How would the eyebox/ clarity/ low-light performance of an SWFA Ultralight compare to a good 1-8 or 1-10 LPVO?

[Begle1]

Everything I read about the SWFA Ultralight is how "the eyebox gets tight near maximum magnification", but that's what most reviews on most scopes say.

Can anybody who has looked through both please comment on how would the max magnification performance of an SWFA Ultralight would compare with that of a good 1-8x or 1-10x LPVO, like a PLXc?

 

[AZ Gator]

Maybe I shouldn’t bother with my reply, as I can’t directly answer your question. But my experience has been that I have used (or heard of as far as I can remember) a scope with an 8x or 10x erector that won’t have an eye box that tightens up significantly at the higher end. It’s the price you pay for a big mag range.

Some scopes may do a little better or little worse than others of course.

To your question, are you talking about the SWFA 2.5-10? I don’t have that one, but my experience has been the 3-9 and 3-15 have reasonable and appropriate eye boxes.

 

[Begle1]

Thank you, yes, it's the SWFA Ultralight 2.5-10x that I'm particularly considering. (For a weird application where I want a small objective in order to have space for a above-bore bipod mount under it. And an SWFA Ultralight plus piggyback red dot still weighs comparably to an LPVO...)

 

[Kauaihunter]

FWIW I shoot my SWFA Ultralights on 6-7 power or so out to 300 yards. I have shot steel at 450 and 600 with my 22CM. Over 8x the glass does start to fall off but it’s a tiny tube and I knew that going in. The glass is fine at the lower magnifications and I like these scopes, I had four at one time and I prefer the BDC over the Plex. The floating dot makes aiming so easy. I’ve used them and continue to do so on my 10/22, .308, 6.5CM, 22CM and even tried it on my 7rem mag. Watch C_does review on YouTube if you haven’t.

 

[Begle1]

Aloha from Maui.

This is what is driving me nuts regarding the Ultralight. This is for a 5.56 (AUG), so I'd really like to use the BDC, and I'm not looking for something to dial. But everybody says the Ultralight's optical quality and/ or eyebox goes to crap past 8 or 9x. I'd be happy with an 8x, but the BDC isn't particularly useful at 8x. And the subtensions are even labelled with a "3", "4" and "5", so if I chose to shoot with it at 8x and had the BDC's actually mapped out to 350, 500, and 650 yards or whatever, those numbers would irrationally bother me.

So I'm wondering how bad it really is at 9-10x. I'm trying to decide whether I'd be happier with an LPVO with a MIL-tree. And I could get an FFP if I went that route, but it's around half a pound heavier and several times more expensive.

 

[justinspicher]

I had an SFWA 2.5-10x32 with the 556 bdc. It’s designed for the 55gr and it’s about 50yds off using 77gr.

I had mine mounted on a 16” AR upper.

My main rifle is a 16” AR with a NF 1-8x and I’d take that scope over the SFWA any day.

I didn’t like having the bdc reticle and so I sold it. I’ll continue to use my NF 1-8x.

I didn’t have an issue with the eye box on higher magnification, I currently use my 1-8x for 5-600yds regularly. Initially I had some issues getting it figured out, but having an adjustable buttstock really helps.

Not sure if this helps or not.

 

[Begle1]

Reticles aside, how'd the SWFA UltraLight and the Nightforce LPVO compare in terms of eyebox, clarity and brightness when at 8-10x?

 

[Kauaihunter]

Aloha from Maui.

This is what is driving me nuts regarding the Ultralight. This is for a 5.56 (AUG), so I'd really like to use the BDC, and I'm not looking for something to dial. But everybody says the Ultralight's optical quality and/ or eyebox goes to crap past 8 or 9x. I'd be happy with an 8x, but the BDC isn't particularly useful at 8x. And the subtensions are even labelled with a "3", "4" and "5", so if I chose to shoot with it at 8x and had the BDC's actually mapped out to 350, 500, and 650 yards or whatever, those numbers would irrationally bother me.

So I'm wondering how bad it really is at 9-10x. I'm trying to decide whether I'd be happier with an LPVO with a MIL-tree. And I could get an FFP if I went that route, but it's around half a pound heavier and several times more expensive.

I’ll be on Maui on the 28th, catching the 11:00 Ferry to Lanai. You come to the harbor and you can look through one yourself and decide.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I don’t have a problem with the eye box on higher magnifications, but the lady I was teaching to shoot certainly did. She shot really well for a beginner when I set it down to 2.5x, but she had trouble getting her head in the right spot on 10x.

 

[Kauaihunter]

This

Eyebox is a non issue for me.

 

[HuntHarder]

SWFA and clarity should not be in the same sentence. Just my opinion. I'm yet to look thru one and think, " That's a nice picture." Useable? Sure. If money is no object, the NF would be my choice.

 

[Mike D Texas]

I haven’t compared them side x side but I can’t for the life of me see what people like about the Ultralight. I own 3 SWFA scopes and they are perfectly usable but the Ultralight was horrible to look through. So much so that I returned it to SWFA.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[justinspicher]

Reticles aside, how'd the SWFA UltraLight and the Nightforce LPVO compare in terms of eyebox, clarity and brightness when at 8-10x?

It doesn’t, at least not in my opinion. My Nightforce is a much better optic. You get what you pay for.

I don’t have an issue with the eyebox, clarity or brightness on any of the magnification levels with my NF.

I am also pretty bias, a $275 sfwa 2.5-10x is nice, but it isn’t a nightforce.

 

[Middle_Ridge]

I actually think the eyebox is useful when it starts to vignette at 10x, because it's a fixed parralax scope and therefore you need to keep your eye centered down the axis of the scope for long shots to ensure the reticle is actually aiming where you see it aiming. One of the tricks to checking if your eye is centered is to pull back until you see vignetting. If your eye is off-axis you will see the shadows encroaching disproportionately from one side, and you need to shift your cheek. At least that's how I learned it.

So for overcoming the parallax issues at long range, it's actually a feature to have the shadows start to creep in at 10x. I think they used to teach this in the military or something back in the day.

 

[Begle1]

I’ll be on Maui on the 28th, catching the 11:00 Ferry to Lanai. You come to the harbor and you can look through one yourself and decide.

I'll gladly take you up on that, I work in Maalaea so I could easily run over to the marina around lunchtime.

I haven’t compared them side x side but I can’t for the life of me see what people like about the Ultralight. I own 3 SWFA scopes and they are perfectly usable but the Ultralight was horrible to look through. So much so that I returned it to SWFA.

It seems there are lots of people who have had problems with the Ultralights.

If there was another 2ish-to-10ish scope with an objective that was 32ish or smaller I'd be interested. I have a weird criteria in that I need the scope to be small enough to mount one of these under it, which sits 3/4" above the rail. With a 1.54" mount, my calculations say I need an objective outer-diameter no larger than 41mm.

The only other "decent-or-better" scopes I have found meeting my criteria are these ZCO's, which are more than ten times as expensive.

It doesn’t, at least not in my opinion. My Nightforce is a much better optic. You get what you pay for.

I don’t have an issue with the eyebox, clarity or brightness on any of the magnification levels with my NF.

I am also pretty bias, a $275 sfwa 2.5-10x is nice, but it isn’t a nightforce.

To summarize what I've been pondering, where's the point where a basic "traditional" scope, with a larger objective, optically outperforms even the best LPVO's at magnification, simply because of physics? Like is it fair to expect any $400 3-9x40 to be better at seeing a deer in the twilight shadows under a tree at 8x than a $4000 LPVO?

I actually think the eyebox is useful when it starts to vignette at 10x, because it's a fixed parralax scope and therefore you need to keep your eye centered down the axis of the scope for long shots to ensure the reticle is actually aiming where you see it aiming. One of the tricks to checking if your eye is centered is to pull back until you see vignetting. If your eye is off-axis you will see the shadows encroaching disproportionately from one side, and you need to shift your cheek. At least that's how I learned it.

So for overcoming the parallax issues at long range, it's actually a feature to have the shadows start to creep in at 10x. I think they used to teach this in the military or something back in the day.

Now there's the sort of lore that I can bite down on! I love being able to justify advantages to going with cheaper equipment.

 

[justinspicher]

I'll gladly take you up on that, I work in Maalaea so I could easily run over to the marina around lunchtime.


It seems there are lots of people who have had problems with the Ultralights.

If there was another 2ish-to-10ish scope with an objective that was 32ish or smaller I'd be interested. I have a weird criteria in that I need the scope to be small enough to mount one of these under it, which sits 3/4" above the rail. With a 1.54" mount, my calculations say I need an objective outer-diameter no larger than 41mm.

The only other "decent-or-better" scopes I have found meeting my criteria are these ZCO's, which are more than ten times as expensive.



To summarize what I've been pondering, where's the point where a basic "traditional" scope, with a larger objective, optically outperforms even the best LPVO's at magnification, simply because of physics? Like is it fair to expect any $400 3-9x40 to be better at seeing a deer in the twilight shadows under a tree at 8x than a $4000 LPVO?


Now there's the sort of lore that I can bite down on! I love being able to justify advantages to going with cheaper equipment.

I don’t think a cheaper scope will outperform a more expensive scope in any aspect, regardless of the size of the objective lens.

If you want the SFWA, I would say just get it and see if it’s what you’re after. If it doesn’t work out, move on.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I don’t think a cheaper scope will outperform a more expensive scope in any aspect, regardless of the size of the objective lens.

If you want the SFWA, I would say just get it and see if it’s what you’re after. If it doesn’t work out, move on.

I agree with this, in general.

I don’t expect a tiny little SWFA 2.5-10x to outperform scopes costing 10x what it does in the optical field, but I do find it great as a squirrel hunting or plinking scope on a .22. And, it is not bombproof, but it is quite durable for its weight class.

I’m pretty sure that Kauihunter has one that I sold him. I bought it off the classifieds here, decided I didn’t need two of them after all, and sold it here for what I paid for it. So, as far as I am concerned, the cost to try it out is basically just shipping cost.

 

[Kyguy]

I bought four with the BDC when they were in stock a few months back. I mounted one and spent several days with it on a rifle but never fired it. The ONLY reason I sold that one and sent the others back to SWFA was the eye relief. It was fine on lower power, but at 10x it was just to close to feel comfortable to me on anything more than .223/ARC/Grendel size rounds. I really like the BDC, it's very bold and visible. I sat out on my deck looking over the farm behind the house and the very brushy power line clear cut behind my house until an hour after dark and would have had no problem making a shot. If they could get a consistent 3.5" eye relief, I would probably put one on every hunting rifle I have. But I'm never shooting past 500 yards, and most times not past 300, so there's that. Glass does fall off a bit at 10x, but if you miss the shot it's not the scopes fault.

 

[Kurts86]

The SWFA ultralight is a massive compromise in optics for form factor/weight. I’ve seen the bottom of ball jars that are clearer. I sold my almost immediately after getting mine. The upside is they resell for as much or more than their retail price if they are out of stock so the financial risk to try on is low.

 

[Kauaihunter]

I'll gladly take you up on that, I work in Maalaea so I could easily run over to the marina around lunchtime.