Q&A for SWFA SS 6x MQ Field Eval

[Old-Cat]

Yes, but the type of ring and screw size and quantity matter too. A certain poundage isn’t standardized across different rings. Perhaps you should state which rings you are using? Or maybe you have and I missed it.

I was wonder that too, the specific rings used that is.

 

[Formidilosus]

Yes, but the type of ring and screw size and quantity matter too. A certain poundage isn’t standardized across different rings. Perhaps you should state which rings you are using? Or maybe you have and I missed it.

It varies. However every ring I have used- NF, Seekins, etc. all have stated torque values between 18 and 25in-lbs.

 

[Formidilosus]

I was wonder that too, the specific rings used that is.

As stated it varies, however there has not been a noticeable difference between any quality pic ring. The last Leupold used Vortex PMR (Seekins) rings. Generally it’s Nightforce.

 

[SDHNTR]

As stated it varies, however there has not been a noticeable difference between any quality pic ring. The last Leupold used Vortex PMR (Seekins) rings. Generally it’s Nightforce.

Nightforce Ultralight? The titanium ones?

 

[nobody]

Love seeing this test. My family and hunting partner like to give me crap for for switching to SWFA fixed powers on my rifles from some other optics. Then I see tests like this and I am reminded why I sleep better at night! SWFA scopes and seekins precision rings are cheap insurance. Just re-zeroed my 6.5 Creed with the newest SWFA in preparation for Colorado 3rd season, it's a good feeling

Thanks for sharing these Form and Ryan!

 

[Formidilosus]

Nightforce Ultralight? The titanium ones?

Mostly.

 

[Lawnboi]

@Formidilosus

Off topic but on the topic of rings. Have you used ARC rings and if so what’s your impression.

Swfa needs to get some 6x in stock in time for the next sale. You can’t beat the 6 or 10x for 200 bucks.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus

Off topic but on the topic of rings. Have you used ARC rings and if so what’s your impression.

Swfa needs to get some 6x in stock in time for the next sale. You can’t beat the 6 or 10x for 200 bucks.

I have. They make good rings and I have no issue using them. You do need to go with their torque spec for the ring caps though.

And agreed on the SWFA. Still ridiculous that no other scope is even close to doing what they do.

 

[ElPollo]

I’m glad I was able to pick one of these up used right before this came out. I can’t see them selling a whole lot of fixed 6x scopes. Despite the small niche, they can’t seem to keep them in stock.

And I’m really happy to see these tests rolling again. Hope they get the attention of some optics companies.

 

[SDHNTR]

Form, how about the standard Nightforce rings? The cheaper steel ones. I have a set laying around and a new .223 on the way. Any reason why I shouldn’t put them to work? They don’t seem as clean and well built as the Ultralights, but still seem fine, right?

 

[SDHNTR]

I have. They make good rings and I have no issue using them. You do need to go with their torque spec for the ring caps though.

And agreed on the SWFA. Still ridiculous that no other scope is even close to doing what they do.

Agreed. If someone could take those specs and put it into a more modern scope body and turret system they’d own the market. That 6x and 3x9 don’t need to be such physically large scopes.

 

[Formidilosus]

Agreed. If someone could take those specs and put it into a more modern scope body and turret system they’d own the market. That 6x and 3x9 don’t need to be such physically large scopes.

Or maybe that’s part of why they’re so consistent and reliable? The more features, more mag range, shorter and smaller a scope is, all else being equal- the more problems it has.

 

[ElPollo]

Agreed. If someone could take those specs and put it into a more modern scope body and turret system they’d own the market. That 6x and 3x9 don’t need to be such physically large scopes.

But if I put my rifle on the dashboard of my truck, the turrets help me pick up radio stations down in Mexico.

 

[SDHNTR]

Or maybe that’s part of why they’re so consistent and reliable? The more features, more mag range, shorter and smaller a scope is, all else being equal- the more problems it has.

Good point I guess.

 

[Formidilosus]

Good point I guess.

Man I’m so jaded if the thing just holds zero, I can deal with most else. I would love a Weaver K4 or K6 modernized with in mil/mil- THAT would be a hunting scope.

 

[Old-Cat]

Man I’m so jaded if the thing just holds zero, I can deal with most else. I would love a Weaver K4 or K6 modernized with in mil/mil- THAT would be a hunting scope.

Killed my first deer w a fixed 4 weaver, 3/4 tube topped on a 336 marlin chamber in 44mag. That gun was dropped out of tree from such a height that the rear stock broke, the stock was replaced but the scope hunted up to the early nineties.

Man, I would love a Plain-Jane fixed four in 30mm.

 

[JohnB]

Or maybe that’s part of why they’re so consistent and reliable? The more features, more mag range, shorter and smaller a scope is, all else being equal- the more problems it has.

This kinda gets at a question I've been wondering. We talk and talk about scope weight and dimensions but very little about actual internal construction. Are there frequent design culprits that are responsible for loss of zero or poor dialing performance? It seems that external damage or complete failure to function are relatively simple to assign blame but loss of zero or inaccurate dialing are tougher to understand.

Form have you ever delved into internal construction technique as an explanation for loss of zero? If you want to further the destructive testing I'm happy to purchase the Sawzall blades.

 

[Formidilosus]

Form have you ever delved into internal construction technique as an explanation for loss of zero? If you want to further the destructive testing I'm happy to put base the Sawzall blades.

Only peripherally. I’m not an engineer, and while I learned some about it while trying to figure out why some scopes worked and some didn’t a decade ago, what it really came down to was that most of the engineers could make a scope that worked, but the scope had to be built and tested for it to do so.
Most of the scopes that do work were built with impacts in mind. Nightforce specifically was made because they wanted an “unbreakable scope” after so many failures in Lightforce scopes; the Leupold M3 Ultra and Mark 4 fixed powers came about through the US Army’s testing of the M24 and every scope failing to maintain zero when parachuting- Leupold said they could make a scope that held zero, and they did. The SWFA was a Tasco branded scope, that won a military trial for 50cal optics- it was made to hold zero from impacts. Trijicon newer scopes seem to do ok, and there again the company is testing for impacts. etc, etc.

 

[brn2hnt]

Most of the scopes that do work were built with impacts in mind. Nightforce specifically was made because they wanted an “unbreakable scope” after so many failures in Lightforce scopes; the Leupold M3 Ultra and Mark 4 fixed powers came about through the US Army’s testing of the M24 and every scope failing to maintain zero when parachuting- Leupold said they could make a scope that held zero, and they did. The SWFA was a Tasco branded scope, that won a military trial for 50cal optics- it was made to hold zero from impacts. Trijicon newer scopes seem to do ok, and there again the company is testing for impacts. etc, etc.

Would it be fair to infer from this that it seems that the biggest problem is that the general market is asking for the wrong things? Are the scope companies (largely) just delivering what is being asked of them?

 

[Formidilosus]

Would it be fair to infer from this that it seems that the biggest problem is that the general market is asking for the wrong things? Are the scope companies (largely) just delivering what is being asked of them?

Yes, and yes- sort of.


By and large consumers scream price, glass, features, weight, size. Generally in that order. By and large consumers don’t shoot much, and when they do they are so conditioned to checking zero and rezeroing (if they do at all), that the importance of such a thing as a static zero is lost on them. Most claim that their -insert scope- tracks and adjusted just fine, until they experience a scope that actually does exactly what it’s supposed to.

The manufacturers/companies are just an extension of the consumer- they have the same issues and the same lack of understanding.