Trijicon Credo HX 2.5-15 SFP MOA vs SWFA 3-15 FFP MQ

[DisplacedHusky]

The upcoming SWFA sale has me wanting to explore my Mil-curiosity a little more. I already have an SWFA 6x MQ on my Tikka .223 trainer and I have liked it even though I’m not well versed in the finer points of the MQ advantages.

My question is, do I replace my Trijicon Credo HX 2.5-15x42 SFP MOA with the SWFA 3-15x42 MQ? I have really enjoyed this scope for the limited time I have had it but I don’t have the discretionary funds to keep a bunch of scopes around that I’m not using.

Forget the Mils vs MOA debate for a moment. For those that have experience with both scopes, how much better is the clarity, image accuracy and eye box of the Credo HX vs the SWFA?

For those that have used the SWFA FFP reticle in low light and on low magnification, how did it work for you?

And thank you for the responses in advance. While Rokslide has definitely cost me money, it has also saved me money by not buying things that don’t work or I will end up switching out the next season.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

Optically I’d say the credo is 15%-20% better? The Swfa is a touch more critical on eye relief. Above 12x I’d call the Trijicon 30-40% better.

Reticle is way, way better in the Swfa. The throw lever on the Trijicon is a tad better. Turrets feel better with Swfa, obviously smaller with Trijicon.

 

[freezerfull]

Given current and up coming sales I’m torn between these exact two as well. I think it really comes down to your likely shooting scenarios.

I have a SWFA 3-15, solid and reliable mechanically and glass is okay. At low power in the dark and wet timber it’s made me realize I prefer SFP or at minimum illumination on a FFP. I have never had an issue with getting confused making wind holds with a sfp reticle. So little advantage to me for FFP. I am not a fan of having a strikingly different reticle appearance on quick pull up PBR shots depending on mag setting.

Really leaning on going the Trijicon route. Credo is $900 and SWFA will be $650 for BF supposedly. Planning to buy two of whatever I decide and trying to justify the $500 extra for the Credo.

 

[Ajsomp]

I have and continue to purchase FFP mil scopes over SFP and MOA. So for me, the 3-15 Swfa is the better choice of the two.

If you were to rank my preferences for a hunting scope - Swfa 3-9, Swfa 6x, Swfa 3-15. If you want more than 6x the 3-15 with the zero stop and turret caps is a great option. More of a 3-12 scope in my opinion but 15 works just fine.

I’d take advantage of the sale and snag a 3-9 or 3-15 MQ personally.

 

[hickswr]

If you already own a Credo, you’ll be disappointed in the meh SWFA glass.

 

[Johnwell]

The only SWFA glass that I would compare to the trijicons I’ve looked through would be one of the HD series.

I think the 3-9 and 5-20 compare pretty favorably to anything in their price range optically. The swfa reticles are very usable across the board.

The 3-15 is mechanically solid but optically not that spectacular. If you’re good with sfp and MOA (I’m not) then I’d stay with trijicon.

 

[DisplacedHusky]

I was just comparing my Trijicon and SWFA 6x side by side and this may be a dumb question but is the reticle thickness of the fixed 6 about the same as what the SWFA 3-15 would be at 15 power?

 

[SloppyJ]

has me wanting to explore my Mil-curiosity

I'm thrilled that this has caught on.
@Nine Banger

 

[DisplacedHusky]

I'm thrilled that this has caught on.
@Nine Banger

It might be just a phase, but you never know unless you try it out right? What’s a little MQ experimentation hurt?