Rifle Scopes Bushnell 10x vs swfa 10x

[koconcept]

I got a rifle sitting in layaway and am kinda shopping for all the peripherals to go with it. I am looking between the Bushnell straight 10 power scope and the SWFA. These wouldn't be the final optic for the gun. My purpose is to have something so i can shoot the rifle while i save for something better. I don't have a lot of experience with optic or precision shooting, so I am looking for some advice between these two. Thanks and p.s. I did a search and didn't find a thread so if there is one just direct me to it.

 

[bcrich]

The swfa has a better reticle (mil quad) & a parallax/focus adjust, it's a little more than the 3200 but having those features makes it worth it. The mil quad reticle will help you hold over with more precision. I have the old school 3200 with non matching turrets ....mildot & moa turrets but now come with mil turrets so be sure to get the new one if you decide to go with the bushnell.

 

[jjrgr21]

i've had both, i like the swfa better, but dislike the mil-quad.

 

[<Flatliner>]

I have the SWFA and love it. With a 20 moa mount I was able to dial 16.5 mils up and reach out to 1000 yards. Why the hate of the mil quad? I see a lot of people don't like it. I've shot the Nightforce mil dot, the S&B short dot mil reticule and the vortex pst 1-4 mill reticule and I prefer the mill quad over them all. I really wish Nightforce would make the MLR-2 in it's 5.5X22X50 scope because it more resembles the mill quad.

 

[MontanaMarine]

I've got them both and prefer the SWFA turrets, reticle, erector travel, parallax, bigger ocular lens, and the bigger field of view.

The SWFA is a whole lot of scope for the price.

 

[flylo]

You just missed the SWFA sale last weekend, they were$255. I've seen them sell used for that.

 

[billyburl2]

I like SS, but in the 12x flavor! Same scope, same reticle, same everything, but more mag! But doesn't get as "dark" as the 16 or 20x do...

 

[redneckbmxer24]

All things considered they are equal quality but the SWFA gets the nod because of features. It has a better reticle, parrax adjustment, more internal travel, and better knob feel. I also like the way the turrets zero out and lock down on the SWFA with set screws. The bushnell slides down in between notches and the hash marks are often a little off. I'd also give the SWFA the edge for glass.

The other benefit to the SWFA is its 30mm. More than likely if it's a temporary scope your next one will be 30mm so it reduces the chance of having to buy new rings.

 

[Sniper260]

I own 2 swfa... will buy more too.

 

[MoBoost]

Owned both - sold the SWFA but kept the Bushy. SWFA has really nice features that didn't make up for sub-par glass. I prefer looking through the scope instead of dicking with the knobs though ... YMMV.

 

[crowsniper1]

I have owned a few of each ,i prefer the SS over the bushnell.

 

[MontanaMarine]

5 mils per rev on the SWFA is easier for me to keep track of than 4 mils per rev on the Bushnell.

 

[MontanaMarine]

Owned both - sold the SWFA but kept the Bushy. SWFA has really nice features that didn't make up for sub-par glass. I prefer looking through the scope instead of dicking with the knobs though ... YMMV.

Kind of tough to get in much long range shooting without ..."dicking with the knobs".

 

[LoanHarvey]

I have two of these in 12x (SWFA MIL/MIL) and really like them. They were out of the 10x at the time, so I went with the 12x's. I have used MOA scopes all my life, and recently switched to the mil quad, and really like it. The turrets seem to track well and the price point is great for a budget scope. Ordering 2 more in 10x, then my rifles will all have the same mil-quad system.
I like the ranging part of it, and the follow up shots are easy to dial, IMHO.

 

[evilcoon]

You just missed the SWFA sale last weekend, they were$255. I've seen them sell used for that.

All were discounted except for the 10x

 

[supercorndogs]

i like my swfa 10x42. is the bushnell a 1 inch tube. it will not have as much elevation adjustment as the swfa.

 

[Captain Kirk]

SWFA has a paralax focus ring, the Bushnell does not. Basically, a fixed paralax optic will be at a set yardage (100 yds is typical). I would go with the SWFA

 

[D.ID]

Have both, love both. Mine are mil-dot/ moa turrets in both cases.
Both are now available in mil/mil now so that's even.
Both track perfectly even on heavy magnums so that's even.
Both have serviceable (good for there price) glass so thats even. relative but even.
Both have a ridiculous amount of adjustment so while the SWFA has more both have plenty.
Bushy is more compact and has nicer turrets but requires a rifle that fits shooter in order to assure repeatable cheek rest and avoid any parallax issues as it is not adjustable.
SWFA now has a better reticle option, more magnification options 6x/10x/12x etc. etc., built in sunshade with expandable option, parallax adjustment, 30mm tube so rings will be reusable.
"For there price point" I can't complain about any of these. Recommend you keep it as a backup after your upgrade and with that in mind spend the extra for swfa but for the money the little bushnell is no slouch.

 

[3DHUSKER]

Kind of tough to get in much long range shooting without ..."dicking with the knobs".

He said he likes to look through it not actually shoot it. There is a difference. LOL


Go with the SWFA, I also like the Mil-Quad.

 

[Win308]

I have a SWFA 10x42HD on my .308 rifle. I started out with the regular SWFA 10x and liked it, but when I wanted to go to mil/mil turrets, I upgraded to the HD and I like it even more. I got a new Bushy 3200 Tactical 10x for $120 new that I put on my Savage MK II for long range .22LR practice. I wish that the Bushy had a parallax adjustment, but is worth what I paid for it and works for what I am using it for. If I were you, I would go for the SWFA 10x.

 

[z71rat]

Between the 2, you are going the wrong direction with the Bushy. Trust me, I have been down this road several times. Save yourself the time, money, and trouble... SWFA. You can come back and thank us later on.

DK