How bad is the glass on SWFA 3-15

[brn2hnt]

Been looking at the reviews on Mil-Quad reticles, SWFA in general, you name it...

Is there a big problem with the glass on the 3-15? It seems like there must be some catch that I'm missing, as it gets nowhere near the attention the 6X, 3-9, or 5-20 gets.

Anyone with input on what everyone else knows that apparently, I don't?

 

[rickjames80]

I have never looked through the 3-15, but I didn't care for the 6x or 10x. I will say the 3-9 is okay though

 

[mt100gr.]

I'm not going to pretend it's like looking thru a swaro spotter....but the "glass" is 100% usable and truly not bad. After all, it's an AIMING DEVICE! Glass quality is secondary.

The FFP 3-15x that I have has a relatively small eye box for me, but on the right rifle, it works very well for me.

No issues with the "glass" when shooting near or far, aiming at fur, paper, or steel.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

I picked up a 3-15 last month. I tested it on a cloudy night I could make out the reticle and objects in a field until 27 minutes after sunset. Certainly good enough for the squirrel gun it's going on.

 

[Tmac]

For me it’s not about it’s glass quality, in terms of clarity & resolution etc. It is about it’s twilight performance when hunting, which I’d call just barely enough. If you hunt dark timber on a cloudy night, you may wish for better twilight performance, for open country hunting it's adequate. All in my opinion and based on a sample size of one 3-15.

 

[Dobermann]

It also comes down to your eyes.

I know Form has commented often about how glass should not be primary (and I agree that reliability should be paramount), and that scopes are aiming devices, not spotting scopes.

However, my eyes are starting to have issues ... and I honestly find that I can't resolve things as much as I'd like to with my SWFA 3-9 (which is meant to have better glass than the 3-15) from about 200-300 m out.

It might just be the type of bush that I'm looking into, but I've personally begun to think of the 3-9 as a fairly short range scope for the combination of my eyes and landscape/conditions.

So for anything of 'medium' distance, I'm wanting better glass, slightly higher magnification, or both.

Short of Lasik.

 

[Juan_ID]

I’ve only looked through 3, but for me I don’t see a problem with them. I hunt mostly open(ish) country so we shall see this fall. I’ve only shot targets and rockchucks thus far, but I have shot it a fair amount close to sundown and at some fair distance 600+ and it has seemed just fine.

 

[ahlgringo]

3-15 is not HD, the 3-9 is- yes there's a difference. 3-15 is perfectly fine though for almost every situation imo. combined with being tough, reliable, and fairly inexpensive- great choice.

 

[Carl Ross]

I found the glass to be just fine in mine, similar enough to the SS 3-9 that if there was a difference I don't remember it.

I did think the eyebox got tight on top. I usually stopped at 12x and called it good. I think of it as a functional equivalent to the LRHS 3-12 but with older style turrets. I am certainly no ILya if you're looking for a 20 point evaluation of the finer points of the optical performance.

IIRC (I haven't had either for a few years) I preferred the MilQuad in the SWFA to the G2H or whatever they called it they put into the LRHS. When it came to the whole package, the control layout of the 3-12 LRHS was enough to make me prefer it. But...they don't make those anymore.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

For those interested, I had a chance to shoot with my 3-15 yesterday, including a modified drop test. This testing was performed at 15 yards, on a 22 that was brand new, so I don't have a typical accuracy cone or anything like that. The scope rail is held to the gun with 4x 8-40 screws and a healthy amount of jb-weld since the original 6-48 screws were stripping out with less than 2 in-lbs of torque. Rings are Nightforce, torqued to spec following Form's scope mounting procedure. Test platform:


The bullseye target shows the zeroed condition.

The rifle case on the gravel was the drop surface.

The orange sticker contains 5 shots where the elevation turret was turned to max, to min, and back to zero between each shot, plus the shots after the 1x6" drops, the 1x18" drops, the 1x36" drops, and the 3x36" drops. I did somewhat cheat the drop test in that I caught the gun after the initial bounce from the 36" drops so it didn't land on the actual gravel and scratch a lens, but the primary fall and impact still occurred.


Bottom line, this setup, including the SWFA 3-15 seems immune to drops, which is perfect since its primary purpose is teaching young kids to shoot.

As far as the glass, I did have some issues at 100 yards getting the target image perfectly clear, I think the main culprit was the diopter, which I have always struggled to set correctly on every scope I own. I was however able to see the 22 cal impact holes on every part of the target that wasn't black, even with a noticeably imperfect image. My 5-year-old sunglass lenses that are delaminating weren't helping the image quality, but overall the system was good enough to make well-aimed shots.

 

[ElPollo]

For those interested, I had a chance to shoot with my 3-15 yesterday, including a modified drop test. This testing was performed at 15 yards, on a 22 that was brand new, so I don't have a typical accuracy cone or anything like that. The scope rail is held to the gun with 4x 8-40 screws and a healthy amount of jb-weld since the original 6-48 screws were stripping out with less than 2 in-lbs of torque. Rings are Nightforce, torqued to spec following Form's scope mounting procedure. Test platform:
View attachment 415457

The bullseye target shows the zeroed condition.
View attachment 415456
The rifle case on the gravel was the drop surface.
View attachment 415458
The orange sticker contains 5 shots where the elevation turret was turned to max, to min, and back to zero between each shot, plus the shots after the 1x6" drops, the 1x18" drops, the 1x36" drops, and the 3x36" drops. I did somewhat cheat the drop test in that I caught the gun after the initial bounce from the 36" drops so it didn't land on the actual gravel and scratch a lens, but the primary fall and impact still occurred.
View attachment 415459

Bottom line, this setup, including the SWFA 3-15 seems immune to drops, which is perfect since its primary purpose is teaching young kids to shoot.

As far as the glass, I did have some issues at 100 yards getting the target image perfectly clear, I think the main culprit was the diopter, which I have always struggled to set correctly on every scope I own. I was however able to see the 22 cal impact holes on every part of the target that wasn't black, even with a noticeably imperfect image. My 5-year-old sunglass lenses that are delaminating weren't helping the image quality, but overall the system was good enough to make well-aimed shots.

You should post this over on the long range hunting-drop testing sub-forum.

I have one of these scopes and like it a lot. I have never found the glass to be a hindrance, but I am not a person who focuses on that (bad pun). It’s just a very dependable scope with a very usable reticle. If I were to choose between this one and the 3-9 HD, I would pick the 3-9. The glass has nothing to do with that choice. The 3-9 is smaller, lighter, and has slightly more forgiving eye relief. The eye relief is not bad on the 3-15. But for a hunting scope, the lower magnification gets me on target faster given my use. I recognize that everyone now views 3-15x as a mid-range variable and are enraptured with variables that top out from 24-32x. I just find myself hunting for the target more and don’t see a significant accuracy benefit to the higher magnification.

The other thing I’d like to see with all SWFA scopes is an option for a smaller capped windage turret. The brass hits it on ejection in my Tikka and bounces back into the chamber. I fix that by removing the windage turret and covering with gorilla tape. Looks shoddy, but works.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

I thought this was the best place for the info, but you're probably right. I'll make a separate thread later today. Also of note, I had a SWFA 3-9 in my mailbox this morning, so I plan on doing some head to head twilight comparisons in the next few days. My initial impression pulling it out of the box was that the 3-9 was noticeably clearer/brighter, but it wasn't a head to head test and I'm not an optics expert.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Observations this evening from a swfa 3-15 and a swfa 3-9 side by side/

10 minutes after sunset both could resolve the white ring around a rabbits eye, along with all other pertinent details at 6x and 75 yards.

The 3-9 has a much larger field of view on 6x. The 3-15 has to be on 4.5x to have the same field of view.

Both scopes on 6x were able to aim at my rhinoblock deer side 65 yards across my yard 38 minutes past sunset on a clear evening. At 39 minutes the 3-15 had to go to 9x. At 39 minutes after sunset I could still aim with the 3-9 on 6x, and gave up testing because the bugs are bad and this really doesn't matter beyond legal shooting light.

My 3-9 is noticeably clearer at the edges, it's very pronounced, the difference at 100 yards is seeing green stuff versus seeing the edge of individual leaves on the outer third of the image. The 3-9 also maintained a brighter image and more visible reticle as it got darker out.

 

[TheCougar]

I’ll revive this thread. I just got a 3-15 and I’ll be returning it. The two biggest issues are the eye box and the poor optical performance beyond 12x.

The eye box was the worst of any scope I have used, at all ranges, but particularly above 11x. I was comparing it next to a SHV and a LRHS and it was by far the least forgiving eye box. I was having trouble staying in the eye box while shooting from a bench - there’s no way I could have my kids shoot it effectively if I’m struggling.

The image is okay at lower magnifications, but above 10x I saw hazy edges and chromatic aberrations that were distracting. For a little extra I can get an SHV… it’s heavy, but I’ll probably end up going that route.

I have no experience with the 3-9HD, so I can’t help you there.

 

[m77huntr]

I’ll revive this thread. I just got a 3-15 and I’ll be returning it. The two biggest issues are the eye box and the poor optical performance beyond 12x.

The eye box was the worst of any scope I have used, at all ranges, but particularly above 11x. I was comparing it next to a SHV and a LRHS and it was by far the least forgiving eye box. I was having trouble staying in the eye box while shooting from a bench - there’s no way I could have my kids shoot it effectively if I’m struggling.

The image is okay at lower magnifications, but above 10x I saw hazy edges and chromatic aberrations that were distracting. For a little extra I can get an SHV… it’s heavy, but I’ll probably end up going that route.

I have no experience with the 3-9HD, so I can’t help you there.

I was thinking about picking one but during their Black Friday deal, but after reading this ill pass.

 

[RussDXT]

I’ll revive this thread. I just got a 3-15 and I’ll be returning it. The two biggest issues are the eye box and the poor optical performance beyond 12x.

The eye box was the worst of any scope I have used, at all ranges, but particularly above 11x. I was comparing it next to a SHV and a LRHS and it was by far the least forgiving eye box. I was having trouble staying in the eye box while shooting from a bench - there’s no way I could have my kids shoot it effectively if I’m struggling.

The image is okay at lower magnifications, but above 10x I saw hazy edges and chromatic aberrations that were distracting. For a little extra I can get an SHV… it’s heavy, but I’ll probably end up going that route.

I have no experience with the 3-9HD, so I can’t help you there.

If you get a chance to look through another I’d be interested if this remains consistent. I haven’t had any issues with them and feel it’s one of the best value scopes to go on a rifle with that type of magnification.

 

[Drumstick63]

If the 3-15x42 were made in the LOW factory with HD glass and included a zero-stop plus capped-windage, SWFA would sell boatloads of them. But, keeping up with demand for the 3-9x42 HD is an issue already.

 

[clperry]

If you get a chance to look through another I’d be interested if this remains consistent. I haven’t had any issues with them and feel it’s one of the best value scopes to go on a rifle with that type of magnification.

I have one. 8x and below it’s fine. Above it’s noticeably cloudy on the edges and the center image is noticeably compromised comparatively. It works though… which is more than I can say for many others. But yeah… I’d rather have better glass for a few more hundred as long as it’s just as reliable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mickythekid]

I’ll revive this thread. I just got a 3-15 and I’ll be returning it. The two biggest issues are the eye box and the poor optical performance beyond 12x.

The eye box was the worst of any scope I have used, at all ranges, but particularly above 11x. I was comparing it next to a SHV and a LRHS and it was by far the least forgiving eye box. I was having trouble staying in the eye box while shooting from a bench - there’s no way I could have my kids shoot it effectively if I’m struggling.

The image is okay at lower magnifications, but above 10x I saw hazy edges and chromatic aberrations that were distracting. For a little extra I can get an SHV… it’s heavy, but I’ll probably end up going that route.

I have no experience with the 3-9HD, so I can’t help you there.

THanks for this

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

I have zero issues with the optical quality of my 3-15 swfa.