Q&A for SWFA SS 6x MQ Field Eval

[Balderdash]

the mil-quad reticle starts getting really good around 5x, I have a 3-15, 3-9, and 2 of the 6x. to do it over again, I'd probably go all 6x and save the $. I'm toying with the idea of selling the variables to fund more of the 6x fixed. It's a slick little scope, and the fov is better than my leupold 4.5-15's on 4.5x.

That's interesting. I'm on an opposite path. Due to scarcity of the 6x and 3-9's recently, I've picked up a couple 3-15's. I've really been enjoying them and, depending on the application, will likely be buying more of them. IMO, the current crop of 3-15 offers much improved glass over an older model that I have.

For a larger caliber rig that will predominately be used for big game, I still prefer the 3-9's. I like the bold lines of the reticle on 3x and extra FOV for closer shots, FWIW the glass is a step up over the Classics, and I don't need the added componentry and weight of PA on a scope that tops out at 9x that will be aimed at larger targets.

All that being said, if I were constrained by horrible circumstances to use only a 6x for everything, I can't say I'd feel too slighted.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

dont' get me wrong, I like all of these scopes. I'm just not personally convinced yet that the 3-15 is worth double the cost of the 6x. the 3-9 is a really good scope, if they were more available i'd have bought only those and never known how much i like the fixed 6x.

On reticles:
I think the hash/diamond spacing is the same for all the milquad variants, but the 3-15 has .01 mil finer crosshairs than the 3-9, and the diamonds are open vice solid on the 3-9.

For the 6x, i can tell the diamonds are there, but can't really tell if they're open or not because they are still kinda tiny at that mag. looking through each scope side by side, my brain processes each scope as having the same reticle. However, the 3-9 has noticeably better fov than the 3-15 on the same magnification. I haven't pulled them all out together to see how the 6x fov compares to the other two.

 

[Formidilosus]

I noticed you and a lot of the people you hunt with use the 6x on your .223s instead of the 3-9. When do you prefer the 6x to the 3-9x? I thought I would take my 6x off once my 3-9 backorder got filled, but the eyebox, eye relief, and field of view on the 6x are so nice I don't see it coming off.

Generally the 3-9x when the rifle is going to be used regularly and consistently on deer past 700’ish yards. It’s not a range thing really, it’s a target blending in to the back ground thing.

 

[Stu]

I've got a fleet of 6x SWFAs. They stay on my hunting/lighter-weight guns. My 5-20 and 10x SWFAs reside on my toys.

The 6x just works without fanfare. I'm still waiting for a 20ish oz 4-12 power with THLR reticle that tracks and holds zero. Until then, $300/scope is awesome.

That being said, deer past 700ish is not in my skill grade. Hunting to 400/500 and target shooting to 800ish which is rare, 6x SWFA works well for me.

 

[SouthPaw]

I'm still waiting for a 20ish oz 4-12 power with THLR reticle that tracks and holds zero.

X2. Think there's any legitimate chance of that happening?

 

[Formidilosus]

X2. Think there's any legitimate chance of that happening?

If we could get any company to listen.

 

[SDHNTR]

If we could get any company to listen.

If we could get any company to listen to us, we’d have a lot better options! Instead, they listen to Bubba buying Vortex at bass pro.

 

[Firth]

If we could get any company to listen to us, we’d have a lot better options! Instead, they listen to Bubba buying Vortex at bass pro.

True, but it's not completely farfetched. If I was picking a company to talk into putting something together I would maybe look to Bushnell first. Their higher end scopes have generally been solid and they have a history of working with shooters/hunters outside the company (see LRHS and LRHS2). SWFA would be another good option. The only knock I have on them is that from my perspective they don't seem to be as willing to take a flier. They just seem more deliberate in deciding to bring out something new.

 

[Balderdash]

True, but it's not completely farfetched. If I was picking a company to talk into putting something together I would maybe look to Bushnell first. Their higher end scopes have generally been solid and they have a history of working with shooters/hunters outside the company (see LRHS and LRHS2). SWFA would be another good option. The only knock I have on them is that from my perspective they don't seem to be as willing to take a flier. They just seem more deliberate in deciding to bring out something new.

Speaking of that, I hear SWFA is doing a major redesign on some of their offerings. Any truth to this? And, If so, any insights into what the finished products might look like?

 

[SDHNTR]

Speaking of that, I hear SWFA is doing a major redesign on some of their offerings. Any truth to this? And, If so, any insights into what the finished products might look like?

On one hand, don’t mess with what works! But on the other hand, their same level of 6x and 3x9 functionality and reliability in a more compact package without those giant turrets, sure would be appealing. As would actual availability.

 

[SDHNTR]

True, but it's not completely farfetched. If I was picking a company to talk into putting something together I would maybe look to Bushnell first. Their higher end scopes have generally been solid and they have a history of working with shooters/hunters outside the company (see LRHS and LRHS2). SWFA would be another good option. The only knock I have on them is that from my perspective they don't seem to be as willing to take a flier. They just seem more deliberate in deciding to bring out something new.

Bushnell is too big and has their fingers in too many pies. SWFA can’t even keep what they currently offer in stock, so I’m not holding my breath for any “improvements”.

IMO, the companies that have potential to listen and deliver are the small direct-to-consumer companies like Tract and Maven. I still have hope, but so far their stuff has been underwhelming. They are trying to compete on features and price, which does matter, but a scope that works matters much more!

It’s not hard to understand what we want…. You could summarize most of it in two words: reliable and lightweight. Come on scope manufacturers! This is how you need to be innovative. We don’t need more features. You can stop with the bells and whistles. Figure out light and durable and you’ve built a better mousetrap. The rest of the stuff like glass coatings, reticles, zoom range and illumination are all further down the list. Stop chasing stuff that is less important. Figure out reliability first, mass weight second, and then get the features right. We’ll buy!

 

[Balderdash]

Bushnell is too big and has their fingers in too many pies. SWFA can’t even keep what they currently offer in stock, so I’m not holding my breath for any “improvements”.

IMO, the companies that have potential to listen and deliver are the small direct-to-consumer companies like Tract and Maven. I still have hope, but so far their stuff has been underwhelming. They are trying to compete on features and price, which does matter, but a scope that works matters much more!

It’s not hard to understand what we want…. You could summarize most of it in two words: reliable and lightweight. Come on scope manufacturers! This is how you need to be innovative. We don’t need more features. You can stop with the bells and whistles. Figure out light and durable and you’ve built a better mousetrap. The rest of the stuff like glass coatings, reticles, zoom range and illumination are all further down the list. Stop chasing stuff that is less important. Figure out reliability first, mass weight second, and then get the features right. We’ll buy!

You can tell these manufacturers that all couple dozen of us who see things this way will buy at least 2!

I do fully agree with your statement, but sometimes I wonder if the target customer group for such an is just too small to be worth the effort. There's always going to be a much larger cohort of - let's just say less discerning buyers - who will think that more contraptions makes a better scope, or assumes that all scopes are fairly equal in mechanical functionality, or who judge a scope solely on it's view or it's weight or it's overall size, etc.

For now I've made my peace with carrying 20+ ounce scopes. Just the way it is. Wasted too much time and ammo on unreliable scopes. It's my take at this time that the material that's trimmed to make a scope much less than 20 ounces is material that needs to be there. If carry weight is the overall arbiter, which I think is too often blown out of proportion, there's better ways to trim weight than sacrificing scope reliability.

 

[nobody]

You can tell these manufacturers that all couple dozen of us who see things this way will buy at least 2!

I do fully agree with your statement, but sometimes I wonder if the target customer group for such an is just too small to be worth the effort. There's always going to be a much larger cohort of - let's just say less discerning buyers - who will think that more contraptions makes a better scope, or assumes that all scopes are fairly equal in mechanical functionality, or who judge a scope solely on it's view or it's weight or it's overall size, etc.

For now I've made my peace with carrying 20+ ounce scopes. Just the way it is. Wasted too much time and ammo on unreliable scopes. It's my take at this time that the material that's trimmed to make a scope much less than 20 ounces is material that needs to be there. If carry weight is the overall arbiter, which I think is too often blown out of proportion, there's better ways to trim weight than sacrificing scope reliability.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. My hunting partner is one of them, wants all the bells and whistles for the lowest dollar amount. And in today's market, really, who doesn't want that? Optic companies make what sells, and FFP christmas tree reticles and illumination and 8x zoom ranges for $500 is what sells. That's capitalism for you, and unfortunately, the ones who suffer are guys like us who have different (albeit, more stringent) expectations.

But in the meantime, I'll lug around my 21 oz lead anchor SWFA happily until something else works. But hey, it's keeping more funds freed up for tags and other gear, so that's a bonus I guess.

 

[SDHNTR]

You can tell these manufacturers that all couple dozen of us who see things this way will buy at least 2!

I do fully agree with your statement, but sometimes I wonder if the target customer group for such an is just too small to be worth the effort. There's always going to be a much larger cohort of - let's just say less discerning buyers - who will think that more contraptions makes a better scope, or assumes that all scopes are fairly equal in mechanical functionality, or who judge a scope solely on it's view or it's weight or it's overall size, etc.

For now I've made my peace with carrying 20+ ounce scopes. Just the way it is. Wasted too much time and ammo on unreliable scopes. It's my take at this time that the material that's trimmed to make a scope much less than 20 ounces is material that needs to be there. If carry weight is the overall arbiter, which I think is too often blown out of proportion, there's better ways to trim weight than sacrificing scope reliability.

I certainly agree. Weight is a tradeoff I’ve begrudgingly come to accept also in order to get a scope that works. I wish it weren’t that way, but it current is. And I’m convinced it’s that way, not because light AND reliable isn’t possible possible, but rather, because no one is trying. They don’t have to, because knuckleheads keep buying bells and whistles.

 

[sndmn11]

It’s not hard to understand what we want…. You could summarize most of it in two words: reliable and lightweight. Come on scope manufacturers! This is how you need to be innovative. We don’t need more features. You can stop with the bells and whistles. Figure out light and durable and you’ve built a better mousetrap. The rest of the stuff like glass coatings, reticles, zoom range and illumination are all further down the list. Stop chasing stuff that is less important. Figure out reliability first, mass weight second, and then get the features right. We’ll buy!

@Ucsdryder and I were talking about this yesterday, we naturally disagreed.

I think something you left out was price. Most folks want price as an important "feature", he had said $1k and I would agree that is generally what is thrown out there.

I think it is a hard sell to get a company to back off of "features" and invest more in reliability. First of all, I think that would some sort of an admission that their other riflescopes are not reliable. Second, there would have to be a relentless marketing campaign to convince novice to expert consumers that their current riflescope has a 99% of not being reliable. For emphasis, that campaign would have to reach beyond this forum, way way way beyond. Lastly, I think the amount of these scopes that would be sold is 1% of what the perception is here.

These are genuine questions, maybe food for thought, and I don't have answers to any of them:
-Why did it take the LRHS2 a couple years to sell out?
-Why are SWFA 3-15s in stock now and have been for a while?
-Why are SWFA 6s in stock now?
*-How is the notion of, "I don't drop my scope!" conquered by a marketing campaign when even here on Rokslide many can't be convinced of it's merit? STILL people think it is a test with the primary purpose of looking at the results of impacts. *asterisk due to below
-How is one person's "perfect" scope being different than another person's "perfect" scope overcome? If someone looks at this problem and determines that 1k people would buy a dead nuts reliable 3-9x scope that dials in mils, but for some reason isn't an SWFA 3-9, they must look at how many SKUs would satisfy that market.
-How does the company that undertakes this overcome incomplete "testing" by others in the market? For instance, there is a pseudo review on here of a scope from one of the brands in the post I have quoted above. The person doing the review mentions that he has observed a zero shift, there are bullet holes on his target that show clear zero shift that are unrelated to his comment of zero shift, yet his conclusion is that the scope passed to his eyes. Without an adhered to ATSM or some other strict process, you aren't comparing apples to apples and therefore "standards" are simply internal and bendable.
-Of all the people you (a hypothetical "you") know, who would switch their rifle scope TODAY if you took them to the range and proved that their scope can lose zero within 7 shots? **refer to above asterisk-ed point**. Of those who would switch, how many would buy a scope with less "features" TODAY?

For me, I am fine with the compromises that I make with the scopes that I own. If I were to pursue this, I would reach out to Maven, but still think it would be a hard sell. @cfossen has designed scopes with them, and subsequently won NRL seasons with those scopes. Their perspective MIGHT be to ask what should be improved if no issues have arisen in use? (see asterisk-ed point above). If I were Nightforce, I would have to ask what about the F1 SHV doesn't satisfy. When weight is brought up, I would shake my head and chuckle due to the request for a "value" price point and the want to cut weight. Then I would tell you that our brand isn't one that wishes to compete on price, and maybe talk about how fat barrels, attached rails, heavy slings, etc., might be a better place to cut weight.

To emphasis my point, I do have TWO 3-12 Bushnell LRTS that can be purchased for less than $1k. My bet is that I cannot sell either for more than $700. That seems to directly conflict with the notion that a demanding market exists, or that this very niche market actually knows what it wants.

@SDHNTR I am not picking on your comments, they were a good summary example of what I have heard from some folks.

 

[Formidilosus]

If I were to pursue this, I would reach out to Maven, but still think it would be a hard sell. @cfossen has designed scopes with them, and subsequently won NRL seasons with those scopes. Their perspective MIGHT be to ask what should be improved if no issues have arisen in use? (see asterisk-ed point above).

Most of your points are solid, however three I will address.

1). Maven wants no part of making a correct scope. They have been asked.

2). The LRHS2 hasn’t sold great, because it’s too big and heavy. They 4.5-18x outsold the 3-12x in the first version, due mainly I perceive because the market wasn’t ready/didn’t see the need for a more reliable scope, and because most hunters hate donuts. Also, there is the perception that Bushnell aren’t a good scopes. I do think that a 3-12x LRHS with a better reticle at $750 would sell enough to be worthwhile.

3). There’s absolutely enough of a market for a reliable scope line, but it will not sustain a company. As you said, first a company would have to admit that their scopes don’t work- which they don’t; then you would have to overcome the ridiculous mindset of hunters/shooters that it’s ok for scopes to fail.


All the above is a tall ask when almost no hunters actually shoot. The fact that “serious” hunters shoot less rounds in a year, than the average bow hunter does in a single day is pathetic and should be embarrassing.

 

[sndmn11]

All the above is a tall ask when almost no hunters actually shoot. The fact that “serious” hunters shoot less rounds in a year, than the average bow hunter does in a single day is pathetic and should be embarrassing.

I also have the perception that those who do shoot enough to be considered "serious" shooters, aren't doing much more than carrying their rifle back and forth from the truck to the range.

Your point reminds me of your equipment versus practice thread. It is an easy thing to throw "features" into an item and the consumer believe that it will make up for their lack of practice. It is also an easy thing for the functionality of those add-ons to go unvetted by that consumer due to their lack of practice. Most of those types of people will make a purchasing decision on how feature packed something is that is within their budget.

 

[svivian]

I worked an optics counter for a large sporting goods store through out college and part time for a while after for a total of 6 years or so. Not a single person asked about how durable a scope was or drop testing. I sold hundreds of optics if not more in that time.

We are a small percentage of buyers on this forum.

 

[Formidilosus]

I also have the perception that those who do shoot enough to be considered "serious" shooters, aren't doing much more than carrying their rifle back and forth from the truck to the range.

In scopes, PRS is a perfect example. 30-40lb 6mm bench-rest rifles being used on barricades. Most freak out over their rifle getting rings and scratches worse than most hunters.

Your point reminds me of your equipment versus practice thread. It is an easy thing to throw "features" into an item and the consumer believe that it will make up for their lack of practice. It is also an easy thing for the functionality of those add-ons to go unvetted by that consumer due to their lack of practice. Most of those types of people will make a purchasing decision on how feature packed something is that is within their budget.

Correct.

 

[SDHNTR]

Sndmn11: I mostly agree with you too. Im not saying I have all the answers. I just think manufacturers have to start thinking about these things as the market is changing. We are only in the infancy of this trend towards more durability. I don’t think companies have to outright admit that their previous scopes were turds, but I do think that if I were running marketing for any scope manufacturer I would absolutely include impact testing in my marketing material. As absurd as Nightforces videos are, their durability is the sole reason why we buy them. I don’t want a heavy bazooka tube on top of my svelte rifle, but I don’t want a scope that fails even more. I think it’s possible to build light AND tough, there just has to be desire from the manufacturers. I think the demand is getting there.

As for price, well there will always be the consumer willing to pay more for exactly what he wants. It’s a simple as two different series. Take Nightforce again. You could have the SHV or the NXS line that we know is reliable but heavy. Or for $X amount more you can buy the SHV or NXS Ti line, made of titanium that shaves 6-8 ounces, yet costs an extra few hundred dollars. I guarantee you that would sell. Just like what Defiance has done with the Tenacity vs AnTi.

I also agree with Form about the Bushnell. Unfortunately that sucker didn’t sell well outside of the select few who knew because it says Bushnell on the box! They should have re-branded it. And because that reticle sucks.

Ultimately, I think Form is right in that the biggest hurdle is convincing the hunting public that a scope should be durable and withstand basic impacts as a minimum standard. Fortunately, that is starting to change. 5 years from now, I see it as a generally accepted requirement. And the companies that market their scopes now as having been impact tested, like NF, and Trijicon (though the rest of their marketing is confusing) will have the first mover advantage.