Page 55 of 103 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 1030

Thread: 1-4 Variable optic options

  1. #541
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,217
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Singlestack Wonder View Post
    The SS is going thru it's issues right now with battery cap problems (SWFA is now sending out replacements) and black specs inside the optics (typical of asian built optics). While many on TOS sight have hailed this scope as the next coming, only time will tell.
    I was one on TOS (G17C) with a black spec on the internal lens surface. It was replaced immediately and the new one is good-to-go. I've had no issues with the battery cap, which from what I've read just needs to be tightened down. Still waiting on SWFA to make the cat tails available as the zoom ring is very tight. Other than that, I remain mighty pleased with the product.

    The scope is made in Japan FWIW. Not sure how the disaster there will affect further production.
    Last edited by Canonshooter; 04-22-11 at 18:58.

  2. #542
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    442
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    I picked up one of the SS scopes from SWFA. They told me the had the cattails for both versions of the SS and let me check one out that was on a Colt match rifle. I bought one each of those two.
    Chris showed me the battery fix and checked the FOV while I was there. I got to shoot it this morning. So far it appears to be as good as the rest of the SS line.
    Death hangs over thee: whilst yet thou livest, whilst thou mayest, be good.

  3. #543
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,949
    Feedback Score
    31 (97%)
    Other than some minor issues at the moment, I'm really liking what I see from the SWFA. This might be my first 1-4.

    http://www.opticstalk.com/swfa-14x-s...67.html#356967
    I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. - John Adams

    The AK guys are all about the reach around. - Garand Thumb.

  4. #544
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    11,063
    Feedback Score
    41 (98%)
    That's one way to make a Short-Dot look like crap.

  5. #545
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    66
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Singlestack Wonder View Post
    The SS is going thru it's issues right now with battery cap problems (SWFA is now sending out replacements) and black specs inside the optics (typical of asian built optics). While many on TOS sight have hailed this scope as the next coming, only time will tell.
    I had debris on the inside of a US Optics Sn-3.

  6. #546
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NM
    Posts
    3,988
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapopo View Post
    The short battery life is not as big of a deal on a scope that is still usable when the batteries are dead via a traditional black reticle. When an Aimpoint goes dead its a glass tube.
    Pat
    I would contend that at night the difference is pretty negligible; but the caveat of a well designed illumination control setup should mitigate a lot of the times where a dead battery is a show-stopper.
    عندما تصبح الأسلحة محظورة, قد يملكون حظرون عندهم فقط
    کله چی سلاح منع شوی دی، یوازي غلوونکۍ یی به درلود
    Semper Fi
    "Being able to do the basics, on demand, takes practice. " - Sinister

  7. #547
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,956
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Belmont31R View Post
    That's one way to make a Short-Dot look like crap.
    Of course, the photographer's abilty may have contributed to that.

  8. #548
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,681
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    That's one way to make a Short-Dot look like crap.
    How so?

    Slight focus problems aside, I thought the glass and field of view on the S&B looked pretty good.

    I like the T-reticle for the SS better than the circle one. The lines on them are pretty thick, and the circle looks like it would obsecure a lot of the target area at high power. I wonder why they went away from the skeleton(ish) bold lines to those.

  9. #549
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    143
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by bp7178 View Post
    How so?

    Slight focus problems aside, I thought the glass and field of view on the S&B looked pretty good.
    I noticed a wider field of view on the S&B then the other three optics. S&B was better at 1x and noticeably better at 4x.

  10. #550
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    11,063
    Feedback Score
    41 (98%)
    Quote Originally Posted by bp7178 View Post
    How so?

    Slight focus problems aside, I thought the glass and field of view on the S&B looked pretty good.

    I like the T-reticle for the SS better than the circle one. The lines on them are pretty thick, and the circle looks like it would obsecure a lot of the target area at high power. I wonder why they went away from the skeleton(ish) bold lines to those.


    When it comes to powered optics (either by light or electronics) its extremely hard to get a real good perspective on how they look through a camera. In this case the really light back ground on the first series of pictures completely washed out the Short-Dot's dot even though in real life the dot would have been perfectly visible. Im on my second SD and there is not a natural background, even white sand under a sunny sky, that will wash out a SD's dot like the picture makes it look like. In fact I've never had a situation where it even needed the highest setting.


    In my own experience trying to take pictures of the dot the camera will make the dot much less bright during the day than it appears to the eye, and make it seem much brighter than it really is at night. I don't think anyone will ever effectively capture an image of a electronic option exactly as it appears to the eye, and thus these images make the scope look like shit when in reality you're going to get a far different view than what was represented.


    I do think the Short-Dot could use one more day light setting for use at night because the lowest day light setting has a slight bloom at night. Nothing like the night time picture in that link, though, especially with a light on. My only other complain is MOA turrets which has nothing to do with the dot.


    One thing you are never going to get in a cheapish scope like the SS SWFA is the coatings on the lenses. Short-Dots are great at providing an almost polorized image during the day yet excellent light transmission in low light. That is the effect of the coatings. No $500 scope or whatever the SS SWFA is can come close to duplicating that effect. I've shot with fellow board members, and done optics comparisons. Even again a Nightforce the Short-Dot was way brighter during low light conditions. I doubt SS SWFA has come up with a cheap optic that even comes close to a NF let alone a SB.

    The actual reticle pattern is mere preference. If you want a giant glowing ring then the SS SWFA is obviously going to suit your needs better than just an Aimpoint like center dot of the SB-SD. Also based on the numerous people I've read having to send their SWFA optics back, and other comments its not an optic I would ever consider for anything more than range use and plinking. SWFA is effectively trying to cram in a 2500 Short-Dot like optics package into a ~$500 scope, and obviously coming up short in the QC and features list. A lot of these 1-4X scopes like this have come out since the Short-Dot trying to emulate the 'features & capability'. The Short-Dot is an optic that has been around at least 4-5 years now, and still nothing comes close. Not trying to sound snobbish about it but I decided a long time ago to pay the piper to get stuff that works and has a quality name behind it. I don't think SS SWFA has that yet....but its your gun and optics so use what you think you need to. Theres always positives and negatives to every optic. Some SB optics have a little tunneling effect at low power ranges which is annoying to some people. My 3-12X has it. The Zeiss-Hensoldt scopes have a better eye box and edge clarity yet lack the reticle selection, zero stop, and a couple other features SB has. If something like a NF, Trijicon, or SS SWFA scope work better for you then use it. At that price I would personally pick track record and capability of the optics before I skimped out on an untested brand/scope just because it has a flashy list of features. A straight tube Leupold would be my first pick even if the same amount of money cost me illumination. But again...if its just a range toy and plinker than stick a paper towel tube on their if it works....

Page 55 of 103 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •