Why so much love for the SWFA 3-9??

[mxgsfmdpx]

I’ve seen and used a lot of them to obscene round counts and abuse. While everything made has a failure rate, I nor anyone I shoot or hunt with has had any issues.

As for the other scopes you mentioned, again have and do see bunches of them and the SS is a better aiming device than all (save maybe the Bushnells). And that’s the crux- they’re aiming devices. SWFA SS HD’s favor resolution over color rendition. The vast majority of people when viewing sided by side come to the same conclusion as Chris- the 3-9x “glass” is very good. The few that say what you say, are generally people that equate color “pop” with good glass. That color “pop” doesn’t effect aiming near to the degree as poor resolution, which lots of scopes that seem to have good glass lack.

As for power, people are over gunned, over X’d, under bulleted and under scoped. On anything but dedicated LR rifles, scope power is generally not your friend. I shoot between 800 and 1,200 meters at least once and usually twice a week in mountain conditions with the largest target being a 12” plate. The vast majority of rounds are with scopes that top out at 6x or 8x. This year I killed an Antelope at 576, Elk at 801, and mule deer at 606 with a 3-18x scope and they were on 11x, 7x, and 11x respectively due to those being the max magnifications to spot my own impacts due positions/recoil.







Same deal as above, I’ll buy the 3-9x SS from you. Not being combative- I’ve seen so many put through legitimate abuse, that I would like to see one that doesn’t work.







My experience with Athlons is relatively poor. Very few made it past 500 rounds before issues, and none of them held zero from side impacts.

Why do you believe a 3-9x scope needs parallax adjustment?

That scope is long gone sorry. What is your method for verifying tracking and what were the results?

 

[BCD]

They are cheap and have a reputation for dialing reliably.

I bought one and wasn’t impressed. Reliable tracking and consistency just weren’t there. Shouldn’t have been surprised with how cheap the turrets felt. It felt like dialing through sand. I verify all of my scopes and demand that they dial and rtz properly every time. This one failed the test.

After dialing and verifying night force and Meopta, those are the only two scopes going on any of my rigs for the forseeable future. Leupold left me high and dry with their VX-6 and VX-5. I won’t be trusting them for any dialing optic for a long time.

Sorry but I’m having a hard time believing there were tracking issues. What were the specifics? Maybe you somehow got a lemon ..... How much was the tracking off by and at what distances?

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Sorry but I’m having a hard time believing there were tracking issues. What were the specifics? Maybe you somehow got a lemon ..... How much was the tracking off by and at what distances?

Let me question a strangers experience and validity... Next time try leaving out that first sentence and then maybe you’ll get an explanation.

 

[Werty]

Let me question a strangers experience and validity... Next time try leaving out that first sentence and then maybe you’ll get an explanation.

What were the specifics? Maybe you somehow got a lemon ..... How much was the tracking off by and at what distances?

 

[thinhorn_AK]

That scope is long gone sorry. What is your method for verifying tracking and what were the results?

that dude tests scopes and other gear for the special forces or something, he’s legit.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

What were the specifics? Maybe you somehow got a lemon ..... How much was the tracking off by and at what distances?

Could have been a bad egg for sure. I sold it to a friend who doesn’t dial and rarely hunts and cut my losses.

I verify all of my scopes at my office where we calibrate our total stations. They go through this procedure before they ever go onto a rifle. I’m able to verify accuracy at (0.5 +1ppm xD) mm. That’s using the latest ISO spec for accuracy. So any scope that goes onto the calibration station will be tracking against a “perfectly” measured verification tool.

I have created and measured in a tracking verification sheet using the total station. The scopes are then leveled, measured, and zeroed onto the center of the sheet at exactly 300 feet. This will be set as my zero for the test and I’ll begin verifying.

From there it’s verifying parallax isn’t effecting the test and start dialing away. I’ll start with small movements both horizontal and vertical and then start stretching the turrets out to some larger distances. I keep track of clicks very carefully in each direction and writing down results.

The SWFA sat in about the middle of road as far as tracking and return to zero goes out of the box. 0.25 MOA clicks horizontally at 300 feet were observed to actually average out to 0.215”. Vertically it was more accurate at
0.223”. These numbers don’t seem like much error but as you gain distance away from the target this can have a huge effect on accuracy and maintaining a true zero when sighted in on a rifle.

The most accurate scopes I’ve been able to test on the tracking sheet so far are Zeiss and Meopta. The least accurate have been Vortex and Leupold. This is with a very low sample count so far so please keep that in mind.

 

[BAKPAKR]

The SWFA sat in about the middle of road as far as tracking and return to zero goes out of the box. 0.25” MOA clicks horizontally at 300 feet were observed to actually average out to 0.215”. Vertically it was more accurate at
0.223”. These numbers don’t seem like much error but as you gain distance away from the target this can have a huge effect on accuracy and maintaining a true zero when sighted in on a rifle.

Since the 3-9 HD has .1 MIL adjustment, which model were you testing? Also, was the adjustment on yours .25” or .25 MOA?

 

[TxxAgg]

Tagged

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Since the 3-9 HD has .1 MIL adjustment, which model were you testing? Also, was the adjustment on yours .25” or .25 MOA?

It was a lightweight 2.5-10 SS variant that was going onto my .17WSM. Adjustments were .25 MOA... 1 MOA at 300 feet is 1.047" meaning the scope adjusts 0.261" inches with every click of the turret.

 

[Wrench]

I've run several scoped through the paces and for me that typically means living on a rifle that will shoot into the 3's on the right days. I have never seen a SS, LRHS, or zeiss / meopta that had a measurable defect to the 12-1600 yards that I can shoot. I've sure broke a bunch of others though.

 

[wind gypsy]

It was a lightweight 2.5-10 SS variant that was going onto my .17WSM. Adjustments were .25 MOA... 1 MOA at 300 feet is 1.047" meaning the scope adjusts 0.261" inches with every click of the turret.

It makes sense that the UL model that is clearly designed to be a "set it and forget it" scope and is less than half the weight that the 3-9 HD that this thread is about wouldn't track as well.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

It makes sense that the UL model that is clearly designed to be a "set it and forget it" scope and is less than half the weight that the 3-9 HD that this thread is about wouldn't track as well.

Yeah could be the case... They mentioned the same lifetime guarantee and specs from any of their other SS scopes on their site that's why I chose it. I had heard nothing but praises on the tracking ability of SWFA scopes so I wanted to test that out.

 

[264win]

It makes sense that the UL model that is clearly designed to be a "set it and forget it" scope and is less than half the weight that the 3-9 HD that this thread is about wouldn't track as well.

This


The 2.5-10 is less than 10 oz. I would question why anyone would expect it to compare to scopes that are double it’s weight and cost. A little reasoning would show we are talking apples to peaches.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

This


The 2.5-10 is less than 10 oz. I would question why anyone would expect it to compare to scopes that are double it’s weight and cost. A little reasoning would show we are talking apples to peaches.

I highlighted a section for you to check out from their site...

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I love the validation/justification that dudes make up.

"Of course THAT SWFA model failed, it was their intent for it to not work"

Fill in any other budget model from any other major manufacturer and guys here freak out......"I had a VX3 that shit the bed, so the Mk5's must suck"......"I heard an HS-T failed once, so the Gen 2 Razor's are the worst"

I am looking forward to hear more about throwing and dragging scopes from the resident testing expert. Internet science is my most favorite science, LOL.

Yep I'd rather put products through my own testing and verification instead of going with what other people "say" or "experience".

No offense to anybody's intelligence or validity at all, and def not meant to be combative. I test my shit for how I plan to use it... Recommendations do go a long way, but you need to verify it for yourself too!

 

[BCD]

Let me question a strangers experience and validity... Next time try leaving out that first sentence and then maybe you’ll get an explanation.

My apologies as you are right and I worded that very poorly. I truly wasn't questioning your experience or validity but that doesn't come across very well electronically. It was more of a pondering thought and thinking out loud that I'm surprised it didn't track well for you. I again do apologize and did not mean it in an insulting way or to question your experience with the scope-that's why I added that maybe you got a lemon. I should have worded it differently.

 

[wind gypsy]

I love the validation/justification that dudes make up.

"Of course THAT SWFA model failed, it was their intent for it to not work"

Fill in any other budget model from any other major manufacturer and guys here freak out......"I had a VX3 that shit the bed, so the Mk5's must suck"......"I heard an HS-T failed once, so the Gen 2 Razor's are the worst"

I am looking forward to hear more about throwing and dragging scopes from the resident testing expert. Internet science is my most favorite science, LOL.

This thread is about about the 3-9HD. mxgsfmdpx’s comment about an ultralight is easy to read out of context on a thread about the 3-9.

Seems you have an agenda because what you describe is the opposite of what I have seen.

I have seen numerous instances where folks advise Mark 5 but caution on VX line of scopes for folks looking to dial. Yes there are folks that have said they are cautious of Mark 5's because of the VX issues they've experienced. That is different from saying they are junk.

It's also commonly advised that the Gen 2 razors and AMG's are good to go but steer clear of gen 1 vipers, HS-t's, etc. That doesn't mean there aren't some folks soured on vortex because of other scope failures.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

My apologies as you are right and I worded that very poorly. I truly wasn't questioning your experience or validity but that doesn't come across very well electronically. It was more of a pondering thought and thinking out loud that I'm surprised it didn't track well for you. I again do apologize and did not mean it in an insulting way or to question your experience with the scope-that's why I added that maybe you got a lemon. I should have worded it differently.

No worries. I ended up showing my test results a few replies further down. Hopefully that explains my experience a little bit. Based on "most guys" experiences with SWFA it would appear that maybe received a bad egg? I can only go with my own results because that's all the data I have.

Truthfully the error I saw, most people probably wouldn't really notice in normal hunting range shooting applications... Until they dialed a bunch and it effected their zero over lots of shots using dialing. Eventually with the error introduced, they would have to "re-zero" and blame it on some normal thing happening like the scope being bumped or lots of field/truck use. When in reality, it's just not dialing accurately enough.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

This thread, it's in the title, is about about the 3-9HD.



In a thread about why a certain model scope is so popular, the above comment about a significantly different model is easy to be taken as being about a 3-9.

Seems you have an agenda because what you describe is the opposite of what I have seen.

I have seen numerous instances where folks advise Mark 5 but caution on VX line of scopes for folks looking to dial. Yes there are folks that have said they are cautious of Mark 5's because of the VX issues they've experienced. That is different from saying they are junk.

It's also commonly advised that the Gen 2 razors and AMG's are good to go but steer clear of gen 1 vipers, HS-t's, etc. That doesn't mean there aren't some folks soured on vortex because of other scope failures.

No "agenda" (whatever that even means) on my end at all. Just posting my only experience with SWFA with actual data to back it up instead of "SWFA's dial perfectly every time for me." I see these posts all the time and always wonder what verification work has been performed. Everyone has their own way of doing things, and whatever works for them is great, as long as they are actually taking the time to validate.

 

[wind gypsy]

No "agenda" (whatever that even means) on my end at all. Just posting my only experience with SWFA with actual data to back it up instead of "SWFA's dial perfectly every time for me." I see these posts all the time and always wonder what verification work has been performed. Everyone has their own way of doing things, and whatever works for them is great, as long as they are actually taking the time to validate.

The agenda part wasn’t aimed at you. I edited that post to clarify.