SWFA SS - heads up

SWFA SS - heads up

This is a discussion on SWFA SS - heads up within the Optics forums, part of the Sniping Related category; Over at the Hide they are doing a promotion that if they reach 5000 "likes" on face book they will take $500 off the SWFA ...

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    1,571

    SWFA SS - heads up

    Over at the Hide they are doing a promotion that if they reach 5000 "likes" on face book they will take $500 off the SWFA SS 5-20x50mm FFP MIL/MIL scope. So, if your looking for a new scope keep an eye out for when it hits 5000. Also, if the count hits 10,000 it will be $500 off and a set of rings.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    1,571

    Re: SWFA SS - heads up

    It hot 5000 so the discount code is Hide500

    http://swfa.com:80/SWFA-SS-5-20x50-Tact ... 50662.aspx

    This is $500 off of $1500, so it's a good deal if you need a scope and this fits your needs.


    Expires 06-17-11

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3

    Re: SWFA SS - heads up

    Thanks for the heads up.... now to decide between this and the PST....

  4. Remove Advertisements
    SniperForums.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    1,571

    Re: SWFA SS - heads up

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalman
    Thanks for the heads up.... now to decide between this and the PST....
    There is a video over at the Hide on this scope, so you can get more details. I don't know that much about the SWFA scopes, however it seems they are highly regarded. People have mention that they are on par with the Vortex Razor, which would be a step above the PST. I think that is a lot to live up too. I would have to guess that it's better than a PST. I do know it has more elevation than a PST from what I have read.

    The SWFA SS has a new reticle design. It's seems to be a mix of reticles. Similar to the IOR MP8 or March FML-1. However it has open diamonds instead of hash marks. It's a vary interesting reticle for sure. You can check it out here:
    http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-5-20x50-Tactica ... 50662.aspx

  6. #5
    Senior Member Widowmaker0001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA.
    Posts
    999

    Re: SWFA SS - heads up

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalman
    Thanks for the heads up.... now to decide between this and the PST....
    Easy...whatcha want to spend? The 5x20 SS scope is $1000 while discounted and $1500 when not, the PST's are $599-$1000 mark..Plus, like beck.jamie said, I believe the SS 5x20 will be closer to the top end of scopes as their good ol' SS10x scopes are pretty bomb proof for $299. So to charge over a $1000 for a SWFA product it should be pretty bad ass!Plus the CS is good from my experiences with them.Fyi, I just ordered a PST from SWFA as thats what my budget permits.Goodshootin'

    ~Reagan
    "There is a very thin line between being Brave and being Stupid.",~R.Reagan

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    1,571

    Re: SWFA SS - heads up

    Well, I went an ordered one. For the price it seems to be a good scope. If I decide I don't like it I can sell the scope for what I paid it when the price goes back up to $1500.

    BTW, here's a link to the video I mention before:

    http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthr ... ost2564509

  8. #7
    Member 124C41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    92

    Re: SWFA SS - heads up

    I'll take them up on that. Thanks for the heads up.

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    1,571

    Re: SWFA SS - heads up

    I just read this and thought I would share:

    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.
    Ref: http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthr ... 750&page=9

    About 3/4 down the page

  10. #9
    Senior Member jrob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NW Montana
    Posts
    1,014

    Re: SWFA SS - heads up

    I currently own a Razor HD 5-20. I have owned the Vortex PST 6-24 FFP mil/mil and the Weaver 3-15 EMDR. The SS 5-20 is going atop my new .260 build. And if it turns out to be as good as I have reason to believe, there is going to be a Razor on the market.

    John
    "Those who do not study history are destined to repeat it."

    "Pray for me cause I have lost my faith in holy wars... Will I learn what's truly sacred?
    Will I redeem my soul? Will truth set me free?" - Sharon den Adel

  11. #10
    Senior Member Widowmaker0001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA.
    Posts
    999

    Re: SWFA SS - heads up

    Quote Originally Posted by beck.jamie
    I just read this and thought I would share:

    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.
    Ref: http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthr ... 750&page=9

    About 3/4 down the page
    Yeah,SWFA did their research and did it well, it sounds like. I deal with SWFA alot due to their good service. Plus they sell almost all the best brands(NF being the only acception i can think of) of top scopes and know what to produce to compete in my book.Goodshootin'

    ~Reagan
    "There is a very thin line between being Brave and being Stupid.",~R.Reagan

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Ads

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Just a heads up
    By opaww in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 01:51 PM
  2. McMillian heads up
    By MEDIC103 in forum Rifles
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-13-2006, 08:10 PM
  3. Heads Up... FYI
    By 1999cobra in forum Rifles
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-09-2006, 11:17 PM

Search tags for this page

ior 3.5-18x50 review

,
ior 3.5-18x50 vs vortex razor
,

march 3-24x42 for sale

,
reticle details of swfa sshd 5x20
,
swfa 10x hd vs 3-15
,
swfa 3-15 consistant thru powers
,

swfa 5-20x50 review

,
swfa 5x20 scope review
,

swfa ss discount

,
swfa ss hd 5-20x50 review
,

vortex pst vs swfa ss

,
vortex razor 5x20 vs swfa ss 5x20
Click on a term to search for related topics.