Unicorn rifle scope - it can’t be just me…

[NICKJ]

S&B klassik 3-12 gets you close

 

[KenLee]

Reliability and durability come at a cost and that cost is weight. Light weight and robust don't seam to go hand in hand.

You want a light weight girlfriend or a robust girlfriend. Pick one. lol

Every young man needs to experience at least 2 barrel racers

 

[KenLee]

I would prefer the robust scope… idk about the robust woman part..

Google "black jeopardy skinny women"

 

[Geewhiz]

Every young man needs to experience at least 2 barrel racers

At the same time? Lol

 

[KenLee]

At the same time? Lol

Probably wouldn't live to be a middle aged man

 

[Meanderthal]

If SWFA made something similar to the Ultralight with like a 36mm bell, slightly longer tube and low profile exposed turrets they'd sell like crazy.

 

[Mike D Texas]

If SWFA made something similar to the Ultralight with like a 36mm bell, slightly longer tube and low profile exposed turrets they'd sell like crazy.

It would need a serious glass upgrade over the ultralight too.

Good lord that glass is terrible in that scope.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[HNTR_NW]

If SWFA made something similar to the Ultralight with like a 36mm bell, slightly longer tube and low profile exposed turrets they'd sell like crazy.

I’m genuinely curious about what is possible. I’m not an optics engineer, but do realize quality materials weigh certain amounts. It would be interesting to have a shoot2hunt podcast with someone from zero tech or even L.O.W. to explain some of nuances in detail. Maybe @Ryan Avery and @Formidilosus will cover some of these challenges when they get closer with a S2H 2-8x or 3-9x?

 

[Kurts86]

It’s no accident the S2H scope, NX6 2-12 and Maven RS 1.2 all landed at 23-24 oz with modern feature setups, 30mm tubes and 4mm objectives. SWFA 3-9 and NXS land at 20 oz with fewer features and somewhat dated designs. Asking to half the weight is a big ask with huge consequences.

The SWFA ultralight is barely a functional aiming device. That scope is about 80% compromise for weight and size. I have zero desire to ever own another 1” tube scope. The ring infrastructure for 1” scopes is less and less by the year and it’s another size I have to keep around.

I can save weight on a rifle with carbon fiber/titanium/magnesium to offset for the 10 oz extra a good scope requires.

 

[Dobermann]

S&B klassik 3-12 gets you close

The 3-12 x 42 is still listed as 20.07 oz.

The Trijicon Accupoint 3-9 x 40 that some have referenced is 13.4 oz (but not dailable and SFP).

@HNTR_NW - I'm currently on a similar quest, but for an ultralight backpacking 22LR. Let us know what other options you find.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I honestly don’t understand the hate for the glass in the SWFA 2.5-10x. I think it is a great scope for a small game rifle. I don’t know of anything comparable that is equally reliable for that purpose. It beats the pants off the Leupold 2-7x I had before.

Maybe my eyes are just better than average? I rarely look through a scope and have any thoughts other than “this is fine” or “this won’t work.” The latter feeling usually comes when looking through a vintage scope.

In what situations are these scopes inadequate? At low light, turn the magnification down to 4-5 power and you are meeting a 6x42.

I would love it even more in mils, with a 30mm tube, uncapped turrets, and <12 ounces. To me, that should be the design goal for the lightweight S2H scope.

 

[Kyguy]

I honestly don’t understand the hate for the SWFA 2.5-10x. I think it is a great scope for a small game rifle. I don’t know of anything comparable that is equally reliable for that purpose. It beats the pants off the Leupold 2-7x I had before.

Maybe my eyes are just better than average? I rarely look through a scope and have any thoughts other than “this is fine” or “this won’t work.” The latter feeling usually comes when looking through a vintage scope.

In what situations are these scopes inadequate? At low light, turn the magnification down to 4-5 power and you are meeting a 6x42.

I'm with you on this and my eyes aren't that good. I don't know that I've looked through any scope that costs more than $100 and thought that the glass wasn't good enough to do what I needed it to do for hunting. Is there a difference between a $200 scope and a $2,000 S&B? Yes, yes there is. Is it 10 times better view at 10 times the price? Not so sure about that one. The only fault I found with the SWFA UL scope is that the eye relief needs to be longer. If that thing had 4" inch of consistent eye relief I'd probably put it on everything, mostly with the BDC reticle. It's one of the VERY few BDC reticle that's bold enough to still be seen in poor light with no illumination. But I have no plans, really no desire, to shoot past 500 yards when it comes to hunting. A low profile exposed elevation turret on it would make it more appealing. I'd even settle for 3.5" of eye relief.

If and when the lower power / smaller s2h scope comes out, I'm interested to take a look at it.

It's always very interesting to hear what people are looking for. I'll use the LVPO as an example. I pretty much have zero interest in them. Why would I want a 24 oz 1-8 with a 20 or 24 mm objective when I can get a 2-10/3-9 with a 40mm or bigger for the same weight or less? Claiming a lower profile with the straight tube really isn't a thing now, as bulky as everything's getting.

To each their own though, that's what makes the market go round.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Four variables:
Lightweight
Reliable dialing, including return to zero
Robust
High quality glass.


You can only have three, at most.

Typically only two, for most manufacturers.

I would add another variable, which is cost. Titanium erector internals are more durable than plastic, and significantly lighter than brass, or even steel, but also cost more.

It’s possible to prioritize 3-4 variables at the expense of the remaining 1-2.

 

[Jordan Smith]

It's always very interesting to hear what people are looking for. I'll use the LVPO as an example. I pretty much have zero interest in them. Why would I want a 24 oz 1-8 with a 20 or 24 mm objective when I can get a 2-10/3-9 with a 40mm or bigger for the same weight or less? Claiming a lower profile with the straight tube really isn't a thing now, as bulky as everything's getting.

Another reason is that with a properly designed LPVO FFP reticle, the illuminated center serves as an effective red dot when on 1x, but a graduated angular stadia reticle on 6-8x. Very versatile.

 

[Kyguy]

Another reason is that with a properly designed LPVO FFP reticle, the illuminated center serves as an effective red dot when on 1x, but a graduated angular stadia reticle on 6-8x. Very versatile.

That's not what my gripe is with them. It's the foot print. It could just as easily be a 1-8 with a 40mm objective at the same length and weight, but you'd actually be able to see at the higher magnifications and low light.

 

[Jordan Smith]

That's not what my gripe is with them. It's the foot print. It could just as easily be a 1-8 with a 40mm objective at the same length and weight, but you'd actually be able to see at the higher magnifications and low light.

I think it would weigh more, but I get your point.

Just highlighting one good reason to use a 1-8x over something like a 3-9x.

 

[HNTR_NW]

I would love it even more in mils, with a 30mm tube, uncapped turrets, and <12 ounces. To me, that should be the design goal for the lightweight S2H scope.

I agree- I have called Swfa and emailed requesting at the very least to put a MQ reticle in it. No interest from them. Granted I’m just one guy…

@Dobermann It seems now the accupoint 3-9 in the mil dot reticle does have mil adjustments so that’s a start. And it has more adjustment than the 3-9 credo, while being 1/4# lighter. I may pick one up to try. Maybe someone wants to trade me one for my Swfa 6X MQ?

 

[HNTR_NW]

Correction- the 3-9 is still an 1/4moa adjustment on the turrets.

The 2.5-12 is .1mil adjustments

 

[pathnz]

It’s no accident the S2H scope, NX6 2-12 and Maven RS 1.2 all landed at 23-24 oz with modern feature setups, 30mm tubes and 4mm objectives. SWFA 3-9 and NXS land at 20 oz with fewer features and somewhat dated designs. Asking to half the weight is a big ask with huge consequences.

The SWFA ultralight is barely a functional aiming device. That scope is about 80% compromise for weight and size. I have zero desire to ever own another 1” tube scope. The ring infrastructure for 1” scopes is less and less by the year and it’s another size I have to keep around.

I can save weight on a rifle with carbon fiber/titanium/magnesium to offset for the 10 oz extra a good scope requires.

S2h scope is so heavy zerotech don't even publish the weight on their website.... but about 26 oz (750gm) - unfortunately misses the mark widely on making a LW FFP scope and falls pretty square in the bracket of existing over weight products



March F 3-24x42 is 20.8 oz (590 gm) for FFP, 30mm, very robust & reliable so it is possible to do

 

[Dobermann]

I agree- I have called Swfa and emailed requesting at the very least to put a MQ reticle in it. No interest from them. Granted I’m just one guy…

@Dobermann It seems now the accupoint 3-9 in the mil dot reticle does have mil adjustments so that’s a start. And it has more adjustment than the 3-9 credo, while being 1/4# lighter. I may pick one up to try. Maybe someone wants to trade me one for my Swfa 6X MQ?

Out of interest, what does the SWFA 6x weigh? I don't think it's listed on their website.