Analysis Paralysis

[aftriathlete]

Been feverishly researching riflescopes for a few weeks now as I’m in the market for an optic for my new Tikka 6.5 CM. Help talk some sense into me as I seem to continue to find reasons to not pull the proverbial trigger and continue researching. I am mostly new to long-range optics as my professional background is all tactical shooting. Intended use for the next 3 years is Hawaii hunting, so thinking pigs in jungle settings, goats and axis deer in more open, American West kinds of terrain/vegetation. Only features that feel like must haves to me is: must be “reliable,” which to me means I am confident in the zero above all else, and in the dials secondarily; must be 3x or lower on the short end of the mag range; must work well in low light, which I seem to associate with large objective; and must have a forgiving eye box as I experienced the opposite of forgiving on the low-end Vortex I had on my slug gun this season. Features I “feel” are important to me, but none of which I would fall on my sword over: magnification up to 15-20x for target ID at longer ranges, zero stop, illuminated, adjustable parallax.

Budget is $1000, so I am in low end of Nightforce, Trijicon Credo HX, and SWFA territory.

 

[aftriathlete]

SWFA 3-9: well-reputed reliability, few features, finicky eye box, almost as rare as hen’s teeth unless you’re sitting here 24 hours a day watching the Optics Classifieds.

SWFA 3-15x42: seems easier to find, has the good SWFA name, but still scarce on features, finicky eye box, and this one seems to suffer from what people perceive as being “not quite up to the same standard” as the 3-9 and the fixed magnification SWFA options.

Nightforce SHV: Nightforce seems to have the best name in reliability right now, glass quality seems high, illuminated, impressive magnification ranges, but in my price range the only real option is the SHV 3-10, and the “quality” and “durability” of the SHV line seems to be debatable, no zero stop, no adjustable parallax.

Trijicon Credo HX line: considering the 42 and 56 mm objective options in both 2.5-10 and 2.5-15, the 56 must have impressive low-light capability, and eye relief/eye box seems very accommodating, but would carrying around a rifle scope that big get annoying, and Form’s latest test has me holding my breath for the end result.

 

[aftriathlete]

Could get close to 50% off on Vortex Viper stuff, but not Razor. Seems like the only Vortex anyone trusts here is the Razor.

 

[Formidilosus]

SWFA 3-9: well-reputed reliability, few features, finicky eye box, almost as rare as hen’s teeth unless you’re sitting here 24 hours a day watching the Optics Classifieds.

The eyebox isn’t finicky at all. This is where I would stop the search. 15x and 20x is not only not needed for animals out to very long ranges, it’s a hindrance far more often than a help.

SWFA 3-15x42: seems easier to find, has the good SWFA name, but still scarce on features, finicky eye box, and this one seems to suffer from what people perceive as being “not quite up to the same standard” as the 3-9 and the fixed magnification SWFA options.

Again, eyebox isn’t finicky. It is a little bit tight at 15x, but not bad.

Nightforce SHV: Nightforce seems to have the best name in reliability right now, glass quality seems high, illuminated, impressive magnification ranges, but in my price range the only real option is the SHV 3-10, and the “quality” and “durability” of the SHV line seems to be debatable, no zero stop, no adjustable parallax.

The SHV’s are very good scopes. Reliability is not an issue.

Trijicon Credo HX line: considering the 42 and 56 mm objective options in both 2.5-10 and 2.5-15, the 56 must have impressive low-light capability, and eye relief/eye box seems very accommodating, but would carrying around a rifle scope that big get annoying, and Form’s latest test has me holding my breath for the end result.

No matter how well it ends up doing, I would choose a SWFA 3-9x every single time over this.

 

[MeatMissile]

I use fixed 4x and 6x scopes quite often. They are light and sturdy. Unless shooting 500 yards or further, there really isn’t any need for more than 6x. The scopes people are lugging around these days are ridiculous. Adding 2lb of scope and mounts to a 6lb rifle doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

 

[jimh406]

I'd go with a Leupold VX-5HD 3-15 x 44mm with Firedot.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

and Form’s latest test has me holding my breath for the end result.

Unless you are going to go through the pains he has gone through to ensure the rifle and mounts are eliminated as a variable, I wouldn't let his test results move my needle too much. The scopes that fare well in his testing probably don't account for 1% of all animals taken.

 

[Mike D Texas]

Depending on who’s doing the testing the perfect scope doesn’t exist. Every tester will find flaws with something.

Truthfully a lot of these perceived flaws will never be an issue to 98% of people out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[sndmn11]

I'd jump on this due to availability

SWFA SS 3-15x42 Tactical 30mm Rifle Scope DEMO-C

SWFA 3-15x42 SS 30mm Rifle Scope Details SKU: SS315X42MQ DEMO-C Color: Matte Black Reticle: Mil-Quad Tube Diameter (mm): 30 Elevation Knob: Exposed (.1 MIL) Windage Knob: Exposed (.1 MIL) Parallax: Side Focus Focal Plane: First

www.samplelist.com

 

[Balderdash]

I'd echo exactly what Formidilosis stated. If you want FFP, go SWFA 3-9. If you like SFP, Go NF 3-10.

I've never found the 3-9 SWFA to have a critical eye box over the 3 that I have. They are a great scope and an easy first choice for big game based on a lot of factors. Finding one is the only downside these days.


I have a few SHV 3-10 as well. I prefer them with the MOAR; I haven't found issues with the reticle being hard to see and I've used them against myriad backgrounds and low light conditions. It looks thin, but it's very usable. Main downside is that, being SFP, you have to be at 10X to use the measurements, but 10x is workable. I've dialed a ton on them and haven't had one skip a beat. They've also been very rugged. I currently have one on a light 338 that ruined the 2 scopes that were on it before. I haven't found the lack of a zero stop to be a problem. They are capped, so ghost movement isn't an issue. They have a rev counter so I usually write what rev zero is on, on on the top of the turret retainer screw with a thin line sharpie. Otherwise you can always pull the bolt and bore sight it if you spin a couple turns and forget what rev it should be on.

As far as these scope models not having PA, I really think it's unnecessary on a big game scope that tops out at 10x. Mount your scope properly and practice/develop a shooting technique that keeps the reticle centered in the scope and you won't have trouble with parallax.

 

[Balderdash]

Unless you are going to go through the pains he has gone through to ensure the rifle and mounts are eliminated as a variable, I wouldn't let his test results move my needle too much. The scopes that fare well in his testing probably don't account for 1% of all animals taken.

Could you further explain what you you're getting at by advising that unless you have eliminated other potential shortfalls in your rigging, the results of drop testing shouldn't factor into selecting a scope?

 

[JustSomeGuy35]

It is frustrating that the swfa 3-9 is always the top recommended scope here but it's never in stock! I back ordered one almost 2 months ago and there is still no ETA on when it will arrive. So unless OP doesn't mind waiting for who knows how long, choose something else.

 

[Balderdash]

It is frustrating that the swfa 3-9 is always the top recommended scope here but it's never in stock! I back ordered one almost 2 months ago and there is still no ETA on when it will arrive. So unless OP doesn't mind waiting for who knows how long, choose something else.

Yep. I wouldn't say no to a couple more of them.

I also wouldn't say no to more Bushnell LRHS/LRTS 3-12's, but they're pretty hard to come by these days as well.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Could you further explain what you you're getting at by advising that unless you have eliminated other potential shortfalls in your rigging, the results of drop testing shouldn't factor into selecting a scope?

I'd be glad to. Right after you tell me how this:

"...I wouldn't let his test results move my needle too much."

Became this:

"...drop testing shouldn't factor into selecting a scope?"

 

[Balderdash]

I'd be glad to. Right after you tell me how this:

"...I wouldn't let his test results move my needle too much."

Became this:

"...drop testing shouldn't factor into selecting a scope?"

I apologize for not using your exact verbage. I figured that by stating "his test results" you were referring to the drop tests Formidilosus has been doing. My mistake if I mistook your intent.

But, ambiguous translation on my part is part of the reason I asked for clarification.

 

[aftriathlete]

Thanks for all the inputs fellas. I feel like I’m still stuck in neutral at the moment, at the same spot I was 2 days ago, so maybe i just need to go one way or another and adjust over time if I wind up unhappy with what I have.

If I could find a SWFA 3-9 today I’d buy it. So their unavailability is really the driver of my indecision. So I either just sit here without an optic and hope I can be first guy to the table when one lists in the classifieds, or I choose between the NF SHV 3-10 and the SWFA 3-15.

I can get the SFP SHV new for not much more than the Demo B SWFA 3-15 on SampleList right now. So money is not really a factor. FFP SHV would be another $200 over the SFP.

Does NF do their extensive testing like in the Shot Show video on YouTube on all their optics where they are banging it on a steel plate and checking it, including the SHV line?

 

[Balderdash]

Thanks for all the inputs fellas. I feel like I’m still stuck in neutral at the moment, at the same spot I was 2 days ago, so maybe i just need to go one way or another and adjust over time if I wind up unhappy with what I have.

If I could find a SWFA 3-9 today I’d buy it. So their unavailability is really the driver of my indecision. So I either just sit here without an optic and hope I can be first guy to the table when one lists in the classifieds, or I choose between the NF SHV 3-10 and the SWFA 3-15.

I can get the SFP SHV new for not much more than the Demo B SWFA 3-15 on SampleList right now. So money is not really a factor. FFP SHV would be another $200 over the SFP.

Does NF do their extensive testing like in the Shot Show video on YouTube on all their optics where they are banging it on a steel plate and checking it, including the SHV line?

Real bummer, but NF doesn't offer the 3-10 shv or NXS in FFP. The 4-14 SHV is offered in FFP, but it's quite a bit heavier than the 3-10.

I can't answer as to what level of testing the SHV's get.

 

[Dobermann]

Thanks for all the inputs fellas. I feel like I’m still stuck in neutral at the moment, at the same spot I was 2 days ago, so maybe i just need to go one way or another and adjust over time if I wind up unhappy with what I have.

If I could find a SWFA 3-9 today I’d buy it. So their unavailability is really the driver of my indecision. So I either just sit here without an optic and hope I can be first guy to the table when one lists in the classifieds, or I choose between the NF SHV 3-10 and the SWFA 3-15.

I can get the SFP SHV new for not much more than the Demo B SWFA 3-15 on SampleList right now. So money is not really a factor. FFP SHV would be another $200 over the SFP.

Does NF do their extensive testing like in the Shot Show video on YouTube on all their optics where they are banging it on a steel plate and checking it, including the SHV line?

Or you could just pounce on the LRTS 3-12 that's in the classifieds here right now: https://www.rokslide.com/forums/threads/bushnell-lrts-3-12-and-4-5-18.253988

Quite a few of us here run them. @Formidilosus has tested a few of them.

Not as light as the SWFA, but it will totally work for what you're doing, and you could have it within a few days.

 

[Balderdash]

Or you could just pounce on the LRTS 3-12 that's in the classifieds here right now: https://www.rokslide.com/forums/threads/bushnell-lrts-3-12-and-4-5-18.253988

Quite a few of us here run them. @Formidilosus has tested a few of them.

Not as light as the SWFA, but it will totally work for what you're doing, and you could have it within a few days.

Can't disagree one bit with that advice.

 

[HaydenLane]

The simple answer is expand your budget, wait a little longer. Doesn’t have to move much to get you into a scope that fits your criteria.