Q&A for SWFA SS 6x MQ Field Eval

[Lawnboi]

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 "feature

-They are sold only one one site that the general hunting community knows nothing about, because they sell rifles that are 6x the cost of what the general hunting population seems as acceptable. On top of that for what they closed out the last batch of lrhs for they are not a deal.

-Price, a very thin reticle that makes for a more target oriented scope. That price range of scopes is also loaded with optics that people think work but don’t. Same reason the higher power fixed scopes sit.

-People are starting to recognize them, they will be gone. I hope not before Black Friday cause I’ll take a couple for 200 bucks.

-People don’t like to be told what they have spent money on dosnt work. We are dominated by a social media hashtag bullshit marketing scheme, nobody believes their vortex dosnt work because joe cool schwacked a slob horn donkey with it and made a cool post on instabook. Marketing…. That’s all it is. Add in that most hunters don’t shoot their rifles enough to know what a real zero is and we end up here. I used to re zero my rifle every year before hunting season, why? My scope was junk and so was my shooting.

-The more actual shooting people do, the more they will see what works. We are all at different points in our quest to become better marksman. What’s acceptable to me may not be to others and vice versa. When people shoot enough and spend hundreds of dollars diagnosing scope problems, the market will demand more. Hunters need to get off the bench and use their equipment like they do in the field. Practice how you play and things break quick, weaknesses show up quick, and a lot of the complaints people have disappear.

-Good question. This one I can’t answer. Obviously some companies stepped up to the plate. Let’s hope more do.

-Some already have. Iv seen two sides, people who see that there is a better mouse trap. And people who just get pissed and refuse to admit their China scope is a piece of junk.

And to add on, the sooner we as hunters give up the dream of shooting an 8lb 338 Lapua with any consistency, the better we will be. It’s way easier to train your body to carry a 10 pound gun than it is to even become proficient shooting an 8lb 6.5 creedmoor.

Luckily the vital size of our quarry is huge at the distances most shots are taken.

Without this site I never would have heard of swfa, Iv owned multiple, still own one that sits on a 3500$ custom rifle. They work good, I’m not crazy about it but I’d take it over a lot of other scopes Iv owned they cost quite a bit more.

If swfa had a bigger marketing team I’d bet they would be plenty big.

 

[sndmn11]

-Price, a very thin reticle that makes for a more target oriented scope.

I think you're comments exemplify some of my points. There is a .01mil difference in the thickness of the reticle between the 3-15 and the 6x/3-9x. If my mathing works today, that equates to .1" of reticle coverage difference at 300 yards. ([3.36"x3 = 10.08"]x.01). If I am doing a market study, and I get results that are minutely different, I either end up with a bunch of SKUs, or run the risk of alienating a portion of the market due to pickiness. Do that enough and you run out of market.

If $599 is too expensive, what manufacturer is going to want to put more into their scopes for less return? Do you genuinely think Nightforce is going to come out with a new SKU that is 55% of their cheapest current SKU?

 

[SouthPaw]

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.

I had a couple guys just this morning at the range ask me why I'm shooting a Bushnell (LRHS 3-12). Bass Pro sells all of their cheap stuff so its common thinking that they generally suck. Ironic because the dude was chasing a scope issue on his own custom rifle with a top tier scope...

But yes a 3-12 LRHS with something similar to the THLR, I'd buy one or three. Although the G2H has grown on me and I really don't mind the donut much especially at lower power. Still prefer the MQ though.

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.

This really is a travesty and I've learned it first hand over the past year. STORY TIME: I've always been a bowhunter first and shoot thousands of arrows a year, never put much time into rifle hunting and I was that guy who went to the range once or twice to sight in from the bench and call it good (rifles kill fast, are more ethical than bows, and don't require nearly as much practice...right?). I also had 3 different (popular) scopes lose zero on hunts but thought it was "normal/acceptable." Spring of '21 I decided to learn to properly shoot a rifle, learned how to reload, sold my old stuff and put together a couple reliable/shootable rifle systems thanks to RS, and have shot over 2k rounds of centerfire in the past year. Much of it from field positions and at distance, in wind, etc. All of that range time has shown me just how backwards the rifle hunting industry and general hunter logic/knowledge is. Its mind-boggling really.

Deer season opens locally here in CA this weekend so the range has been packed recently with dudes "sighting-in" on the lead sled and its embarrassing how bad folks shoot with their multiple thousand dollar ultralight magnums, the recoil flinching, poor fundamental shooting mechanics, and just how little they known about or practice their own system (scope, ammo, environmentals, bullet construction, etc). The guys that I do see regularly all just shoot off the bench and are constantly chasing groups doing load development. I'm literally the only one that practices real hunting scenarios and I get weird looks and questions constantly. Then their eyes really pop when I tell them I'm going hunting with a 9 pound .223

 

[Lawnboi]

I think you're comments exemplify some of my points. There is a .01mil difference in the thickness of the reticle between the 3-15 and the 6x/3-9x. If my mathing works today, that equates to .1" of reticle coverage difference at 300 yards. ([3.36"x3 = 10.08"]x.01). If I am doing a market study, and I get results that are minutely different, I either end up with a bunch of SKUs, or run the risk of alienating a portion of the market due to pickiness. Do that enough and you run out of market.

If $599 is too expensive, what manufacturer is going to want to put more into their scopes for less return? Do you genuinely think Nightforce is going to come out with a new SKU that is 55% of their cheapest current SKU?


View attachment 454589
View attachment 454590

Reticle thickness some see as a big problem but personally I don’t. Hunters don’t like the faint crosshair of the ffp reticles such as the one on the 3-15 or even say a nightforce mil r or c. Speaking generally of course. I didn’t/don’t have any problem with any of the swfa scopes I had in terms of reticle, even taking quick shots sub 25 yards. That said you can tell a difference when looking in them at low light, on paper it dosnt seem like much. I think people make a bigger deal of the reticle than it’s worth, for instance I really like the mil c reticle, that gets thin at the lower powers.

As far as price point, you don’t know what you don’t know. They are well priced but then someone sees an athlon Midas tac for the same price, with zero stops, and a slap you in the face warranty and buys that instead. I think that price range is flooded with scopes that look good on paper. That’s more of the reason I see the price of that particular scope not selling. Plus anyone smart knows to buy swfa on Black Friday or tax day.


As far as fixed power/low end complaints, that can be trained as well. Target acquisition is a skill that can be learned, and it dosnt even cost any money to do it. You don’t learn this on the bench though, so people will continue to think 6x is just too much for fast shots.

Which brings me right back to hunters not shooting their rifles enough to even see problems that are really there.

Swfa simply has a small market because people don’t know. Did you know about them before form posted about them on here? Cause I had no clue. I’d love to get good enough at shooting to get noticed and go make some people sad shooting a 3-15. But I’m not that good yet.

We have even bigger problems as hunters though, there’s guys who won’t buy an swfa because they don’t want a scope that adjusts in mils

 

[Balderdash]

For my purposes, there's still enough options out there to get the job done. Sure I wouldn't mind if they could shave some weight but retain ruggedness and reliability, or if they could make some EL turrets lower profile, or add more hunter centric reticles, etc, etc. But the reality is that current offerings cover what I need. I think a big part of it is building familiarity with what's available.

I see a lot of instances of people dismissing damn good models of scopes before giving them a chance at all. To certain extents, they just don't know what they're missing. This is often due to factors that they have built up to be of overriding importance, but in reality can be gotten used to, accepted, and even liked after enough use. Examples of reasons I see people dismiss scopes that would likely serve then very well would be weight, turret design, reticle, view, aesthetics, etc. Certainly we're all allowed preferences, but my point is that I've tried products that didn't fit my ideal for whatever reason, only to find after a lot of use that I don't really mind what I initially perceived to be shortfalls.

 

[Stu]

I must be the only person that loves the big classic SWFA knobs. Plenty of room for some blue tape and dope marking. Blue tape for life.

I do cut off the windage flange where brass likes to deflect back towards the chamber though.

 

[Balderdash]

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.

I must be one of the only dudes who actually likes the LRHS reticle and doughnut reticles in general. I much prefer the 3-12 version as an all around big game scope. Lucky I horded a few whilst they were available. Still, I wouldn't say no to a few more if someone is looking to get rid of them.

I will admit to dismissing the Bushies early on because, well, they were Bushies. I even had a few Bushie Elites from the late 90's that had proven to be tough as nails, but I didn't take their LRHS/LRTS serious until reports of how rugged they are started showing up.

 

[Rob5589]

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.

"How's the glass" is more important to the majority. Like I said earlier, virtually no one questions why they have to re-zero their scope after just sitting in the safe for 8-9 months. That's just what most are accustomed too and don't question it.

 

[yycyak]

Another LRHS hoarder here. Mostly because SWFA's are impossible to get up here in Canada, especially now with the Covid shortages. The LRHS's are easier to find, so any time one comes up I try and snag it.

I, too, admit that I would never touch the Bushnell if it weren't for the Rokslide reviews and comments. Same with SWFA. Any time I'm at the range, the LRHS and SWFA get raised eyebrows. Nobody in Canada knows of them. And nobody up here can get them, except in the used market.

(And anyone who has one usually won't sell it, because they know what they have.)

The 3-12 was before its time. It's the perfect "Hunting" scope. Light enough, rugged enough, enough magnification, proper knobs, and mostly proper reticle. But the hunting crowd didn't appreciate it/know about it, the tactical guys wanted more tactical (LRHS2 anyone?) And because it had "Bushnell" on it, nobody wanted to risk it at the price the LRHS 3-12 was offered at. Fast forward to now, and everybody comments how the 3-12 was/is the s***, other than maybe a complaint about the donut reticle.

I wish I could take the SWFA 6x, and stuff it into the LRHS body. I'd never need another hunting scope.

I also wish I could send @Formidilosus the LRHS that's sitting on my shelf doing nothing, so he can do a proper field test with it. I'm just worried that once it gets shipped south of the border, US Customs won't let me have it back. Cause terrorism or whatever....

I must be one of the only dudes who actually likes the LRHS reticle and doughnut reticles in general. I much prefer the 3-12 version as an all around big game scope. Lucky I horded a few whilst they were available. Still, I wouldn't say no to a few more if someone is looking to get rid of them.

I will admit to dismissing the Bushies early on because, well, they were Bushies. I even had a few Bushie Elites from the late 90's that had proven to be tough as nails, but I didn't take their LRHS/LRTS serious until reports of how rugged they are started showing up.

 

[orhunter1]

@Formidilosus is there a 30mm Sportsmatch Tikka rings for this scope?

 

[SDHNTR]

@Formidilosus is there a 30mm Sportsmatch Tikka rings for this scope?

Huh? 30mm rings will work for any 30mm scope. They aren’t make/model specific.

 

[SDHNTR]

Another LRHS hoarder here. Mostly because SWFA's are impossible to get up here in Canada, especially now with the Covid shortages. The LRHS's are easier to find, so any time one comes up I try and snag it.

I, too, admit that I would never touch the Bushnell if it weren't for the Rokslide reviews and comments. Same with SWFA. Any time I'm at the range, the LRHS and SWFA get raised eyebrows. Nobody in Canada knows of them. And nobody up here can get them, except in the used market.

(And anyone who has one usually won't sell it, because they know what they have.)

The 3-12 was before its time. It's the perfect "Hunting" scope. Light enough, rugged enough, enough magnification, proper knobs, and mostly proper reticle. But the hunting crowd didn't appreciate it/know about it, the tactical guys wanted more tactical (LRHS2 anyone?) And because it had "Bushnell" on it, nobody wanted to risk it at the price the LRHS 3-12 was offered at. Fast forward to now, and everybody comments how the 3-12 was/is the s***, other than maybe a complaint about the donut reticle.

I wish I could take the SWFA 6x, and stuff it into the LRHS body. I'd never need another hunting scope.

I also wish I could send @Formidilosus the LRHS that's sitting on my shelf doing nothing, so he can do a proper field test with it. I'm just worried that once it gets shipped south of the border, US Customs won't let me have it back. Cause terrorism or whatever....

Why send Form a scope that we already know works? Kinda how I feel about this thread. Let’s send him stuff to test that has question marks!

 

[ResearchinStuff]

@Formidilosus is there a 30mm Sportsmatch Tikka rings for this scope?

T084s are what you're looking for.

 

[ljalberta]

For the Canadians. It’s worth noting that you can import SWFA through companies like Prophet River. But it ends up around $700+ CAD for a $300 USD scope. I’ve tried for ages to find a a 6MQ and 3-9 of my own in Canada, so I’m just biting the bullet and ordering (back ordering for the 3-9) through an importer.

I’ve been super impressed by 10MQ and the two LRHS that i scooped up over the last couple years.

Love these drop tests.

 

[MattB]

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.

The fact that there is not such a scope on the market is validation of your perspective. The addressable market is too small for it to attract the necessary capital to bring such a product to market. Capital markets are very efficient in that regard.

 

[Formidilosus]

The fact that there is not such a scope on the market is validation of your perspective. The addressable market is too small for it to attract the necessary capital to bring such a product to market. Capital markets are very efficient in that regard.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that. The scope companies decisions are generally made by engineers that don’t shoot or have much experience, and/or marketing teams that don’t shoot or have much experience. It’s generally not that these companies know that there is a significant problem but don’t address it because only a small percentage will notice it it because it’s expensive to do so (certainly some do); so much as it is that they don’t believe it’s a problem at all.


As has been relayed here by one of the forum sponsors that asked multiple scope companies about it, the general answer was “why would you ever drop your scope”. There’s a fundamental disconnect.

 

[fwafwow]

Why send Form a scope that we already know works? Kinda how I feel about this thread. Let’s send him stuff to test that has question marks!

I am sending in a Tract for testing. My delay so far is based on waiting on receipt of a new SHV, but I may just go ahead and send it.

 

[MattB]

I wouldn’t necessarily say that. The scope companies decisions are generally made by engineers that don’t shoot or have much experience, and/or marketing teams that don’t shoot or have much experience. It’s generally not that these companies know that there is a significant problem but don’t address it because only a small percentage will notice it it because it’s expensive to do so (certainly some do); so much as it is that they don’t believe it’s a problem at all.


As has been relayed here by one of the forum sponsors that asked multiple scope companies about it, the general answer was “why would you ever drop your scope”. There’s a fundamental disconnect.

My sense is that it is much more related to customer demand. I think we can agree the vast majority of consumers do not prioritize the same features in a scope you do, and hence do not demand them from the companies they buy from. To look at it from a different perspective, if you were running a scope manufacturer and were beholden to investor return expectations, how could you justify spending the money to re-engineer your product line to provide features your client base isn't broadly demanding?

Having worked in finance in Silicon Valley and watched literally billions of dollars pissed away on business ventures that were based on flawed business models (often based on exaggerated market assumptions) - combined with the unprecedented capital availability that existed over the past decade, I can confidently say that if there was a compelling business case for a new scope company to fill the market niche being talked about here, that company would already exist. I strongly believe that there just isn't a large enough market to provide the sort of return on capital that would be required to attract investment.

 

[SDHNTR]

I am sending in a Tract for testing. My delay so far is based on waiting on receipt of a new SHV, but I may just go ahead and send it.

I can’t wait to see a Tract tested!

 

[fwafwow]

My sense is that it is much more related to customer demand. I think we can agree the vast majority of consumers do not prioritize the same features in a scope you do, and hence do not demand them from the companies they buy from. To look at it from a different perspective, if you were running a scope manufacturer and were beholden to investor return expectations, how could you justify spending the money to re-engineer your product line to provide features your client base isn't broadly demanding?

Having worked in finance in Silicon Valley and watched literally billions of dollars pissed away on business ventures that were based on flawed business models (often based on exaggerated market assumptions) - combined with the unprecedented capital availability that existed over the past decade, I can confidently say that if there was a compelling business case for a new scope company to fill the market niche being talked about here, that company would already exist. I strongly believe that there just isn't a large enough market to provide the sort of return on capital that would be required to attract investment.

I think it’s a combination of supply and demand. I have also been on the “big corporate” side of things, and it never ceases to amaze me at how much is done by the companies based upon what they believe is wanted by their clients/customers. It has been relatively rare in my experience that the companies ask their customer base what they want or need. That’s not necessarily easily applied to scopes, as I agree that the optics customer base may not yet know what they want is what we on RS think should be wanted.