Thanks guys, i will say gypsy that i really thought about the swfa 3-9 and still may get one to check out they seem to be really popular . My only worry is the reticle being so fine at the lower power might be a non issue idk .
The following is based on owning SWFA 3-9x MQ, SWFA 6x MQ, and NF 2.5-10x Mil-R:
>Based on the existence of the SWFA 6x w/MQ reticle, can say that 6x and the right reticle are plenty for a capable (emphasis here) shooter on deer-sized game at 700 yards. The NF 2.5-10x and SWFA 3-9x are also more than plenty for magnification to 700+ yards.
>It's intuitive for any of us to think that greater magnification = better for long range hunting. Other variables + game experience will prove otherwise. A better reticle and greater FOV will easily trump the overly-powered scope. Scope power can also screw you up when your brain is on override.
>Many experiences while shooting a SWFA 6x MQ around others dialed at 14X or whatever...They look through the 6x MQ and immediately ask/comment how the 6x MQ causes a faster and better picture, particularly at far targets. I never read this on forums, but how we process a view through a scope is
sensory - our brains immediately recognize what works well and works less. Reticles matter, many are a liability.
>The SWFA 3-9 and NF 2.5-10 are a coin flip in terms of durable and reliable hunting scopes. I like both reticles more than anything else I've ever seen. What makes each different from the other is 1) the SWFA is FFP and the NF is SFP, and 2) the SWFA's extra tube length works better for a long-action receiver. Photos on forums of NF 2.5-10s on LAs w/fixed rings often show odd mounting placement, so consider the flexibility of a pic rail on a longer receiver.
>Being the SWFA 3-9 is FFP there is no concern about the reticle appearing too fine.
FWIW, you bought a really smart hunting scope!
Hope this is helpful.