Experience with SWFA 2.5-10 Ultralight

[mtwarden]

After a year plus of being out of stock, these are finally back on the shelf. A scope that weighs under 10 oz gets my attention; if actually performs well, then it gets my money

Would be glad to hear any experience folks have—good or bad.

Thanks
Mike

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Hey Mike. Give this a read through…

Thread 'SWFA SS UL 2.5-10x32mm Field Evaluation'

Sep 15, 2022

This is a field evaluation of the SWFA SS Ultra Lite 2.5-10x32mm scope. This scope was brought to me from Ryan Avery for an evaluation. The ammunition used was Setpoint 168gr SMK. The 20 shot proof group with this ammunition was just under .9 MOA.


The scope and weight-


9.1 ounces and it is tiny.


Turrets:


Elevation and windage turrets are capped, .25 MOA per click, and 15 MOA per revolution. The are not revolution indicted, and there is no zero stop.


Elevation and Windage-






Standard duplex reticle-




The scope...

• Formidilosus
• Replies: 5
• Forum: Rifle Scope Field Evaluations

• 

 

[mtwarden]

Thanks

Form sums it up as "Quite frankly the little scope is remarkable."—that's pretty good

 

[RWT]

I had one on a Howa Grendel. It was fine during good light to 300’yards. However, once the sun fell below the horizon, in the last 30 mins of daylight when all the good deer are moving it was limited to a 100 yard range. I switched it out for the Trijicon Huron. The objective is just to small to gather light well. Considering I can shoot hogs 24x7 it was not worth the 7 ozs to lose so much of the good hunting time light. Mine will end up
On a 10/22

 

[SDHNTR]

I had one. It tunneled badly and low light performance was lacking. It’s impressive for what it is, but when you are used to full sized optics it leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[mtwarden]

Thanks Guys! I’m pretty happy with my current scope—Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x42. It’s not too bad weight wise, 13-ish ounces and I’m happy with the overall optics (and the lighted reticle).

 

[willfrye027]

I had one for awhile on my backpacking gun. The version with a ballistic reticle.

It was fine. I was able to kill a deer before sunrise at 540 yards but it was really really tough to see.

If I was to get another one I’d do the duplex and dial with the turret if needed beyond 300 yards but do a lot of verifying/practice.

Now I have a 3-9x40 nightforce on that gun and don’t mind the extra weight for better eyebox and low light visibility. I think your trijicon is probably the way to go unless you really need to shave a few ounces..but I’d rather do that elsewhere personally.

 

[gtriple]

I had one and just didn’t like it. The eye box and relief are finicky. They should have stopped at 8x because anything more isn’t useful. Capped elevation turret is not ideal.

If it was me, I’d make an UL with a fixed 6x zoom, an exposed elevation turret with a zero stop, fixed parallax at longer than 100yds (I’d vote 300), and a reticle with windage hashes.

Edit to add: if I was really dead set on shaving some weight from my optics, I’d consider the Primary Arms 5x SLx with the mil reticle. I use it on my UL AR and it is surprisingly easy to shoot out way past my range on game with that rifle. I have a plate at 830yds that was no problem to see.

 

[prm]

I had one a few years ago. They are tiny, and light. Everything else seemed a compromise to me. Eyebox is ok, but smaller than most. Low light is poorer than most. I seem to recall it being pretty poor clarity at max zoom. Having said that, I doubt any of this will prevent you from making a shot. They are just things you notice when looking through it. I had no issues with mine on a 338 Fed 84M, though can’t say I actually tested for durability. If you want the lightest aiming device, and the visual compromises don’t bother you, this is probably the one. For whatever reason the novelty wore off on me and I sold it.

 

[BRTreedogs]

I wasn’t a fan of the viewing experience.
Bad tunneling for me.
I much prefer the 3-9 Accupoint

If the reliability of the accupoint is on par which I believe it is.
It’s not even a contest for me.

 

[mtwarden]

Thanks for the input guys!

I wasn’t a fan of the viewing experience.
Bad tunneling for me.
I much prefer the 3-9 Accupoint

If the reliability of the accupoint is on par which I believe it is.
It’s not even a contest for me.

Yeah—they've (SWFA) have been out of stock for so long and just recently I saw they were back in stock and thought a wow a 1/4 lb to shave off would be great.

BUT now I think I'm going to stick w/ the Accupoint based on the feedback I've gotten here—it's still a damn light rifle as is

 

[BRTreedogs]

Thanks for the input guys!



Yeah—they've (SWFA) have been out of stock for so long and just recently I saw they were back in stock and thought a wow a 1/4 lb to shave off would be great.

BUT now I think I'm going to stick w/ the Accupoint based on the feedback I've gotten here—it's still a damn light rifle as is

I mean once they are out of stock again they are usually easy to resale if you don’t like it

 

[Mike D Texas]

In addition to some comments above, I bought one to put on a 10/22 takedown. The lens flare was so bad on it that I returned it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[mtwarden]

I mean once they are out of stock again they are usually easy to resale if you don’t like it

 

[Kurts86]

I had one and I just couldn’t get over the glass quality and finicky eyebox. It was like looking through a glass of milk. Above 8x they really fall apart which is a problem with them being SFP scopes. They are an absolute compromise for light and durable. They do all of the SWFA things but even more so.

 

[TREE ‘EM]

It’s a good scope for its price point.
I’ve had a couple of them. Not the best in low light. Holds zero well.
I migrated over to Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x40s on my light weight rifles and have been more than pleased with them.

 

[menhaden_man]

I’ve had four, still own two. One on a 6.5 and another in a 22 mag. Got em on the $249 deal they used to run and sold two at more than that so I’m happy.

I have the BDC on my 6.5 and it’s solid with holds to 300, have them plex on my 22 mag.

Still a good buy at $350

 

[Ferrulewax]

crazy that they don't make them in mils

 

[JCMCUBIC]

I've only limited experience with them. There are the optical compromises already listed that some can/can't live with. My plan was to leave it at 4x-6x and use it for doe harvests at short range during early season. Nothing challenging.

Aside from the compromises, when sighting in the one I used seemed to adjust correctly on a light .357 Max rifle. 1" Seekins rings on a 0 MOA 1 piece base. On the final 3 shot group the reticle turned side ways and view became distorted. A rattle could be heard in the scope. I feel very fortunate that it happened when shooting the final group vs making it through the group and then taking it hunting.

Sent it back to SWFA and they sent a replacement. I was jaded at that point so I sold the new one before using it.

 

[TaperPin]

Aww . . . It’s nice to see tiny scopes get some love and attention.

At that weight the fat has been trimmed everywhere - it’s hard to get around a huge scope tube cut for the power selector ring. Same scope without the weak selector cut in a fixed 6x or 8x would be nice.

As soon as my 30 year old fixed scopes wear out it would be nice to have a good replacement.