Has anyone tried both the SWFA 10x scopes, the Classic vs. the HD versions?

Is the HD a lot better? Is it worth the money over the Classic? What other differences are there beside glass?

I’ve used both. Glass is noticeably better on HD. Clicks are a little better on HD. HD turrets are splined instead of set screws. Parallax focuses closer on non-hd. Both track like they are supposed to. I got a good price on a used HD so it was worth it to me. SWFA’s Black Friday sale price makes it worthwhile too.

John

I don't own a 10x. I have just purchased a 3-9x with HD glass. I am impressed. I hope to use it on a heavy barrel 223 before the end of the month. My initial impressions from comparing the scopes I have on hand: gazing off the porch at various objects at varying times of the morning, noon, and late afternoon...noticeable difference in optical quality between it and all of my variations of Leupolds.

The Classic on sale is $200
The HD on sale is $600

I'm trying to figure out whether there is enough difference to make it worth 3x more.

Why not get a way more versatile scope in the HD 3-9x42 for $449?
I would not pay $600 for a fixed 10x of any make/model

On a side note for $199....the 10x classic is awesome

My 3-9X42 came in a few days ago. I also have a fixed 6X in the Classic. I haven't had time to mount it on a rifle, but I'm thinking that for $450 it is a bargain.

Not trying to hijack as these 2 are in my cart right now. Only getting one today as xmas is here but the HD seems a no brainer. I'm not missing something elsewhere in market for comparable glass price?

If the HD is $600 I would lean towards the non-HD for $200. Otherwise I would spend a bit more for a Bushy LRTS 3-12.

3x9 HD on sale for 450. Sorry Dakota. I thought you were looking at the 3x9. After rereading realised that was in comments.

W

How about a comparison to the fixed 6 in any terms. Shouldn't have to mount it to be able to compare.

Hurry before the sale ends!

Thank you.

We've discussed this many times. The 3-9 is optically better (VX3+) but the 6x is pretty darned good (VX2+, IMO), slimmer, has lower-profile turrets that are firmer and splined. The 3-9x is more svelte. The fixed 6x has adjustable parallax and a larger range of erector travel.

[quote=Jordan Smith]We've discussed this many times. The 3-9 is optically better (VX3+) but the 6x is pretty darned good (VX2+, IMO), slimmer, has lower-profile turrets that are firmer and splined. The 3-9x is more svelte. The fixed 6x has adjustable parallax and a larger range of erector travel.[/quote

It never hurts to hear from someone new. I asked about the comparison to the 6x because he has one.

Mr. Smith, how about compared to the 10MQ especially in low light. I have a 6 and a 10 and have had some difficulty finding coyotes in early am and pm with the 10. Trying to determine if the 3-9 is enough better to justify the cost or just stick with the fixed 6. There are times when a little more scope power would be nice.

Thanks

Not Mr. Smith, and he has a lot more rounds and time thru SS than I do, but I have a 6MQ, 10MQ and 3-9MQ.
Only the variable is HD. I have not hunted the 6x or 10x, but have been afield with the variable and it was clear enough that I would have bee able to shoots 45min prior to sunrise in the piney forest I was 2 weeks ago. I was able to see the full reticle at 6x by shooting time in a cloudy day, coming off a near moonless night.

It is easier to get behind the 6 and 3-9 than the 10 (no surprise there, but not a major event to get behind the 10x either). Even on sunny days the 3-9x is clearer. Enough to warrant $250 more? It was to me, so I got another one, that will go on a 7mmRM. The low power for darker/closer shots in timber made the decision easy for me.
At the range the 3-9x Zeiss Conquest is marginally clearer (and has a bolder reticle), but would not allow me to make a shot that the 3-9 couldn't.

Honestly, it is too early to say for sure. It came in a few days ago and I've spent less than 5 minutes with it in my hands looking through it indoors. It was after dark and I've not even had a chance yet to look through it in daylight. But 1st impressions are very favorable.

. I bought the 6X during the Labor Day sale for $239 and have been very pleased with it. It is good for a range scope, I've shot out to 600 yards with it at a range. And in certain parts of the country would be a good choice for hunting. But 6X is pushing things for shots at 600+, and is really too much for most of the places where I hunt here in GA.

I debated getting a 10X for $200, but when the 3-9X42 shows up at $450 I knew that is what I wanted. A fixed 10X would be even less versatile to me than 6X. My local range only goes to 300 yards and I don't get to shoot farther very often. It should be a better scope, and 9X gives me the magnification I want for shots past 300 yards while 3X would work if I decide to use it for hunting.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as irritated. I was just trying to suggest that you can find a bunch of info on the comparison if you search the forum.

The reticle in the 3-9x has the same subtensions and design as that in the 6x MQ, which is a bolder design than the reticle in the 10x. The glass quality combined with the bolder reticle make the 3-9x a better tool than the 10x MQ for low-light work. Whether the 3-9x is enough better than the 6x in low light to justify the cost is a personal decision, but IMO it is enough better all around that I prefer it over the 6x if adjustable parallax and maximum erector range aren't top priorities for a given rig.

Thanks Sponxx. Good info.


Thanks JMR40. Did you consider a regular 3-9 since you will mostly hunt with it? I don't need the dialing ability really , just dependable adjustments and zero holding ability. That rules out Leupold from personal experience. Right now, I'm trying a Burris Fullfield E1 3-9 on the coyote gun. So far so good.

No offense taken. I haven't had much luck with the search function here so have stopped trying to use it.

What non dialing scope, fixed or variable would be comparable to the SWFA 3-9HD? Has to have dependable adjustments and hold zero. A bolder reticle, like a standard duplex would be a plus for me, I think. My 6MQ SWFA is pretty thin in some conditions.

NF SHV 3-10x Forceplex.

I already have several hunting rifles with good quality 3-9X40's on them. I have one of the origianl Zeiss Conquest 3-9X40's. I also picked up a couple of the Cabelas' Euro Instinct scopes when Cabelas was closing them out at $250. Same scope, different badges. Those are on my go-to hunting rifles and I like them a lot.

But I also have 2-3 other rifles that I only play with at the range including a Tikka CTR. I have the fixed 6X on it right now and wanted some more magnification for the times I get a chance to shoot past 300 yards. The fixed 10X @ $200 would have done that. But down the road I could see me hunting with the CTR and having the versatility of 3X on the low end is appealing. Who knows, after using it I may like it enough to buy another to use on one of my hunting rifles. But that is not the plan for now.

10x Classic vs the 10x HD = picture everything you like about the 3-9HD (including the bolder reticle) add parrallax adjustment and you have the 10x HD.

I've had a few 10 and 6 classics and they are great on a rimfire due to the closer parrallax adjustment but they can't touch the HD versions in my opinion.

That said, I have 3-9's and sent the 10x HD back cause I had it on a calling rifle and it was a bit much up close.

Have to agree with this. For a few $ more, the 3-12 LRTSi is a BUNCH more scope than the 10x HD.

John

The 10x HD has the same reticle subtensions and design as the 10x non-HD, but the HD glass likely makes it appear bolder with better contrast.

All I know is the classic 10x has hollow lines if you will and the 10x HD is solid black just like the 3-9.

Huh. The 10x HD reticle design sheet looks the same as the classic.

https://www.swfa.com/swfa-ss-hd-10x42-tactical-30mm-riflescope.html

Maybe they've changed the 10x classic cause the ones I had were hard to see. The 6x classic, 3-9 zhD and the 10x HD were all bold but its been 2 or 3 years since I had a 10x classic. I do remember it was a common complaint.

I'm guessing you've actually seen a 10x HD, right?

https://www.swfa.com/swfa-ss-10x42-tactical-30mm-riflescope-6.html?___SID=U

Nope, they are still different, compare for yourself.

TWR:

I can see the confusion your link shows a moa scope. I think the other posters are referring to the Mil/mil versions of SS and HD 10x which use the same reticle. Both HD and SS mil/mil use a .05 thick reticle.

Unless I intended to shoot gnats, I would buy three of the standard 10x, for the price of one HD. I have no issues shooting deer at last light, both close and far, with my classic 6 and 10x scopes. I don't have to keep screwing with the power ring, this way. It has all of the versatility that I need, on the range and in the field. I just bought classic number seven.

You’re right but here’s the mil quad, it’s still not a bold reticle as the HD

https://www.swfa.com/swfa-ss-10x42m-tactical-30mm-riflescope-3.html?___SID=U

With hollow diamonds. The way the reticles look in the drawings don’t tell the whole story, as the numbers indicate. Both subtend the same (0.05 thick lines) and have hollow diamonds. The 6x and 3-9x have solid diamonds and 0.07 thick lines. Despite that, the 10x HD reticle may look bolder than the classic because of the glass, just as the reticle in the 3-9x looks bolder than the 6x reticle when both are at 6x, IMO.

No sir, I haven’t used a 10x HD that I can recall; I’m judging by the reticle design sheets.

Do the diamonds in the 10x HD have little x’s in them, as it appears on the sheet? If so, that would be a difference between the HD and Classic reticles, making the HD appear more visible.

As I said I sent the 10x HD back and all I have now are 3-9's but I remember losing the 10x classic mil quad reticle in low light or brush but the 6x, 10x HD and 3-9 mil quads were all bolder even in the drawings and very easy to see.

I edited my link to the correct 10x classic mil quad. Toggle back and forth and the difference is clear.

Again, the subtensions of the reticle features in the drawings aren't necessarily drawn to scale. The numbers listed tell the story about how thick the reticles actually are. I don't doubt your experience, though. Glass quality can affect how the reticles appear to the eye.

That might be it but the 6x classic appears bolder to me as well. Might just be me.

It has 0.07 thick lines though

The 6x classic and the 3-9x HD do indeed have thicker reticles than the 10x classic.

So the 10x Classic is good enough for everything except lowest light?

Yes. Even then, it works good enough for my uses. The Classics don't handle flare all that well, but that's not a huge deal most of the time.

I have no issues with it at last light, either.

How much farther and what would your targets be?