SWFA Black Friday

[Mike Islander]

I may buy if for some reason you don't like it after a couple months.

Sounds good. I have no issues leaving the turrets uncovered, so the "giant turret hate" may not be an issue. If nothing else it should be fun dialing squirrels out to 100 yards or so. I've taken most of my deer with the 10X on a Fieldcraft from 120-250 yards.

 

[OP101]

I’m sitting pretty undecided between the 3-9 and 3-15. Is the general idea that if you have the 3-15 you’ll be more tempted to use the upper magnification range more often which can negatively limit your field of view?

I don’t get why it’s a negative to have the 15x for times at the range, but only use the 3-9x range while you’re hunting. Or is everyone just repeating that the 3-9 is the best because that’s what they’ve read other people say?

I’ve read the thread multiple times and understand the diamonds are not filled in on the 3-15, questionable image quality from 12-15 (often refuted), a few more ounces, reticle is slightly thicker on the 3-9, and a higher price tag on the 3-15.

Just wondering what I’m missing if one were to get the 3-15 just for the sake of having more magnification while at the range.

 

[Marbles]

I’m sitting pretty undecided between the 3-9 and 3-15. Is the general idea that if you have the 3-15 you’ll be more tempted to use the upper magnification range more often which can negatively limit your field of view?

I don’t get why it’s a negative to have the 15x for times at the range, but only use the 3-9x range while you’re hunting. Or is everyone just repeating that the 3-9 is the best because that’s what they’ve read other people say?

I’ve read the thread multiple times and understand the diamonds are not filled in on the 3-15, questionable image quality from 12-15 (often refuted), a few more ounces, reticle is slightly thicker on the 3-9, and a higher price tag on the 3-15.

Just wondering what I’m missing if one were to get the 3-15 just for the sake of having more magnification while at the range.

If you prefer the 3-15, get that. They both work, the 3-9 fits my preferences before because it is simpler, which is better for my simple mind.

 

[goalie]

I’m sitting pretty undecided between the 3-9 and 3-15. Is the general idea that if you have the 3-15 you’ll be more tempted to use the upper magnification range more often which can negatively limit your field of view?

I don’t get why it’s a negative to have the 15x for times at the range, but only use the 3-9x range while you’re hunting. Or is everyone just repeating that the 3-9 is the best because that’s what they’ve read other people say?

I’ve read the thread multiple times and understand the diamonds are not filled in on the 3-15, questionable image quality from 12-15 (often refuted), a few more ounces, reticle is slightly thicker on the 3-9, and a higher price tag on the 3-15.

Just wondering what I’m missing if one were to get the 3-15 just for the sake of having more magnification while at the range.

Just a few thoughts:

1. The 3-9 has a 3x zoom compared to a 5x on the 3-15
2. The parallax is fixed on the 3-9

Those two mean a scope with less parts. KISS is a thing.

Add in that most that prefer the 3-9 prefer it specifically as a hunting scope. Hunting. Not shooting off the bench.

The 3-9 is under 20oz, tough, reliable/accurate tracking and comes with good glass. It's an amazing hunting optic.

It's not an amazing benchrest optic or PRS optic.

Optics that are better at long range target shooting may not be as good on a mountain hunting rifle.

Match the tool to the job and, IMO, you often get better results than you will using a "jack of all trades, master of none" tool.