SWFA Fixed vs Variable

[Reddish]

Looking to transition some of my scopes over to something that holds zero better. Was looking at Nightforce SHV, but then remembered SWFA. I hunt in the Midwest mostly, so shots are usually under 400yds…a lot of times much closer. I was looking at the 6x, but for timber the 3-9 or 2.5-10 on low power would be more practical. My question is, do the variable power scopes hold zero and track as well as the fixed power?

 

[ARK_Ginger]

The 3-9 is highly recommended. I'd say you're not missing out on anything by going with a 6x. I've got both

 

[thinhorn_AK]

Both of those are great, I have both. I prefer the 6x though.

 

[Marbles]

I have the 3-9 and the fixed 6x, I have not used either extensively, but think I prefer the 3-9.

 

[Dejhavu]

My wife shoots the deer with the scope on whatever mag level it was when handed to her. Just get a variable and leave it turned down. She killed her first at around 150+ yards with the scope set to 1.5x. Drilled it perfectly and had no idea there was another way.

I will say this and I'm not trying to be impolite. Women are more likely to have bucks approach them at very close range. A fixed 6x or even 4x will leave her with a scope full of brown and no way of knowing where to hold. Most long time hunters I know have at least one story of trying to sight down the side of the barrel because 3x was too much. My wife has more than one story like that and she doesn't hunt much. Her next scope will start at 2x.

If you're trying to contain spending, I would suggest a .22lr sporter matched to the deer rifle. Put a picatinny rail on both and swap the scope back and forth. Good scope, good rings, good rest and there's nothing to it the once a year you do it.

 

[Dioni A]

I've had both and preferred the 3-9.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

The 6x and 3-9 should be equal in terms of durability. The ultralight is quite a bit different, but still seems to work OK despite really short eye relief.

I have both the fixed 6 and the 3-9, prefer the 3-9, but either would work in any realistic hunting scenario. Target acquisition at 5 yards for dry fire in my basement is no issue with either scope.

There are reviews for the 6 and ultralight in here

Rifle Scope Field Evaluations

rokslide.com

 

[Reddish]

I looked at the Scope Field Evals, but the 3-9 wasn’t on there. I thought it would be similar to the 6x but wanted to ask.

I generally prefer lower power scopes for hunting…most of mine start at 1.5x or 2x bc shots can and have been under 10yds. I think the 3-9 would give me more flexibility on my primary hunting rifle. Wish they made a 4x.

 

[rgrx1276]

loved the 3-9 but sold it for lack of zero stop...glass is great and its a hard scope to beat at its price range... using Nightforce NXS in its place these days...

 

[Marbles]

I looked at the Scope Field Evals, but the 3-9 wasn’t on there. I thought it would be similar to the 6x but wanted to ask.

I generally prefer lower power scopes for hunting…most of mine start at 1.5x or 2x bc shots can and have been under 10yds. I think the 3-9 would give me more flexibility on my primary hunting rifle. Wish they made a 4x.

A fixed 4x would be awesome.

 

[Formidilosus]

A fixed 4x would be awesome.

If you mean a fixed 4x SWFA- yes. Also, if they made a fixed 8x50mm or so it would be the scope for my uses out west for a lot of rifles. If I could get a 8x56mm S&B with P3 reticle and a elevation turret, that would do as well.

 

[WesternSlope]

Think we could talk them into making a 2-6x 42 that’s just like the 3-9? Would anyone else want that?

 

[BBob]

I looked at the Scope Field Evals, but the 3-9 wasn’t on there. I thought it would be similar to the 6x but wanted to ask.

I believe the Formdilo guy has stated in one or more threads they are good. You might try a search for the 3-9 and his member name and see if you can find the info.

FWIW I have both and like them both for different reasons and purposes. If I were to have one it would be the 3-9.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Think we could talk them into making a 2-6x 42 that’s just like the 3-9? Would anyone else want that?

No, I find the reticle harder to use below 5x.

Bringing back the 1-6 at the same price as the 3-9 would be way more attractive to me.

 

[BBob]

^^^If I'm not mistaken weren't there a few issues here and there with the 1-6 and weren't they going to re-design and get one out again in the future? I may or may not be remembering correctly but I think that's what I filed away in the upstairs storage box

 

[4th_point]

^^^If I'm not mistaken weren't there a few issues here and there with the 1-6 and weren't they going to re-design and get one out again in the future? I may or may not be remembering correctly but I think that's what I filed away in the upstairs storage box

I believe that you are thinking about the 1-4x that people have had failures with. I don't recall problems with the 1-6x but could be wrong.

 

[Steve300xcw]

I traded the 2.5-10 for another 6x. The 3-9 is a nice scope. And I like how small the turrets are. I still prefer the 6x for an everything scope.

 

[4th_point]

I hunt in the Midwest mostly, so shots are usually under 400yds…a lot of times much closer. I was looking at the 6x, but for timber the 3-9 or 2.5-10 on low power would be more practical. My question is, do the variable power scopes hold zero and track as well as the fixed power?

I've shot sage rats at literal spitball distances with the 6x, but I shoot with both eyes open. I know some people can't or won't change so they feel like they need less magnification.

In terms of the 3-9x and 6x, I've owned several of each. Nothing wrong with the 3-9x but I only have 6x and 10x now. The 3-9x is optically better and I have never had an issue with parallax with it.

Last time I checked was a few years ago, but the fixed powers had the lowest failure rates for SWFA scopes. I have never personally had an issue with tracking or zero retention with any of these SWFA scopes.

 

[WesternSlope]

No, I find the reticle harder to use below 5x.

Bringing back the 1-6 at the same price as the 3-9 would be way more attractive to me.

I’d certainly take the 1-6 at the lower price. My understanding was the 6 zoom was what increased the price. Hence my suggestion for a lower mag three zoom. I’d be curious to know if they could make something similar to the 3-9 with minimal engineer changes, just lower magnification.

 

[Reddish]

I shoot with both eyes open, and thinking back used to use a 6-24 for coyotes and shot a few at close range on 6x without issue. I may start with one 6x and see how it goes. Hopefully they’ll be in stock again soon.