SWFA 10X

[spoiler559]

Ok newbie needing more info. Looking for new scope under $3-400. I've tested my buddies vortex crossfire ii 4-16X44 and find it just ok. I would like to know how much better would the SWFA 10X would be for basic bench range target shooting. Zooming all the way with the vortex I feel that is not the best. What would be the benefit of the SWFA and having a fixed zoom? Any cons for my purpose. Is the SWFA a better scope for longer distance. Not looking for anything crazy but would like to be out 400-600 and don't feel the vortex does that.

[spoiler559]

Have also tested the nikon Buckmaster. Very similar to the vortex imo

[Merc1138]

Never having the reticle subtensions change size, without having to buy a FFP scope, since the scope has no adjustable zoom. Decent turrets, the rear focus model is adequate(no need to spend the extra money for the side focus). The magnification isn't so high that you get a mess from mirage to try and look though, it's perfectly usable at 100-600 yards, has a standard reticle with no bdc crap, etc.

Would you want to take a carbine course or go hunting dangerous game with it... probably not.

[CenCalHobbist]

The benefit of a fixed zoom is less parts. Less parts equal more reliability due to less things that could break. The SWFA is a good scope for the money. TiborasaurusRex loves it for the price point. He is very much a scope snob in the fullest sense. He prefers $2K+ optics. Below is his review.

http://youtu.be/nky0voYC7gQ

[spoiler559]

Thanks for the info. Just curious if I would see a huge difference compared to the other two. I know just because it says 16X doesn't mean it's a true clear 16X.

[MongooseV8]

I have several 10x42 and one 20x42. They are excellent scopes, even if they were 3 times the price. The 10x42 is the best balance and more clear than the 20x42. I use mine to shoot squirrels the size of a playing card at 400 yards, so you will have no trouble shooting paper or steel.

[1911ShooterPhil]

This topic has been done before many times over. OP, the search field is your friend. My favorite fixed-power distance scope is the Bushnell 10x40:

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/353744/bushnell-elite-tactical-rifle-scope-10x-40mm-mil-dot-reticle-matte?cm_vc=ProductFinding

A good piece of reading is The Ultimate Sniper by MAJ John Plaster. You will learn lots about distance shooting and all about the advantages of fixed power scopes versus variable power scopes. He also has a lot to say about the advantages of variable power scopes over fixed power scopes. It all depends on how you are using your scope. You match the rifle and the scope to your shooting situation. You always want to use the right tool to match the job at hand. If for nothing else, pick up The Ultimate Sniper just for those chapters, plus the equation for using MOA scopes with MILDOT reticles. It's dead on & very worthwhile! Just saying. Good luck in your hunt for a good scope. --1911ShooterPhil

[ExtremeX]

I don't have much experience with the Bushnell 10x40 but curious as to why you consider it your favorite, or recommend over the SWFA?

At a glance...
The Bushnell has a 1" tube vs the 30mm of the SWFA
MOA Turrets with a Mil reticle vs MIL/MIL options with SWFA
No parallax adjustment vs rear focus
Less elevation travel : 80 MOA vs 100+ MOA
$40 cheaper than SWFA, but during a SWFA sale they are the same price.
Bushnell Weight is 15.5 vs 21oz

[1911ShooterPhil]

I don't have much experience with the Bushnell 10x40 but curious as to why you consider it your favorite, or recommend over the SWFA?

At a glance...
The Bushnell has a 1" tube vs the 30mm of the SWFA
MOA Turrets with a Mil reticle vs MIL/MIL options with SWFA
No parallax adjustment vs rear focus
Less elevation travel : 80 MOA vs 100+ MOA
$40 cheaper than SWFA, but during a SWFA sale they are the same price.
Bushnell Weight is 15.5 vs 21oz

I like the Bushnell 10x40 because that is what I have had for so long that I learned to use it well. At the time when I first purchased one...like 8 or 9 years ago...mostly what was out on the market was MOA-adjustable scopes with MIL DOT reticles. It's taken time for the gun industry to come up with the cool glass that is out there today. So, fast forward to present, and there are MIL RAD adjustable scopes with MIL DOT reticles available from most major manufacturers.

At the time when I first bought a Bushnell 10x40, I needed to be able to hunt one down quickly. The major distributors had those available for ordering. I needed something that was quick to get, affordable, and easily replaced if it broke. Plus, at the time, 30mm rings weren't as common to find. 1" rings were available from many makers and they were easier to acquire. The Bushnell 10x40 does have a 1" tube. Is that a drawback? It can be, but, it's not as bad as you imagine. The tube still allows for good light transmission and the glass on the Bushnell scopes are quite clear. The scope is quite durable and can take a beating. Generally, fixed power scopes are more rugged than variable power scopes. Like others have said: less moving parts. The real features I was concerned about were the target turrets on the scope. They are very repeatable and they can be returned to zero in the field using an Allen wrench. Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP6GKuu56wo

Neat huh? If you are roaming around with the rifle and getting it dirty, I recommend using a teeny tiny dab of anti-seize grease (like Birchwood Casey choke tube lube -- it's a graphite/copper/zinc mix) on the threads of the target turret cap screws so they don't bind on you in the future. Just a recommendation.

The turrets are easy to use. Plus, if you're using an MOA-adjustable scope (with 1/4 MOA adjustments) with a MIL DOT reticle, the math is pretty simple. Let's saying you are using a .308 WIN bolt action rifle with a 24" barrel, and 1:12 twist, okay? Let's say you are using 168-GR BTHP ammo made by Federal/American Eagle/Hornady/ETC...okay? The general gist of the formula: 1 MOA = 1" at 100 yards, 1 MOA = 2" at 200 yards, 1 MOA = 5" at 500 yards, ETC. So, the math is simple ad it makes it way easier to dial in the optic. I like to keep things simple because less confusion means it's easier to use and to remember when you need it.

Check this out: http://www.millettsights.com/downloa...indFormula.pdf

So, I hope those insights help. Best of luck in your decision. --1911ShooterPhil

[MongooseV8]

The bushnell is a great $200 scope that cost $200. The swfa is a great $900 scope that cost $300. They are on totally different levels, it just depends on what you want out of your rig.

[JMP]

The swfa is a great $900 scope that cost $300.

Uhhh, no. The glass isn't good on the $299 scope. That's why they sell this 10x for $800. It's day and night between the SWFA HD and non-HDs.

http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-HD-10x42-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P50717.aspx

That said, the SWFA HD models have remarkable clarity for the price. That's true with all SWFA levels. They are basic no frills scopes, and they deliver good products for the price.

[MongooseV8]

There arent any scopes close to the swfa for under $1k. Id take one over most leupolds anyday. Glass quality isnt everything. In fact it means nothing when your turrets arent reliable and consistent.

[JMP]

There arent any scopes close to the swfa for under $1k. Id take one over most leupolds anyday. Glass quality isnt everything. In fact it means nothing when your turrets arent reliable and consistent.

Read what I wrote--I was comparing SWFA 10x to SWFA 10x, not SWFA to Leupold or some other brand. SWFA makes a good 10x for $799. The $299 version is a bit hazy. SWFA is known for great glass clarity on their HD models. The $299 scope produces an image that I'd put on par with a Vortex PST. Better image quality will allow you to shoot as precisely with a lower magnification. There's never really a once scope solution. I have yet to see a specific scope that doesn't have a feature or two that I'd prefer to be different. The $299 SWFA fixed is a good scope to start out on with a tighter budget, and it is still very good for certain applications.