If the SWFA 3-15x42 was illuminated, I would have 6 of them.

[PaulB84]

Why oh why didn't they illuminate that model. It's literally the perfect scope otherwise.

#endrant

 

[BLJ]

Agree. A half MOA floating dot would go a long way.

 

[Mountain_Life]

Also the lack of zero stop, the long exposed windage turret, mediocre glass quality and lack of numerical ID in the reticle...

I know there's work arounds for some of this. I used to own 3 of these and now I'm just down to 1. I will say that I've never had a gun lose zero with them, but over the last year I've started to look around at other stuff.

 

[ElPollo]

Why oh why didn't they illuminate that model. It's literally the perfect scope otherwise.

#endrant

This is not intended to be critical of what you are saying, but can you tell me what sort of conditions your are needing that illumination for? The SWFA reticle is one of the best designs out there for use in low light. If you can’t make out that reticle, it’s too dark to legally shoot.

I’ve got the 3-15, 6x, and 3-9 and have hunted extensively with them. I’ve never had an issue using them up to the 30 minutes before sunrise or after sunset. In fact, I shot a doe last fall in dense shaded woods with the 6x at about 3 minutes after the start of legal shooting light.

Honestly though, I find most illuminated reticles to be a hindrance than a help. Most illuminate too much, and the bloom makes it harder to see your target. I’ve owned 3 Illuminated scopes and have not felt the need to use the illumination in hunting conditions unless their reticles were too fine to make out. My personal take is that illumination is an extra complication that we aren’t as likely to need as we might think.

 

[flyfisher117]

Also the lack of zero stop, the long exposed windage turret, mediocre glass quality and lack of numerical ID in the reticle...

I know there's work arounds for some of this. I used to own 3 of these and now I'm just down to 1. I will say that I've never had a gun lose zero with them, but over the last year I've started to look around at other stuff.

Gen 2 has entered the chat.

But realistically a budget scope can’t hit every damn feature under the sun. At least not with reliability.

 

[nm.otter]

the long exposed windage turret

Still an issue with the Gen2 variants, unfortunately.

lack of numerical ID in the reticle.

I'm not clear what this is -- numbers next to the subtensions?

 

[Mountain_Life]

Gen 2 has entered the chat.

But realistically a budget scope can’t hit every damn feature under the sun. At least not with reliability.

I agree. I've been intending to order a gen 2.

 

[Mountain_Life]

I'm not clear what this is -- numbers next to the subtensions?

Yes. I really like being able to verify my windage holds during crunch time. Triangles and lines aren't hard to remember while practicing but my brain tends to get pretty fuzzy when I have very limited time to shoot. Numerical references make me feel better.

 

[Quandary]

I have a gen2. The glass is fine, not great not bad. The reticle however is too thick. Add illumination and the Eagleman reticle that is in the Tract Toric HD and you would have a great scope.

 

[Schmo]

Also the lack of zero stop, the long exposed windage turret, mediocre glass quality and lack of numerical ID in the reticle...

Gen 2 has awesome zero stop, windage is long, but they added the capped feature. Glass is good enough. And you don’t need numerical ID in a reticle. And no, the Eagleman reticle is not a good hunting reticle. What else would you like in a reliable, drop-proven scope for $750 that’s made in Japan?