SWFA business model?

[ResearchinStuff]

Honestly, between milquad and THLR the reticle designs are basically already perfected for FFP hunting scopes. Now we just need manufacturers to do their part, and unfortunately they're running full steam the completely opposite direction. I'm another guy that had Nightforce reps tell me they wouldn't use a competitors reticle, so the future of all this honestly doesn't look that great for consumers right now. But, lots of "optics" companies have popped up in the past decade or so, maybe one of them or a new one will step in and fill the obvious market need. Writing this post almost convinced me to do it..........

 

[slowelk]

Been contemplating the reticle...I've updated what I posted yesterday by adding 1 mil reticle line with .2 mil hashes above the center cross.

1. Smaller center cross - 0 - .2 mil square (only illuminated component)
2. Gap between .2 - .4 mil (light wind)
3. Reticle line between .4 - .8 mil with hash at .6 (medium wind)
4. Thicker reticle line between .8 - 1.4 mil with .2 hash marks (high wind)
5. Back to normal reticle line after 1.4 mil
6. Cease reticle and begin thick pointer bar at 4 mil

Not bad, and I appreciate what you're doing with the THLR crossover by doing light, med, high wind, but personally I'd just prefer hashes. I think the bracketing on elevation that the THLR has is more useful - aim short/aim long. I'd rather make my own wind call. That said, I'm just an idiot that needs to shoot more.

 

[BjornF16]

Not bad, and I appreciate what you're doing with the THLR crossover by doing light, med, high wind, but personally I'd just prefer hashes. I think the bracketing on elevation that the THLR has is more useful - aim short/aim long. I'd rather make my own wind call. That said, I'm just an idiot that needs to shoot more.

Hej, I’m all in on any improvement to current reticles

I could live without wind markers and just do .2 mil hashes out to 2 or 3 mils, then transition (sts) to .5 hashes.

I haven’t completely wrapped my nugget around the aim short/long use case (I guess I’ll have to read that explanation again).

Of course, I’d be perfectly happy with the THLR reticle itself, but NF seemingly nixed that idea. Maybe @Formidilosus could talk them into just doing it for special order

 

[SDHNTR]

Maybe they are happy with the amount that they do sell. Not every business in this world is worried about making the most money as possible. Some are happy making a reasonable living and going home.

That's called laziness. Or apathy. Neither are sound ways of running a business.

 

[MattB]

Did the SFWA owner run over your dog or something? You seem to be going to great lengths to denigrate the company for not doing things “your way”.

 

[CorbLand]

That's called laziness. Or apathy. Neither are sound ways of running a business.

So if I work hard enough to make enough money to provide for my family and afford to do the things I enjoy but could spend my time working more and making more money but dont, I am lazy?

Under that pretense, why are you wasting time on here? Why aren't you out working, making more money and not being lazy?

I know its a hard concept but some people work to live not live to work.

 

[Formidilosus]

Of course, I’d be perfectly happy with the THLR reticle itself, but NF seemingly nixed that idea. Maybe @Formidilosus could talk them into just doing it for special order

They are/would be multi years out for a new reticle.

 

[CorbLand]

For those that would know. Are reticles patentable? If NightForce wanted to use a reticle designed by Bushnell, would they have to get permission?

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Some are patented, milquad for example. But patents only provide protections for so long.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

They are/would be multi years out for a new reticle.

That's a shame. By then swfas might be widely available again.

 

[MuleyFever]

Reliability, correct function, zero retention, reticle, FFP, size, and weight. There is literally no 3-9’ish scope at any price, from any manufacturer that includes the entire package that the SWFA 3-9x does. Ditto for the fixed 6x Milquad.

Since the SWFA is not obtainable what do you like as runner up options?

 

[JustSomeGuy35]

Since the SWFA is not obtainable what do you like as runner up options?

Ditto this^

3-9 and 6x's are few and far between. Form, whats some decent options in the $600-1000 range? Scopes that may not pass a 3' fall but can still handle some abuse?

 

[260madman]

I have two 3-9s from the turret change still sitting in their boxes. Are they collectors items now?

 

[Formidilosus]

Since the SWFA is not obtainable what do you like as runner up options?

Really nothing. I would suggest people to get on back order, and/or snatch up used ones.

Outside of that… NF 4-14x50mm F1/NX8/ATACR, Bushnell LRTS/LRHS 3-12x, S&B PMII fixed 6x and 10x, MAYBE Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x F1…


There really isn’t any scopes that compete.

 

[Formidilosus]

Ditto this^

3-9 and 6x's are few and far between. Form, whats some decent options in the $600-1000 range? Scopes that may not pass a 3' fall but can still handle some abuse?

NF SHV, Bushnell LRHS/LRTS 3-12x and 4.5-18x. That’s it. Or at least I haven’t seen any others that work reliably in the sub $1k realm.

 

[SDHNTR]

Sub $1000, I’ve really grown quite fond of the Nightforce SHV.

 

[Axle]

Been contemplating the reticle...I've updated what I posted yesterday by adding 1 mil reticle line with .2 mil hashes above the center cross.

1. Smaller center cross - 0 - .2 mil square (only illuminated component)
2. Gap between .2 - .4 mil (light wind)
3. Reticle line between .4 - .8 mil with hash at .6 (medium wind)
4. Thicker reticle line between .8 - 1.4 mil with .2 hash marks (high wind)
5. Back to normal reticle line after 1.4 mil
6. Cease reticle and begin thick pointer bar at 4 mil

Hey, I love that you are working on the reticle! Just looking at it, I think I would rather have the plain .2 hash marks on the horizontal...but I would have to use it a while before I could say for sure one way or the other.

Also, over on the hide, there was a discussion last year about designing an "all-around reticle." I don't know if we can post links, but google "Thinking out loud, a reticle for the OEM crew" and you should find it. The ideas were kind of all over the place, but you might find it interesting.

I kind of liked the center circle on this one that somebody drew up. (it wasn't me, I am terrible with computers...)



I will say on illumination...I love the way SWFA does it on the 5-20 with the center dot only.

I have had other scopes where the whole crosshairs light up, and if I am trying to make a shot in true low light conditions, it just washes out the image no matter how low I have it turned down.
With the center dot only, I can actually turn it up a little brighter so I have a (relatively) bright aiming point, and I can still see what I am shooting at.

 

[ElPollo]

Hey, I love that you are working on the reticle! Just looking at it, I think I would rather have the plain .2 hash marks on the horizontal...but I would have to use it a while before I could say for sure one way or the other.

Also, over on the hide, there was a discussion last year about designing an "all-around reticle." I don't know if we can post links, but google "Thinking out loud, a reticle for the OEM crew" and you should find it. The ideas were kind of all over the place, but you might find it interesting.

I kind of liked the center circle on this one that somebody drew up. (it wasn't me, I am terrible with computers...)

View attachment 422026

I will say on illumination...I love the way SWFA does it on the 5-20 with the center dot only.

I have had other scopes where the whole crosshairs light up, and if I am trying to make a shot in true low light conditions, it just washes out the image no matter how low I have it turned down.
With the center dot only, I can actually turn it up a little brighter so I have a (relatively) bright aiming point, and I can still see what I am shooting at.

Like this one, many reticle designs these days are…. Overly optimistic at the cost of visibility at low magnification. Under what conditions and with what calibers might we need 8 mils of wind and vertical holdover? Those conditions are getting close to 1000 yards with a 30 mph full value wind for most cartridges that you’d use a scope like this on. Who is going to hold for those conditions? A reticle with half that amount of hold would be perfectly usable and would be much more visible at low magnification in FFP scopes.

Back to SWFA. I understand being grumpy at long backorders. However, if a small company makes something good, the best thing you can do to make that thing more available is to support the company. I don’t think anyone would reasonably argue that the current availability issues weren’t related to the pandemic. If you want an SWFA scope and want them to keep making them, the best thing you can do is get on the backorder list. The longer the list, the more likely they will get their orders fulfilled by the manufacturer. And if you want to see more companies building scopes with SWFA durability. The best thing you can do is make SWFA a model through success. If your concern is giving them money for a year, call them. They will put you on the backorder list and charge your card before it ships.

 

[GMB54-120]

Not sure how much truth there is to this but...Ive read there are some changes planned for the 6x42 SWFA SS to bring it more towards a hunting style scope. I think it was mainly just a change in the turrets size/style. Shorter elevation and capped windage.....Cant seem to find the post anymore.

Maybe delays on the 6x42 are in part to planned changes?

 

[carsonkeys]

NF SHV, Bushnell LRHS/LRTS 3-12x and 4.5-18x. That’s it. Or at least I haven’t seen any others that work reliably in the sub $1k realm.

The only sub $1k SHV I'm aware of is the 3-10 and is a SFP. I could live with SFP if it weren't for the capped elevation turrets. Am I missing a model?