Recomend a fixed magnification scope for load developement? Must handle recoil!

[alfson]

Get a Bushnell 3200 Elite Tactical 10x40 Centerfire Rifle Scopes | Rifle Scopes | Optics $200 at Midway. I have 2. They work fine for me.

 

[42769vette]

SWFA glass sucks? I don't think that's a fair statement. Compared to a night force, yeah it sucks. Compared to the rest of the $200-$350 scopes its good glass. More than good enough for 100 yard load working. Which is what he asked. The SWFA is solid and the glass is good for 100 yards

compared to a 150 dollar nikon prostaff the glass sucks. SWFA put the manufacturing money for the SS into tracking, durability, and internal travel wich I think is a great thing. If you want a durable, functional scope capable of hits at long range it should defintally be on your radar, but glass quality is just not a feature it has, espically on the 16x, and 20x models.

 

[Zep]

How well do these SWFA scopes hold up tracking? Not once a month tracking but repeated changes?

 

[42769vette]

How well do these SWFA scopes hold up tracking? Not once a month tracking but repeated changes?

Like a champ. The SWFA is all about function.

 

[ShootnMathews]

compared to a 150 dollar nikon prostaff the glass sucks. SWFA put the manufacturing money for the SS into tracking, durability, and internal travel wich I think is a great thing. If you want a durable, functional scope capable of hits at long range it should defintally be on your radar, but glass quality is just not a feature it has, espically on the 16x, and 20x models.

I guess that's just a matter of opinion. My 12x42 SS is just as clear if not slightly clearer that my $359 Nikon buckmasters. As a matter of fact I shot 3 guns Saturday. First with my Vortex second with my SWFA SS and didn't really notice a difference but when I went to shoot the one with the buckmasters I kinda thought the clarity sucked. I used to like that scope. I guess the vortex and SWFA have spoiled me

And yes the tracking is amazing on them.

 

[Zep]

Is anyone using the 20X MRAD SWFA. Comments appreciated.

 

[bruce_ventura]

Again, I'd rather have a dedicated fixed power scope for load development. I don't see any fixed power scopes in the Leopold MKIV series.

Or make an argument why I should opt for a scope with lots of lenses when I am only trying to hit a bullseye at a fixed, known range??

As far as I know, a fixed power scope generally has the same number of lenses as a variable scope in the same price range. Both designs have objective, erector, and eyepiece lens assemblies. The objective and eyepiece assemblies have the same number of lenses in both fixed and variable scopes in the same model line. Different model lines may differ in the number of lenses in the objective and in the eyepiece. Some model lines add a lens here or there (triplet objective, side focus, etc.), but this has nothing to do with fixed vs variable zoom.

The same number of lenses (usually two) are needed to invert the image in the erector, regardless of whether the scope has variable or fixed zoom. The main difference in a fixed scope is the lack of power ring and mechanism inside the erector that moves the erector lenses to vary the magnification. The cost savings is small because these mechanical parts are not very expensive, and it's probably offset by the lower production volume for fixed models.

A fixed scope may have higher reliability due to absence of the zoom mechanism. In my experience, zoom mechanism reliability is mainly an issue on magnum rifles. Unless you're planning to use the scope mainly for load development on magnum rifles, I tend to agree with others that there isn't much advantage in a fixed scope.

If you're mainly trying to save money, then I also recommend the Bushnell Elite 10x40 scope. I bought two of the 3200 10x40 scopes years ago when I was on a tight budget. I don't use them much anymore, but when I do it's for load development.

 

[bruce_ventura]

You sir have a Definition of good glass than I do. The SWFA is a good scope, its hard to package that durability with tracking, and adjustment like that in a 300 dollar package, but the glass is far from "not bad at all". I still think its a good buy, but lets call a spade a spade, the glass kind of sucks.

I used a SWFA SS 20x42 (MOA turrets) for a short while in a ballistics experiment. When I first inspected the scope I noticed the glare was pretty high. It turned out that the glare was too high during normal daylight conditions to give a high contrast image. While the resolution wasn't bad, the image appeared as though I was looking through fog. Another LRH member reported similar issues with his SS 16x42.

The SS 20x42 contrast was so low that I had to replace the scope. I didn't think that I needed Swarovski-quality contrast for this experiment and wanted to keep the cost low. I went with a Burris MTAC 4.5-14X42. The contrast at 14X was quite good - a huge improvement over the SS 20x42.

Based on my experience, I would not buy another fixed mag SWFA SS scope. The image contrast is adequate to see high contrast objects like paper targets under favorable lighting conditions. However, the contrast is already marginal to begin with and will get even worse under adverse lighting conditions.

 

[Zep]

Thanks. I had read similar comments regarding the higher power versions of this scope. High hope, high hopes.

 

[ShootnMathews]

I have no experience with the high power SWFA SS. Mine is a 12 and its very clear. Sounds like 12 is as high as I would want to buy according to the last few comments

 

[Zep]

Maybe the newest ones are better?? For 300. and good turrets, I would buy one if the reviews are coming in favorable.

 

[bruce_ventura]

Are you referring to the mrad version? That's wishful thinking.