SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs Vortex 2.5-10x44

[Rhyno37]

I'm getting a Steven's 200 in .223 to start a rifle build, and obviously need to put some glass on it. I shoot anywhere from 100yds to 300yds, sometimes even 500yds if able. After reading reviews, and with a limit of $600, I've narrowed it down to these 2 scopes. Looking for an input on these scopes, I am not too knowledgeable when it comes to optics.

http://swfa.com/Vortex-25-10x44-Viper-PST-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P44567.aspx

http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-3-9x42-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P50716.aspx

Any and all help is appreciated!

 

[greyling22]

I've no experience with swfa's SS scopes, or that particular vortex, but the vortexes I have looked through have been very good values, and the company stands behind their stuff.

Personally, I'd try and save a couple bucks on the scope and get a better trigger than the stock stevens one. Also, you might want a little more power if you're going to be shooting paper out past 200yds. And finally, while I appreciate nice glass as much as the next guy, and freely admit that in scope you get more if you pay more, there seem to be diminishing returns on your money after 300-400 bucks or so.

 

[oldfortyfiveauto]

As I've noted in past posts put your money in the scope and trigger. Good rifles will never see their potential with cheap optics or a crappy trigger.

I've not used a Vortex scope, but I really like their binoculars. They tend to have more eye relief then most higher dollar ones. I have a couple of Leupolds for the same reason and I can tell you it's hard to tell a difference in image quality.

 

[Rhyno37]

Are you saying that I should buy an even higher end scope? If so, I'm just looking for an all around fun gun, not looking to shoot insane groups. Just a good rifle package.

 

[greyling22]

I'm not, and I do't think old45 is either.

if you just want a decent scope, you can get a very good one for 200-300 bucks. And a pretty good one for 150-200. Personally I'd go that route and spend the remainder on a good trigger. It doesn't take much to pull you off target at or past 100 yds, and a heavy creepy trigger tends to do that. An aftermarket trigger costs 100-200 bucks, or the accutrigger is pretty good. I'd save on the scope and spend a little more and get a savage with accutrigger instead of a stevens, or if you have the stevens, look at a lower priced scope and aftermarket trigger. The stevens is a very serviceable, yet low end gun. I wouldn't get carried away with buying a high end scope. With that gun, personally I'd be looking at a redfield revolution or a vortex diamondback, also looking to find a bushnell elite or burris fulfield on sale. But that's just me.

Also, in a 223, I could barely see the bullet holes in paper at 100 yds with a 3-9x. I'm happier with my 4-12x for punching paper. The last number (3-9x40, 42, 44, 50, whatever) is the diameter of the big lens up front. Bigger in theory gathers more light and is brighter at dusk. In practice, it mostly just adds weight, bulk, and forces you to mount your scope higher.

 

[slowr1der]

You can't get much of a tactical scope for $200. For $300 you can get the FFII's with the target turrets installed, but it's still not really a tactical scope which is what he is looking for. They are used for a totally different purpose than any of the hunting scopes you suggested. If he is looking to dial for longer ranges none of the scopes you suggested will do, except for possibly the FFII with the $80 target turrets installed.

That said, I have the SWFA 3-9x42 and I like it. The scope tracks very well, and appears to be as tough as nails. I dropped it several times in hunting season. One of those times it fell over on tile and landed on the scope. I thought for sure it was going to be way off after that. To my surprise when I checked the zero it hadn't moved at all. It also has quite a bit of internal adjustment. Those are my favorite things about it.

What I'm less fond of with it is the glass. I've read countless reports of the great glass, but mine isn't what I'd call great. The edges just seem to be slightly blurry. The center of the glass is very clear and does very well in low light, but it's slightly blurry around the edges and gives me a headache if I'm looking through it for long periods of time. After talking to several others that said it had great glass, they seem to admit that the edges aren't so great on it. IMO I wish this was better, but it's not something that's bad enough that I wouldn't buy this scope as it's still the best you can get in this price range.

The second thing I is I wish I had more magnification. For longer ranges, while you can hit stuff with 9x, it doesn't work very well if you want to do any precision shooting.

For a solid variable power tactical scope on a budget this is a great choice overall imo. There are also the fixed power SS scopes for around $300 which are also very good if you can deal with a fixed power.

Now, they do have the SS 5-20 which I think would be nearly perfect, but unfortunately it costs a bit more and they don't offer the standard mil dot reticle in it which is what I like. The 5-20's have their diamond style reticle.

 

[Beentown]

The Vortex line up is my favorite anymore. Hard to beat for the $.

 

[oldfortyfiveauto]

No, there are some great scopes that are reasonable. Leupolds Rifleman line is a good example. Stay away from the cheap no names.

 

[Olympus]

I have no idea who makes the SWFA scopes, but I highly doubt they will be superior to the Vortex. I own several Vortex and I have been blown away by their quality. They are often overlooked, but only because most people tend to stick with the more common names. Vortex scopes will surprise the heck out of you. They are regularly ranked much higher than some scopes you'd think would be the better. If I can afford it, I always give Vortex my first consideration.

 

[Haxby]

Rhyno,
Check out the 'Optics Thoughts' website. The author reviews those two scopes in one of the articles. You said you're "not too knowledgeable when it comes to optics." There is a lot of information on that site.

As far as who makes them, it looks like LOW makes that SWFA scope in Japan, and Kenko makes that Vortex in the Philippines.

 

[Rhyno37]

SWFA makes SWFA.... They actually have a contract with the Navy.

 

[acorn1754]

My friend has the SWFA 3-9x42 mil/mil scope, FFP and I am amazed by how clear and bright that scope is, even in low light conditions. The adjustments are crisp and very accurate. Great price for a FFP too. Only knock I have on it is that the MOA elevational adjustment ~68 MOA, otherwise I'd buy one and put it on my new rifle (I do not want to have a 20 MOA base on my rifle).

 

[greyling22]

unless something has changed in the past few years I think they are made for SWFA, not by swfa. not to say they're not a fine scope.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=115162 post # 13

"the Orignal Navy contract was Awareded to TASCO (gen 1 scopes).

(gen 2 scopes were POST navy contract / JUNK)

(gen 3 scopes) SWFA bought the rights to the SS from Tasco and is made Exclusively for them in Japan.

SWFA has NO Navy contract as U said.. that was Tasco.

all the Junk SS scope people talk about are the Gen 2 scopes. (from Tasco).

go to www.opticstalk.com and do a Search on the SS and see how many happy customers are using the SS here in the US and in the Sand Box.

SWFA offers a LIFETIME warranty regardless if U are the Original or NOn original owner. their Customer Service is top notch."


they probably come out of the same factory that makes the vortex japanese stuff. but that's just a guess.

 

[GunNut]

I've got a SWFA SS 3-9x42 and am very impressed by the optics, it equals or betters my Zeiss Conquest 3-9x50.

Also have a Vortex PST 1-4 and it's a great scope too.

Don't think you can make a bad decision between these two scopes.

 

[NELSONs02]

I've owned a 3-9 SS and currently own a SFP 4-16 PST

They're both good scopes for the money. You can get a PST in either FFP or SFP but the SS only comes in FFP.

I have no use for a FFP optic but I thought I'd try one out with the SWFA. Decided it wasn't for me.

My PST:

 

[chrome_austex]

Yeah, but is the PST hes considering is NOT first-focal. Its 2nd focal. That's a big difference in how you use it at less than max power. Its also illuminated, while the SWFA is not. That's another difference.

The SWFA 3-9 I own is tough as nails, great turrets, and FFP is a requirement for me in any milled reticule. I've used it on 3 rifles so far. The glass is not the best, but its fine if you're not a glass snob

Also the SWFA 3-9 he's considering has the new cooler reticule from the 5-20.

So, shooting after dusk? Get the Vortex. Shooting a lot at less than full-power? Get the SWFA for the first focal plane reticule.

(first focal plane means the reticule changes in size with the magification, so the hash marks are always the right size. With 2nd-focal-plane reticules, the reticule doesn't scale, so at less than full power, the hash marks don't match the turret measurements.)