SWFA 3-9 vs Maven RS1.2 2.5-15 vs SWFA 3-15 with Mil reticle/FFP

[Marbles]

I have both, I prefer the RS1.2.

SWFA pro
-Better reticle
-Lighter
-Cheaper
-Smaller
-Better magnification range (can't be tempted to shoot at an animal on 15)

RA1.2 pro
-Zero stop (can be jerry rigged on the SWFA)
-Better glass (can see my 223 bullet holes on paper with it)
-Illuminated reticle
-Capped windage
-Nicer feel to it

And now I'm wondering why I have two RS1.2s and only one SS 3-9x42. The Maven is probably not worth more than double the SWFA.

 

[benconfused]

I have both, I prefer the RS1.2.

SWFA pro
-Better reticle
-Lighter
-Cheaper
-Smaller
-Better magnification range (can't be tempted to shoot at an animal on 15)

RA1.2 pro
-Zero stop (can be jerry rigged on the SWFA)
-Better glass (can see my 223 bullet holes on paper with it)
-Illuminated reticle
-Capped windage
-Nicer feel to it

And now I'm wondering why I have two RS1.2s and only one SS 3-9x42. The Maven is probably not worth more than double the SWFA.

You last callout is also my struggle at the moment. BF SWFA deal coming up for the 3-15 (one I was looking at) vs increased price of the Maven, even though I have a 25% off code for the Maven, it's over 1K with tax/shipping.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Maven I have 4 and trainer and hunting rifle are identical accept for caliber.

The SWFA business model is to unreliable to support long term. I don’t trust their warranty support based on their current practices. Besides the Maven beats them in all categories accept weight

I agree with having the same scope on trainer and primary, but otherwise, I respectfully disagree.

For value, nothing beats the SWFA options. I’ve yet to find a scope I like better than one of the nine SWFAs I currently own (not counting two others I sold within my family). The Maven is twice the price of the 3-15x40, isn’t it? And four times the price of a fixed 6x (if you can afford to wait for it to be in stock!)?

I don’t purchase items based on potential warranty support. I pick things I don’t expect to break. Murphy says, “it will break when you most need it.” If my scope breaks on a hunt, no amount of fast warranty support is going to fix that in time. If I was concerned about a scope failing, I could simply carry three spare SWFA fixed power scopes in my vehicle and be about even on cost with a Maven.

And, for all that SWFA’s low-cost business model can be frustrating, they at least intentionally made a rugged and reliable scope. It bothers me that Maven didn’t do that.

Neither company is perfect. I don’t think you can go far wrong with either scope option.

I will also add that I don’t own a Maven. I know lots of people around here love them. Not saying anything against it except price and design philosophy. If I wanted to spend that much money on a scope, my choice would be between a Maven or a Trijicon. And I don’t think I could go far wrong with either.

 

[benconfused]

I agree with having the same scope on trainer and primary, but otherwise, I respectfully disagree.

For value, nothing beats the SWFA options. I’ve yet to find a scope I like better than one of the nine SWFAs I currently own (not counting two others I sold within my family). The Maven is twice the price of the 3-15x40, isn’t it? And four times the price of a fixed 6x (if you can afford to wait for it to be in stock!)?

I don’t purchase items based on potential warranty support. I pick things I don’t expect to break. Murphy says, “it will break when you most need it.” If my scope breaks on a hunt, no amount of fast warranty support is going to fix that in time. If I was concerned about a scope failing, I could simply carry three spare SWFA fixed power scopes in my vehicle and be about even on cost with a Maven.

And, for all that SWFA’s low-cost business model can be frustrating, they at least intentionally made a rugged and reliable scope. It bothers me that Maven didn’t do that.

Neither company is perfect. I don’t think you can go far wrong with either scope option.

I will also add that I don’t own a Maven. I know lots of people around here love them. Not saying anything against it except price and design philosophy. If I wanted to spend that much money on a scope, my choice would be between a Maven or a Trijicon. And I don’t think I could go far wrong with either.

Are you using the SWFA christmas tree or standard milquad reticle?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Are you using the SWFA christmas tree or standard milquad reticle?

Standard milquad. The only Christmas trees in my house go up on or about December 15.

 

[Formidilosus]

Where did some of you land on the Maven vs SWFA debate? I posted this in the Rokstok chat but was hoping to get a little more feedback from the RS community. Thanks in advance...

What's the consensus here for scope on the trainer?

Trying to decide if I want to get another RS1.2 (to match the 65prc), or try the Gen ii SWFA 3-15.

Considerations for the trainer (Tikka 223 18' suppressed):
1. Overall weight and balance with a Maven vs SWFA
2. Trainer to however far I can shoot
3. Will also use it for Whitetail hunting under 300 yards in middle TN (low-light considerations)
4. Lastly, Maven price increase vs SWFA upcoming BF sale
5. Love the Maven reticle but def a heavy scope

I’ll be the odd man out- while the RS1.2 is generally a very good scope, for most uses I prefer the Gen 2 3-15x SWFA for mainly two reasons:

1). Capped turrets if desired (the RS1.2 spins all the f’ing time). Left uncapped they don’t accidentally spin.

2). Significantly more visible (bold) reticle at lower powers.


They are both .5 mil per tick reticles- it doesn’t matter that “it’s the same scope”. If someone needs or think that there is some real difference having different scopes that function the same on rifles…. I’m going to guess that they can’t walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.