SWFA 10x42 Comparison Question

[emfavro]

I need some help comparing these two seemingly identical SWFA scopes: they’re both SS 10x42 30mm, both with the MQ V2 Gen 2 reticle…with an $80 price difference. I’m seeing a possible sunshade on the more expensive one, is that the explanation? Their comparison tool didn’t help in the slightest, as their product descriptions are identical. Any info you all can provide would be great!

Thanks folks!

 

[emfavro]

Minor update: their sun shade is available for $19.95, so I have a hard time believing that’s the cause of the price increase.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Just from. Glance the more expensive one looks to have. Parallax adjustment or illumination or something on the opposite side of the windage adjustment

 

[Fire_9]

One is side parallax and one is rear parallax

 

[emfavro]

Just from. Glance the more expensive one looks to have. Parallax adjustment or illumination or something on the opposite side of the windage adjustment

You’re brilliant. Yes, that’s exactly it. The lower priced one has a rear parallax adjustment, while the higher priced one has a side parallax adjustment.

That begs the question, is one better, or is it personal preference? There is a 1.4oz increase with the side adjustment.

 

[TxLite]

You’re brilliant. Yes, that’s exactly it. The lower priced one has a rear parallax adjustment, while the higher priced one has a side parallax adjustment.

That begs the question, is one better, or is it personal preference? There is a 1.4oz increase with the side adjustment.

Personal preference. I prefer it to be on the side but my 10x and 6x are on the ocular and they work just fine

 

[Formidilosus]

That begs the question, is one better, or is it personal preference? There is a 1.4oz increase with the side adjustment.

Both work fine, the rear is better.

 

[emfavro]

Both work fine, the rear is better.

The man himself! Could you explain why the rear option is better, and define ‘better’ as well? Thank you!

 

[Formidilosus]

The man himself! Could you explain why the rear option is better, and define ‘better’ as well? Thank you!

Wider range (distance) where oarralax is removed and/or lessened- I.E., it isn’t as critical in the setting. Rear parralax numbers are actually OA removed that distance- side parralax is not for most people- has to do with how the optical systems work. Side PA adds another knob that can get spun, and is more likely to fail than rear PA- though I haven’t seen any SWFA side PA’s fail.

Overall rear PA is more simple, more forgiving, theoretically more robust, and the numbers match the range.

 

[emfavro]

Wider range (distance) where oarralax is removed and/or lessened- I.E., it isn’t as critical in the setting. Rear parralax numbers are actually OA removed that distance- side parralax is not for most people- has to do with how the optical systems work. Side PA adds another knob that can get spun, and is more likely to fail than rear PA- though I haven’t seen any SWFA side PA’s fail.

Overall rear PA is more simple, more forgiving, theoretically more robust, and the numbers match the range.

Groovy, I appreciate the description. With that info and a couple more dollars staying in the bank, rear adjustment it is. Thank you Form and everyone else!

 

[nm.otter]

Overall rear ... the numbers match the range.

I did notice that little detail, and it's nice. Depth of field on the 6x is good enough that I can pretty much set and forget based on the terrain.