SWFA SS Optical Quality

[fwafwow]

I’m not going to play mental gymnastics with you all because your king says certain scopes are good and bad. Those are a list of solid scopes and if you want to stick your head up your ass and pretend otherwise that’s your own business.

 

[KenLee]

If you've owned those optics and you don't think they are significantly better than a $300 SWFA, I really don't know what to tell you.

Here's a short list of optics I would buy 100X over before consider another SWFA.

NF SHV, NXS, NX8, ATACR
Trijicon Credo, Tenmile,
Eotech Vudu
Leupold VX5HD, VX6HD, MK5HD
Swaro Z3, Z6, Z6
Vortex Razor, Razor LHT
Brownells MPO
Tangent Theta any model
S&B any model
Hensoldt any model
Tract Toric any model
Bushnell Elites

I'd strike a few off my list but you can appreciate whichever scopes you like. I piped in to mention that I would add pretty much any Leica model made in the last 5 years. I have 5 Leica scopes and still think "wow" whenever I throw up the rifles they ride. No formal drop testing, but I can assure you they've been dropped and banged alot. I'm the clumsiness hunter I know.
Always been uncoordinated and last 6 years have serious balance issues from having a stroke.

 

[5811]

I read a few posts that said they thought the 6x was just dandy, so I thought I better double check to make sure I wasnt being hyperbolic with my previous comments. So, I decided to look at mine and compare it to a NF SHV to refresh my memory and verify my stance.

I spent some time playing with the focus/parallax, got dialed in, and picked out some birds in grass about 75 yards away with the SWFA. I thought those would be a decent test for detail, so I grabbed the SHV (set on 6x) and before I even adjusted the parallax, I went "Oh, those aren't birds, those are leaves."

Furthermore, I never really understood why people felt the need to mention "edge to edge clarity" until I looked through the SWFA. Its the opposite of that.

Its like the old saying with women. Except with scopes it durability, features and glass, or price point. Pick two. The SFWA is very obvious in where it stands, there's no need to pretend its something it isn't. The glass in the non HD lines is not very good. And that's okay, its durable and cheap.

 

[KenLee]

I read a few posts that said they thought the 6x was just dandy, so I thought I better double check to make sure I wasnt being hyperbolic with my previous comments. So, I decided to look at mine and compare it to a NF SHV to refresh my memory and verify my stance.

I spent some time playing with the focus/parallax, got dialed in, and picked out some birds in grass about 75 yards away with the SWFA. I thought those would be a decent test for detail, so I grabbed the SHV (set on 6x) and before I even adjusted the parallax, I went "Oh, those aren't birds, those are leaves."

Furthermore, I never really understood why people felt the need to mention "edge to edge clarity" until I looked through the SWFA. Its the opposite of that.

Its like the old saying with women. Except with scopes it durability, features and glass, or price point. Pick two. The SFWA is very obvious in where it stands, there's no need to pretend its something it isn't. The glass in the non HD lines is not very good. And that's okay, its durable and cheap.

but can it cook?

 

[Formidilosus]

I read a few posts that said they thought the 6x was just dandy, so I thought I better double check to make sure I wasnt being hyperbolic with my previous comments. So, I decided to look at mine and compare it to a NF SHV to refresh my memory and verify my stance.

I spent some time playing with the focus/parallax, got dialed in, and picked out some birds in grass about 75 yards away with the SWFA. I thought those would be a decent test for detail, so I grabbed the SHV (set on 6x) and before I even adjusted the parallax, I went "Oh, those aren't birds, those are leaves."

Furthermore, I never really understood why people felt the need to mention "edge to edge clarity" until I looked through the SWFA. Its the opposite of that.

Its like the old saying with women. Except with scopes it durability, features and glass, or price point. Pick two. The SFWA is very obvious in where it stands, there's no need to pretend its something it isn't. The glass in the non HD lines is not very good. And that's okay, its durable and cheap.

You have something seriously wrong with your scope or eyes then- you should be able to see the difference between birds and leaves with your eyes, let alone 6x. I have 8-9 6X SWFA’s from 2013’ish to last month sitting here, all of them are indistinguishable from any other non alpha scope set on 6x. I have seen dozens- probably over a hundred, and none are what a couple people are describing. So either they have a scope with an issue, or people are seeing what they want to see.

However, since it sucks so bad, I will buy it from you if it is a Mil-Quad version for exactly what they are priced at on SWFA for right now.

 

[Formidilosus]

At no point has I or anyone I am aware stated that the “glass” of the SWFA 6x specifically is “world class”. It’s VX2 to VX3 level. Maybe a couple of people got ones with less quality, however that isn’t normal.


Here is the most used 6x that I have near me and the one with the worst glass by far. It is from 2013 or 2014 IIRC, it has more than 30,000 rounds of use on it, on gets cleaned with a shirt tail daily-

This is scratches on the rear lens only, not dust-




Here is the image with no games played at 70-80 yards-


Here is a $3,000 scope on 6x on the exact same tree-



The only functional difference between them is the $219 scope has a reticle that can be actually seen enough to kill an animal in broken backgrounds.

Here’s an $1,800 scope on 6x-




Here’s a “new” SWFA 10x-

 

[Diced]

At no point has I or anyone I am aware stated that the “glass” of the SWFA 6x specifically is “world class”. It’s VX2 to VX3 level. Maybe a couple of people got ones with less quality, however that isn’t normal.


Here is the most used 6x that I have near me and the one with the worst glass by far. It is from 2013 or 2014 IIRC, it has more than 30,000 rounds of use on it, on gets cleaned with a shirt tail daily-

This is scratches on the rear lens only, not dust-
View attachment 581346

View attachment 581348

Here is the image with no games played at 70-80 yards-
View attachment 581350

Here is a $3,000 scope on 6x on the exact same tree-
View attachment 581356


The only functional difference between them is the $219 scope has a reticle that can be actually seen enough to kill an animal in broken backgrounds.

Here’s an $1,800 scope on 6x-
View attachment 581357



Here’s a “new” SWFA 10x-
View attachment 581358

I mean to be fair I can't really tell a difference between any scope looking at a tree in the bright sun at 80 yards...

 

[Formidilosus]

I mean to be fair I can't really tell a difference between any scope looking at a tree in the bright sun at 80 yards...

Yes, but there people in this thread saying they can’t tell the difference between a bird and leaf at 75 yards I daylight. I’ll take pics tonight at last legal light and there still won’t be a functional difference. I have a brand new Leupold VX3 HD and there is no difference between it and the SWFA at 6x except, for maybe the SWFA having a touch better resolution. The “glass” issue is people massively exaggerating.

The SWFA 6x is solid, the 10x is good for most uses, the 3-9x and 5-20x are really good, the 3-15x is good for most uses; the 12x is a range toy, and the 16x and 20x should be discontinued.

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

The SWFA 6x is solid, the 10x is good for most uses, the 3-9x and 5-20x are really good, the 3-15x is good for most uses; the 12x is a range toy, and the 16x and 20x should be discontinued.

This sums up my thoughts exactly.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I killed two small bodied coues deer bucks at 480 and 530 yards last season in broken terrain, during low light conditions. I used a fixed 6 SWFA.

Any issues with the scope is likely user error. If you can’t tell a difference between leaves and birds under 300 yards with a 6 power scope either the scope or your eyes need checking by someone who knows what they are doing.

 

[5811]

You have something seriously wrong with your scope or eyes then- you should be able to see the difference between birds and leaves with your eyes, let alone 6x. I have 8-9 6X SWFA’s from 2013’ish to last month sitting here, all of them are indistinguishable from any other non alpha scope set on 6x. I have seen dozens- probably over a hundred, and none are what a couple people are describing. So either they have a scope with an issue, or people are seeing what they want to see.

However, since it sucks so bad, I will buy it from you if it is a Mil-Quad version for exactly what they are priced at on SWFA for right now.

Lets not get bogged down in birds vs leaves.

I am not trying to denigrate or disparage the scope. I rather like it for what it is (actually have 2). I'm just trying to give my honest impressions of the glass in a thread where a guy asked what people thought of the glass. Ive compared it to the SHV, a Viper, and a Nikon. I would say the issues I have mentioned are quite distinguishable from those. I apologize if you feel that I am being either unfair or dishonest, but those are all I have for comparison and what I have stated is my observed reality.

I do appreciate your offer to purchase, but as I stated, I like them. Maybe I am harsher on the 6x than I should be, but its probably the result of my expectations vs reality. I'm just trying to help others have proper expectations. I am responsible for my own expectations, but when people who appear authoritarian on the subject make statements like "indistinguishable from any other non-alpha scope," it makes me think the glass should be pretty darn sharp, at least as sharp as the fudd scopes I own, and that just isnt what I see.

You would say unequivocally that the 6x is as clear edge to edge as ANY non-alpha glass you have compared it to? Low light detail as well? If you can say yes without qualification, I will defer to your expertise and just say I dont know what I am looking at. If you must use a qualifier like "functionally" or cannot fully agree, then I guess I dont understand why you would critique my opinion?

 

[5811]

I killed two small bodied coues deer bucks at 480 and 530 yards last season in broken terrain, during low light conditions. I used a fixed 6 SWFA.

Any issues with the scope is likely user error. If you can’t tell a difference between leaves and birds under 300 yards with a 6 power scope either the scope or your eyes need checking by someone who knows what they are doing.

Good shooting. I didnt mean to ruffle your feathers.

 

[cmahoney]

I have several 6x’s and I think they are pretty decent optically for a rifle scope, especially a reliable one in that price range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Accurate.

 

[N2TRKYS]

The SWFA scopes that I own don’t seem to be as clear or have as visible reticle as my VX3s do in the field.

 

[Formidilosus]

Lets not get bogged down in birds vs leaves.

We can only go by what is stated. It’s not personal.

I am not trying to denigrate or disparage the scope. I rather like it for what it is (actually have 2). I'm just trying to give my honest impressions of the glass in a thread where a guy asked what people thought of the glass. Ive compared it to the SHV, a Viper, and a Nikon. I would say the issues I have mentioned are quite distinguishable from those. I apologize if you feel that I am being either unfair or dishonest, but those are all I have for comparison and what I have stated is my observed reality.

I believe you, however in seeing lots of them, that is not how they are. I am legitimately saying I can believe it’s as you say, so I will buy it from you and you can get another to see that they aren’t like that. If it’s a MQ version, I’ll trade you this brand new one I have sitting here for it.

I do appreciate your offer to purchase, but as I stated, I like them. Maybe I am harsher on the 6x than I should be, but its probably the result of my expectations vs reality. I'm just trying to help others have proper expectations. I am responsible for my own expectations, but when people who appear authoritarian on the subject make statements like "indistinguishable from any other non-alpha scope," it makes me think the glass should be pretty darn sharp, at least as sharp as the fudd scopes I own, and that just isnt what I see.

It should not be markedly different than any other scope on 6x. If you took the reticles out of 10-15 scopes I have sitting here that range from the SWFA to $4,000 and had them all at 6x, no one could line them up by cost and be correct. Having done that, the SWFA 6x will land just above mid pack for most people.

You would say unequivocally that the 6x is as clear edge to edge as ANY non-alpha glass you have compared it to? Low light detail as well? If you can say yes without qualification, I will defer to your expertise and just say I dont know what I am looking at. If you must use a qualifier like "functionally" or cannot fully agree, then I guess I dont understand why you would critique my opinion?

Because you stated they are so bad, or yours was so bad, that you could not tell a bird from a leaf at 75 yards in daylight. Then I had multiple people message me and ask “are they really that bad?”
So only two options exist: you have a very bad sample- as in it has oil on the lenses bad, or you are making it up. I have no reason to believe you are making it up, so I am saying that something is wrong with yours. I know good glass, I am surrounded by it. I do not care about “the 10% of edge clarity”. It’s an aiming instrument, you aim in the middle. If there were better scopes for general purpose killing, I would simply use them. Note: I said killing I do not care at all to stare at birds with a scope or make a mountain out of a mole hill over minute differences in “glass”. And, I am no fan of anything- it is ridiculous that no manufacture can make a single scope better than an off label $219 special for killing game animals.

Having used dozens and dozens of them, with 50 plus different people from Florida to Vermont, Arizona to Washington, and all the mountain west states- the SWFA 6x will not cost someone a big game animal in legal light in all but the most outrageous conditions- conditions that no 6x40mm scope will work in.
Three year ago during hunting season we lined up 11 or 12 scopes including a bunch that a poster posted in this thread saying were unequivocally better than the 6x SWFA, and we watched deer at 150-350 yards in open fields and tree lines switching constantly between scopes until the 8-9 people present could no longer aim at any of the deer with any scope. The scope that by far went the longest was the Minox ZP5 5-25x with THLR reticle. The second best was the 3-9x SWFA with MQ reticle and the third was the SWFA 6x with MQ. Every other scope got removed well before those three- most due to the reticles being completely unusable. Ironically, the first to be unusable was the Tangent Theta.
At least 4 Rokslide members were present for that.

 

[fwafwow]

Accurate.

Would you consider sending one of yours in for testing?

 

[atmat]

Would you consider sending one of yours in for testing?

Or even just filming the testing yourself. Everyone thinks it has to go to Form but it’s so simple to do at home.

 

[Bcleck90]

Keep doing your thing @Formidilosus. The majority of us are listening and want to learn / make improvements.

Some of you guys need to relax or maybe get laid. Maybe both.

 

[matthewmt]

What are guys doing about 0 stops on these since it seems the guy that was making them is no longer selling?


Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk