It’s way ‘cleaner’ looking? Zero-stop, and better glass?Outside of glass quality, why would you pick this over an SWFA 6x at 10% the cost?
Definitely hard to justify the price difference. But sometimes a guy just wants something ‘nicer’.
It’s way ‘cleaner’ looking? Zero-stop, and better glass?Outside of glass quality, why would you pick this over an SWFA 6x at 10% the cost?
That’s fine and all but at 9-10x the cost that’s incredibly diminished returns.It’s way ‘cleaner’ looking? Zero-stop, and better glass?
Definitely hard to justify the price difference. But sometimes a guy just wants something ‘nicer’.
I have two Win 70's that I hunted for years with other scopes, but discovered do not enough windage adjustment for the 3-12x42 Klassic.Yeh it was two different actions with a decade different vintages. Two different Smith’s checked them for square. While not perfect they weren’t so out of whack that S&B scope just doesn’t have a lot of elevation as is.
Thanks so much for this. I have to admit, however, that after reading it I still can't decide whether it has tipped me over the edge to backorder another SWFA 6x, to order my first 10x (why not at that price?), or to start scouring for a PMII.If someone wants one of these scopes, in the past at least, they could be special ordered through Eurooptic. It's not a quick turn around from time of order and they aren't cheap.
I use 3 of these. They are my preferred hunting scope. I use a lot of different scopes, but I have a strong affinity for 6x42 scopes. I think these are the best ones made.
To me, the following are the pro's:
1. Reliable: They have been perfectly reliable for me. One survived an ~25' drop from a stand. When I checked zero, the 5 shot group was .2 mil low at 109 yards...and that may have been related to the stock/barreled action shifting.
2. Simple: simple things last. Fewer things to break. It's always on the right power. Adjust and shoot.
3. Excellent adjustments
4. Excellent 4 post, measured reticle
5. Excellent in low light - great glass, bold reticle to subtend from 4 evenly spaced outer bars, fewer lenses compared to a variable or a fixed with parallax is less light lost per lens surface. Apart from increasing power and objective size, it's very hard to beat in low light.
6. Light weight, slim, trim.
7. Lack of parallax adjustment (exception here for rimfire)
8. As much adjustment as I'll need and no way to get lost on revolutions.
9. Low profile turrets
To me, the following are the con's:
1. Dials are very tightly spaced on adjustments. Clicks are clear and clean but extremely close together. Each "mark" on the dial is .2 mil - there are two clicks between each mark...and they are tight. I would prefer it be a 10 mil single turn dial with more spacing between clicks than the 13 mil dial.
2. Cost
3. Availability
I'm a huge fan of the 6x SWFA as well and use more of them than the PMII (cost/availability). For the $ the SWFA can not be beat. For big game hunting, I prefer the PMII, and it's not by a little bit I prefer it. For targets, I prefer the SWFA.
Thanks so much for this. I have to admit, however, that after reading it I still can't decide whether it has tipped me over the edge to backorder another SWFA 6x, to order my first 10x (why not at that price?), or to start scouring for a PMII.
It's a fun trick when someone does not know you are a below the knee amputee.Are you really arguing with Big Stick? It’s gonna be like hitting yourself in the foot with a hammer until it doesn’t hurt anymore.
It's a fun trick when someone does not know you are a below the knee amputee.
I did give myself a time out for it though, because bad behavior is bad behavior.
You are correct, except it was 20 oz and had exposed windage single turn turret.I’ll concede parallax and lack of illumination… but this model had 13 mil travel with one of the best hunting reticles on the market. And it was <17 oz.