Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Any thoughts on the new 1x4 from SWFA


GIO

Recommended Posts

Worth every penny in my opinion when you compare it to others that offer the same specs.

HD Glass. First Focal plane. Most of the other scopes are over 1K.

I have the "T", and I have a buddy that using the "donut".

I love mine and it has definitely helped me with mid and long range shooting. I was using a Millet DMS before, if that gives you a frame a reference.

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been using the donut version since summer 2011. I really like it, so got another one. Been through monthly 3gun with it, some carbine and 2gun matches, as well as CSAT rifle instructor course. Really like the versatility. Once I got used to it, it is plenty fast. Glass is good and clear. Not Swaro Z6 clear IMO, but way better than Trijicon TR24 for example.

Only complaint so far is that losing a turret cap is no good as replacements aren't available yet. I ended up drilling holes in them and attaching steel fishing leaders with crimps to anchor it to the body in case one decides to loosen up again.

I haven't used the illumination at all. The brightest setting is pretty bright, but no need for it in TX sun since the reticule is bold and stands out 1-4X as-is. Haven't show lowlight with it, but have played around with white light in the garage at night and the reticule stands out against that.

Edited by AustinWolv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love my SS 1x4 with the Donut reticle. I switched from the TR24 to the SS and my long range shooting really improved. I too live in TX and very rarely do I use the illumination. Great scope for the price. I am very interested to see what the 1x6 looks like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was interested in this scope, but felt there was no real center aiming point and the crosshairs too small at 1x. I was afraid there would be too much searching for the aiming point on close to 100 yd highspeed shooting (all going off reticle pictures, never saw one in person). I think I would have gotten one if they would have cut out the center of the crosshair and put in a 1-2 moa dot. I also think the circle is way too thick, it could be half what it is now...

1-6 is promissing. but they would definitely need to make the circle thinner. I was all set to drop the $ on a TR24, but now I see promissing new stuff after the shot show... the 1-6 Luep, the FFP Vortex, and the 1-6 ffp bushnell could be options, too, at about the same price point...

-rvb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

When this scope hit the streets in early 2011, I was all pumped to get one to replace my TR24. On paper is sounded really great and got some terrific reviews early on. A buddy of mine beat me to it and got a donut model with exposed turrets (exactly the config I was looking to get). There were some cool things about the scope, but it only took me about 10 min to realize that overall I really didn't like it. It's true that for this price range, the construction is rugged, the glass is clear, turrets are good and reticle is pretty nice. Unfortunately, there are other features which seem to get overlooked in the reviews, which are extremely important in a 1-4x scope.

FOV: The FOV is terrible. I don't mean just a little less than the competition, but horrible. There is an extreme tunnel effect when looking through the scope at 1x. You can actually see much of the interior of the scope. This has the added benefit of making the occular ring seem extremely thick. It makes you feel as though you are not looking at targets but rather looking through a thick walled tube.

Alignment: 1x is the worst I've seen in any 1-4x variable. The picture doesn't distort at the edges, it is simply offset from everything around, as if the front lense was misaligned. This makes the double vision created by two visual pictures really bad and uncorrectable.

Diopter: Most low power variables have a diopter ring to fine tune the focal lenth between your two differently performing eyes. This scope has no adjustment, but rather just a basic focus for one eye use and clarity. The lack of diopter adds to the double vision problem, the same as not adjusting the right eye diopter on binoculars. Extremely important at 1x.

True 1x: On this scope 1x is more like .8x. When you run the magnification down to 1x, you end up with a smaller picture inside the scope than out. Again, this contributes to the double vision problem. You can turn the magnification ring up to 1x, but who wants to take the time to adjust and fine tune the 1x every time you are in a 3gun stage of fire!? No one. That's who.

I thought that maybe the one we got was defective. I went back to the online reviews which had reticle photos and only confirmed that you can in fact see the same conditions existing in those review scopes as well. I can only conclude that the reviewers were evaluating this scope based on very specific criteria, and not as a total functional package. If you're intention is to use this scope in 4x, all of the time, on medium distance targets, or if you are only going to use 1x with one eye open, then I guess it will get the job done, but the whole point of a 1x scope is to bridge the gap between reflex optics and magnified scopes. The 1x on this scope is completely none functional with both eyes open.

Just as one final note. My buddy thought I was out of my mind and decided to keep the scope. He went to his first 3gun match and half way through the first match proclaimed that he hated the scope in practical application. He felt that it worked great at 4x on the long range stage, and was horrific on the close stuff. He sold it a week later and bought a Burris XTR. His feeling is that while the glass isn't quite as nice on the Burris, he really likes the performance of the package as a whole. If you want a solid, ranging scope for less than $1k then go with the Vortex PST. If you want a BDC style reticle scope for less than $1k, then look to the Burris Mtac, Burris XTR or the Meopta ZD (my personal choice). I'll probably get tarred and feathered by the supporters of this optic, but I really find it surprising that these shortcomings get overlooked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may just be me, but I cannot see any advantage to either the First Focal Plane or the adjustable turrets on a 1-4x scope. Particularly for 3-gun

I wish that I could "zero" out my turrets on my Burris MTAC, but a ranging reticle/ffp is basically useless to me as well, despite the fact that I much prefer both features on a higher power scope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me. I'll learn to use it either way. I can see the advantages with front and rear focal, but I can work equally well with either. Turrets are cool, but most people don't like to dope in 3G. Capped or uncapped, really doesn't effect me either way, unless they turn so easy that they move when bumped. Most scope designers try to eliminate this risk or at least minimize it. Personally, I liked my TR24 turrets. Capped, but good precise clicks, excellent return to zero, finger adjustable with MOA markings and a pop up rezero feature. Simple, functional and easy to use. The only feature I don't like on my Meopta ZD is that the turrets are some what lacking. The BDC reticle makes up for it, but there is certainly room for improvement there. One of the few features I like on this SWFA scope is the turrets. They feel good, provide enough resistance to inadvertent movement, are large enough to operate easily, while not being so much larger to catch on things or be a distraction. Unfortunately, with this scope, we have a prime example where the sum of the parts equals something less than it should. Has all the right stuff on paper and is a neat concept, but feels like it was designed by marketing. When you look at each feature individually, they all seem great, but something was lost in the execution and the great features just don't work as well together as they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

co-expers, we'll have to agree to disagree on portions. TR24 glass and distortion looks like crap next to the SWFA. I shoot the SWFA both eyes open, no problem. There is not excessive tube narrowing down the view. I have no idea what you mean by double vision....as in seeing two images laid next to each other? I shoot the scope both eyes open like a red dot. Not a problem.

Compare something like this: http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTN_cE37YOnbrj9PnkOjDZRh637HT3I6uzo_rLjjudLsqwFTRy39xN-YWhVbA

To this: http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/8171/sb1141xilluminated.jpg

Compare more here: http://snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3051539

Including the ZD: http://i363.photobucket.com/albums/oo73/BigJimFish/Picture016-1.jpg

Would much rather use the MTAC or XTR than Vortex PST.....not impressed with clarity of PST glass and the reticule which doesn't stand out enough on 1X.....it was almost hard to see on a bright TX sunny day with light-colored berms. The boldness of the MTAC and SWFA reticules make that not a problem.

The advantage in reticule still holds IMO for the SWFA in that the local range for 3gun often experiences noticeable wind, so having windage marks absolutely helps on the long range stage. See comments in final paragraph below about downside however.

I'm no scope expert, so {shrug}.......without seeing some of these optics side-by-side, can't say one way or the other to your other points.

I'm curious why your buddy struggled with it however. Part of doing well is being used to what you are using.

FOV numbers for those curious:

MTAC 100-32ft at 100y

XTR 100-32ft at 100y

Vortex PST 98-27.5ft at 100y

ZD 111-25.9ft at 100y

SWFA 97.5-24.2ft at 100y

Swaro Z6 127.5-20.4ft at 100y

Vortex Razor 94.5-24.2ft at 100y

I was interested in this scope, but felt there was no real center aiming point and the crosshairs too small at 1x. I was afraid there would be too much searching for the aiming point on close to 100 yd highspeed shooting (all going off reticle pictures, never saw one in person). I think I would have gotten one if they would have cut out the center of the crosshair and put in a 1-2 moa dot.

This I agree with and have stated as such elsewhere. I much prefer a dot (like an Aimpoint) for 1X close/fast stuff out to 100y than an Eotech-type halo. Some of the new offerings hitting the market have this type of setup (dot down at 1X, FFP reticule as you dial up), and those are very interesting as potential candidates that would gladly get me to switch out optics. To your point, the halo setup has been plenty fast for me on paper targets, large steel swingers, and steel silhouettes, but did seem slower/more "guesswork" to center up on small steel plates at 100y versus simply placing a dot on them. Also noticed this in engaging plate racks at 50-100yd in practice and at FB3G......a dot would have been much more comfortable for me personally.

Particularly, the reticles with dot config that the new Premier was showing and the Leupold Mark6 was showing at SHOT look more to my desired setup. However, I'd prefer a simple mil reticule rather than the BDC trees.

Until then, SWFA has been working nicely. There are many good offerings out there, it comes down to reticule choice/desire as far as I'm concerned.

Edited by AustinWolv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

FOV: The FOV is terrible. I don't mean just a little less than the competition, but horrible. There is an extreme tunnel effect when looking through the scope at 1x. You can actually see much of the interior of the scope. This has the added benefit of making the occular ring seem extremely thick. It makes you feel as though you are not looking at targets but rather looking through a thick walled tube.

Alignment: 1x is the worst I've seen in any 1-4x variable. The picture doesn't distort at the edges, it is simply offset from everything around, as if the front lense was misaligned. This makes the double vision created by two visual pictures really bad and uncorrectable...

True 1x: On this scope 1x is more like .8x. When you run the magnification down to 1x, you end up with a smaller picture inside the scope than out. Again, this contributes to the double vision problem. You can turn the magnification ring up to 1x, but who wants to take the time to adjust and fine tune the 1x every time you are in a 3gun stage of fire!? No one. That's who.

I've had my 1-4x SWFA (with T-reticle) since July 2011. I"ve also had a completely different experience than "co-exprs".

At 1X, I can hit close range targets just as fast as when I use an Aimpoint Micro I confirmed this by shooting a lot of drills with a shot timer. I have never experienced any double vision while looking through the scope at 1X.

At 1X, if I put a newspaper 1 foot in front of the scope, the print looks slightly magnified. At 5 feet, I can't tell the difference. So if "co-exprs" thought he got 0.8X at the 1X setting, I think his buddy definitely got a defective scope.

In fact, the first scope I received from SWFA had some debris stuck to the etched reticle and the illumination flickered occassionally. I sent back the first scope and the replacement scope had a clean reticle and an upgraded circuit board that that fixed the flickering problem. I got the replacement scope back within 3 weeks and SWFA paid for shipping both ways.

I got the T-reticle model because at the time of purchase, I was able to get a Bobro mount included as a package deal. The package deal was not offered for the donut version. I definitely prefer the Bobro mount over the American Defense Mount (ADM). The Bobro mount returns to zero better after removal and replacement and it's easier to take off and put on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may just be me, but I cannot see any advantage to either the First Focal Plane or the adjustable turrets on a 1-4x scope. Particularly for 3-gun

Agreed. I think for FFP to be a desirable benefit you need to get up to at least 8x on the top end.

Pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think his buddy definitely got a defective scope.

That wouldn't surprise me given what he described.

It happens, such as the defective TR24 that I had that was 13" high and 5" right POI on 1X compared to POA/POI at 4X.

FFP

Perhaps preference for some that like that the reticule stays the same size to the target with holdovers that aren't tied to a certain magnification.

Edited by AustinWolv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AustinWolv,

http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/8171/sb1141xilluminated.jpg

This photo shows my point. While the glass is very clear and distortion free, when you look at this photo, follow the horizontal and vertical lines into and out of the scope. They don't line up. Look at 1x reticle photos of other scopes (there are lots of 2012 shot show optics reviews) and you will be able to track straight line into and out of most reticles without any detours. The missmatch in the SWFA causes the picture seen with one eye to be significantly different than the picture seen with the other. The two different pictures causes double vision. If you are looking through the scope with your dominant eye, your brain will simply accept the picture inside the scope and disregard the image from your non dominant eye. If you are cross dominant or near to equally dominant, your brain needs a more seamless 1x because it wants to use the image from the dominant eye, but needs the reticle for sight picture. You end up fighting double vision because your brain is trying to rectify two different pictures. Most scopes of this type have a solid diopter adjustment to fine tune the images your two eyes are seeing into one image. Same as the right eye diopter adjustment on binos.

Believe me, I really wanted this scope to work out. The clarity of the glass on this scope will hold it's own against optics costing twice as much. The reticle is versatile and makes day light bright a non issue. Turrets are nice. Size and construction are nice. The eye box is functional. I really liked my TR24, but was tired of dialing in ranges and this seemed like it would be the answer. I sat with my mouse hovering over the "checkout" button, for agonizing periods of time, while waiting for my buddies to come in. I spent a couple of hours trying to will the thing to work for me, once I had it in my hands. In the end, I had to pass and look for some thing else. My new Meopta isn't perfect either. The turrets need some serious attention and I do wish there were some sort of windage referencances in the reticle. Other than those two points though the ZD is fast, simple, compact, day light bright, seamlessly functions like a red dot at 1x while providing better glass than my TR24 and very effective hold over marks which correlate well to my rifle and load out to 600yds. The eye box on the Meopta is excellent and it's a nice compact size.

Edited by co-exprs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't line up. Look at 1x reticle photos of other scopes (there are lots of 2012 shot show optics reviews) and you will be able to track straight line into and out of most reticles without any detours.

I'll check my scopes again later, but I recall looking at it before and not seeing it badly. Probably because I'm not cross-dominant.

That being said, I see various scopes do it in the SHOT recap in this thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/421244_The_variable__low_power_multipurpose_scope_review_thread.html&page=19

Weaver 1-5

Look at the SwaroZ6, there are some items not matching up on 1X, namely the display on the left and the vertical wall corner on the right...

Sightron - the horizontal duct piping doesn't line up

Hard to tell on others as there aren't good references in the pictures plus the camera is off-angle....

That Bushnell looks good though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

co-expers' experience is probably just as correct as that of the people disagreeing with him. I wouldn't buy a scope without a diopter adjustment. Why? Because I've reached the point where at least in my right eye, the increments they do corrective lenses in leaves you with less or more than industry standard corrected vision. The fix to that, for the most part, is correctly setting up the diopter adjustment on a scope. I know what to blame because I deal with this with a number of things. If you are the guy who only has had only slightly bad vision you can get by without glasses, but you probably shouldn't, all sorts of things can look like they don't work right. It can most certainly exacerbate the black halo effect on scopes, and make optics looks like the glass sucks or they did the math not quite right, or exit pupils seem even more finicky and unforgiving or a host of other things.

Heck, red dots in general can be a total mess if you can't get an astigmatism corrected 100% too.

AS for the straight line thing, it's not really meaningful in pictures for the same reason as above. Unless you are putting the camera lens in exactly the right spot, you are getting a picture of something other than the proper eye relief, and it will do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was interested in this scope, but felt there was no real center aiming point and the crosshairs too small at 1x. I was afraid there would be too much searching for the aiming point on close to 100 yd highspeed shooting (all going off reticle pictures, never saw one in person). I think I would have gotten one if they would have cut out the center of the crosshair and put in a 1-2 moa dot.

This I agree with and have stated as such elsewhere. I much prefer a dot (like an Aimpoint) for 1X close/fast stuff out to 100y than an Eotech-type halo. Some of the new offerings hitting the market have this type of setup (dot down at 1X, FFP reticule as you dial up),

Eotech never bothered me, because there is that bright 1moa dot in the middle. The halo just helps me find the dot if I have the brighness turned down (to avoid the "bloom"). But the SWFA doesn't have a dot... just the halo. and some vague crosshair. But I agree, lots of new options coming out soon... I'm debating about holding off again... irons are fun, too!

-rvb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

http://img863.images...illuminated.jpg

This photo shows my point. While the glass is very clear and distortion free, when you look at this photo, follow the horizontal and vertical lines into and out of the scope. They don't line up. Look at 1x reticle photos of other scopes (there are lots of 2012 shot show optics reviews) and you will be able to track straight line into and out of most reticles without any detours. The missmatch in the SWFA causes the picture seen with one eye to be significantly different than the picture seen with the other. The two different pictures causes double vision. If you are looking through the scope with your dominant eye, your brain will simply accept the picture inside the scope and disregard the image from your non dominant eye. If you are cross dominant or near to equally dominant, your brain needs a more seamless 1x because it wants to use the image from the dominant eye, but needs the reticle for sight picture. You end up fighting double vision because your brain is trying to rectify two different pictures. Most scopes of this type have a solid diopter adjustment to fine tune the images your two eyes are seeing into one image. Same as the right eye diopter adjustment on binos. ...

1. In the photo that "co-exprs" posted, the reticle does not look anything like the reticle on a SWFA SS 1-4x24 Tactical 30mm Rifle Scope. Are you absolutely sure that we are talking about the same scope?

2. 'co-exprs' photo is dated 9-25-2010. At that time, only prototypes of the SWFA 1-4x were available. SWFA didn't start shipping the scopes to customers until Feb. of 2011. So is the photo of a prototype scope that you found on the web or is it your photo and your buddy somehow got to test a prototype or it's your photo and you took the photo of the wrong scope?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may just be me, but I cannot see any advantage to either the First Focal Plane or the adjustable turrets on a 1-4x scope. Particularly for 3-gun

Agreed. I think for FFP to be a desirable benefit you need to get up to at least 8x on the top end.

Pat

The advantage of the FFP is that at 1x, the thick bold "T" or "donut" draws your eye to the center of the scope for close-range, rapid shots. At 4x, the thick/bold parts of the reticle are zoomed out of your way and you can concentrate on the thin cross-hairs.

The mil-hash marks definitely helps me out on longer shots. The hashmarks are 1 mil apart. With a 50 yard zero, 55 gr bullet, my hold-over are usually 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5 mil out to 450 yards. Sure I'd prefer 6X or 8X and get a more accurate hold-over, but that was out of my budget. With a BDC reticle, you normally use a 100 yard zero which creates larger hold-overs at the longer range, e.g. 1.9 mil at 450 yards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gdboytyler

To answer your question, the chain of events was thus.

Some time in mid January 2011 I was searching for a replacement scope for my TR24. I came across a forum review for this new SWFA scope coming soon. The review had extremely favorable comments and further searching brought me two more excellent and extensive reviews with reticle photos and tons of detailed information. The scope wasn't available yet, so I waited to see if Trijicon was going to announce, at shot, the scope we all wanted, which was an Accupoint with an Acog BDC reticle. They of course didn't offer the product they should have, so the hunt was back on. I looked at the PST and after much debate, my buddy and I decided to try the SWFA scopes, due to both of us being drawn to the merits of the FFP circle reticle. Some time in Feb the scopes were available for order, my buddy ordered one right away and it showed up a few days later and some time around the end of the month. I drove to meet him, mounted the scope into a Larue and started playing around with the new glass. I took my TR24 for comparison purposes. I formed my negative bias quickly, an hour later I had a severe headache from staining to get my eyes to work with the scope and after 2 hours of trying to get it to work for me, I gave up. I thought it was a defect, so I went back to the forum reticle photos to see if I could find the same conditions I was seeing, and found exactly the same problems in every 1x reticle photo posted. The photo I referenced was one of those original review photos. The reticle in our unit was exactly the same as the one in the referenced photo of my earlier entry. I was forced to conclude that the scope was designed this way and that we didn't have a defect. The FOV on our unit was noticably narrower than my TR24. I didn't measure it, but a direct comparison gave me a guess of 70ft. I looked it up on the SWFA website and at the time the FOV was not published.

I am a cross dominant shooter. I have 20/15 rated natural vision. 20/13 in my left eye and 20/17 in my right (sure wish my hearing was still that good). I would venture to guess that no human has exactly the same eye performance in both eyes. Without the ability to fine tune the focal distance to match up the pictures many people will struggle with this scope design in 1x. I teach pistol marksmanship part time. Establishing eye dominance is covered early in my classes. I've found that roughly 40% of my students are left eye dominant and shooting right handed. A few have chosen to switch to weak hand and dominant eye, but most choose to shoot non dominant eye and strong hand. I've started the transition myself, but it will take a long time. Dominant eye use of this scope offers some forgiveness as the brain can more easily disregard the weak eye image. It doesn't mean that the image problem doesn't exist, it just means that the brain doesn't have to reconcile the discrepant imagery and can simply choose which image it will use. An equal (so to speak) or cross dominant will struggle without a way to make manual corrections to the unmatched images. In all my long years, I have never once seen a set of binos without a diopter adjustment because it is a critical feature when looking through optics with both eyes open, regardless of magnification. If ours had the adjustment, I sure couldn't find it and I'm an engineer with... "the nack". I suppose the source of all my grief stemmed from the lack of this feature. Had it been there, the optic would have been two thumbs up.

I didn't pay for the scope, so I left it up to my partner in crime to contact SWFA. He chose to sell it instead. I chose to keep looking. For now I am very happy with what I ended up with, but I am also getting excited by some of the cool new stuff reviewed at shot 2012. Sorry to be a fly in the pudding (not usually my MO).

Edited by co-exprs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The diopter adjustment is the large ring on the back, you rotate the whole thing. Then, there is a smaller lock ring just in front of that which locks the setting in place. In front of that is the magnification adjustment ring.

https://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2667880

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2491668

That is different adjustment than what you are pointing out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...