SWFA SS Optical Quality

[PathFinder]

To begin, I understand I'm wading into heretical territory here, so let's establish a couple of principles as a foundation for this discussion:

1. Scopes are aiming devices, and glass is several items down the list in order of importance
2. Love my SWFAs, and would pick one over something unreliable no matter how awful the optics may be.
3. My scope may be a one off issue
   1. It did fog up on me once a couple years ago...any chance residual moisture is the issue?

My experience over the last five or so years with a SWFA 12x has been almost entirely positive. It's been on at least half a dozen rifles, dragged all over creation and not treated kindly, and killed a bunch of critters. Still love the scope and will always have one around.
However...the optical quality is truly awful. Like Vortex Diamondback awful. Most of the time that doesn't matter. But I've increasingly found scenarios where I was entirely unable to see the animal because of the poor resolution. Here are some examples:

• Colorado 2nd season mule deer. Glassing into thick quakies where deer are nearly invisible anyways. Anywhere from 200-1200 yards. There were many times where I could clearly see deer and count points with my Swaro NLs and a Swaro STS 65. Looking in the SWFA 12x I couldn't see the deer. Sometimes I'd reference off of other features to find where the deer actually was. This cost me some shot opportunities and a good buck when I shot low.
• Mountain whitetails. Also nearly impossible to see many times, even in good glass. Myself and a buddy were set up with NLs, Noctovids, and an STS 65 all on their own tripods. We were going back and forth multiple times to be able to see deer that were anywhere but in the wide open. Often we'd get on the gun, look through the scope, and think the deer was gone. That wasn't the case, and they were all perfectly visible in the good optics. This happened half a dozen times on deer we wanted to shoot over a five day hunt, plus more that we experimented with.
• Coues deer. If they aren't close or in the sun it's often near impossible to find them in this optic.

This next scope will be going on my 6 UM. My top two options currently are a 2.5-15x42 Credo, or the 3-15x SWFA. I prefer the reticle and FFP of the SWFA, but I don't want to be in the same situation optically. Does anyone have experience that runs contrary to mine with their non-HD SWFA to indicate that my 12x has unusually bad glass?

 

[atmat]

I think the HD glass on the 3-9 is good enough for the vast majority of cases.

But how far are you shooting? If it’s inside 600 yards, the SB Klassic 3-12x42 has great glass and a very similar reticle to the SWFA.

 

[5811]

I have a 6x and would agree to the point that you're probably being unfair to the diamondback by putting it in the same category of glass.

I also wonder if I'm the only one that thinks the turrets are dissappointing.

Let me start by saying, I acknowledge the turrets work. Easy sight in, POI moves like it should. They have a great reputation for holding 0, which is why I bought in. Let me also be upfront and say I don't know anything about turret design. I just know some jump from positive click to positive click and others just kinda slide and let out a click intermittently. I know some scopes have a great positive click and don't hold up, so I understand there probably isn't a direct correlation.

Having said all that, the swfa is definitely in the slide category. On a scale from free, unbranded scope included with a bb gun to nightforce turrets, the swfa turrets definitely feel closer to the former.

Like I said, I know they work, and I know they are reliable. And they sure are cheap at around 200 bucks. But if I didn't know about their reputation for durability and I started monkeying with one in a store, I wouldn't be impressed. I've come to look at the 6x as easy to use iron sights. Durable and good to 500 with the bonus of being easy to adjust and mount on rifles where irons aren't an option.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just want to temper the expectations of anyone who logs on here for the first time and buys an swfa ss sight unseen expecting some absolute secret bargain, game changing optics.

 

[PathFinder]

So far it looks like I'm not the only one unimpressed with the optics. I could care less about how clicks feel, never felt to complain about the SWFA ones.
I'm looking for at least 12x on the top end, maybe as much as 18x would be fine.

 

[5811]

Never understood peoples concern over the clicks on a turret. As long as it doesnt move on a guy, who cares?

Like I said, they obviously work. I was just surprised. It's counterintuitive. When the turret doesn't firmly stop at the click and can be turned and sit between clicks, it just doesn't seem as solid as the "bang-stop" on some scopes.

Again, not trying to denigrate the scopes. Just my feelings and observations. I guess the swfa has shown me not to care about how turrets click, but I haven't seen it mentioned so I wanted to help set expectations for others.

 

[dirtytough]

My experience over the last five or so years with a SWFA 12x has been almost entirely positive. It's been on at least half a dozen rifles, dragged all over creation and not treated kindly, and killed a bunch of critters. Still love the scope and will always have one around.
However...the optical quality is truly awful. Like Vortex Diamondback awful. Most of the time that doesn't matter. But I've increasingly found scenarios where I was entirely unable to see the animal because of the poor resolution. Here are some examples:

• Colorado 2nd season mule deer. Glassing into thick quakies where deer are nearly invisible anyways. Anywhere from 200-1200 yards. There were many times where I could clearly see deer and count points with my Swaro NLs and a Swaro STS 65. Looking in the SWFA 12x I couldn't see the deer. Sometimes I'd reference off of other features to find where the deer actually was. This cost me some shot opportunities and a good buck when I shot low.
• Mountain whitetails. Also nearly impossible to see many times, even in good glass. Myself and a buddy were set up with NLs, Noctovids, and an STS 65 all on their own tripods. We were going back and forth multiple times to be able to see deer that were anywhere but in the wide open. Often we'd get on the gun, look through the scope, and think the deer was gone. That wasn't the case, and they were all perfectly visible in the good optics. This happened half a dozen times on deer we wanted to shoot over a five day hunt, plus more that we experimented with.
• Coues deer. If they aren't close or in the sun it's often near impossible to find them in this optic.

Isn’t that why it’s FFP with the best hunting reticle available? So you can go in the dark stuff without illumination and kill them?

Joking aside I know a guy that ordered a 6x because of the praise on RS. He sold it without even mounting it because of the glass.

I have a few Trij and NF’s and the glass is decent. I wouldn’t be worried about not being able to see the target if I could see it with NL’s.

Regards, Branden

 

[amassi]

To begin, I understand I'm wading into heretical territory here, so let's establish a couple of principles as a foundation for this discussion:

1. Scopes are aiming devices, and glass is several items down the list in order of importance
2. Love my SWFAs, and would pick one over something unreliable no matter how awful the optics may be.
3. My scope may be a one off issue
   1. It did fog up on me once a couple years ago...any chance residual moisture is the issue?

My experience over the last five or so years with a SWFA 12x has been almost entirely positive. It's been on at least half a dozen rifles, dragged all over creation and not treated kindly, and killed a bunch of critters. Still love the scope and will always have one around.
However...the optical quality is truly awful. Like Vortex Diamondback awful. Most of the time that doesn't matter. But I've increasingly found scenarios where I was entirely unable to see the animal because of the poor resolution. Here are some examples:

• Colorado 2nd season mule deer. Glassing into thick quakies where deer are nearly invisible anyways. Anywhere from 200-1200 yards. There were many times where I could clearly see deer and count points with my Swaro NLs and a Swaro STS 65. Looking in the SWFA 12x I couldn't see the deer. Sometimes I'd reference off of other features to find where the deer actually was. This cost me some shot opportunities and a good buck when I shot low.
• Mountain whitetails. Also nearly impossible to see many times, even in good glass. Myself and a buddy were set up with NLs, Noctovids, and an STS 65 all on their own tripods. We were going back and forth multiple times to be able to see deer that were anywhere but in the wide open. Often we'd get on the gun, look through the scope, and think the deer was gone. That wasn't the case, and they were all perfectly visible in the good optics. This happened half a dozen times on deer we wanted to shoot over a five day hunt, plus more that we experimented with.
• Coues deer. If they aren't close or in the sun it's often near impossible to find them in this optic.

This next scope will be going on my 6 UM. My top two options currently are a 2.5-15x42 Credo, or the 3-15x SWFA. I prefer the reticle and FFP of the SWFA, but I don't want to be in the same situation optically. Does anyone have experience that runs contrary to mine with their non-HD SWFA to indicate that my 12x has unusually bad glass?

The reticle on the credo is not friendly for the scenarios your describing. I’d roll with the tenmile for the ffp reticle


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

This next scope will be going on my 6 UM. My top two options currently are a 2.5-15x42 Credo, or the 3-15x SWFA. I prefer the reticle and FFP of the SWFA, but I don't want to be in the same situation optically. Does anyone have experience that runs contrary to mine with their non-HD SWFA to indicate that my 12x has unusually bad glass?

The 12x SWFA is a range toy only, though what you are describing is worse than I’ve seen. The fixed 6x and 10x are much more usable. The 3-15x seems to generally be better than the 12x even at 12x. However the 3-9x is the scope to have. The 5-20x is good as well.

I have a 6x and would agree to the point that you're probably being unfair to the diamondback by putting it in the same category of glass.

There is something wrong with that glass of that is the case. The 6x is about on par with Leupold VX2 glass with a touch better resolution in the dozens that I’ve seen.

 

[left hunter]

I’m in the camp that finds the glass very good (for a rifle scope) in my SWFA 3-9 HD. I don’t own a SWFA 12x so can’t compare.

I will say that comparing alpha binoculars and spotting scopes to any rifle scope I have ever used will definitely leave you disappointed in the scope.

I have never looked through any rifle scope that to my eyes are even remotely comparable to my NL pures

 

[WeiserBucks]

with my Swaro NLs

There isn't a rifle scope on the planet that will even come close to NL's. If that's your benchmark for optical performance you're going to be disappointed in any rifle scope you get.

 

[PathFinder]

There isn't a rifle scope on the planet that will even come close to NL's. If that's your benchmark for optical performance you're going to be disappointed in any rifle scope you get.

Agreed. The Swaros will show far more detail than I'll ever expect a rifle scope to show, but I'd at least like to be able to see the outline of the animal. I've used other scopes that were much better (SWFA HD, Nightforce).
Maybe I should boil down my question to whether the optical clarity of the 3-15 is any better than the 12x, or should I shell out some more cash for a NF or Trijicon.

 

[Marbles]

I think the HD glass on the 3-9 is good enough for the vast majority of cases.

But how far are you shooting? If it’s inside 600 yards, the SB Klassic 3-12x42 has great glass and a very similar reticle to the SWFA.

This would be my answer. Good reticle, durable scope, good glass, FFP, and illumination that is dim enough to not wash out an image at night. The only downside is if you need a lot of elevation adjustment.

If you really want low light performance move op to the 50mm objective version.

The SWFA has a slightly better reticle and is a whole lot cheaper.

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

Having had experience with SWFA 6x, 10x, 12x, 16x, 3-15, 3-9 HD, 5-20 HD. I can confidently say that a 12x + in fixed form is greatly disappointing to the eye and for almost any use that I've found. I wouldn't buy one ever again. 6x and 10x are quite usable, but 6x moreso. I also found the 2 3-15 swfa's I've used to be more appealing to look through than the 12x even at max magnification.

That being said, the extra cost and weight is worth it for me to go with either of their HD models. I have a couple of each.

Even better is anything from NF but I am not a fan of the short eye relief on their SHV model specifically. Everything else I have loved.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

The 6x and 3-9x SWFA are fantastic hunting scopes. Neither glass has left me “wanting more” at dawn and dusk actually hunting big game animals.

What I would really love is a fixed 8x50 SWFA with the same specs and reliability as the fixed 6x42. I’d probably never need another big game hunting scope ever again if they made that scope.

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

Or a 3-15 HD model. But while we are wishing, I'll take a 3-15 NF NXS FFP MIL.

 

[WeiserBucks]

But while we are wishing, I'll take a 3-15 NF NXS FFP MIL.

Those actually exist, keep an eye on the used market if you're serious about getting one.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Those actually exist, keep an eye on the used market if you're serious about getting one.

Yeah one comes up for sale about every 16 months or so. Timing never lines up with my disposable income unfortunately.

 

[fishermanpunk]

I have the 16x42 and love it. My first time shooting at a 1000, I punch the distance into my calculator, dialed the elevation, fired a shot and landed in the 8-ring. I'm an SWFA fan.

 

[morgaj1]

I have several SWFA scopes, including the 12x. While I don't think the glass is stellar on the 12x, is it certainly usable. I think you have an issue with the one you have and would recommend returning. I also have SWFA HD's, Trijicons and a Nightforce NX8. My opinion is that the Trijicons are the sweet spot between reliability, good glass and features (capped windage and zero stop). However, if cost is an issue, I would recommend either the SWFA HD 3-9 or 5-20. The glass is much better and the turret clicks are much more positive.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

It's always made me scratch my head when I see folks defending the poor glass quality of the fixed power SWFA's for a hunting rifle where glass quality is often important for low light shooting, or just looking back into dark areas. Glass quality should be of importance.

I've been using SWFA fixed powers since the early 2000's when they were Tasco branded and only came with a mildot reticle and MOA knobs well into after SWFA took over. I've had multiple samples of each magnification as well, and newer mil/mil versions. I quickly found out that the 16x and 20x is absolutely unusable for anything. The optical quality is long gone for that level of magnification. I used to think the 12x was the most that was serviceable and that came from using them on square ranges under ideal conditions and some varmint hunting, but the 10x was certainly better.

The last time used a fixed power SWFA on a rifle was a 12x that I had as a pass around optic and just something cheap to toss on new rifles to take to the range. I used it to shoot a half day friendly DMR match at PNTC that followed the bolt gun long range fun match in the morning. It was only early afternoon with a range facing almost due west and just that little bit of glare completely washed out my image even with a sunshade. I could barely make out full size IPSC targets at 300-600 yards and I couldn't even begin to see my splashes in the dry dirt, yet a guy was calling my shots for me with a 7x LRF monocular. Targets that were back in the treeline under shade I couldn't see at all. I haven't mounted one on a rifle since then for myself or anyone else. For someone that only has $300 to spend on an optic it's still the best option for something you want to reliable track, but that doesn't mean that they still don't kind of suck. There's always going to be compromises when you cut costs, its a simple fact.

The 3-9, 10x HD, 5-20, and 3-15 are all a little better optically but they still leave a lot to be desired. The 3-9 is wonky AF setting the focus, you can't use zero stop shims with that turret design, and I found it to have pretty significant parralax error. The 10X HD is probably tied for the best of the line overall but the lack of zero stop and no ability to use shims on that turret design are a turn off. It's also still a fixed magnification scope and it's getting into the price range where you're not far from some decent variable Japanese made options. The 5-20's turrets, parralax, and magnification rings are stiff as shit, it lacks zero stop or the ability to use shims in that turret design, and it costs as much as a Brownells MPO that is a better scope in every way. The 3-15 may be the best of the line or tied to it, glass is better than the fixed and on par with 3-9, you can dial it down when the glass quality starts ******* you, or run higher mag when you can, it's turrets allow the use of ZS shims like the fixed powers, and it has parralax, but it still has craptastic turrets and mediocre glass and you're almost to the price range of better scopes. If you can get one for $500 or less though they're hard to beat if you absolutely cannot spend more money than that.

My advice is to suck it up and buy better shit. If you can afford NL's, there's absolutely no reason to be putting a poverty special on top of your rifle.

So they all have their shortcomings and some of them are pretty significant. Personally I'll likely never buy another one of any current model unless I just saw some crazy deal for someone giving one away for like $50 or something. With that said, I'm excited to see what SWFA has coming down the pipeline with the new upgraded models they supposedly have in the works. I think they're a great company and if they could put out a solid Japanese option that's updated to the 21st century I would buy one.