Watched Franks review on this and read a few of his posts, he gave very good review on this scope and basically said it could be sold for $2000 and still be good value. This was a few years ago. Would love to know what Franks view now if he still holds that view? The non illuminated model is $1300, I'm looking at this scope as I already own the 12x fixed version and it has been excellent. Also looking at the sightron 6-24 SIII scopes also.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Is Franks review of the SWFA 5-20HD still relevant?
- Thread starter pitdog85
- Start date
IMO no not when you can get a Raz Gen2 new for $1999.99 right now........Razor Gen 2 and probaly closer to $1500
if you ask the right dealer.
if you ask the right dealer.
Last edited:
While I’m.sure the Razor is great, my 5-20 HD is a really good optic, and very durable (might’ve had my AT slip off my tripod a few times). I bought mined used on here for $900 for the non-illuminated model. They are usually in the PX for sub 1k, post up a WTB ad. Some may argue the reticle is dated, but it works well though and you’re not going to miss because of it.
Bottom line, for the price (add $25 for Timk’s zero stops) I would be hard pressed to give it up over another optic in its price range.
Another way of thinking... the Razor is 2k, used is about 1.7k. The difference in price alone buys you a good bit of ammo. If you can swing 2k, then get a 2k optic. Really nail down your budget, then shop for the best deal and don’t be afraid to buy used as SWFA and Vortex and great CS reputations.
Bottom line, for the price (add $25 for Timk’s zero stops) I would be hard pressed to give it up over another optic in its price range.
Another way of thinking... the Razor is 2k, used is about 1.7k. The difference in price alone buys you a good bit of ammo. If you can swing 2k, then get a 2k optic. Really nail down your budget, then shop for the best deal and don’t be afraid to buy used as SWFA and Vortex and great CS reputations.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
It is a review of scope that is still in production and hasn't changed any. It is still relevant.
I wonder why they haven't changed? It's seems the market is in tree reticles, and zero stops.
I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure the OP is asking about the $$ value of the scope in today's market
I don't think that scope could be sold for $2000 now and it sure wouldn't be a good value in today's market just my .02........take it for what its worth.
Yeah but in today's market there's also much more options to choose from. The scopes back then, when the review was made, may have been priced higher than they are today so maybe now you can find a new razor gen 2 for $1,500 while before you couldn't. Even though nothing has changed with the SWFA, the surrounding market has.
OP, what features are you looking for specifically that made you curious about the SWFA? If you're ok with the weight and magnification range, you can get a brand new gen 2 razor for $1,500.00.
Comments about the scope itself are certainly relevant. Comments about its place in the market or the value proposition it provides are not quite as relevant in today's market.
IMHO, it's still the best glass you can get under $1300, bar none. It also happens to be bulletproof and has a simple, useful reticle, and a company that stands behind their product. Turrets are just so-so, and illumination is pretty useless, but those are the only negatives I have on it. I ran mine until just recently when I switched to the Delta Stryker 4.5-30, and I loved that SWFA every minute I had it. The Stryker is just an upgrade in nearly every way and I couldn't go back to the SWFA after having used it. But the Stryker is a bit more expensive, so it's not like SWFA is not relevant. It's just not "clearly the best scope under $2k" anymore. Maybe it's gone to "clearly the best scope under $1300", at least IMHO (talking about new prices).
Disclaimer: I have looked through a number of SWFA, Vortex, Bushnell, and Athlon scopes in this price range, but I haven't seen everything available under $2k, so I'm not bashing anyone's optic.
As for the Razor, it's still a huge, heavy beast compared to the SWFA. I don't think the glass difference is night and day, although the Razor is an improvement. And the Razor still doesn't have a reticle that I like - the new 7C is way too busy and nothing else has .2 mil wind holds or a floating dot (much less both).
I will say - if SWFA would update the reticle and add a zero stop, it could go back to "clearly the best value scope under $2k", especially if the price difference between $1200 and $1800 is meaningful to you. If not, the Stryker and Razor Gen 2 are still obscenely good values too.
IMHO, it's still the best glass you can get under $1300, bar none. It also happens to be bulletproof and has a simple, useful reticle, and a company that stands behind their product. Turrets are just so-so, and illumination is pretty useless, but those are the only negatives I have on it. I ran mine until just recently when I switched to the Delta Stryker 4.5-30, and I loved that SWFA every minute I had it. The Stryker is just an upgrade in nearly every way and I couldn't go back to the SWFA after having used it. But the Stryker is a bit more expensive, so it's not like SWFA is not relevant. It's just not "clearly the best scope under $2k" anymore. Maybe it's gone to "clearly the best scope under $1300", at least IMHO (talking about new prices).
Disclaimer: I have looked through a number of SWFA, Vortex, Bushnell, and Athlon scopes in this price range, but I haven't seen everything available under $2k, so I'm not bashing anyone's optic.
As for the Razor, it's still a huge, heavy beast compared to the SWFA. I don't think the glass difference is night and day, although the Razor is an improvement. And the Razor still doesn't have a reticle that I like - the new 7C is way too busy and nothing else has .2 mil wind holds or a floating dot (much less both).
I will say - if SWFA would update the reticle and add a zero stop, it could go back to "clearly the best value scope under $2k", especially if the price difference between $1200 and $1800 is meaningful to you. If not, the Stryker and Razor Gen 2 are still obscenely good values too.
What's wrong with it? Nothing. What could be improved to modernize it? A few things.
The market is heading more towards something with finer aiming points (floating dot and thinner than .05 mil lines) and .2 mil wind holds. And after having used the Delta Stryker, I realize that I do much prefer that even though I also like the simplicity of the SWFA mil quad.
I've owned 2 of the 5-20 and they are great for the money. Ive bought both of mine for under 1k on the PX. I've had it sxs with a gen 2 razor I owned at the time and both on 20x the glass is just as good. I dont care what year it is they are still great scopes.
They are well made, LOW optics.
Short on features, high on the shit that counts. Quality construction, decent reticle, excellent tracking and return to zero, bomb proof construction with the added benefit of very good glass.
If I was in the market for a 1000 - 1200 dollar optic, i would seriously consider the Brownells tactical scopes, see this thread.
Short on features, high on the shit that counts. Quality construction, decent reticle, excellent tracking and return to zero, bomb proof construction with the added benefit of very good glass.
If I was in the market for a 1000 - 1200 dollar optic, i would seriously consider the Brownells tactical scopes, see this thread.
The things you mentioned that are “upgrades” are the exact same things I dislike on the newer scopes.
The SWFA reticle is the perfect thickness. You wont miss because the reticle is too thick and you can seemthe dang thing easily even at low power. I am not a fan of .2mil wind holds either. I think they would be great on a ELR setup but not for general shooting. I can hold up and over at any distance where holding up and over makes sense with a standard milling reticle. No need for a tree.
A bit more modern reticle(tree not necessary) and a zero stop would really perk it up.
Hey yall thanks for the excellent feedback, main reason I guess I was looking at the swfa is like I said I already own the fixed 12x and there isn't anything I can fault with it other than being a fixed power. I'm in Australia and vortex scopes are not priced very well here from my observations compared to the US, the vortex Gen 2 razor was priced very similar to the nightforce atacr and PM2 last time I checked here. The other scope I'm looking at the 6-24 sightron Siii has similar quality glass from what I have read and also excellent internals tracking etc. The sightron is quite a bit cheaper than the SWFA its weakness is the mil based reticles. That being said I'm not interested in Christmas tree reticles and the like prefer just a clean simple reticle.
Man I love my SWFA. I can’t say enough good things about it. I was mainly stating what I think would help them sell more scopes. Having the reticle useful at low power is a huge plus. And it’s not too thick for me to have shot some stupidly good groups with it.
I don’t disagree with you. I think there is a place in the market for a gen 1 5-20 and a “gen 2”.
It's a good scope but the turrets are mushy and do not provide good tactile feedback. The zero stop shim is left wanting; in fact, SWFA warns against using the shim. The reticle is great and the scope is built great.
I have several of these scopes. None are mushy. They do have a little play back and forth but the clicks are tactile. I still cant understand the need for tactile clicks. Read my thread about it.
Frank's review still stands as the scope remains unchanged. Nothing wrong with the scope at all, it works and is a solid option, especially used at $1k or less as others have mentioned. There is a lot of competition in the $1,500 market with so many options you really need to pick what matters most to you and go that route.
hahaha yep, the swfa was a serious contender as I already own one but in the end I went with a sfp to have a small reticle at higher power. Both scopes are very hard to find a bad word about them.
Similar threads
