SWFA Super Sniper 5-20X50HD
- Thread starter Jon A
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Dr. Vette
Well-Known Member
I think he ran out of bandwidth. The links are still there, but now all we see is the dreaded red X.
Jon A
Well-Known Member
Sorry guys, apparently people like the looks of it quite a bit as they crashed my site! That hasn't happened in years. Here you go, I put up a copy on my business site:
SWFA Super Sniper 5-20X50HD .
SWFA Super Sniper 5-20X50HD .
just wanted to put this up for any that may be interested
SnipersHide/SWFA SS HD 5-20x50 GroupBuy - Sniper's Hide Forums
SnipersHide/SWFA SS HD 5-20x50 GroupBuy - Sniper's Hide Forums
just wanted to put this up for any that may be interested
SnipersHide/SWFA SS HD 5-20x50 GroupBuy - Sniper's Hide Forums
SnipersHide/SWFA SS HD 5-20x50 GroupBuy - Sniper's Hide Forums
Jon A
Well-Known Member
Only the center dot. There are good reasons either way for people to want the entire thing lit up or only the center, it really depends upon what you plan on using the illumination for. For me personally, about 90% of the time I use illumination I prefer only the center (dot/cross, etc) to be lit up but it doesn't matter enough to me to be bothered by reticles where more lights up—as long as they can be turned down enough not to wash out the target. But that is often a problem--the more light you have on the reticle the harder it is not to wash out the target in dark conditions.
It's a moot point though, for this design as the manufacturing capabilities were such that illuminating more of the reticle would have required the lines to be thicker, which most people wouldn't like. It's the same reason the March 3-24 I have coming this week (wooohooo!) has thicker lines than some people would like.
One thing that's less than perfect on this with the illumination is that when set too high for the conditions you will see a little bleed onto the other dots. It doesn't affect function though in the slightest, but it may be an aesthetic point against it for some who use the illumination a lot.
Ok, that just isn't right! First the SS and now you get to play with a March! You lucky dog you! Enjoy! Their new FFP looks very, very good!
Jon A
Well-Known Member
Oh, but that March hurts. I've sold three scopes already and will sell a fourth soon to pay for it. Of course it should do the job of three or four different types of scope all in one package so hopefully it'll be worth it. We'll see.
cummins cowboy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2010
- Messages
- 361
way too much money, in that price class why not just buy a nightforce?? one can get a high speed zero stop nightforce for about $200 more or get one of the regular nightforce models for about the same price as the SS unit.
I know the scope is probably a good unit, but seriously why not put your money with a solid company and retain added resale value. I honestly don't see why anyone makes a new scope these days without a zero stop, its simple to add and is a major selling point.
add in a zero stop, keep the price at 1k and I would be interested. I would also like to see a 3-15x model. all that scope power really isn't needed. but when the price approaches $1500 bucks nightforce will get my money.
I know the scope is probably a good unit, but seriously why not put your money with a solid company and retain added resale value. I honestly don't see why anyone makes a new scope these days without a zero stop, its simple to add and is a major selling point.
add in a zero stop, keep the price at 1k and I would be interested. I would also like to see a 3-15x model. all that scope power really isn't needed. but when the price approaches $1500 bucks nightforce will get my money.
Sounds like you aren't very familiar with SWFA and the SS line. Obviously you can choose to support which every optics company you like but to say that SWFA isn't a solid company is just silly. Their service is stellar and their scopes have been high quality, albeit under priced, for years and years.
I would argue that as far as tracking and durability goes that the SS line would give NF a strong run for their money and I would likely come out on top.
Of course this is my 2 cents.
Jon A
Well-Known Member
I spent quite a bit of time last night in the dark comparing the glass and illumination of the SS to the 3.5-18X50 IOR again as well as my new 3-24X42 March.
On low powers/close range the glass looked great on all three and the illumination worked fine for all. Having the thinnest reticle, the SS was not as easy to see as the other two without illumination but with the illumination they were all pretty equal and what one would prefer would come down to what he liked to aim with the best—a tall cross shaped aiming point or a dot. The March had the biggest FOV while the SS had the most flexible eye relief with the IOR falling in between on both counts. Any of the scopes could get the job done and get it done well.
The testing for higher powers/longer ranges is where they separated from each other. Glass quality and objective size become more important here and the SS simply beat the other two. While the SS is certainly no better than the other two in daylight, when the sun goes down it has the advantage. It was notably the brightest and it wasn't "empty brightness" as it had the resolution and contrast to turn that brightness into the ability to see more details than the other two scopes could see. It wasn't a huge difference but it was enough of one that under the right conditions it could make the difference between being able to make out the target or not.
I realize this isn't really fair to the March, only having a 42mm objective, but it is what it is. The March did quite well despite that, hanging with the IOR very well and looking as good as any on the lower powers. But on the higher powers it just couldn't keep up with the SS. I suspect it would put most other 42mm scopes to shame pretty easily, even many 50mm scopes for that matter. But it wasn't going up against low-mid level 50mm scopes but two with very high quality glass. It's unfortunate I don't still have a S&B or Premier handy as they were both notably better than the IOR in low light as well and would have been tougher competition for the SS.
Beyond seeing the target, there's hitting it. These conditions were dark enough none of the scopes could have provided a sure shot without illumination. The reticles just couldn't be seen on the target. The illumination is the second way the SS distinguished itself.
Both the IOR and March have very nice digital illumination systems that light up the entire center of the reticle, which most people seem to say they want. No blooming or bleeding, etc, they really look great. The problem with conditions like the above is they provide a whole lot of light even on the lowest setting. When it's all you can do to make out the target, too much light will wash it out easily.
I'd call the IOR's illumination borderline usable for those conditions. On the dimmest setting it is pretty dim and doesn't wash out the target totally, but it's brighter than it needs to be. It does seem to "cover" some of the fine details right around the target. If you want to really look at the target you can get the best view with it off. Not bad, it should be usable for most situations, but I'd like it better if it had one or two dimmer settings. Or if only the center dot lit the brightness would be OK.
The March's illumination is just too bright for the above type of use. It has user replaceable modules so hopefully that won't be permanent. I have the "dim" module but IMHO it's not dim enough. Hopefully I can convince March to make an "extra dim" one I can swap in. Anyway, the result in the above conditions is when you turn the illumination on the target goes away. Even on the lowest setting, in conditions that dark it just produces way too much light. If you want to see the target, you have to shut off the illumination. Then you can see the target but you can't hit it.
Once again, the SS impressed. While it's illumination may not "look as good" in the daytime as the other two, and many have been dogging it for only having the center dot illuminated, in the above conditions it's easily the best tool for the job. It was the only scope that had zero, absolutely zero image degradation with the illumination on. You could see every last detail of the target with or without it. With it on, there was just a tiny little red dot you could precisely place where you want the bullet to go. Money.
So, it was quite an interesting experience. I figured the SS would do well against the other two but I was really surprised by just how well it did. Against two much more expensive scopes—the March is nearly three times the SH group buy price for the SS—it easily came out the clear winner. If you need to make a shot at longish range in the dark, it's simply a better tool for the job than the other two. Of course there are other things the other scopes do better, but for this particular job—which is one of the most difficult for a scope—it put on a clinic.
On low powers/close range the glass looked great on all three and the illumination worked fine for all. Having the thinnest reticle, the SS was not as easy to see as the other two without illumination but with the illumination they were all pretty equal and what one would prefer would come down to what he liked to aim with the best—a tall cross shaped aiming point or a dot. The March had the biggest FOV while the SS had the most flexible eye relief with the IOR falling in between on both counts. Any of the scopes could get the job done and get it done well.
The testing for higher powers/longer ranges is where they separated from each other. Glass quality and objective size become more important here and the SS simply beat the other two. While the SS is certainly no better than the other two in daylight, when the sun goes down it has the advantage. It was notably the brightest and it wasn't "empty brightness" as it had the resolution and contrast to turn that brightness into the ability to see more details than the other two scopes could see. It wasn't a huge difference but it was enough of one that under the right conditions it could make the difference between being able to make out the target or not.
I realize this isn't really fair to the March, only having a 42mm objective, but it is what it is. The March did quite well despite that, hanging with the IOR very well and looking as good as any on the lower powers. But on the higher powers it just couldn't keep up with the SS. I suspect it would put most other 42mm scopes to shame pretty easily, even many 50mm scopes for that matter. But it wasn't going up against low-mid level 50mm scopes but two with very high quality glass. It's unfortunate I don't still have a S&B or Premier handy as they were both notably better than the IOR in low light as well and would have been tougher competition for the SS.
Beyond seeing the target, there's hitting it. These conditions were dark enough none of the scopes could have provided a sure shot without illumination. The reticles just couldn't be seen on the target. The illumination is the second way the SS distinguished itself.
Both the IOR and March have very nice digital illumination systems that light up the entire center of the reticle, which most people seem to say they want. No blooming or bleeding, etc, they really look great. The problem with conditions like the above is they provide a whole lot of light even on the lowest setting. When it's all you can do to make out the target, too much light will wash it out easily.
I'd call the IOR's illumination borderline usable for those conditions. On the dimmest setting it is pretty dim and doesn't wash out the target totally, but it's brighter than it needs to be. It does seem to "cover" some of the fine details right around the target. If you want to really look at the target you can get the best view with it off. Not bad, it should be usable for most situations, but I'd like it better if it had one or two dimmer settings. Or if only the center dot lit the brightness would be OK.
The March's illumination is just too bright for the above type of use. It has user replaceable modules so hopefully that won't be permanent. I have the "dim" module but IMHO it's not dim enough. Hopefully I can convince March to make an "extra dim" one I can swap in. Anyway, the result in the above conditions is when you turn the illumination on the target goes away. Even on the lowest setting, in conditions that dark it just produces way too much light. If you want to see the target, you have to shut off the illumination. Then you can see the target but you can't hit it.
Once again, the SS impressed. While it's illumination may not "look as good" in the daytime as the other two, and many have been dogging it for only having the center dot illuminated, in the above conditions it's easily the best tool for the job. It was the only scope that had zero, absolutely zero image degradation with the illumination on. You could see every last detail of the target with or without it. With it on, there was just a tiny little red dot you could precisely place where you want the bullet to go. Money.
So, it was quite an interesting experience. I figured the SS would do well against the other two but I was really surprised by just how well it did. Against two much more expensive scopes—the March is nearly three times the SH group buy price for the SS—it easily came out the clear winner. If you need to make a shot at longish range in the dark, it's simply a better tool for the job than the other two. Of course there are other things the other scopes do better, but for this particular job—which is one of the most difficult for a scope—it put on a clinic.
highridge1
Well-Known Member
I agree far too much money for a Super Sniper when you can be buying ,Zeiss,nightforce,swarovski,Kahles,Leica for that money.These guys have been building scopes a long time and are proven.
Jon A
Well-Known Member
Everybody is sure free to have any opinion they like, but it's informative for others to know upon what that opinion is based.
Have you ever used a SS HD? Have you ever even seen one? Do you have any idea how long the factory that produces them has been making scopes?
Have you ever used a SS HD? Have you ever even seen one? Do you have any idea how long the factory that produces them has been making scopes?
