move the scope forward a bit and still be comfortable. Life is good.



The other nice thing is that since the ocular is small, there is over 1/4" clearance between it and the bolt handle, once DIP gets their LH rails back in stock I'll order one and get it a bit lower a la Dirtfarmer.

Merry Christmas, y'all.