SWFA 3-15x42mm Gen 2 Field Eval Q&A

[Quandary]

I wanted to update and provide a bit of perspective on the optical comparison above. I did a sunset and sunrise comparison last night and this morning. I also brought out a Zeiss V6 5-30 x50 I have that isn't mounted. Looked through all of them at the same power. Also keep in mind the Leica is a 56 objective and the design concept of the scope was deep woods and night time boar shooting. Looked through the scopes at sunset and a little after and starting at 15 minute before sunrise. Both last night and this morning were complete overcast, very tough lighting conditions.

The Leica is substantial brighter than either the Zeiss or the SWFA. Much easy to see everything. This confirms the use case for which I bought the scope. It is probably unfair to compare the other two scopes to the 56 Leica.

The SWFA compares quit well to the Zeiss. The V6 Zeiss' have great glass. To me this says a lot about the quality of the optics in the SWFA. To be fair the Zeiss was a bit better than the SWFA, but it wasn't as big a difference as I would expect.

For $750 the SWFA is an incredible bargain.

 

[Sled]

I would recommend using the capped turrets for folks looking to get the most durability out of these scopes. I just accidentally dropped my rifle directly on its elevation turret and it bent it, shearing off the screw on top. Went to work the turret back clockwise and the entire turret housing spun. Sending it back to swfa for warranty. Will update the process

View attachment 869783
View attachment 869784

The real question is did it hold zero after that drop?

 

[littlebigtine]

The real question is did it hold zero after that drop?

Negative, zero shifted .7 mils left and .4 mils down.
I am not going to run exposed turrets on the swfa’s from here on out and will do my own testing to confirm form’s results.
And to be clear the scope that was dropped and warrantied was a gen 2 10x42.