SWFA SS 3-15 vs 3-9HD

[jesuvuah]

I am thinking of getting a scope to go on a 308 rifle. Max range the rifle will be shot will probably be around 600yrds. I am trying to decide between the two scopes in the title. The 3-15 gives you more power obviously and also has the parallax adjustment. On the other hand the 3-9 is their HD line so it should have better glass. I have never seen either of these scopes in person so it is hard for me to make the decision and I do not have any experience with HD glass.

So anyone with any opinions or experiences please feel free to share.

[fedupflyer]

I was in the DFW area the other day so I drove down to the SWFA store, which is about 45 mins south.

I had a chance to compare a bunch of SWFA products to other manufacturers.
I can definitely say the SWFA HD glass was better than the Bushnell elite glass and either the same or slightly better than Vortex PST line. I looked at a lot scopes that day. Personally, I would have bought the SWFA 3-9 HD if it had been in mil-dot. I ended up going with the fixed power x10 with mil-dot SS line, which is better than the Bushnell elite at more than twice the price.

Which ever SWFA scope you decide to buy, you will not be disappointed with their price vs performance.

[jesuvuah]

Thanks for that info.

[SomeOtherGuy]

The 3-9x SS has very good glass, but it also has much wider than average FOV from 4x through 9x, very good adjustments, and few moving parts so there is less to break. You don't need adjustable parallax in this magnification range, unless you wanted to use high magnification at very short distances. I've gone through a lot of scopes in the last few years and the SS-HD line impresses me more and more as I use others, including significantly more expensive other brands.

The 3-15x gets good reviews, but for a similar price I would take the overall quality of the 3-9x instead of the greater magnification range. I would only change from that if you wanted to use it on an airgun or .22 where you might want to focus at very close distances.

[wild_wild_wes]

The SS 3-9 is starting to sound good. The specs say it's the same weight as the NF 2.5-10X32, and only an inch longer. With the 42mm objective it probably is at least as bright as the NF, and undoubtedly brighter than the PST 2.5-10X32.

Can't help but thinking SWFA dropped the ball on the 3-15, not using the new components and HD glass. THAT would be a winner.

[Warg]

I agree that the SWFA is on par with the PST glass...if you get a good PST. My PST 6-24 seems to have better glass than the 4-16 for some odd reason. Can't comment vs. the older discontinued standard elite line, but I've looked through the new Elite Tacticals and thought the glass was on par with the SWFA.

The SWFA 3-9 is an excellent optic in for the money. My dislike for mil-quad reticle at lower power in their other FFP configurations is a non-issue on this SPF scope. I would also say that it's a bit brighter than the 2.5-10x32 Nightforce at higher magnification. My only issue is that the eye relief changes appreciably at higher magnification and would recommend using an adjustable stock with the SWFA or a stock that allows for compensation.


I was in the DFW area the other day so I drove down to the SWFA store, which is about 45 mins south.

I had a chance to compare a bunch of SWFA products to other manufacturers.
I can definitely say the SWFA HD glass was better than the Bushnell elite glass and either the same or slightly better than Vortex PST line. I looked at a lot scopes that day. Personally, I would have bought the SWFA 3-9 HD if it had been in mil-dot. I ended up going with the fixed power x10 with mil-dot SS line, which is better than the Bushnell elite at more than twice the price.

Which ever SWFA scope you decide to buy, you will not be disappointed with their price vs performance.

[SomeOtherGuy]

The SS 3-9 is starting to sound good. The specs say it's the same weight as the NF 2.5-10X32, and only an inch longer. With the 42mm objective it probably is at least as bright as the NF, and undoubtedly brighter than the PST 2.5-10X32.
Can't help but thinking SWFA dropped the ball on the 3-15, not using the new components and HD glass. THAT would be a winner.

The PST 2.5-10x32 is a good scope with very good glass. However like all PSTs it feels like a high end hobby grade scope, not something rugged or truly well made. Also, it is first focal plane but its reticle is too thin and disappears at 2.5x. The SS 3-9x reticle works just fine for me at 3x - the inner crosshairs are very fine, but the outer posts are extremely thick and always easy to find.

I think SWFA knew what they were doing on the 3-15x, targeting the PST market at a price point it would be willing to spend. I suspect that a HD 3-15x would be $1k or more. Also, there have been rumors that the HD line was in intermittent supply because of capacity issues at LOW. No idea if that was true, and I don't think it is now.


I agree that the SWFA is on par with the PST glass...if you get a good PST. My PST 6-24 seems to have better glass than the 4-16 for some odd reason. Can't comment vs. the older discontinued standard elite line, but I've looked through the new Elite Tacticals and thought the glass was on par with the SWFA.

The SWFA 3-9 is an excellent optic in for the money. My dislike for mil-quad reticle at lower power in their other FFP configurations is a non-issue on this SPF scope. I would also say that it's a bit brighter than the 2.5-10x32 Nightforce at higher magnification. My only issue is that the eye relief changes appreciably at higher magnification and would recommend using an adjustable stock with the SWFA or a stock that allows for compensation.

The 3-9x SS is still a FFP scope. I find the reticle just fine at all magnifications.

I've owned two of the 4-16x PSTs and looked through a 6-24x, and the 6-24x had noticeably better glass. If you read enough reviews it seems to be a common complaint that the 4-16x has mediocre glass.

Bushnell Elite Tactical scopes have very good glass from the ones I've seen. I would rate the SS very slightly better, so little that most people wouldn't notice or individual scope examples might vary.

OP, the Bushnell Elite Tactical 3-12x44 with the G2 reticle would be another good option to look at. Its reticle is a bit too thin at 3x, but very good from 5x on up, and it has adjustable parallax down to 10 yards. It's also heavier, slightly larger, costs a little more, and has less FOV.

[jesuvuah]

Hmmm still no clear winner. I think I am going to take my time choosing

[cougar_guy04]

I agree that the SWFA is on par with the PST glass...if you get a good PST. My PST 6-24 seems to have better glass than the 4-16 for some odd reason.
You're not the first person I've seen say the exact same thing with regards to the 4-16 vs 6-24 glass. A couple of guys I shoot with had 4-16 PSTs (and shortly thereafter offloaded them for 6-24s) and said the same thing. Kind of disappointing as the 4-16 PST FFP was at the top of my list for a R700 build I was looking at.

[wild_wild_wes]

The PST 2.5-10x32 is a good scope with very good glass. However like all PSTs it feels like a high end hobby grade scope, not something rugged or truly well made. Also, it is first focal plane but its reticle is too thin and disappears at 2.5x.

Wow, that would be important.

[Warg]

Looks like I'm tracking pretty well with SomeOtherGuy. I'd say the exact same thing about the PSTs, but I have beat the snot out of my 6-24 and it has several dings (including a fall on concrete) and is hanging in there nicely. Vortex does have a lifetime warranty FYI.


Wow, that would be important.