Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: New Ultralight 2.5-10x32 Scope from SWFA

  1. #11
    Member SecondsCount's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Utah, USA
    I guess it is a good option if weight savings is your goal but I agree with Coyote41's objections.

    I have one of the old Nightforce 2.5-10x32 with the Velocity reticle which is what the SWFA reticle is modeled after. It's a solid scope for making quick shots on large targets but for precision it would take a little more thought to dial or hold.

    My preference is something more along the lines of the Vortex PST II 2-10, and with the mil turrets/mil reticle, offers a lot more flexibility. Unfortunately the FFP versions are not $350
    -Seconds Count. Misses Don't-

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by SecondsCount View Post
    I guess it is a good option if weight savings is your goal but I agree with Coyote41's objections.

    I have one of the old Nightforce 2.5-10x32 with the Velocity reticle which is what the SWFA reticle is modeled after. It's a solid scope for making quick shots on large targets but for precision it would take a little more thought to dial or hold.

    My preference is something more along the lines of the Vortex PST II 2-10, and with the mil turrets/mil reticle, offers a lot more flexibility. Unfortunately the FFP versions are not $350
    These seem like nice scopes you have listed, with nice feature sets. However, aren't they at least double the weight and triple the price? If they are even available for purchase in those configurations anymore?

    The current model of the Vortex weighs in at 26.3 oz, unless I am mistaken. Three of the SWFA Ultralights taped together would weigh 28.5 oz.

    How much are you guys carrying around your rifles in the wilderness?

    I'd like to own the better glass, but I wouldn't want to pay for it, then lug it around over hill and dale, then beat the snot out of it while beating through brush on my way to climbing up and down ravines. For it's trouble, it gets to bounce around in the back of my 4runner for pretty much it's entire life. I'm glad it has SWFA's lifetime transferable warranty.

    I can understand wanting different scopes. I like different scopes-all kinds of them. But for some applications, I like really light scopes. This is a scope for people who actually need/want a really light scope with good magnification range. I could wish for my dream reticle, but I think this one is quite usable compared to anything Leupold is offering in a comparable scope (or anybody else for that matter). But that's just me. I'm looking for an ultralight scope. Not a scope that isn't really light, but is awesome in all other sorts of ways. Although I like those too.

    The kicker for me is that you can mount it with traditional rings on a flattop AR. It lets you get down to 1.35" or less height like some people use for service rifle competition. I like a tighter cheekweld than I can get on an AR with the one-piece optics mounts available. I think I'm going to try something in the range of 1.125" to 1.25" when I get it on an AR.

  3. #13
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Athens, AL, USA
    I like the SWFA products, but this scope made me realize how much heavier scopes are getting. It is not a fair comparison, but the old Leupold M8-4X with the 28mm objective (the M8-4X Compact) is an ounce lighter. Here are the specs from the 1985 catalog.

    Unrestricted Obj. lens diam = 28mm (1.1")
    Unrestricted eye lens diam = 36mm (1.4")
    Objective O.D. diam = 36mm (1.4")
    Eyepiece O.D. diam = 41mm (1.6")
    Tube diameter = 25mm(1")
    Length = 290mm (11.4")
    Weight = 241grams (8.5oz)

    The M8-6X is much larger and it weighs less than two ounces more than the new SWFA offering. Here are the specs for it.

    Unrestricted Obj. lens diam = 48mm (1.6")
    Unrestricted eye lens diam = 36mm (1.4")
    Objective O.D. diam = 42mm (1.6")
    Eyepiece O.D. diam = 41mm (1.6")
    Tube diameter = 25mm(1")
    Length = 302mm (11.9")
    Weight = 324grams (11.4oz)

    Neither of these scopes were considered lightweight in their day and both were in common use. Scopes perform better today, especially with the modern lens coatings and click adjustments, but they seem to be getting heavier faster. I assume that is due to the ever-increasing variable magnification ratios (4x and 6x ratios are common!!) as well as the finger-adjustable turrets. The old 2.5x Alaskan weighs 6.5 ounces; that is a lightweight scope. For lightweight, it is hard to beat old-school fixed-power scopes. But I am blown away by a scope with a variable magnification ratio of 4X that weighs less than 10 ounces. That is truly impressive.
    Last edited by farscott; 08-31-2019 at 04:51 PM.

  4. #14
    Primary Arms announced a 2.5 to 10 in their Gold Series. I like the Griffin reticle better than the Vortex or SWFA offerings but the weight is still 22.5 oz., making it barely lighter than the Vortex and much heavier than the SWFA.

    https://www.primaryarms.com/gold-ser...in-mil-reticle

  5. #15
    Member SecondsCount's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by frozentundra View Post
    These seem like nice scopes you have listed, with nice feature sets. However, aren't they at least double the weight and triple the price? If they are even available for purchase in those configurations anymore?

    The current model of the Vortex weighs in at 26.3 oz, unless I am mistaken. Three of the SWFA Ultralights taped together would weigh 28.5 oz.

    How much are you guys carrying around your rifles in the wilderness?

    I'd like to own the better glass, but I wouldn't want to pay for it, then lug it around over hill and dale, then beat the snot out of it while beating through brush on my way to climbing up and down ravines. For it's trouble, it gets to bounce around in the back of my 4runner for pretty much it's entire life. I'm glad it has SWFA's lifetime transferable warranty.

    I can understand wanting different scopes. I like different scopes-all kinds of them. But for some applications, I like really light scopes. This is a scope for people who actually need/want a really light scope with good magnification range. I could wish for my dream reticle, but I think this one is quite usable compared to anything Leupold is offering in a comparable scope (or anybody else for that matter). But that's just me. I'm looking for an ultralight scope. Not a scope that isn't really light, but is awesome in all other sorts of ways. Although I like those too.

    The kicker for me is that you can mount it with traditional rings on a flattop AR. It lets you get down to 1.35" or less height like some people use for service rifle competition. I like a tighter cheekweld than I can get on an AR with the one-piece optics mounts available. I think I'm going to try something in the range of 1.125" to 1.25" when I get it on an AR.
    Oh sorry, I didn't realize that the new cool was a lightweight AR bouncing around in the back of a 4Runner. I've got the 4Runner but maybe I need to lighten up the AR a little

    If you came here to justify your purchase, I get your point and was not trying to diminish your setup. I occasionally carry my AR into the wilderness, and it does ride in the back of my 4Runner, but the reality is that if you live in the US and have any kind of a decent job, you can afford to put whatever optic that you want on your AR, especially if you can afford to keep a 4Runner fed. They are hungry little SUV's.


    3rd Gens for the win!
    Name:  20180925_083810.jpg
Views: 234
Size:  86.0 KB
    Last edited by SecondsCount; 09-04-2019 at 11:18 AM.
    -Seconds Count. Misses Don't-

  6. #16
    Site Supporter StraitR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Central Florida
    Man I love 4Runners. From the first time I saw one in 1986(ish) to the latest and greatest. It's the equivalent of my vehicle spirit animal.

    Ok, back to optics talk. I would love this LW 2.5-10 if SWFA put in a mil based reticle. Not interested in BDC or duplex (Leupold, are you listening? Duplex sucks, and I'm not paying MSRP + custom shop cost to buy one with a decent reticle). Hoping SWFA brings out one with their Mil-Quad, in which case I'll buy two if not three at the current price.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by drummer View Post
    Primary Arms announced a 2.5 to 10 in their Gold Series. I like the Griffin reticle better than the Vortex or SWFA offerings but the weight is still 22.5 oz., making it barely lighter than the Vortex and much heavier than the SWFA.

    https://www.primaryarms.com/gold-ser...in-mil-reticle
    Primary arms sure cranks out some good reticles for certain applications! I like when the smaller companies take the initiative to drive industry innovation.

    I hope they eventually tackle a lightweight hunting optic, but the industry seems to be moving away from that form factor.
    Last edited by frozentundra; 09-15-2019 at 07:34 AM.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by SecondsCount View Post
    Oh sorry, I didn't realize that the new cool was a lightweight AR bouncing around in the back of a 4Runner. I've got the 4Runner but maybe I need to lighten up the AR a little

    If you came here to justify your purchase, I get your point and was not trying to diminish your setup. I occasionally carry my AR into the wilderness, and it does ride in the back of my 4Runner, but the reality is that if you live in the US and have any kind of a decent job, you can afford to put whatever optic that you want on your AR, especially if you can afford to keep a 4Runner fed. They are hungry little SUV's.


    3rd Gens for the win!
    You're a little behind the times. The cool kids are using lightweight bolt guns and driving 4th gens.

    I can't actually justify anything except a g19 and 12 guage pump (and a 6720 if I've got my tinfoil hat on). I've tried and failed for years. Nowadays, I simply accept that I wants what I wants. I have not the talent for reasonability.

    I'm just trying to let others who share my strange preferences know that somebody has innovated past Leupold in this vanishing market segment. If they actually come out with a mil reticle I'll sprain fingers ordering. I like the form factor that much.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by StraitR View Post
    Man I love 4Runners. From the first time I saw one in 1986(ish) to the latest and greatest. It's the equivalent of my vehicle spirit animal.

    Ok, back to optics talk. I would love this LW 2.5-10 if SWFA put in a mil based reticle. Not interested in BDC or duplex (Leupold, are you listening? Duplex sucks, and I'm not paying MSRP + custom shop cost to buy one with a decent reticle). Hoping SWFA brings out one with their Mil-Quad, in which case I'll buy two if not three at the current price.
    Ive got a fixed 10x with the Mil-Quad. Great scope for the price, especially when they're running a sale. However, I find it to be a little slow to see against a background of dense foliage when it gets overcast. I could wish for a tad bolder subtension in a lightweight hunter, as long as I'm wishing upon the SWFA star.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by StraitR View Post
    Man I love 4Runners. From the first time I saw one in 1986(ish) to the latest and greatest. It's the equivalent of my vehicle spirit animal.

    Ok, back to optics talk. I would love this LW 2.5-10 if SWFA put in a mil based reticle. Not interested in BDC or duplex (Leupold, are you listening? Duplex sucks, and I'm not paying MSRP + custom shop cost to buy one with a decent reticle). Hoping SWFA brings out one with their Mil-Quad, in which case I'll buy two if not three at the current price.
    I'm 100% with you here. Mil Quad or Mil Dot would win me over and I'd by 2-3 immediately.

    I still love my NXS 2.5-10 and wish for a cheaper version to put on .22s and light duty rifles.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

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