What's the latest and greatest 1.x-Y variable optic?

[rob_s]

Is the Leupold MK8 still the most anticipated and latest and greatest? If so what's choice #2? If not, what's the real choice #1?

[Schulze]

Isn't the SWFA Super Sniper 1-4 still the greatest of the latest?

[rob_s]

I was thinking maybe this one? But it's been out over a year...

http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/products/57

[maximus83]

I'd assume the S&B 1-8x short dot would be right up there. Not really sure it's widely available yet, but it's not really an issue for me, not in the budget for now.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=72356

http://swfa.com/Schmidt-Bender-1-8x24-Short-Dot-PM-II-30mm-Riflescope-P47551.aspx

[Singlestack Wonder]

Isn't the SWFA Super Sniper 1-4 still the greatest of the latest?

:rolleyes:

[Alaskapopo]

I really like the Swarovski Z6i BRT 1-6x scope and its one of the most popular high end scopes in three gun right now with a lot of top shooters like Daniel Horner using it.
Pat
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/NoveskeRogueHunter.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Optics/77grainN135load170yard0.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Optics/6x.jpg

[Sensei]

Is the Leupold MK8 still the most anticipated and latest and greatest? If so what's choice #2? If not, what's the real choice #1?

For a 5.56 RECCE running a single optic, the Z6i has my vote. I rarely find the need for 8X on a 5.56 rifle.

For a 7.62 support rifle, I'd go with the Horus version of the MK8 for now (it is the only version with daylight visible red dot). Otherwise, wait for the S&B 1-8x which should be out in a couple of months. I got to play with both at Ft. Benning a few days ago. I plan to drop coin on the S&B as soon as it's available.

[Magic_Salad0892]

:rolleyes:

What does that mean?

[Team Chuck Norris]

Leupold® Mark 8 CQBSS Riflescope: Cabela's indicates that they have a "limited stock" of these scopes.



http://www.cabelas.com/product/Leupold174-Mark-8-CQBSS-Riflescope/1249647.uts?Ntk=AllProducts&searchPath=%2Fcatalog%2Fsearch%2F%3FN%3D%26Ns%3DMAX_SALE_PRICE%257C1%26Ntk%3DAllProducts%26Ntt%3Dleupold%26Ntx%3Dmode%252Bmatchallpartial%26WTz_l%3DHeader%253BSearch-All%2BProducts%26WTz_stype%3DSN%26form_state%3DsearchForm%26search%3Dleupold%26searchTypeByFilter%3DAllProducts&Ntt=leupold&WTz_l=Header%3BSearch-All+Products

I note from the product description that the product is "imported."

I called Leupold and asked them to identify the country where the scope was produced. They said that they refuse to identify their "suppliers." I responded that I did not want to know the identity of their supplier, just the country. They again refused.

For $4k, Leupold cannot make the product in the USA?

Does anyone know the country from which this scope is imported?

And more worrisome, does Leupold even have the technical capacity to make a complete scope these days or has all that capacity been shipped overseas?

[post tensioned]

Right now for whats available it's got to be the Swaro Z6i. I recently got one for use on my EMC and it's been great from up close carbine matches out to 600 yards.

ETA: If you are going to be at CFDCC this weekend, you can check mine out.

[Singlestack Wonder]

What does that mean?

The SWFA is hardly the "latest and greatest".

[SHIVAN]

Leupold® Mark 8 CQBSS Riflescope: Cabela's indicates that they have a "limited stock" of these scopes.



http://www.cabelas.com/product/Leupold174-Mark-8-CQBSS-Riflescope/1249647.uts?Ntk=AllProducts&searchPath=%2Fcatalog%2Fsearch%2F%3FN%3D%26Ns%3DMAX_SALE_PRICE%257C1%26Ntk%3DAllProducts%26Ntt%3Dleupold%26Ntx%3Dmode%252Bmatchallpartial%26WTz_l%3DHeader%253BSearch-All%2BProducts%26WTz_stype%3DSN%26form_state%3DsearchForm%26search%3Dleupold%26searchTypeByFilter%3DAllProducts&Ntt=leupold&WTz_l=Header%3BSearch-All+Products

I note from the product description that the product is "imported."

I called Leupold and asked them to identify the country where the scope was produced. They said that they refuse to identify their "suppliers." I responded that I did not want to know the identity of their supplier, just the country. They again refused.

For $4k, Leupold cannot make the product in the USA?

Does anyone know the country from which this scope is imported?

And more worrisome, does Leupold even have the technical capacity to make a complete scope these days or has all that capacity been shipped overseas?

These are all valid points. I must state that the viable alternatives are both made overseas and owned by foreign interests.

Swarovski or Schmidt & Bender.

I suppose the Premier Reticles and US Optics could be considered competitors or alternatives, but are they completely sourced, fabricated and assembled here? I am unsure, so will refrain from guessing.

[rob_s]

ETA: If you are going to be at CFDCC this weekend, you can check mine out.

I will be there. Thanks for the offer.

[SHIVAN]

For $4k, Leupold cannot make the product in the USA?

Since you had to post the exact same thing in two different threads, I just wanted to make sure in case you missed this response in the other one:

KevinB says:


"Made in the USA. The Government has inspectors at the factory. "

That settles that.

[Failure2Stop]

I think that public demand would indicate that the S&B 1-8 is the most eagerly anticipated, but I am not convinced that it is the most caipable. Then again, it depends a lot on application, and I think that a lot of people will quickly realize that the expense and weight is overkill for most people's realisitc use and skill level.

[rob_s]

weight and cost are both exactly where my reservation lies with the 1-8 choices.

[bp7178]

I think that public demand would indicate that the S&B 1-8 is the most eagerly anticipated, but I am not convinced that it is the most caipable. Then again, it depends a lot on application, and I think that a lot of people will quickly realize that the expense and weight is overkill for most people's realisitc use and skill level.

I couldn't agree more.

I think a lot of people get stuck on having more magnification will make they an expoentially better shooter.

I was attracted to the S&B 1-8 for the features other than magnification. I ended up ordering a 1-4x LE, as I grew concerned about the limited exit pupil and delays in getting it to market. I don't really want to beta test a $2500+ scope that I have to pay for out of my own pocket.

Now, I know S&B won't realease it until its perfect, but even the 1-4x Short Dot went through revisions.

[ALCOAR]

I think that public demand would indicate that the S&B 1-8 is the most eagerly anticipated, but I am not convinced that it is the most caipable. Then again, it depends a lot on application, and I think that a lot tr most people's realisitc use and skill level.

I always refer folks your way when I receive questions about 1-4x types, you really seem to understand the capabilities and best uses for these types of optics.

Personally I will wait to see what NF has to offer in the future, if I get frisky, I'm swinging for the fences with March's offering.

http://marchscopes.com.au/tactical-1-10-x-24-scope.html

http://marchscopes.com.au/files/marchscopes/Tact%201-10.jpg

These 1-8x types are VERY UNFORGIVING, they will require a very steep learning curve and many people will indeed find that they ultimately are not worth the hassle due to again the very unforgiving nature of them especially at max power.

If I were buying one of these for a light precision type rifle, I would get the leupy which has some really nice features for those applications in which precision will be sought like the turrets and horus reticle.

[Jaysop]

Does anyone have any experience with this scope?

VX•R 1.25-4x20mm

http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/scopes/vx-r-riflescopes/vx-r-1-25-4x20mm/

The FireDot scopes do not seem to part of Leupold's Tactical line.

It seem to sell for just over $400.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-vx-r-1-25-4x20-matte-rifle-scope.html

I have not even seen one in stores. Any insight into this product would be appreciated.

I doubt, however, that this would qualify as the hottest, most wanted scope to get, in this category.

I wonder how this would compare to the vortex pst
Its shorter lighter and cheaper :D

[Belmont31R]

The VXR Patrol is the one that comes with externally adjusted turrets...


http://swfa.com/Leupold-125-4x20-VX-R-Patrol-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P49444.aspx

[Sensei]

I think that public demand would indicate that the S&B 1-8 is the most eagerly anticipated, but I am not convinced that it is the most caipable. Then again, it depends a lot on application, and I think that a lot of people will quickly realize that the expense and weight is overkill for most people's realisitc use and skill level.

I got to play with both the MK8 and a S&B1-8X at Ft. Benning a couple of weeks ago. The S&B is significantly more compact than the MK8. The only thing that I liked better on the MK8 was the design of the locking turrets and magnification adjustment.

As for weight, it was hard to determine which was lighter since the MK8 was on a SR25EMC with FMNV and the S&B was on a wooden stock. I suspect that the S&B is lighter, but I've not seen the final data sheet to compare it to its 1-4X cousins.

The S&B is my choice for a 16" barrel .308 such as SCAR-H or SR25EMC. Enough magnification for shots out to 800 meters with a functional red dot at true 1X for closer work.

[Clint]

I was thinking maybe this one? But it's been out over a year...

http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/products/57


Buddy of mine has this on his Mk12 clone.

This is a seriously nice optic.

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

I'm happy with my horus vision talon but, I would buy a trijicon if they came out with a variable accupoint with a bdc or turrets

[Magic_Salad0892]

The SWFA is hardly the "latest and greatest".

I've heard nothing but good about them, from everybody.

What's your reasoning?

[Alaskapopo]

I've heard nothing but good about them, from everybody.

What's your reasoning?

Being a good value for the money is a far cry from being the latest and greatest.

[rob_s]

Being a good value for the money is a far cry from being the latest and greatest.

we don't agree often, but on this we do.

[mobed]

Being a good value for the money is a far cry from being the latest and greatest.


we don't agree often, but on this we do.


Newbie here,

Are you saying if something is a "good value" it can't be the "latest and greatest?" I've read about the battery issues on the early models, other then that it's been getting great reviews. I'm in the market for my first 1-4 and the swfa SS is high on my list. Other then it's comparatively low price what makes it a lesser scope?

[Warg]

Here (http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2833665#Post2833665) is a SH thread with decent table comparing some of the latest 1.x-Y optic spec including the new IOR 1-10. The table created by IL ya is embedded below:

http://i400.photobucket.com/albums/pp90/ikoshkin/Sport_Optics/Slide1.jpg

Note the the IOR is 33 oz! Probably built like a tank- it better be.

[Jaysop]

The VXR Patrol is the one that comes with externally adjusted turrets...


http://swfa.com/Leupold-125-4x20-VX-R-Patrol-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P49444.aspx

your right my mistake,
I wonder if its worth the extra few $$. there isn't much info on it.
seems like there's one review on every forum

[shootist~]

For my budget and use it might be the USO 1.5-6 Dual Focal Plane. I'll know after it gets here.

[Alaskapopo]

Newbie here,

Are you saying if something is a "good value" it can't be the "latest and greatest?" I've read about the battery issues on the early models, other then that it's been getting great reviews. I'm in the market for my first 1-4 and the swfa SS is high on my list. Other then it's comparatively low price what makes it a lesser scope?

You get what you pay for. When you want the best (latest and greatest) it will be the most expensive. Just the way it is. Not saying this scope sucks but its no Swarovski or S&B.
Pat

[Magic_Salad0892]

You get what you pay for. When you want the best (latest and greatest) it will be the most expensive. Just the way it is. Not saying this scope sucks but its no Swarovski or S&B.
Pat

I've been told it's better.

I knew it's too good to be true, but I'll be putting an order in soon anyways.

Is there anything about the SWFA you hate?

[Javelin]

Leupold® Mark 8 CQBSS Riflescope: Cabela's indicates that they have a "limited stock" of these scopes.



http://www.cabelas.com/product/Leupold174-Mark-8-CQBSS-Riflescope/1249647.uts?Ntk=AllProducts&searchPath=%2Fcatalog%2Fsearch%2F%3FN%3D%26Ns%3DMAX_SALE_PRICE%257C1%26Ntk%3DAllProducts%26Ntt%3Dleupold%26Ntx%3Dmode%252Bmatchallpartial%26WTz_l%3DHeader%253BSearch-All%2BProducts%26WTz_stype%3DSN%26form_state%3DsearchForm%26search%3Dleupold%26searchTypeByFilter%3DAllProducts&Ntt=leupold&WTz_l=Header%3BSearch-All+Products

I note from the product description that the product is "imported."

I called Leupold and asked them to identify the country where the scope was produced. They said that they refuse to identify their "suppliers." I responded that I did not want to know the identity of their supplier, just the country. They again refused.

For $4k, Leupold cannot make the product in the USA?

Does anyone know the country from which this scope is imported?

And more worrisome, does Leupold even have the technical capacity to make a complete scope these days or has all that capacity been shipped overseas?

I thought items made in foreign countries & imported have to have where they are made stamped on the item itself.

Is this not still the case? :confused:

[Javelin]

And for my dollar I like the Trijicon Accupoint series. Of course it is no S&B but a really solid variable power scope that I have grown to trust and rely on.

[ra2bach]

You get what you pay for. When you want the best (latest and greatest) it will be the most expensive. Just the way it is. Not saying this scope sucks but its no Swarovski or S&B.
Pat

do you have one or have you had one in your hands to evaluate?

[Alaskapopo]

I've been told it's better.

I knew it's too good to be true, but I'll be putting an order in soon anyways.

Is there anything about the SWFA you hate?

The glass clarity and daylight illumnation is no where near S&B and Swarovski. You get what you pay for.
Pat

[rob_s]

I've been told it's better.

WTF does that even mean?

We need to stop this kind of posting (and talking in general IRL). "been told"? By who? In what context? Relative to what?

You seem to rely a lot on "been told" and "I heard", and it would be helpful to the rest of us if we knew by who these pearls were dropped so that we an benefit from them as well.

[Singlestack Wonder]

WTF does that even mean?

We need to stop this kind of posting (and talking in general IRL). "been told"? By who? In what context? Relative to what?

You seem to rely a lot on "been told" and "I heard", and it would be helpful to the rest of us if we knew by who these pearls were dropped so that we an benefit from them as well.

+1

The SWFA 1-4 has a cult following on TOS and many swear by it while admitting they have never touched one. When I was looking for a 1-4, I looked at the SWFA's spec's and reticle and decided it was lacking for my purposes. At 1X, the donut is huge with a large center hole. Not even close to a red dot (while SWFA advertises it as a red dot). Making tight shots at 1X would require looking thru the donut AND trying to align the extra small cross hairs. The new design was close but still very lacking.

[a0cake]

I personally prefer the SWFA 1-4X with donut/mil reticle over the other options we're talking about. For my purposes, it is "better." But better is a hugely subjective word. Like anything, there is a give and take. Is it the "latest and greatest?" No. It's a 1-4. There are now 1-8X and even 1-10's coming to market. So it hardly qualifies in this particular discussion. But, as for "latest and greatest" in the 1-4 category...

As of yet, no 1-4X optic on the market has every single one of the features / design properties that I want. The SWFA comes very close.

I've talked in depth with Magic_Salad on this topic privately, and don't feel like retyping the long conversations we've had about it. The point is that there are a lot of high quality options out there. There is only ONE way to decide and formulate an opinion. Reading and talking about them ad nauseum on the internet is not it.

I fail to understand how this can evoke such anger. This is not akin to "my DPMS is just as good as your Colt." Not at all. Granted, saying "I've heard it's better" is not a good presentation, but I have had detailed discussions with him on this. The SWFA is a high quality optic that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as S&B and NF.

Let's agree that a variety of quality offerings is a good thing. When companies compete, we win. Try them all if you can, and come up with your own conclusions.

[rob_s]

where are the angry posts? I haven't seen any. Unless asking people to qualify their comments somehow constitutes "angry".

"reading and talking about on the internet" is the reason for this site. It can be taken to an extreme but I can't see where that is the case in this thread. and with the cost of some of the options being put forward, trying them all is obviously out of the question.

This thread isn't about "what's the best variable bang for the buck", it's called "what's the latest and greatest". If people want to advocate for a relatively budget optic as qualifying for that title then they should be prepared to share their experience with the other products mentioned relative to the budget solution.

If someone has firsthand experience with the SWFA and the other otpics being mentioned, and can compare them, I'd love to hear it.

So far, near as I can tell, the popular votes seem to be:
Leupold MK8 1-8
Schmidt & Bender 1-8
Swarovski 1-6
SWFA 1-4

The fact that the SWFA gets mentioned in the same thread is a good indicator, but meaningless if those advocating for it can't explain why and how it stacks up against those other options, or even some of the more readily available options. In the 1-4 realm I'd like to hear what makes the SWFA "latest and greatest" relative to the:
Schmidt & Bender 1.1-4
Nightforce 1.1-4

[a0cake]

where are the angry posts? I haven't seen any. Unless asking people to qualify their comments somehow constitutes "angry".

"reading and talking about on the internet" is the reason for this site. It can be taken to an extreme but I can't see where that is the case in this thread. and with the cost of some of the options being put forward, trying them all is obviously out of the question.

This thread isn't about "what's the best variable bang for the buck", it's called "what's the latest and greatest". If people want to advocate for a relatively budget optic as qualifying for that title then they should be prepared to share their experience with the other products mentioned relative to the budget solution.

If someone has firsthand experience with the SWFA and the other otpics being mentioned, and can compare them, I'd love to hear it.

So far, near as I can tell, the popular votes seem to be:
Leupold MK8 1-8
Schmidt & Bender 1-8
Swarovski 1-6
SWFA 1-4

The fact that the SWFA gets mentioned in the same thread is a good indicator, but meaningless if those advocating for it can't explain why and how it stacks up against those other options, or even some of the more readily available options. In the 1-4 realm I'd like to hear what makes the SWFA "latest and greatest" relative to the:
Schmidt & Bender 1.1-4
Nightforce 1.1-4

Rob, I agree with almost everything you're saying, and also stated that the SWFA 1-4 is hardly the latest and greatest. It does not qualify for that category. Since you asked for experiences with the SWFA, I'll add them to the bottom of this post. It's your thread and I don't want to derail it, so let me know if you want to take the remainder of the discussion elsewhere.

My comment about discussing things online ad nauseum was perhaps not clearly expressed. My main point was that when talking about high quality optics, much of it boils down to personal preference that you can only arrive at through hands on use. We can unequivocally state and prove that Colt makes a better AR than DPMS online. When it comes to optics (assuming that the optics being discussed are all high quality...and they are), that becomes much harder.

Anyway, I'll now post only my responses in a series of PM's I had with Magic_Salad regarding the SWFA. It may appear disorganized since it's only half of a conversation but it may still be useful.

I'll preface them by saying that I'm not talking out of my ass and have used all the equipment I'm talking about. I hate when people talk about products they've never used, and will never do it.

The NF reticles are not as practical. Their hollow mil-dot reticle certainly has some merit at long range, but is lacking on short range target acquisition. The other reticles, such as the FC2, for example, are good for short range but are deficient at range estimation and long range precision. The baby NXS is a bomb proof scope for sure, but in my experience the SWFA gives nothing to it in durability.

The short dot is a great optic also. I'm not saying it's not. But without illumination, it's not practical on 1X. The illuminated dot is great when it's on, but battery life on all these scopes is not stellar. On a fighting rifle, you can't count on the battery being good to go at any given time with any of these three 1-4X optics. The reticle needs to be effective even without illumination. This is where the SWFA makes its money.

The Donut/Mil-dot reticle on the SWFA is hands down the most practical available. Battery life is somewhat lacking (same with all 1-4's except the TR-24's, obviously), but the SWFA puts you in the best position to use the optic on 1X without the IR.

Now, let's talk glass. The SWFA gives nothing to either of these in the department of optical clarity. The blue tint in the S&B's is not a big deal at all. It's not a major minus as some claim. But the point is that it's not better than the SWFA. The NF isn't either. The NF eye box is somewhat less forgiving also. The SWFA and S&B are somewhat equal in this respect.

When I wasn't carrying an M110, my M4 with SWFA 1-4X was my go to rifle in the mountains of Afghanistan. It took a beating. When I ate shit walking on the rocks, so did the scope. When the temperature changed from 80 degrees at 2,000FT AGL to flat out cold as shit at 10,000 FT AGL, the scope took it. And it never missed a beat. I would classify it is extremely durable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whatever you do, make sure you get the donut /mil dot reticle.

The T post option is fine at 4X but not good to go on 1x.

The only negative that I can come up with is the battery life on the illumination. 75-100 hours is going to be your run time. This is true of all 1-4's though. I haven't found one yet that has a long battery life. I mention it as a negative only because it is the only area that I've found where the SWFA 1-4 does not have a distinct advantage over the competition.

Illumination is not a big deal to me, and I rarely use it during hours of full visibility. I do use it occasionally on the lower settings during 30-45 minute windows of nautical twilight (morning and evening). During the day, it is unnecessary as the black reticle is plenty thick enough to easily discriminate from the target background. The only other time I felt the need to click on the illumination with the SWFA was during heavy downpours where mud gets all over the lenses. All in all the batteries end up getting changed once every two weeks or so of daily use.

Also, whatever mount you get, you'll probably want an extended version. Eye relief on the SWFA 1-4 is a good bit longer than the NF NXS.

Hmm..what else. Oh, a cat-tail. I recommend one. Makes switching from 1 to 4 a lot easier.

The scope is also available in a capped or uncapped version. I went with the uncapped personally. I've never had an issue with the turrets getting banged around. If you don't ever "click" at long range and only use holdovers the capped version may afford you a slightly higher degree of durability because the turrets are covered. But again, I've never had a problem.

I think that pretty much covers it. If you're wondering about anything else let me know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cat tail -

http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-Switchview-T...er-P49277.aspx


Eye relief is in the 3.75 - 4'' area. I do not know the exact quoted number though.

There is no zero stop feature. Capped turrets make it a non issue, IMO.

The only Vortex products I have experience with are their HD Spotting Scopes. They were issued to our unit in Afghanistan. We got two of them. One literally broke in half (two piece construction). The other one's magnification ring started to rotate freely and it was stuck on max power. I never purchased anything from Vortex because of this. Their riflescopes might be good to go, but I don't personally want to go that route.

I have no through the reticle pictures for you, and my SS is currently locked up in an arms room right now.

I'll give you a few links from over at snipers hide of people reviewing / comparing the scope as well as pictures.

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2491668

EDITED TO REMOVE BROKEN LINKS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


It doesn't have a zero stop. I thought I mentioned that but maybe I didn't.

I have the uncapped version. I use the baseline method anyway, so a zero stop is not critical to me. Every full revolution of the turret brings you up to a new baseline (labeled numerically underneath the rotating portion of the turret).

There's never confusion as to where your zero is. If you have to make a huge adjustment and you don't remember how many clicks you made, all you have to do is return to the correct baseline and return the turret to "0."

You can give the scope to a three year old and have him turn the turrets every which way for as long as he wants. In a few seconds you can return to zero.

[bp7178]

The short dot is a great optic also. I'm not saying it's not. But without illumination, it's not practical on 1X. The illuminated dot is great when it's on, but battery life on all these scopes is not stellar. On a fighting rifle, you can't count on the battery being good to go at any given time with any of these three 1-4X optics. The reticle needs to be effective even without illumination. This is where the SWFA makes its money.

The Short Dot LE has a second focal reticle, and the reticle is bold enough to use w/o the illumination on.

On a 1-4x scope with a FFP reticle, you can't really range or make out the subtentions on anything other than 4x. Its pretty hard to range on a 4x anyway, its not like its a 12x scope.


The Donut/Mil-dot reticle on the SWFA is hands down the most practical available.

I'll admit my SWFA trigger time has been limited, but I don't like how much of the field of view it takes up on 4x. The reticle seems clunky to me. I like simple reticles, basic mil-dots w/o all the fluff.


Now, let's talk glass. The SWFA gives nothing to either of these in the department of optical clarity. The blue tint in the S&B's is not a big deal at all. It's not a major minus as some claim. But the point is that it's not better than the SWFA. The NF isn't either. The NF eye box is somewhat less forgiving also. The SWFA and S&B are somewhat equal in this respect.

The blue tint is something found on the FFP short dots, not the SFP LE versions.

The big problem is when people compare optics on a sunny flat range. Hazy nights at 4am is where glass makes a difference. How the scope resolves color will effect its image. That is, what colors are allowed to pass the coatings. What makes one good for daylight may make it less than ideal for night or low light use. Every scope review I have ever looked at its always sunny.

I don't see how the 1-8x S&B is on this list as it hasn't been released yet. Maybe this thread was intended as a promising new product forecast. Same with the 1-8x Leupold. I think the number of people who have actually used one is pretty slim, given its $4k retail price tag.

The SWFA scope give the user a lot for its price tag, and maybe one of the most cost effective solutions one can currently buy. But, I think the internet hype around it exceeds its capability.

I wouldn't think a user could expect they are getting comparable products when one costs $800 and the other $2300.

[Belmont31R]

Ive owned both a Short Dot Gen I and Gen II. Neither scope had a blue tint. They do have lens coatings that reduce glare like looking through a pair of polarized sun glasses.



I never had an issue using it on 1.1X with a close in target.



http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/11a89bcb.jpg

[Belmont31R]

I don't see any blue tint here, either...


http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/7e5d0709.jpg

or here


http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/3ec2bdbf.jpg



FWIW here is the same roof with a 3-12X SB and the color looks the same to me...


http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/cb234c48.jpg




And yes Ive taken several tests for color blindness and passed them all with flying colors. But what do I know...:p

[Alaskapopo]

I personally prefer the SWFA 1-4X with donut/mil reticle over the other options we're talking about. For my purposes, it is "better." But better is a hugely subjective word. Like anything, there is a give and take. Is it the "latest and greatest?" No. It's a 1-4. There are now 1-8X and even 1-10's coming to market. So it hardly qualifies in this particular discussion. But, as for "latest and greatest" in the 1-4 category...

As of yet, no 1-4X optic on the market has every single one of the features / design properties that I want. The SWFA comes very close.

I've talked in depth with Magic_Salad on this topic privately, and don't feel like retyping the long conversations we've had about it. The point is that there are a lot of high quality options out there. There is only ONE way to decide and formulate an opinion. Reading and talking about them ad nauseum on the internet is not it.

I fail to understand how this can evoke such anger. This is not akin to "my DPMS is just as good as your Colt." Not at all. Granted, saying "I've heard it's better" is not a good presentation, but I have had detailed discussions with him on this. The SWFA is a high quality optic that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as S&B and NF.

Let's agree that a variety of quality offerings is a good thing. When companies compete, we win. Try them all if you can, and come up with your own conclusions.

Actually it is that argument. Its the same as guys trying to say their DPMS is just as good BS. While the SWFA looks like a good scope at its price point its not in the same league with top companies like S&B and Swarovski. One thing really lacking with it and many other scopes is a true daylight visible reticle that does not wash out. On a personal note I don't care for the reticle. Its too busy. I like a simple dot that is illuminated with a buttle drop tree below it. Don't give me any circles, thick bars etcs. It only clutters your field of view.
pat

[Singlestack Wonder]

One of the comments on the S&B Short Dot that is often made by "internet experts" or those attempting to justify that their $800 scope is as good or better than the S&B, is that the cross hair is not clearly visible on 1x and stipulate that it is some sort of problem. Just to clarify, the S&B Short Dot is designed so that at 1x, the cross hair is INTENDED to be close to if not invisible so that the scope can be used as a CQB optic (i.e. red dot sight) with a non-cluttered field of view.

As far as the SWFA 1x4 goes, it's a relatively low cost optic, made in Asia, that cannot be serviced here in the states. SWFA advertises it as having "red dot" capability. I have handled and used one at the range. I can report that it does not have red dot capability, just a grossly oversized donut with a BIG hole in the middle. Hardly a red dot. For those that chose to purchase these types of scopes from SWFA, Primary Arms, Leatherwood, etc., and feel that they work for your intended purpose, great. However, they cannot be mentioned in the same class in regards to features and quality as the S&B's, Swarovski's, etc.

[a0cake]

One of the comments on the S&B Short Dot that is often made by "internet experts" or those attempting to justify that their $800 scope is as good or better than the S&B, is that the cross hair is not clearly visible on 1x and stipulate that it is some sort of problem. Just to clarify, the S&B Short Dot is designed so that at 1x, the cross hair is INTENDED to be close to if not invisible so that the scope can be used as a CQB optic (i.e. red dot sight) with a non-cluttered field of view.

Battery life on a Short Dot is 100 hours give or take. As you said, the reticle is close to if not invisible without it. For my purposes, this is a no go. That is "some sort of problem" to me. And don't assume that I'm some sort of "internet expert" with no real experience simply because I don't like a certain product that you do. That's a huge leap and an unnecessary affront. If you like your S&B then by God use it and like it. Don't insult me because I don't.

As far as the SWFA 1x4 goes, it's a relatively low cost optic, made in Asia, that cannot be serviced here in the states. SWFA advertises it as having "red dot" capability. I have handled and used one at the range. I can report that it does not have red dot capability, just a grossly oversized donut with a BIG hole in the middle. Hardly a red dot. For those that chose to purchase these types of scopes from SWFA, Primary Arms, Leatherwood, etc., and feel that they work for your intended purpose, great. However, they cannot be mentioned in the same class in regards to features and quality as the S&B's, Swarovski's, etc.

Made in Asia. Yep. Japan. Are you not tracking where NF optics are made? Assembled in the USA, true. But primarily made in Japan. Your comparison to Primary Arms is a joke.




....................................................

[Singlestack Wonder]

....................................................

In regards to this thread's topic, I believe you best summed up the SWFA 1-4 with your statement: "Rob, I agree with almost everything you're saying, and also stated that the SWFA 1-4 is hardly the latest and greatest." Beyond that, nothing else matters.

[buckjay]

In regards to this thread's topic, I believe you best summed up the SWFA 1-4 with your statement: "Rob, I agree with almost everything you're saying, and also stated that the SWFA 1-4 is hardly the latest and greatest." Beyond that, nothing else matters.

Seems like you have a bit of anti SWFA bias going on?

"Made in Asia" - to start its made in Japan. I don't think there's any place in the world I'd rather have fine glass made then Japan itself. (ETA: I have extensive experience with real nice camera glass, and have over $10K worth of Nikon glass in my closet)

I agree regarding the reticle however. SWFA's setup with the hole in the middle is not ideal for 25-100 yard range. Its fine for up close and further out but there's a spot where you have to rely on looking for the cross hairs which is not ideal. As far as glass goes however, I've used both the Nightforce 1-4 and S&B 1-4 alongside the SWFA 1-4 and can tell you the glass of the SWFA is better then the Nightforce and as good, if not slightly more clear edge to edge with a tad more resolving clarity then the S&B.

However I did not end up keeping my SWFA as my issue is solely with the reticle and the scope shadow at 4X. If they can figure out how to create a better red dot reticle then I'd be all in.

[Belmont31R]

Use whatever you want to. If you think Japanese made glass is the best then use that. If you think German made stuff is the best then use that. If you think a paper towel tube is the best then use that.



These types of questions are akin to asking, "Whats the best rail right now?" :suicide2:



People are going to either use threads like these to justify their purchase or their lack of funds to buy more expensive stuff. We can repeat this same thing with any number of topics. I haven't seen a single post where a person mentioned doing side by side tests in low light (ect), and its mostly subjective/personal justification. :rolleyes:

[bp7178]

As far as glass goes however, I've used both the Nightforce 1-4 and S&B 1-4 alongside the SWFA 1-4 and can tell you the glass of the SWFA is better then the Nightforce and as good, if not slightly more clear edge to edge with a tad more resolving clarity then the S&B.

What time of day was it and what were the weather conditions?

[ucrt]

Actually it is that argument. Its the same as guys trying to say their DPMS is just as good BS. ...
...
pat

==========================================

I agree Pat.

It is all opinions unless the playing field is leveled like Rob leveled the playing field for us with his "Explanation of Feature" section of the Chart.

The "Explanation of Features" for a scope would have to include unknowns such as:
Tube OD - 1", 26mm, 30mm, 35mm, ...
Tube Composition - Aluminum, SS, Steel,...
True Magnification - 1.2 - 4X, 1.0 - 3.8X, ...
Eye Relief -
Internal Adjustment Range - 60, 80, 100 MOA
Adjustment Graduations - 1/4", 1/2", ...
OAL -
Weight -
Parallax - Fixed, Adjustable,
Material of Internal Moving Parts - Brass, Plastic, SS, ...
Number of Lenses - 4, 5, 6, ...
Method of Waterproofing - Grease Seal, Mechanical Seal, Diaphragm, ...
FFP/SFP - or both
Lens Mounting Technique - O-Ring, Lockwasher, glued, ...
Diopter Adjustment - Fixed, Objective, ...
Field of View -
Illumination Brightness - Daylight?, Sunlight,
Adjustment Backlash - Box Test
Shock Resistance - Internal Construction
Internal Purge - N2, Ar, ...
Battery Life -
Optical Aberrations - Pincushion, barrel, Edge Distortion...
Lens Coatings - Scratch resistance, anti-reflective,
Warranty - 30-days - lifetime...
And So On....

I think anyone just claiming their scope is gtg just because it is belongs to them, it "looked" clear to them and they maybe put 300 rounds at the range is about the same as some newb holding his Oly and claiming he has had it 10-years, it has never failed him, and it does everythng a Colt does...

...just ignorance.

But if I had to make a wager right now...I'd have to bet on a European scope over an Asian one. But thorough testing, and a spec sheet with some of the info above might blow that out of the water...maybe.

But maybe it's just me...

.

[Alaskapopo]

Seems like you have a bit of anti SWFA bias going on?

"Made in Asia" - to start its made in Japan. I don't think there's any place in the world I'd rather have fine glass made then Japan itself. (ETA: I have extensive experience with real nice camera glass, and have over $10K worth of Nikon glass in my closet)

I agree regarding the reticle however. SWFA's setup with the hole in the middle is not ideal for 25-100 yard range. Its fine for up close and further out but there's a spot where you have to rely on looking for the cross hairs which is not ideal. As far as glass goes however, I've used both the Nightforce 1-4 and S&B 1-4 alongside the SWFA 1-4 and can tell you the glass of the SWFA is better then the Nightforce and as good, if not slightly more clear edge to edge with a tad more resolving clarity then the S&B.

However I did not end up keeping my SWFA as my issue is solely with the reticle and the scope shadow at 4X. If they can figure out how to create a better red dot reticle then I'd be all in.

Thats a big deal as many gun fights with these types of weapons happen at just those ranges.
No one is saying the SWFA is crap however thinking its better or even in the same ball park as S&B and Swarovski is insulting to anyones intelligence. Like I said earlier it compares to saying DPMS is as good as Noveske.
Pat

[rob_s]

Use whatever you want to. If you think Japanese made glass is the best then use that. If you think German made stuff is the best then use that. If you think a paper towel tube is the best then use that.

These types of questions are akin to asking, "Whats the best rail right now?" :suicide2:

People are going to either use threads like these to justify their purchase or their lack of funds to buy more expensive stuff. We can repeat this same thing with any number of topics. I haven't seen a single post where a person mentioned doing side by side tests in low light (ect), and its mostly subjective/personal justification. :rolleyes:

I don't care what people use the thread for, although it would be nice if they could keep it to themselves.

You, and several others, seem to have misunderstood the point of the thread, and the drift into talking about a product that even it's fans clearly state does not fit the context of the thread hasn't helped.

[Kfgk14]

Personally I will wait to see what NF has to offer in the future, if I get frisky, I'm swinging for the fences with March's offering.

http://marchscopes.com.au/tactical-1-10-x-24-scope.html

http://marchscopes.com.au/files/marchscopes/Tact%201-10.jpg


There you go. If you're going to blow $3000 on an optic, blow it correctly.

I personally am looking at either the Leatherwood CMR or the Vortex Viper PST for my low-power variable optic. Probably not the most whiz-bang tactical, but I haven't read of any issues with them yet.

PS, anyone know jack about the Pride Fowler 1-6x24?

[marco.g]

Im confused by march. They have a 10x power ratio (while most top out at 8), good glass and large adjustment range. They also manage to do it keeping their scope the lightest of the bunch. The same holds true in their full size offerings.

Does anyone have experience with these? Where are the tradeoffs, or are these just a really good scope?

[goteron]

I would like to know this too.

I am stuck now between the USO DFP and S&B. I will be buying two of them, so the cheaper USO seems to be a better deal for me. I don't really need 8x either.

But if the March is that much better, then why not?

[bp7178]

The March 1-10x has a 2.8mm exit pupil on 10x.

I can't imagine that makes for a very generous eye box. I'm also lost as to the utility of a 10x scope with a fixed parallax setting at 100m.

As to the CMR, I used to own one, and it isn't a horrible entry level scope. The reticle is pretty neat, but the illumination is weak and uneven. The turrets are sloppy, and the zero setting sucks. It uses two cap head screws with o-rings that shred once you tighten them. The eye box is very small, as the exit pupil is equally small.

Still, for the money, its VERY hard to beat the TR24.

[ra2bach]

Thats a big deal as many gun fights with these types of weapons happen at just those ranges.
No one is saying the SWFA is crap however thinking its better or even in the same ball park as S&B and Swarovski is insulting to anyones intelligence. Like I said earlier it compares to saying DPMS is as good as Noveske.
Pat

so I ask again, do you own one of the SWFA scopes or have you had one in your hands to evaluate?

for the record, I don't own one of the circle reticles so I've got no dog in that hunt...

I do have a T-reticle version but have not had the opportunity to check out the glass against a S&B or Swaro but against a $2000+ USO scope, looking deep into shadows at distance and comparing color and resolution, I would say they were comparable if not equal at the limit of what I was able to perceive. take that for what it's worth...

statements that you get what you pay for, especially in optics, are generally true, and where you may get equal or better performance in one area with a cheaper product does not mean that goes across the board. features that are considered necessary by some (but not by others depending on use) may be missing, or construction may be compromised in some way which is not evident.

however, every once in a while, there comes a golden moment where economies of production, variations in currency exchange, etc. can create exceptions to this rule.

I think it would be most helpful if people only spoke from experience so this is why I have not entered this thread with an opinion.

However, simply based on the fact that the SWFA is even being debated against scopes that cost 2-3 times as much, if... and that is not an IF that has yet been substantiated by any of the hyperbole or anecdotes in this thread... IF the SWFA is not at least comparable to the S&B and others at the top of the ladder, then it is at least, the very best option on the next rung down. In my OPINION, that validates it's place in a discussion of the latest and greatest...

[Alaskapopo]

I do own a Swarovski Z6i and I have looked at the reviews for the SWFA. You can tell from the pics (on the review at Snipers Hide) the clarity is not on par with S&B or Swarovski or Nightforce. Also the illumination sucks as you can tell in the pics and admitted from owners of this scope. It appears neither of us has in person compared the quality of the SWFA to the S&B or Swarovski.

Pat

[shootist~]

so I ask again, do you own one of the SWFA scopes or have you had one in your hands to evaluate?


I do have a T-reticle version...

ra2bach,

How does the T-reticle perform at 1x on black gong/targets at 50-100 Yds; also up close? Is the reticle thin enough at 4x for semi-precision (~10" gongs) at 400+?

Thanks.

[post tensioned]

I do own a Swarovski Z6i and I have looked at the reviews for the SWFA. You can tell from the pics (on the review at Snipers Hide) the clarity is not on par with S&B or Swarovski or Nightforce. Also the illumination sucks as you can tell in the pics and admitted from owners of this scope. It appears neither of us has in person compared the quality of the SWFA to the S&B or Swarovski.

Pat

Well, I was at a Tac Comp last month and was using my Z6i and someone there had a SWFA 1-4. We each look through each others scope, right there, side by side. There is no question on glass clarity, reticle illumination, weight, etc; IMO it wasn't even close.
I really didn't care for the SWFA's reticle; seemed too busy and cumbersome for close-up work or good precision work.

[Alaskapopo]

Well, I was at a Tac Comp last month and was using my Z6i and someone there had a SWFA 1-4. We each look through each others scope, right there, side by side. There is no question on glass clarity, reticle illumination, weight, etc; IMO it wasn't even close.
I really didn't care for the SWFA's reticle; seemed too busy and cumbersome for close-up work or good precision work.

Cool thanks for posting. It seems that a $1000 scope does not equal a $2400 one. Who would have thought? I love my Swarovski. I have gotten spoiled by it. I was shooting my patrol rifle with a TR24 the other day as the light was fading and I noticed it was not anywhere near as clear in lower light as my three gun rifle with the Swarovski.

[ra2bach]

I do own a Swarovski Z6i and I have looked at the reviews for the SWFA. You can tell from the pics (on the review at Snipers Hide) the clarity is not on par with S&B or Swarovski or Nightforce. Also the illumination sucks as you can tell in the pics and admitted from owners of this scope. It appears neither of us has in person compared the quality of the SWFA to the S&B or Swarovski.

Pat

Pat, I know you have the Swaro, and having used them and decided that I could only afford a Kahles (their younger brother), I know what I was giving up...

that said, the question was do you or have you had an SWFA in your hands?.. the cautions about not believing everything you read on the internet goes both ways.

I'm not picking you out in particular but just responding to some of your comments - others have made just as forceful comments with only one-sided experience as well...

[ra2bach]

ra2bach,

How does the T-reticle perform at 1x on black gong/targets at 50-100 Yds; also up close? Is the reticle thin enough at 4x for semi-precision (~10" gongs) at 400+?

Thanks.

I haven't had it out to do a close-quarters type of evaluation yet as I have another scope that I wanted to run through a class last month.

on initial evaluation, if you're used to a dot, then this won't satisfy you. if you're used to a cross reticle, this will be better than anything I have used before, though that's not a very strong recommendation. my suspicion is that it won't be as fast as the circle/cross reticle but I won't know till I get it out there and run it.

on semi-precision, as you say, this is what I got the scope for. when run up to 4x, the FFP takes the small cross in the center to a 22 mil reticle with hashes every 2 mils on all stadia. it is very fine and suited for this task...

[shootist~]

I chased down a pic of the SWFA "T" reticle here:
http://www.ar15.com/mobile/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=527840&page=9

Probably not the best design at 1x for CQB due to the FFP design, but I have not actually seen one.

A Dual Focal Plane is almost needed for the best of "both" words (FFP mil (or MOA) based cross-hair reticle and SPF circle/dot), but that does put things in a different price range, if done correctly.

[Singlestack Wonder]

so I ask again, do you own one of the SWFA scopes or have you had one in your hands to evaluate?

for the record, I don't own one of the circle reticles so I've got no dog in that hunt...

I do have a T-reticle version but have not had the opportunity to check out the glass against a S&B or Swaro but against a $2000+ USO scope, looking deep into shadows at distance and comparing color and resolution, I would say they were comparable if not equal at the limit of what I was able to perceive. take that for what it's worth...

statements that you get what you pay for, especially in optics, are generally true, and where you may get equal or better performance in one area with a cheaper product does not mean that goes across the board. features that are considered necessary by some (but not by others depending on use) may be missing, or construction may be compromised in some way which is not evident.

however, every once in a while, there comes a golden moment where economies of production, variations in currency exchange, etc. can create exceptions to this rule.

I think it would be most helpful if people only spoke from experience so this is why I have not entered this thread with an opinion.

However, simply based on the fact that the SWFA is even being debated against scopes that cost 2-3 times as much, if... and that is not an IF that has yet been substantiated by any of the hyperbole or anecdotes in this thread... IF the SWFA is not at least comparable to the S&B and others at the top of the ladder, then it is at least, the very best option on the next rung down. In my OPINION, that validates it's place in a discussion of the latest and greatest...

I have actually used a SWFA 1x4 on another's rifle at the range and speak from 1st hand experience. The reticle is far from being CQB capable at 1x. At 4x the scope is ok for distance shooting but defintily not even close to being in the same class as S&B, Swarovski, or other top tier optics.

The ONLY reason it is being mentioned is the fact that a previous poster at one time felt is was the "latest and greatest".

[dhena81]

Why is there no love for Premier? I always thought Premier optics were held in high regard and very durable.

[Sensei]

Why is there no love for Premier? I always thought Premier optics were held in high regard and very durable.

I'd put Premier up in the top tier of manufacturers. Their 1-8X seems to be a bit of a mystery since a few were released on the market, then production suddenly stopped. It would be nice to have them return to the market around the same time as the S&B release.

[bp7178]

The Premier kind of has an odd form factor than may require the user to use a non-standard mounting solution. Standard for these types of optics being a Larue, ADM, or Bobro.

I think that is something that may hurt the design some.