NF SHV 4-14x50 f1 vs SWFA 3-15x42 gen 2

[satchamo]

Ok so now that the swfa is back in stock with the 3-15, I’m considering 2 scopes for a 22-250 coyote rifle. I can get a SHV for 800ish on the classifieds any given week or buy a new swfa 3-15.

Right now I’m leaning towards the SHV despite the slight cost saving of the swfa for these reasons:

Pros SHV:
-it’s not ugly with giant tall turrets
-illuminated reticle. I’m coyote hunting in low light a lot so having illumination is pretty important.
-nightforce durability
-I’m assuming better glass?

Pros swfa:
-weight - quite a bit lighter
-cheaper

What say you?

Edit: I already own an RS1.2 and like the scope- I was just hoping to try another model to get some experience with other brands. That’s why it’s not in the running.

 

[Lawnboi]

the 3-15 has a very thin reticle. not something I would want for a lownligjt hunting gun. It would not be my choice for a coyote gun

The shv reticle isnt ideal either, bht with illumination its like shooting a 4x red dot.

The shv is a great scope. Its size is the downfall. I’m not a huge fan of the mil r reticle but it’s usable. The eye box is a little tight in the scope as well but that isn’t a big deal if you shoot enough to know your weapon.

 

[matthewmt]

Trijicon tenmile has amazing illum. I have a 4-14 shv and I'm not super impressed by NF illumination.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

the 3-15 has a very thin reticle.

The 3-15x SWFA has a very thin reticle?

 

[alexnelon]

I feel like the posts on the SWFA are plenty thick to use at 3x?

 

[Matt5266]

My vote goes to the NF

 

[SamsonMan22]

The Swfa unless I absolutely needed the illumination. I have had both plus the rs1.2 and the Swfa is still my pick. I like the capped windage and illumination on the shv but those are the only pros for me, maybe the zero stop but on gen 2 3-15s that is there too.

The reticle on the Swfa is thicker on both the outer posts and the fine cross hair, the only thing I don’t like about it is the hollow diamonds. It is just easier to use without illumination and just looks less cluttered to my eye behind the scope. The glass on the shv might be slightly better to my eye, the eye box on the Swfa seems better to me though on higher magnification. Durability is a wash and I don’t buy scopes for looks.

 

[TML75]

I’ve had both and I much prefer the SWFA. I don’t need the illumination, I prefer the mil quad reticle, the price difference is substantial (when comparing new vs new or used vs used) and my eyes don’t see a difference in glass quality.

If illumination is important to you, then the choice is obvious.

 

[Lawnboi]

The 3-15x SWFA has a very thin reticle?

I thought it did. Nothing like the 3-9.

Just looked at the spec havnt seen one in a while but it’s .06mil on the swfa. .04mil on the nightforce. So maybe it will all in my head.

Both reticles are thin for my liking for something I’ll be using at barely light to call coyotes. If I was going to go with an swfa without any illumination the 3-9 which is in stock would be a good one.

Iv had most the swfa at one point and they are nice scopes for the money but I do prefer some of the features of the shv f1.

 

[satchamo]

I thought it did. Nothing like the 3-9.

Just looked at the spec havnt seen one in a while but it’s .06mil on the swfa. .04mil on the nightforce. So maybe it will all in my head.

Both reticles are thin for my liking for something I’ll be using at barely light to call coyotes. If I was going to go with an swfa without any illumination the 3-9 which is in stock would be a good one.

Iv had most the swfa at one point and they are nice scopes for the money but I do prefer some of the features of the shv f1.

I’m genuinely asking here - How would the 3x9 be better? They’re the same base mag, tube and objective diameter so I just assumed not much of a difference.

 

[rharbaugh]

If warranties or replacement availability is a concern of yours, have you ever seen a nightforce product become unavailable for an extended period of time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

I thought it did. Nothing like the 3-9.

Just looked at the spec havnt seen one in a while but it’s .06mil on the swfa. .04mil on the nightforce. So maybe it will all in my head.

I was wondering. The only scopes/reticles in FFP that are more usable/thicker at low power than the SWFA 3-15’s MQ reticle is the THLR and SWFA’s MQ in the 3-9x. Of all the FFP mil reticles, the 3-15x SWFA is 2nd or 3rd in boldness/thickness.

I’m genuinely asking here - How would the 3x9 be better? They’re the same base mag, tube and objective diameter so I just assumed not much of a difference.

The 3-9x SWFA is not the same base mag, tube or objective as the 3-15x- they are completely different scopes made at different factories. Both are good in their niche- and the Gen 2 3-15x is an improvement over the Gen 1.

The 3-9x SS is the best overall general purpose hunting scope on the market at any price.

 

[Bcleck90]

@satchamo if you decide on the SHV F1- Mil R, send me a PM. I have one I’d sell.

 

[satchamo]

I was wondering. The only scopes/reticles in FFP that are more usable/thicker at low power than the SWFA 3-15’s MQ reticle is the THLR and SWFA’s MQ in the 3-9x. Of all the FFP mil reticles, the 3-15x SWFA is 2nd or 3rd in boldness/thickness.






The 3-9x SWFA is not the same base mag, tube or objective as the 3-15x- they are completely different scopes made at different factories. Both are good in their niche- and the Gen 2 3-15x is an improvement over the Gen 1.

The 3-9x SS is the best overall general purpose hunting scope on the market at any price.

Can you elaborate on the base mag/tube/objective being different?

 

[Formidilosus]

Can you elaborate on the base mag/tube/objective being different?

I don’t know what you are asking for? They are different scopes- they are not built on the same tube.

 

[satchamo]

I don’t know what you are asking for? They are different scopes- they are not built on the same tube.

They are both 30mm tubes, 42 mm objectives and have 3x base mag but you're telling me these specs are not the same so I'm confused. I'm sure I'm missing something here but just going off face data I'm given on their website, I have no way to discern that they are different from a MEASUREMENT perspective. So I guess I'm asking HOW are they different if their site shows the measurements for the 3 parts being the same?

 

[rbutcher1234]

All I got here is the 3-9 is a fixed parallax with no adjustment on the turret and the 3-15 has an adjustable parallax on the turret.