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.

 

[OP101]

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.

Appreciate it. Just preference, got it. I also don’t need the very best, just better than I have now.

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.

Less moving parts is definitely simpler and typically better. However, neither models appear to have any issues with durability or reliability from what I’ve read so I have a difficult time considering the simplicity of the 3-9 a pro in this specific comparison scenario. Neither appear to have many issues.

The weight savings and specific use, as a hunting scope, like you are saying, are the two many drivers pushing me towards the 3-9. Just curious what reasons I might be overlooking that a 3-15 would be bad.

Only been hunting for ~7 years with an 4-16 SFP mil scope so my limited experience is one of my main issues. Plus all my experience has had 16x available to me, so I’m just hesitant to give that up and regret it. I appreciate the other points of view/input for sure.

 

[Steve300xcw]

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.

3-15 has the larger turrets' doesnt it?

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

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?

Its not a negative to have it, folks are just saying if hunting is the priority the 3-9 is enough. Additionally the 3-9 is more stream lined in terms of its turret protrusion/form factor, still a bit clunky but less so than the SS series. Also it costs less. Its "good enough" for hunting and generally affordable for a variable ffp hunting scope that can dial well. If you prefer the 3-15 get one.

 

[benconfused]

Appreciate it. Just preference, got it. I also don’t need the very best, just better than I have now.



Less moving parts is definitely simpler and typically better. However, neither models appear to have any issues with durability or reliability from what I’ve read so I have a difficult time considering the simplicity of the 3-9 a pro in this specific comparison scenario. Neither appear to have many issues.

The weight savings and specific use, as a hunting scope, like you are saying, are the two many drivers pushing me towards the 3-9. Just curious what reasons I might be overlooking that a 3-15 would be bad.

Only been hunting for ~7 years with an 4-16 SFP mil scope so my limited experience is one of my main issues. Plus all my experience has had 16x available to me, so I’m just hesitant to give that up and regret it. I appreciate the other points of view/input for sure.

Get the 3-15 and call it a day. Your still winning. Next year get a 3-9 if you want. Sell the other one anytime.

 

[Jakeb]

Appreciate it. Just preference, got it. I also don’t need the very best, just better than I have now.



Less moving parts is definitely simpler and typically better. However, neither models appear to have any issues with durability or reliability from what I’ve read so I have a difficult time considering the simplicity of the 3-9 a pro in this specific comparison scenario. Neither appear to have many issues.

The weight savings and specific use, as a hunting scope, like you are saying, are the two many drivers pushing me towards the 3-9. Just curious what reasons I might be overlooking that a 3-15 would be bad.

Only been hunting for ~7 years with an 4-16 SFP mil scope so my limited experience is one of my main issues. Plus all my experience has had 16x available to me, so I’m just hesitant to give that up and regret it. I appreciate the other points of view/input for sure.

I have a 3-15. I don’t regret it one bit. For a few more ounces you get extra mag, factory zero stop, ability to cap turrets or not, screw in nub on the mag ring. It kinda solves some of the things guys are doing aftermarket to their 3-9’s. At 15x it’s not the best image but it’s 100% usable. Like I have zero issues shooting at 15x.

I kinda want a 3-9 but i don’t see myself actually replacing my 3-15 on my hunting rifle with one.

 

[benconfused]

I have a 3-15. I don’t regret it one bit. For a few more ounces you get extra mag, factory zero stop, ability to cap turrets or not, screw in nub on the mag ring. It kinda solves some of the things guys are doing aftermarket to their 3-9’s. At 15x it’s not the best image but it’s 100% usable. Like I have zero issues shooting at 15x.

I kinda want a 3-9 but i don’t see myself actually replacing my 3-15 on my hunting rifle with one.

Ha good point, I bought a 3-9 Friday and now I'm about to buy the shims to have a zero stop feature.

 

[markXshooter]

Well you guys made me do it. I resisted for days and gave in in the last hours…lol

 

[Schmo]

Appreciate it. Just preference, got it. I also don’t need the very best, just better than I have now.



Less moving parts is definitely simpler and typically better. However, neither models appear to have any issues with durability or reliability from what I’ve read so I have a difficult time considering the simplicity of the 3-9 a pro in this specific comparison scenario. Neither appear to have many issues.

The weight savings and specific use, as a hunting scope, like you are saying, are the two many drivers pushing me towards the 3-9. Just curious what reasons I might be overlooking that a 3-15 would be bad.

Only been hunting for ~7 years with an 4-16 SFP mil scope so my limited experience is one of my main issues. Plus all my experience has had 16x available to me, so I’m just hesitant to give that up and regret it. I appreciate the other points of view/input for sure.

In hunting, you’ll almost never “need” high magnification. The only time I’ve shot at an animal on 10x or greater magnification was a coyote this season at 832 yards, and I was on either 10x or 12x with my Maven

 

[Speaks]

Nothing wrong with 15, though on my mavin what I found is other than zeroing which is an exceptionally rare occurrence I generally use it nearly wide open. The one deer I shot this year was at 2.5 at roughly 170ish yards and would not have wanted it zoomed in further. Figure I might as well save the weight if I wont use it. If the sold a 3-6 x 42 at a few ounces less than 3-9 I would buy that.

 

[HighUintas]

I. Am. Practicing. Self. Restraint. My. Rs1.2. is. Good. Enough. Ergh

 

[kbraune]

Well you guys made me do it. I resisted for days and gave in in the last hours…lol

Same. Popped my order in right before my commute home today.

 

[nm.otter]

If I didn't already own a 6x42 MQ Gen2, I'da bought one.

 

[Flymost]

I couldn’t decide between the two until I saw that my Maven went up to $1400 and no Black Friday sale so I bought both.
First impressions:
I definitely like the maven reticle the best.
I see why they call the SWFA a 3-12. That’s how id use it anyway.
Both 3-15s I’ll keep on 4x for the reticle, the 3-9 is good at 3x.
The SWFA turrets are plenty stiff, but not too stiff. I don’t think I’d worry about them moving around on me.
The maven turrets aren’t bad, but definitely keeping an eye on them.
The SWFA 3-15 throw lever sucks. Going to take it off and use ranger bands.
I’ll be keeping all of them!

 

[TimberHunter]

I couldn’t decide between the two until I saw that my Maven went up to $1400 and no Black Friday sale so I bought both.
First impressions:
I definitely like the maven reticle the best.
I see why they call the SWFA a 3-12. That’s how id use it anyway.
Both 3-15s I’ll keep on 4x for the reticle, the 3-9 is good at 3x.
The SWFA turrets are plenty stiff, but not too stiff. I don’t think I’d worry about them moving around on me.
The maven turrets aren’t bad, but definitely keeping an eye on them.
The SWFA 3-15 throw lever sucks. Going to take it off and use ranger bands.
I’ll be keeping all of them!

Good feedback. I actually prefer the mil quad reticle to the maven mil. Reason being is the ones age marks, just don’t like the tall wind marks on the maven reticle but like the center dot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[North River]

If anyone bought a 3-9 with a Kenton turret voucher they’d like to get rid of to further discount the scope - I’d buy one.

 

[Speaks]

If anyone bought a 3-9 with a Kenton turret voucher they’d like to get rid of to further discount the scope - I’d buy one.

Sure, i would do that