SWFA Black Friday

[texag10]

Those of you hunting with the 3-9, how far of shot are you taking? I dont usually use less than 15x for longer range work.

I've shot animals just under 500 with the 3-9, and I don't even know if I had it on 9x.

Target shot rocks to 900, had animals in scope at 800 and doesn't feel like the mag level would've been a hindrance.

I have the exact opposite opinion of the 3-9. At 3x the reticle is still very visible. My rifle lives on 3x and I’ve shot deer in thick timber past 100 yards at 3x. Absolutely no issues. The buck I shot last year was around 250 and I would’ve taken the shot at 3x without hesitation. I think I was at 5-6x since I had time to crank it up.

I’ve taken it to 1000 yards on steel and found it more than acceptable, but I am not one to shoot that far on game, especially not on a 6.5 Grendel.

That being said, I know a lot of guys like a lot of magnification for shooting deer at close range. I just can’t understand why.

My shots last year were 80yds on a cow elk and 40yds on a mule deer buck, both in trees, both at 3x. I feel the scope works very well in those situations. I was shooting rocks at 300 yesterday at 3x on 2 different rifles and didn't feel the need to increase mag.

 

[HighUintas]

Kinda of thinking of dumping my rs2.1 for another 3-9x ss. I do like the ability to zoom into 15x to get a better look at the elk, but I am really tired of the top heavy feeling of my rifle from that extra weight.

I can't think of any other reason for using the rs1.2.

 

[Ajsomp]

Kinda of thinking of dumping my rs2.1 for another 3-9x ss. I do like the ability to zoom into 15x to get a better look at the elk, but I am really tired of the top heavy feeling of my rifle from that extra weight.

I can't think of any other reason for using the rs1.2.

Proper zero stop, capped windage, parallax adjustment and lower profile turrets are selling points

That being said - not everyone really needs those.

I definitely felt like my gun was more top heavy with the maven vs the Swfa. It just didn’t carry the same in the hand. Maybe that’s all in my head.

 

[43.6N]

I’m at a point where unless a really good deal on a used 3-9 or gen2 6x pops up, I’ll probably hold off on any more scopes until the s2h rokscope thlr come to market.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I know not everyone will agree with me on this, but I will also put in a plug for the SWFA SS 12x32 binoculars. If you are a glass snob, kindly see yourself out, but I really do think that at $300 they punch above their weight.

SWFA SS 12x32 BR Binocular With Reticle

The SS 12x32 BR binocular is all about detail. Both the incredible amount of detail it delivers to the eye and the incredible amount of attention to detail it took to bring this compact high quality 12x binocular to the market. With the SWFA SS 12x32 BR no corners were cut and no attention was...

swfa.com

I bought these back in August because I wanted a lighter weight set of binoculars with a reticle for making adjustments. They are about 1.25 pounds, which makes them a bit more than a pound lighter than my lovely Leicas. This puts them close in weight to the crappy old Pentax and Nikon ones I carried for years and never really bothered to use.

I have used them to make adjustments on a 300-yard target and they are quite good for spotting impacts in dirt, if you don’t want to bring along a better/heavier spotter. I haven’t compared them with any Alpha binoculars. My point of comparison is with the typical small, light binoculars (7x-10x) I used to carry.

 

[HighUintas]

Proper zero stop, capped windage, parallax adjustment and lower profile turrets are selling points

That being said - not everyone really needs those.

I definitely felt like my gun was more top heavy with the maven vs the Swfa. It just didn’t carry the same in the hand. Maybe that’s all in my head.

It 100% doesn't carry as well.

And all those things you mentioned, I don't use them except the capped windage haha. The turret height on swfa has never bothered me

 

[gbflyer]

I’m diggin’ this gen 1 6X MOA. Good optics, nice focus, reasonable turrets.

Get off my lawn.

 

[Marbles]

You know, it is funny because I have two Maven RS1.2's and a SWFA 3-9. I like the Mavens, the glass is better. But, the 3-9 is perfectly functional and I would rather have two 3-9s than one RS1.2. of course, when I bought both Mavens the SWFA's were not available and hadn't been for over a year and a half.

I sold the SWFA fixed 6x.

 

[EuroOptic]

If your Minox is has the THLR reticle, there's likely at least half a dozen people here who would buy it from you ... especially as it sounds as if @EuroOptic have sold out of the latest batch.

yup they gone - probably for good. you guys ate all 29 of them before they even had a chance to make it to the website

 

[benconfused]

Is there a discount code? Mine doesn’t seem to give the Black Friday price and don’t want to hit pay with the regular price still showing.

It 100% doesn't carry as well.

And all those things you mentioned, I don't use them except the capped windage haha. The turret height on swfa has never bothered me

Agree with the balance of the Maven.

 

[Dobermann]

Agree with the balance of the Maven.

Me four.

For context, on a T3X with a carbon stock. Could be a different story on a wooden Rokstock, for example.

 

[sndmn11]

You guys talking about preferring the SWFA to the RS1.2 are making me think through a 3-9 + 6x swap to make an everyone wins scenario.

 

[The Harbor Master]

So to clarify, if I'm understanding the differences:

3-9x42 HD may be preferable over the 3-15x42 in terms of glass quality to some, but does not have adjustable paralax, zero stop, or interchangeable turrets. The newer 3-15x42 offers zero stop and interchangeable turrets... Am I getting these details right?

I am eyeing this sale as I have a .223 RSS trainer waiting for a scope. I was looking hard at the 3-15x42 but I already find the adjustable paralax on my NF 2.5-10 to be a pain in the ass, as it spins itself when I carry it. I plan to also hunt with this .223 so I am trying to weigh pros/cons between the 3-9 HD and the 3-15. Would I rather have zero stop and interchangeable turrets, or better glass and no worry about paralax adjustment? Hmmm... I am a SFP fan for the hunting I do, but not die hard about it. An FFP with a good reticle at low magnification may work, I'm just not experienced in that realm. I originally was set on a 2.5-15x42 Credo (SFP) but it's pretty far out of my budget. The SWFA is a lot more doable.

 

[Ajsomp]

Just get the 3-9. Especially at the sale price

 

[Marbles]

So to clarify, if I'm understanding the differences:

3-9x42 HD may be preferable over the 3-15x42 in terms of glass quality to some, but does not have adjustable paralax. Also, only the newer 3-15x42 offers zero stop and interchangeable turrets? Am I getting these details right?

I am eyeing this sale as I have a .223 RSS trainer waiting for a scope. I was looking hard at the 3-15x42 but I already find the adjustable paralax on my NF 2.5-10 to be a pain in the ass, as it spins itself when I carry it. I plan to also hunt with this .223 so I am trying to weigh pros/cons between the 3-9 HD and the 3-15. Would I rather have zero stop and interchangeable turrets, or better glass and no worry about paralax adjustment? Hmmm... I originally was set on a 2.5-15x42 Credo but it's pretty far out of my budget. The SWFA is a lot more doable.

I like the simplicity of the 3-9. Given the cost difference for the mil-quad reticle I wouldn't pay extra for the 3-15 unless it specifically speaks to your needs.

I have never used the 3-15, so cannot compare them. But other than shooting at paper, I don't find any value in having more than 8x in a scope.

 

[ztc92]

So to clarify, if I'm understanding the differences:

3-9x42 HD may be preferable over the 3-15x42 in terms of glass quality to some, but does not have adjustable paralax, zero stop, or interchangeable turrets. The newer 3-15x42 offers zero stop and interchangeable turrets... Am I getting these details right?

I am eyeing this sale as I have a .223 RSS trainer waiting for a scope. I was looking hard at the 3-15x42 but I already find the adjustable paralax on my NF 2.5-10 to be a pain in the ass, as it spins itself when I carry it. I plan to also hunt with this .223 so I am trying to weigh pros/cons between the 3-9 HD and the 3-15. Would I rather have zero stop and interchangeable turrets, or better glass and no worry about paralax adjustment? Hmmm... I am a SFP fan for the hunting I do, but not die hard about it. An FFP with a good reticle at low magnification may work, I'm just not experienced in that realm. I originally was set on a 2.5-15x42 Credo (SFP) but it's pretty far out of my budget. The SWFA is a lot more doable.

I have used both the 3-9 and the gen1 3-15. For a 223 I think the 6x is best but if I couldn’t have that, I would pick the 3-9. You’ll rarely shoot far enough with 223 to need the parallax. You can make a zero stop on the 3-9 with a set of plastic shims that cost like $10 on here or on eBay. Works great and super easy. The reduced weight and improved glass are nice perks as well. Last, I like the turrets on the 3-9 much better than any of the other SWFA’s

 

[Marbles]

I like the turrets on the 3-9 much better than any of the other SWFA’s

Agree, having had a 6x. But, I haven't touched the gen II turrets.

 

[ztc92]

Agree, having had a 6x. But, I haven't touched the gen II turrets.

Good point, I’ve looked at them on a friends scope but not owned or used them. I still think I’d like the 3-9 beat as they are more low profile and feel great to me.

 

[BBob]

I am eyeing this sale as I have a .223 RSS trainer waiting for a scope.

Like others I’d pick the 3x9 for that one.

 

[HighUintas]

You guys talking about preferring the SWFA to the RS1.2 are making me think through a 3-9 + 6x swap to make an everyone wins scenario.

I'd might consider that depending on specifics.