SWFA SS Optical Quality

[nobody]

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

I had my wife use her Cricut machine and print off some vinyl stickers with the number of revolutions my zero is at. So on my main hunting rifle, the windage turret has a “5” on it, and my elevation has “5.5” which tells me that my zero is at the point where the “0” on the turret is within those revolution numbers

 

[Formidilosus]

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

Nothing. The turrets are revolution indicated, write it down and check it.

 

[Antares]

I do the same. It’s easy. I wouldn’t mess with trying to rig up a zero stop.

 

[4th_point]

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

Paint pen for mine.

Some guys use garden hose washers with the Classics. I don't think SWFA recommends washers for the HD scopes though.

 

[4th_point]

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."

Something doesn't seem right. Did you adjust the diopter first, then the parallax?

The reason that I ask is because it shouldn't take long to get the reticle focused then check parallax, and you mentioned that you spent "time playing" with it and "got dialed in".

Maybe I am reading too much into what you wrote, but it should only take moments and not even minutes. I've seen some people have the diopter setting off, or not know that it even exists, but their brain compensated for it. Then they fiddle with the parallax but in the end the image is compromised.

And with only 6x, the instrument has a pretty wide band of useable range for parallax. Many scopes 10x and less don't even have a parallax knob or adjustable objective, right?

I've personally never had an issue with the 6x, or had anyone else have an issue. Same goes for the 10x, except for one friend that says he cannot get a clear image. My other friends and I are stumped as to why he struggles. His acuity is actually better than mine but there might be a stacking of aberrations (environment + instrument + his eyeball).

 

[Phinehas25]

When I recieved my first swfa 6x in the mail, I was very unimpressed by holding it with my hands and looking through it. After I mounted it up and took it out shooting, it really grew on me and I have come to love it. The glass is fine, and the eye box is fine, so I'm not sure why it didn't look great to me at first.

I will say that my trijicon scopes seem to have better glass. But the swfa glass is better than my old vxii leupolds.

 

[Formidilosus]

A day late…


1 hour before sunset, sun had just went behind the trees-

Scope 1:




Scope 2:




Scope 3:




Scope 4:




Scope 5:




At 1 hour before sunset, only the reticle visibility is noticeable- the “glass” except for scope 1 & 5, would be indistinguishable without a reticle. Scope 5 is just slightly “milky” compared to the others, though nothing noticeable unless compared side by side. Scope 1 is just a touch “darker” than the others.

 

[WeiserBucks]

or maybe get laid.

Got a link to this? I've been on the fence but I'm ready to pull the trigger now.

 

[4th_point]

Its a $300 scope. Glass seems to go down hill on them fast after the 10x. I was never happy with my 12x

I'm basically with you on that.

I bought my first SWFA in ~2006 and have owned multiple Classics in 6x, 10x, 3-15x, and HD 4-9x. And one 20x which was functional but like wearing sunglasses !

Last year I bought my first 12x to see for myself if it really was noticeably worse than the 10x. With my samples on hand, I definitely noticed a drop in image quality compared to the 10x.

I plan to keep the 12x for basic load development, for troubleshooting a suspect scope or rifle, etc. But I wouldn't use it on a hunting rifle.

And the 10x isn't perfect either. I've gotten reflections off of the ocular and flare that made shooting difficult during those instances. I think that the HD 4-9x is better for both.

 

[bojangles808]

The swfa reticle rotation issue does seem to he occurring quite a bit. It's giving me pause.

what was the other ones? i saw the one 2.5 x 10 but what other models?

 

[sndmn11]

what was the other ones? i saw the one 2.5 x 10 but what other models?

I just sent a 6x in this week.

 

[Formidilosus]

30 min before legal sunset:

Scope 1:



Scope 2:



Scope 3:



Scope 4:




Scope 5:




No real difference from 1hr before legal sunset, save that when looking into shadows, scope 1 reticle is useless. Inside of around 50 yards you could try to bracket a deer body, past that no. None of the other scopes have that issues, all are good 80-100 yards in the woods and shadows right now.

 

[Formidilosus]

Legal sunset. Of note, the sun has actually been set for just over an hour behind the mountains.

Scope 1:



Scope 2:



Scope 3:



Scope 4:



Scope 5:



Scope 1: reticle is useless in any shadow now. Scope 3 and scope 5 have “soft” or slightly undefined images- still usable. Scope 2 and 4 are still easy to see and use.

 

[PathFinder]

Legal sunset. Of note, the sun has actually been set for just over an hour behind the mountains.

Scope 1:
View attachment 581855


Scope 2:
View attachment 581856


Scope 3:
View attachment 581857


Scope 4:
View attachment 581858


Scope 5:
View attachment 581859


Scope 1: reticle is useless in any shadow now. Scope 3 and scope 5 have “soft” or slightly undefined images- still usable. Scope 2 and 4 are still easy to see and use.

I agree with your rankings of the optical clarity. 1 & 2 (NF & SWFA), 4, 5, 3. Thanks for taking the time to take those pictures and post.
After playing around with some NF scopes this week I'm pretty set on trying a 4-16 ATACR. However I'm a little worried about visibility of the reticles. Right now I'm leaning towards the Mil R. What is your take on the NF reticles in difficult visible conditions?

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

30min after legal sunset- it’s dark.

Scope 1:



Scope 2:



Scope 3:



Scope 4:



Scope 5:





Scope #1 was the “brightest” or tied with #4, yet was totally useless without illumination- a deer would have had to be inside 20 yards and just center it in the scope. Scope #3 was the dimmest with a grey soft hue to everything, and it had the second hardest to see reticle. Scope #5 was second dimmest, however had the easiest to see center of reticle of any of the scopes. Scope #2 was second in brightness, and had the boldest reticle that could be used anywhere in the woods. Scope #4 was tied with scope #1 for brightness, but had a usable reticle that could be bracketed out to around 70-80 yards on a deer.


The scopes-




Scope 1- Zeiss LRP S3 6-36x56mm. This scope was the first that lost ability to aim at a deer in low light and broken terrain. It was the brightest maybe edging out the Trijicon just a touch (tied), however was useless to aim with.

Scope 2- SWFA 6x MQ reticle. Was second brightest at 30min past sunset, reticle could be used to kill a deer in everyplace I could aim.

Scope 3- Leupold VX3 HD 3.5-10x40mm Duplex. Second scope to be removed for not being able to kill a deer, but due to “glass”. Was dim, with a grayish hue. Reticle was still usable, however positively ID’ing an animal could not be done.

Scope 4- Trijicon Credo 3-9x42mm duplex. Tied for brightest, and third for reticle visibility. Just a touch brighter than the SWFA, with a reticle that was a bit harder to use at very last light.

Scope 5- Burris Fullfiled II 3-9x40mm B-Plex. The second most visible reticle and the most visible center. However while still able to see a deer at 30min past sunset, ID’ing the deer was not possible.



At 30min last sunset, in order from best (that is lasts longest being able to aim at and kill a deer) to worst, left to right-




For usability the SWFA and Trijicon were about tied, though I did prefer the thicker reticle posts in the SWFA. The Burris was in the middle- usable maybe, but definitely struggling. The Leupold and Zeiss were by far last, but for different reasons.


Just as a comparison, I grabbed a S&B 8x58mm to see. At 45 min past legal sunset the SWFA was barely usable, Trijicon had lost its reticle, the Burris was too dim to see anything, the Zeiss had no reticle at all visible, and the Leupold was gone due to “glass”…. However the S&B 8x56mm was totally usable- by far the best out of all of them.

S&B 8x56mm almost an hour after legal light:



Best to worst-





Without question the scope that would have cost me the least animals was the SWFA 6x MQ.

 

[Formidilosus]

Legal sunset-



When the SWFA could still be used, and the S&B was totally usable-

 

[Formidilosus]

I agree with your rankings of the optical clarity. 1 & 2 (NF & SWFA), 4, 5, 3. Thanks for taking the time to take those pictures and post.

You are welcome. I wouldn’t put too much into through the scope pictures, other than general rankings. Scope #1 is the Zeiss LRP, BTW.

After playing around with some NF scopes this week I'm pretty set on trying a 4-16 ATACR. However I'm a little worried about visibility of the reticles. Right now I'm leaning towards the Mil R. What is your take on the NF reticles in difficult visible conditions?

To be blunt NF’s reticles without illumination suck. The Mil-R is the best of the bunch for visibility, and can be made to work in most situations. I used to greatly dislike it- still do; however it’s the best one for hunting that they make. The 4-16x ATACR is probably the best overall field scope NF makes as well. The 4-16x with a legit reticle would be fantastic.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

what was the other ones? i saw the one 2.5 x 10 but what other models?

I think there was a 3-9 last summer too from a fng. And maybe @wind gypsy had a 3-9 rotate the year before that?

Correction, it was @Antares who had a 6x reticle rotate recently.

 

[wind gypsy]

I think there was a 3-9 last summer too from a fng. And maybe @wind gypsy had a 3-9 rotate the year before that?

My 3-9 reticle was fine, I bent or broke something with a hard fall scope first on ice. Didn’t fault the scope for that.

Edit to clarify-After hard fall, it shifted zero about a mil and it took most of my grip strength to adjust the magnification. Visually and optically a guy couldn't detect anything wrong.

 

[Helislacker]

You are welcome. I wouldn’t put too much into through the scope pictures, other than general rankings. Scope #1 is the Zeiss LRP, BTW.




To be blunt NF’s reticles without illumination suck. The Mil-R is the best of the bunch for visibility, and can be made to work in most situations. I used to greatly dislike it- still do; however it’s the best one for hunting that they make. The 4-16x ATACR is probably the best overall field scope NF makes as well. The 4-16x with a legit reticle would be fantastic.

How do you find the Mil C compares to the Mil R for a field reticle?