SWFA question - 24hourcampfire

Are all the fixed SWFA's as good as the 6x Swfa????

6 & 10x are the sweet spot for a few reasons (it could be argued the 12x is as well).

Internal travel, fov and mirage when stuck at 16 and 20x mainly.

Plus the 20x doesn’t track. 🤠

Originally Posted by AKwolverine

Plus the 20x doesn’t track. 🤠

LOL. You just had to do that....didn't you?

I have a 12x and a 16x, mil mil on a Swede and a Creed no problems, but I seldom click, so they have a pretty easy life.

Originally Posted by Higbean

6 & 10x are the sweet spot for a few reasons (it could be argued the 12x is as well).

Internal travel, fov and mirage when stuck at 16 and 20x mainly.

Agreed 100%....

I’ve got 1000s of rounds under the 6-10x scopes with no complaints. Rumour is the Utah editions fail to track within tolerances, but I’m still waiting on the jungle gym test for confirmation.

Originally Posted by AKwolverine

Plus the 20x doesn’t track. 🤠

The ones I have track and hold zero just fine. I have 2 6x,2 10x, 1 16x 1nd a 20x.

As the magnification goes up the eyebox becomes smaller and the brightness fades as well.

The 20x seems to dial ok, according to my ballistic app I need a come up of 9.3 mils for 1160 yards, dial and hit.

Thanks guys

Originally Posted by Axtell

Originally Posted by AKwolverine

Plus the 20x doesn’t track. 🤠

The ones I have track and hold zero just fine. I have 2 6x,2 10x, 1 16x 1nd a 20x.

As the magnification goes up the eyebox becomes smaller and the brightness fades as well.

The 20x seems to dial ok, according to my ballistic app I need a come up of 9.3 mils for 1160 yards, dial and hit.

Backstory ...
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...fa-20x-static-tracking-test#Post14255347

What's the word on the 3-9X42. I have a 6X and absolutely love it for a range rifle. But 6X is just too much for most hunting here and there are times where 9x or 10X would be nice. I like mine well enough that I might try the 3-9X for more versatility. Thinking about mounting it in a Ruger Predator 6.5 CM to do double duty for hunting and punching paper at longish range.

And my nieces husband has a 20X he bought cheap off SWFA's sample list. For what he paid it's OK. But I'd rather have my 6X. I've had good luck with it out to 600 yards.

Originally Posted by joshf303

Originally Posted by Higbean

6 & 10x are the sweet spot for a few reasons (it could be argued the 12x is as well).

Internal travel, fov and mirage when stuck at 16 and 20x mainly.

Agreed 100%....

I’ve got 1000s of rounds under the 6-10x scopes with no complaints. Rumour is the Utah editions fail to track within tolerances, but I’m still waiting on the jungle gym test for confirmation.

Word is Utah Park & Rec put up signs saying anyone found with C-claps and a scope in their possession will be removed immediately.
😬😎

Scope molesters aren't allowed in public parks.... especially in Utah....

Originally Posted by JMR40

What's the word on the 3-9X42. I have a 6X and absolutely love it for a range rifle. But 6X is just too much for most hunting here and there are times where 9x or 10X would be nice. I like mine well enough that I might try the 3-9X for more versatility. Thinking about mounting it in a Ruger Predator 6.5 CM to do double duty for hunting and punching paper at longish range.

And my nieces husband has a 20X he bought cheap off SWFA's sample list. For what he paid it's OK. But I'd rather have my 6X. I've had good luck with it out to 600 yards.

The 3-9 is freaking awesome. If you like the 6X you would likely agree. Some say too much tunneling at 3X and consider it a 4-9. Subtension is the same at 6X IIRC as the 6X. It's better glass, and slightly smaller footprint, made in a different factory. I just can't consider it too big for anything but as with the others I rather have capped windage. CC has whined and bitched that the 3-9 is FFP for years, it's a good sign it works.

On the subject, 6, 10, and 12X Mil Quads are AOK. There's been many numerous threads here. Seldom are the 16 or 20 much recommended.

Originally Posted by MtnBoomer

Originally Posted by JMR40

What's the word on the 3-9X42. I have a 6X and absolutely love it for a range rifle. But 6X is just too much for most hunting here and there are times where 9x or 10X would be nice. I like mine well enough that I might try the 3-9X for more versatility. Thinking about mounting it in a Ruger Predator 6.5 CM to do double duty for hunting and punching paper at longish range.

And my nieces husband has a 20X he bought cheap off SWFA's sample list. For what he paid it's OK. But I'd rather have my 6X. I've had good luck with it out to 600 yards.

The 3-9 is freaking awesome. If you like the 6X you would likely agree. Some say too much tunneling at 3X and consider it a 4-9. Subtension is the same at 6X IIRC as the 6X. It's better glass, and slightly smaller footprint, made in a different factory. I just can't consider it too big for anything but as with the others I rather have capped windage. CC has whined and bitched that the 3-9 is FFP for years, it's a good sign it works.

On the subject, 6, 10, and 12X Mil Quads are AOK. There's been many numerous threads here. Seldom are the 16 or 20 much recommended.

Yup, except it’s the same subtension on all magnifications as the fixed 6, given that it’s an FFP reticle

Yah yah., that too... LOL

Have one 10x and two 20x mil-quads. All three track perfectly, repeatedly.

#goldstandard
#scientificmethod
#statisticsRmean

I believe the 3-9 is a better scope then the 6x