Lightweight scope that dials with zero stop, does it exist?

[dirtytough]

Any feedback (good or bad) on the Swaro X5?

I have a couple. One of them the windage quit tracking properly. I've never had an issue with the elevation and they track correctly. And its nice to have a small spotter on top of your rifle. I tried a March and like it as much as the X5's right now. Probably going to get another March instead of another X5.

 

[88man]

Huskemaw

 

[CorbLand]

You may ultimately be right, I just hope that manufactures haven’t quit trying. Determination put us on the moon.

I agree with you one hundred percent. If NF could build there quality at half or even three quarters of the weight I would be happy as can be. I hope one day someone does figure it out, I just dont know if its possible in the world we currently live it.

Now, someone go prove me wrong.

 

[Hill Difficulty]

Anyone tried the new SWFA SS 2.5-10x32 Ultralight Rifle Scope? If it works and holds up it look like the ticket at 9.5 ounces.

I bought one a couple years ago that ended up on my daughter's 6m Grendel. Some complain about the smaller eye box but works fine on a low recoil setup. So far tracking has worked ideal.

 

[jfs82]

I bought one a couple years ago that ended up on my daughter's 6m Grendel. Some complain about the smaller eye box but works fine on a low recoil setup. So far tracking has worked ideal.

Not a lot of reviews on this one, glad to hear some more. I'm certainly grabbing one when they come out with the mil ret.

 

[BeaverHunter]

I bought one a couple years ago that ended up on my daughter's 6m Grendel. Some complain about the smaller eye box but works fine on a low recoil setup. So far tracking has worked ideal.

I'm thinking it would be great on my 6.5 284 with a muzzle brake.

 

[LaHunter]

I have used one for about 6 months or so on my ultralight rifle. It matches well with it. Have now a couple hundred rounds down it (pales in comparison to Form's round count). Dialing out to 600 and back on multiple occasions and the dang thing comes right back to zero every time. No zero stop and the turrets leave a lot to be desired. The current reticle choices are dismal at best. Basically for a dedicated dialing scope I'd go the 30mm tube size version of SWFA. Not cause the ultralight has let me down, just the turrets on the SWFA 30mm scopes feel much more solid and I can install zero stops on them which is a huge bonus.

If lightweight is more important that being able to dial then yeah the SWFA ultralight is your huckleberry and its perfect for my uses on the rifle I have it on. But if I am gonna dial on the regular I suck it up and use a 19-24 oz scope.

In the past 2 years I have purchased the following:
Nightforce NXS 5.5-22
NIghtforce SHV 3-10
Nightforce ATACR 7-35
Nightforce ATACR 4-16X42
Nightforce NX8 2.5-20
Nightforce NX8 1-8 (didnt buy this one just got to use it for a bit from a nice guy to try it out)
March 3-24X42
Kahles 624i
Vortex Razor AMG 6-24
Bushnell LRHS 3-12
Bushnell LRHS 4.5-18
Bushnell DMR 2
Bushnell LRST 3-12
SWFA 6X
SWFA 10X
SWFA 3-9
SWFA 2.5-10 ultralight
SWFA 3-15


I'm liking missing some in there. But what have I learned?? For MY uses the scopes listed on the bottom of the list do everything I NEED. The other scopes have some cooler features like illumination, a better designed zero stop, come cooler lines, and these will certainly yield MUCH more instagram cred

But for less than $200 a 6X or 10X would likely do all I need and if those don't and I'm feeling variable Then for less than $500 a 3-9 or 3-15 variety suffice just as well for MY uses at many scopes that cost 4-6 times more. So come this black friday I will finish off the rest of my rifles with SWFAs and when the little ultralight comes out in mil/mil with a Mil-Quad reticle I will be getting two of those as well for my 2 ultralight rifles.

Luke, you need to see a therapist. You have a scope fetish.

 

[Bubblehide]

I am not an expert when it comes to metals but titanium is not lighter than aluminum and roughly a third lighter than steel. Titanium is stronger for its weight so in order to save weight over aluminum you would have to make it nearly half as thin. How thin can you make a scope and maintain durability? So depending on what a scope is made of the weight savings would still be minimal when you add in that most of the scope weight is going to be in the glass. Add in the cost of titanium and your going to be paying a premium for minimal weight savings.

Not trying to argue or say there isn't a market there for it but to mass produce scopes and sell them would be very difficult. Add in the R&D and all the tools and machining changes, the cost is going to increase dramatically and the market would be significantly smaller than it would be for an average weight scope.

Titanium is lighter than aluminum, but only slightly. "Stronger for it's weight than aluminium" in only some ways. It is brittle. So, in many cases 6061 or 7075 might be a better choice, but 7075 is more brittle than 6061. With 6061 being a great choice for many many applications. But on all your other points, you are spot on. But I think if it were economically feasible, and there was a ultralight scope market, the market would be looking at carbon fiber or a composite mold build.

 

[tdot]

Ehhh... kind of not really.


The super condensed version is that Tasco went to a Japanese optics manufacturer to make a scope to compete for a Navy sniper optic contract. That resulted in the Tasco Super Sniper. It won the contract. It kind of was and is a unique scope. Fast forward and Tasco is going out of business. Chris Farris of SWFA purchases the right to the “Super Sniper”, renames it the SS and improves a couple of specifications, with SWFA owning the rights.

There are at least two different manufacturers that make the SS line of scopes, depending on model. As for why someone can’t get the manufacturer to copy/make them for someone else... we’ll they could match them. But no major company believes that simple, ruggedly reliable scopes will sell. Not to mention that the design was essentially paid for with Tasco.

Soooooo not just rebranded crap from China.

Thanks for the info. I'll have to do some more digging around and see if we can get them in Canada.

Someone should tell SWFA to work on their marketing!

Edit... apparently SWFA exports the scopes directly to Canada now. Awesome news!

 

[Bbell12]

So I know it’s been discussed before but why is it the 3-9 is more reliable dialing than the 3-15 from the same scope?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wapiti1]

Titanium is lighter than aluminum, but only slightly. "Stronger for it's weight than aluminium" in only some ways. It is brittle. So, in many cases 6061 or 7075 might be a better choice, but 7075 is more brittle than 6061. With 6061 being a great choice for many many applications. But on all your other points, you are spot on. But I think if it were economically feasible, and there was a ultralight scope market, the market would be looking at carbon fiber or a composite mold build.

Material strength is not the problem. Geometry and other properties outweigh strength. Springs strong enough to hold the erector assembly in place, and have resistance to fatigue. Then how do you anchor those springs and keep them from coming through the side of the tube? Sliding friction concerns within the turret assemblies, and at the erector tube interface. Geometry of the power change camming surfaces along with sliding friction. Just to name a few challenges. Multi-material solutions are the answer, and not all of the right choices are light in weight.

I'll throw out the correction that aluminum is not brittle. Brittle materials are neither ductile, nor malleable. Aluminum is malleable, but not very ductile. You can beat aluminum into intricate shapes through forging, but cannot stretch it far in a drawing or stamping process. How do you think aluminum cans are made? Not out of a brittle material.

Jeremy

 

[Wapiti1]

So I know it’s been discussed before but why is it the 3-9 is more reliable dialing than the 3-15 from the same scope?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The cam tracks in a high magnification ratio scope are much longer and shallower than in a low ratio scope. So there is a geometry issue to overcome. The steeper slope of the lower ratio resists shock loading better. Some high ratio designs move multiple lenses at once, maybe different distances or even in different directions. Low ratio designs usually only move one lens or small lens group as a unit.

Suffice to say that high ratio scopes are just more complex internally and that leads to more issues.

Jeremy

 

[260madman]

So I know it’s been discussed before but why is it the 3-9 is more reliable dialing than the 3-15 from the same scope?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those scopes are made in different factories to different specs I believe. The glass is different in them too. The only thing similar is the SS name. 3X erector versus the 5X erector is simpler and should be more reliable. The 3-9 was designed as DMR optic and originally had a mildot and then they put the milquad in it a few years later.

I have 2 3-9s and really like them. I have a 5-20 and 3 6X. SS scopes are great. I’d buy more but I blew my wad this summer when Natchez was blowing out the Burris XTR2s. Hard to beat $506 for a scope like the XTR2. And yes I read all the complaints about them. Some are overblown complaints.

 

[ChrisAU]

The 3-9 and 3-15 are different lines. 3-15 is a Classic, 3-9 is an HD. Same way you’d expect a Razor to outperform a Diamondback, or a VX3 to outperform a VX1. Pricing is similar because the 3-9 doesn’t have the parallax adjustment or 5x zoom erector.

 

[Bubblehide]

Material strength is not the problem. Geometry and other properties outweigh strength. Springs strong enough to hold the erector assembly in place, and have resistance to fatigue. Then how do you anchor those springs and keep them from coming through the side of the tube? Sliding friction concerns within the turret assemblies, and at the erector tube interface. Geometry of the power change camming surfaces along with sliding friction. Just to name a few challenges. Multi-material solutions are the answer, and not all of the right choices are light in weight.

I'll throw out the correction that aluminum is not brittle. Brittle materials are neither ductile, nor malleable. Aluminum is malleable, but not very ductile. You can beat aluminum into intricate shapes through forging, but cannot stretch it far in a drawing or stamping process. How do you think aluminum cans are made? Not out of a brittle material.

Jeremy

6061 Aluminum can be heated and bent/shaped without it losing it's 6061 rating/annealing, as long as it is not overheated. So, some, but not all stretching, drawing and stamping processes can and is done with aluminium. There are two ways to make such products out of Aluminium, to shape it prior to annealing/prior to it being 6061, or using a controlled heat process. However, an old school method of insuring not overheating is to mart the aluminium with a black sharpie, and heating until it turns browns, no longer, then immediately working it into the shape you desire. Granted, there are limitations in what you can do.

 

[menhaden_man]

I have used one for about 6 months or so on my ultralight rifle. It matches well with it. Have now a couple hundred rounds down it (pales in comparison to Form's round count). Dialing out to 600 and back on multiple occasions and the dang thing comes right back to zero every time. No zero stop and the turrets leave a lot to be desired. The current reticle choices are dismal at best. Basically for a dedicated dialing scope I'd go the 30mm tube size version of SWFA. Not cause the ultralight has let me down, just the turrets on the SWFA 30mm scopes feel much more solid and I can install zero stops on them which is a huge bonus.

If lightweight is more important that being able to dial then yeah the SWFA ultralight is your huckleberry and its perfect for my uses on the rifle I have it on. But if I am gonna dial on the regular I suck it up and use a 19-24 oz scope.

In the past 2 years I have purchased the following:
Nightforce NXS 5.5-22
NIghtforce SHV 3-10
Nightforce ATACR 7-35
Nightforce ATACR 4-16X42
Nightforce NX8 2.5-20
Nightforce NX8 1-8 (didnt buy this one just got to use it for a bit from a nice guy to try it out)
March 3-24X42
Kahles 624i
Vortex Razor AMG 6-24
Bushnell LRHS 3-12
Bushnell LRHS 4.5-18
Bushnell DMR 2
Bushnell LRST 3-12
SWFA 6X
SWFA 10X
SWFA 3-9
SWFA 2.5-10 ultralight
SWFA 3-15


I'm liking missing some in there. But what have I learned?? For MY uses the scopes listed on the bottom of the list do everything I NEED. The other scopes have some cooler features like illumination, a better designed zero stop, come cooler lines, and these will certainly yield MUCH more instagram cred

But for less than $200 a 6X or 10X would likely do all I need and if those don't and I'm feeling variable Then for less than $500 a 3-9 or 3-15 variety suffice just as well for MY uses at many scopes that cost 4-6 times more. So come this black friday I will finish off the rest of my rifles with SWFAs and when the little ultralight comes out in mil/mil with a Mil-Quad reticle I will be getting two of those as well for my 2 ultralight rifles.

Just a heads up, I’m going to blame you and this Formidilosis guy when my wife asks about the three SWFA scopes that’ll be arriving after I pull the trigger tomorrow. After my Tikka shows up I’ll be a bona fide Rokslider, right? Gotta live vicariously through buying new shit since my days of 60+ days afield are about 20 years and several children behind me

Appreciate the advice fellas - Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Kimber7man]

They are coming out with a mil/mil version- that I will use.

FFP or SFP? Thanks!

 

[BeaverHunter]

Just bought a 3-15 and a 2.5-10 ultra light. Both on sale for Black Friday.

 

[jfs82]

Bought a 3x9 right now, holding off on the ultralight until they release the mil reticle.

 

[Matt W.]

For those who have the SWFA.... Anyone do the zero stop mod?