Would you buy this scope?

Pop the O ring off the turret stem. My 3-9 was mushier than mashed potatoes, and now it had better clicks than my Credo. Some risk of water, but seems like it would take a lot to cause an issue. Like submersed.
You, sir, live more recklessly than I.

I’ll just live with my mushy mashed potato turrets..
 
The base erector design/optical system was the same as several other well known, purpose made scopes that are reliable and durable that hold zero from drops and impacts. It has been interesting to learn as this has went on. LOW knows exactly what scopes hold zero long term and hold zero from drops- because they were designed specifically to do so. And… which features reduce the reliability and durability.

I've looked forward to some gear purchases the last few years, but it's been awhile since I've actually felt some excitement about an item coming out. It's enough to have me hold off on several scope purchases until these come out.

This thing about LOW knowing exactly what it takes to build a bomb-proof scope, that's interesting. Not only is it interesting in that it's exactly what you'd expect they should know - it also says a lot more about current scope brands using them for OEM that are making conscious decisions not to prioritize durability.
 
I've looked forward to some gear purchases the last few years, but it's been awhile since I've actually felt some excitement about an item coming out. It's enough to have me hold off on several scope purchases until these come out.

This thing about LOW knowing exactly what it takes to build a bomb-proof scope, that's interesting. Not only is it interesting in that it's exactly what you'd expect they should know - it also says a lot more about current scope brands using them for OEM that are making conscious decisions not to prioritize durability.
It would be interesting to know what those other brands are prioritizing instead of durability and repeatability. There are plenty of expensive scopes out there that don’t hold zero, so it can’t just be a cost thing. Perhaps LOW knows what erectors are durable, but their customers don’t.
 
It would be interesting to know what those other brands are prioritizing instead of durability and repeatability. There are plenty of expensive scopes out there that don’t hold zero, so it can’t just be a cost thing. Perhaps LOW knows what erectors are durable, but their customers don’t.

Go on any long range shooting forum (other than this one) or reddit group and post that SWFA is better than Vortex or Leupod and watch every person loose their mind. Companies are prioritizing what consumers want and its not a rugged scope.

I am glad we have a few and are getting one more.
 
Go on any long range shooting forum (other than this one) or reddit group and post that SWFA is better than Vortex or Leupod and watch every person loose their mind. Companies are prioritizing what consumers want and its not a rugged scope.

I am glad we have a few and are getting one more.
Its cause the companies either outright lie their scopes are durable or via omission don't admit they loose zero. Those folks loose their minds because they think they have a durable scope AND those features they like because they assume that a scope company would make the scope properly do the 1 thing it is supposed to do before pursuing other features. They are in denial that they've been duped/suckered. Sadly that usually results in arguing back, no one wants to readily admit being the fool on first impulse.

They have confirmation bias because they can still hit a 10" target (or whatever) at <100yd to kill a deer so the scope still did what they expected and they'll point at dead animals as proof the scope doesn't loose zero (rather than admitting it may loose zero but not in enough magnitude to affect their limited use case).
 
Go on any long range shooting forum (other than this one) or reddit group and post that SWFA is better than Vortex or Leupod and watch every person loose their mind. Companies are prioritizing what consumers want and its not a rugged scope.

I am glad we have a few and are getting one more.

When I first found SWFA scopes a few years ago, I joined Sniper’s Hide to ask if they were any good. I wanted something to be on a $400 Mauser .22-250 I found on GunBroker (damn near identical to the one I just sold). A couple of people said SWFA were really good “for the price.” Someone else said, “those guys over at RokSlide love them.” I’d never heard of RokSlide.

A host of others told me I needed to spend at least 3x more on the optic than I had on the rifle (that was a rule of thumb or something?) and recommended a bunch of $1500-$5000 optics. “Spend money on glass, not steel, you won’t regret it.” Or words to that effect.

Because those couple of guys told me what I wanted to hear - that there was a $300 scope that would be reliable for learning to dial and shooting groundhogs out to 500 yards - I bought one. It was the most expensive scope I had bought to that point in my life. Prior to that, it was all old Redfields, Leupolds, and really old B&L scopes.

The first time I shot it, my brother and I marveled at the fact that it tracked and repeated. “Look at this! I moved it 1.5 mils left and the impact moved 1.5 mils left!” If we had been watching Jesus rise from the grave we could not have been more amazed. No more shoot three shots, three clicks left, shoot three shots, four clicks right, shoot three shots, one tap with a hammer and five clicks right, shoot three shots, two taps with a hammer and seven clicks left, shoot three shots, accept that it’s now an inch high and half an inch to the right, but stop adjusting because we only have five shots left over for the season! Mirabile visu!

I liked it a lot and used it for many groundhogs. Then I bought one more for my brother. Then I discovered that my older brother already owned one and he really liked it. Now I own six (and a pair of their binoculars). And I’m spending all my money on lead and titanium.

When my friend came shooting with me last weekend, I was bragging on my Tikka with an SWFA scope and telling him how much I liked it. His response, “Dude, you don’t have to convince me.” And he pulled out two Tikkas, one of which had an SWFA on it. The other one had a Leupold (). He’s not on RokSlide.

I really should find someone with one of these “Alpha glass” scopes to go shooting with me so I can see what I can’t see with my current scopes.

All that to say, I am hoping there are example RokScopes I can see and shoot at S2H next summer. I trust the intent behind the RokScope, now I just want to see the execution.
 
No more shoot three shots, three clicks left, shoot three shots, four clicks right, shoot three shots, one tap with a hammer and five clicks right, shoot three shots, two taps with a hammer and seven clicks left, shoot three shots, accept that it’s now an inch high and half an inch to the right, but stop adjusting because we only have five shots left over for the season!
Lol this right here should resonate with many folks and can still be witnessed at hunter sight in days at local ranges. Comical and sad.

Ya gotta tap the scope and disregard the first shot or two after adjustment so it "settles in". I remember thinking that was normal at the time.
 
Its cause the companies either outright lie their scopes are durable or via omission don't admit they loose zero. Those folks loose their minds because they think they have a durable scope AND those features they like because they assume that a scope company would make the scope properly do the 1 thing it is supposed to do before pursuing other features. They are in denial that they've been duped/suckered. Sadly that usually results in arguing back, no one wants to readily admit being the fool on first impulse.

They have confirmation bias because they can still hit a 10" target (or whatever) at <100yd to kill a deer so the scope still did what they expected and they'll point at dead animals as proof the scope doesn't loose zero (rather than admitting it may loose zero but not in enough magnitude to affect their limited use case).

I had a friend this summer showing me his new deer rifle, went out back to shoot it and he stapled a paper plate to a tree 40 yards away and proceeded to put 4/5 shots in the plate (all over it). Then bragged on how accurate the gun was and how well he shot it. In this case I cant even blame the $99 vortex that was on it.

I think thats far more common that we would all like to admit.

I didnt even point out the 3 inch steel plates I had hanging at 200 yards...
 
Lol this right here should resonate with many folks and can still be witnessed at hunter sight in days at local ranges. Comical and sad.

Ya gotta tap the scope and disregard the first shot or two after adjustment so it "settles in". I remember thinking that was normal at the time.
The cone of fire is also an important aspect of this. I've spent a lot of time chasing zeros around a target while shooting 3 shot groups not realizing that every group is within the cone.
 
I really should find someone with one of these “Alpha glass” scopes to go shooting with me so I can see what I can’t see with my current scopes.

While I can't speak to SWFA, as I've never been behind one of them, the difference in quality between alpha glass in a rifle scope and lesser offerings is a very real thing. The threshold for it mattering depends on priorities, hunt situation, expected conditions, etc.

Where it shows up most obviously in functional terms, in a hunting situation, is low-light performance, and looking into shadows. Especially very dark, physically deep shadow, on a very bright day. We get that a lot out west with mule deer, Coues deer, etc. It's not just the glass, but the coatings too that help with this. Cheaper scopes just do not transmit the light enough in many situations like that. But the difference is often stark, even just at the range - getting behind alpha glass, things just "pop" more, generally speaking. Whether that's needed is more dependent on any given situation. A good reticle makes a big difference in the usability of a scope, too, though, and can allow a lot of lesser offerings to be perfectly useable in low light, within legal shooting hours. The traditional duplex reticles, and especially some of the thicker duplex-type German reticles, are surprisingly good for low-light aiming, while a lot of the "tactical" reticles in really expensive scopes can be pretty crap in aiming usability in very low light.

Another place quality differences show up is edge-to-edge clarity, fish-eye, etc. Cheaper optics generally just have more fish-eye in general at the edges, more shadowy fringe at the edges, etc. While Swarovski's scopes in particular, especially their newest models, not only have nearly perfect edge-to-edge clarity, they've also managed to get a much wider field-of-view than others of the same power range, etc.

With scopes, the differences show up even more in legitimate tactical situations than hunting ones though, where someone might sit in the glass for hours on a rifle - eye strain occurs far quicker with lower quality glass. That's much less of an issue with a hunting scope, obviously.

But that's also why you get your biggest gains with alpha glass in binos and spotting scopes - endurance. I'll literally spend over 10-12hrs on some longer days behind glass, especially in the summer scouting for mule deer. The difference in experience is stark. The top glass (Swaro, Kowa, etc) will give you anywhere from 15-45 mins more usability as the sun goes down over the next level of glass, and the ability to peer into mid-day shadows is also obvious and instant, side by side. But for me, the ability to minimize eye fatigue over hours is what makes it worth it to spend 4k on an optic, over 2k or 3k offerings of the same power range. Price seems directly related to performance on this. It's such a difference that if I had a budget of $2500, I'd put $2k into used alpha binos, and $500 into a new SWFA for the rifle. Without hesitation.

That said, all it takes is 1 time for you to miss out on a monster buck after sunset, because you can't find it in your scope while it's just perfectly clear in your binos, to be absolutely ruthless in demanding the best scope glass possible the rest of your life. Ask me how I know.
 
That said, all it takes is 1 time for you to miss out on a monster buck after sunset, because you can't find it in your scope while it's just perfectly clear in your binos, to be absolutely ruthless in demanding the best scope glass possible the rest of your life. Ask me how I know.
I'm not a huge "do-everything-the-government-says-because-they-say-so" kinda guy, but shooting big game after sunset isn't exactly allowed most places. Hence why absolute light transmission isn't #1 for a lot of folks.
 
I'm not a huge "do-everything-the-government-says-because-they-say-so" kinda guy, but shooting big game after sunset isn't exactly allowed most places. Hence why absolute light transmission isn't #1 for a lot of folks.

We've got 30 mins before sunrise, and 30 mins after sunset for big game.

Keep in mind, there's also a very big difference in lighting conditions low and deep in the draws or canyons of steep, tall, forested mountains at sunset, vs rolling sage.
 
I'm not a huge "do-everything-the-government-says-because-they-say-so" kinda guy, but shooting big game after sunset isn't exactly allowed most places. Hence why absolute light transmission isn't #1 for a lot of folks.
I believe most states legal shooting time is 30min before sunrise and 30min after sunset
 
I'm not a huge "do-everything-the-government-says-because-they-say-so" kinda guy, but shooting big game after sunset isn't exactly allowed most places. Hence why absolute light transmission isn't #1 for a lot of folks.

Really? Curious where your located. In BC we can hunt until dark or one hour after sunset whichever comes first for big game and a half hour after sunset for migratory birds. Hunting under forest canopy can get dark in the middle of the day but especially the last few hours of legal light. I've shot many animals at low or last light and think having a scope you can see detail with in very low light is important at least for guys that can take advantage of it.
 
It doesn’t take alpha glass to kill deer and elk up to and beyond legal shooting hours. People have been using shitty glass for decades. Remember when Weaver and Redfield were on everyone’s guns? I am comfortable with less glass and more ass in my scopes. If it’s not repeatable and durable, I don’t give a crap how clear the glass is.
 
Back
Top