I was wondering if anyone has had experience with both the SWFA 10x42 scope as well as the 16x42.I've read a lot of great things about the 10x42 and a guy at the range let me shoot with one this past weekend. The 10x42 was really nice but I would like something with a little more magnification for a bolt gun I have. The 16x42 gets good reviews for tracking but some say you give up clarity over the 10x42. I thought maybe someone here has done a side by side comparison. Thanks in advance.
Rifle Scopes SWFA 16x42 Clarity
- Thread starter Daventos
- Start date
For the money, it's hard to beat the 16x42. I've had a couple of them. They're really good scopes.
As far as clarity versus the 10x42, I think it's probably sample to sample variation. The glass used in the 10x42 is the same quality as the 16x42. I will say that I've seen sample to sample variation in these scopes and they're not the best glass in the world, but reliable tracking and good build quality for $300 is hard to beat.
The only exception of course is the HD version of the 10x42, which is a lot more money and of course has better glass. But if your budget is tight and you want reliable tracking and you don't need a wide angle scope, then a fixed-power SWFA is the best bang for the buck, period.
As far as clarity versus the 10x42, I think it's probably sample to sample variation. The glass used in the 10x42 is the same quality as the 16x42. I will say that I've seen sample to sample variation in these scopes and they're not the best glass in the world, but reliable tracking and good build quality for $300 is hard to beat.
The only exception of course is the HD version of the 10x42, which is a lot more money and of course has better glass. But if your budget is tight and you want reliable tracking and you don't need a wide angle scope, then a fixed-power SWFA is the best bang for the buck, period.
I would go 12x42.
I was at a rifle class last year and there were a few 10x42’s that were working well to 1k.
They are great scopes and very tough.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was at a rifle class last year and there were a few 10x42’s that were working well to 1k.
They are great scopes and very tough.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have the 12x42 and I’m a big fan. I always seem to find myself at about 12x even on my variable power scopes. I think it’s a great mix of magnification and FOV. 12x is enough to shoot moa size targets out to 500 for me. The really thin reticle helps too by not obscuring a lot of the target. My brother went 9/10 on a 4 inch circle at 420 with a my 223 with the swfa on it and he only shoots rifles about 6 times a year. As everyone says, it punches way above it’s price.
Edit: his shooting was done in field conditions with a 6-9 mph wind just for clarity.
Edit: his shooting was done in field conditions with a 6-9 mph wind just for clarity.
Another owner of the SWFA 12x42. I'm easily able to shoot 2-3" 5 shot groups at 300 yards with it and think that, if you were shooting steel you could probably use it at 1000. Quality of glass is very good and the scope is an outstanding value.
I have one 10x and two 12x. I shoot with a guy in my match squad who runs a 16x on occasion. He likes it. I have sat behind it and spent more than a few minutes glassing steel long range targets with it. I liked it but the eyebox was just a tad too touchy and although it wasn't bad by any means I felt the 12x and 10x were considerably brighter. I personally wouldn't buy a fixed 16.
I had the 20x and the 16x, very limiting in FOV, when mirage kicks up your stuck and glass has always been sub par.
I own a few of the SS scopes.
I would stick to either the 10x or 12x. They have few faults. The 16x was not one of my favorites. The eye box was a bit touchy but not that big a deal. My biggest complaint with the fixed 16 was lack of brightness and restricted FOV due to the small objective.
There is nothing practical to be gained over the 12x.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would stick to either the 10x or 12x. They have few faults. The 16x was not one of my favorites. The eye box was a bit touchy but not that big a deal. My biggest complaint with the fixed 16 was lack of brightness and restricted FOV due to the small objective.
There is nothing practical to be gained over the 12x.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have experience with the 10x, 12x, 16x, and 20x SWFA scopes. I would only buy a 10x anymore. I guarantee anything you can hit with a 16x I can hit with a 10x. The 12, 16, and 20 get progressively less clear as the power is increased. They also get progressively worse low light performance as power is higher. I can easily hold on a 1/2 MOA target at 1000 yards with a 10x SWFA. In my opinion this is the sweet spot of performance for these scopes. Go any higher in magnification and you only lose performance.
This is my experience as well. I had a 10x and a 16x. The 16x was harder to shoot with and gave up low light performance noticeably, and I'm not typically picky about glass. I'd opt for 10x or 12x if I were to get one myself.
Surprised to hear the negative opinions on the 16x. I have looked through the 12x and would never buy it against the 16x for long range shooting.
I will say that most of the folks here pushing the 12x seem to be talking about ranges inside 500 yards. If you're in those sort of ranges, the 12x is enough. But if you're going out to 800+, you will absolutely want the extra magnification if you can get it.
I will say that most of the folks here pushing the 12x seem to be talking about ranges inside 500 yards. If you're in those sort of ranges, the 12x is enough. But if you're going out to 800+, you will absolutely want the extra magnification if you can get it.
I think it's entirely personal preference. I've had 3-18, 3-15, 5-25, 4.5-27, 3-24, etc... Scopes and if I set them to what looks natural and where I like to shoot them, it always lies between 12x and 14x. Even for 1000-1800yd.
I have a vortex 4.5x27 and when IÂ’m shooting steel out to 1000 I really donÂ’t go above 12-14 or so.
ItÂ’s absolutely possible to only use 10x for 1000 yards. Sure if your trying to shot your exact hits the extra mag is nice. I can spot my hits on 10x at 1k though. I can see if I hit center flapper or not.
I think scope CLARITY is more important then magnification.
I took a long range class and we were not allowed to zoom out scopes out past 12x. Learn the fundamentals and you donÂ’t need a telescope.
Holy crap my phone really jumbled things up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
All of the amateur, inexperienced, and untrained shooters I know want higher power scopes. All of the best shooters I know don't need it.
I haven't had my 16X long enough to form an opinion one way or the other just yet. But there's no denying it's more sensitive to eye position than its lower magnification cousins (the laws of optical physics will not be denied).
My point is that in my experience, you aren't sacrificing clarity for magnification. You're just sacrificing magnification for FOV. In that case, I'll take a 16x over a 12x any day if I'm not shooting up close at all.
I'm not saying anything can't be done with a 10x or 12x. I'm just saying it's easier with 16x once you get out to really long range.
16x IMHO is the perfect mag for 1000 yards. Low enough to dial out mirage but high enough to see everything a bit bigger than at 10x or 12x.
It's all subjective of course. My main point was that I was surprised to see so many folks favoring 12x and 10x over 16x when I think 16x is just about the perfect fixed-power magnification.
I have owned and used the ss 10x, 12x, and 16x. For shooting plates at distance, I would prefer the 16x. Yes eye position is more critical, but with an adjustable stock or chassis (or a stock pack), this is not insurmountable. If you will be hunting or doing any low light shooting, the 10x or 12x would probably be a better choice. I put the 12x on my 6.5 CM, which is not a hunting setup at all, and regret not having went with the 16x.
If you are worried about the eye box the 10x and 12x are more forgiving. Mordamer is also correct. I have shot to 1500 yards with the 10x, so the magnification is not a requisite for making hits at distance, just a preference for some.
A lot of these issues are very subjective, and my advice is to look through each of them if possible and see what you like/dislike about each.
If you are worried about the eye box the 10x and 12x are more forgiving. Mordamer is also correct. I have shot to 1500 yards with the 10x, so the magnification is not a requisite for making hits at distance, just a preference for some.
A lot of these issues are very subjective, and my advice is to look through each of them if possible and see what you like/dislike about each.
The rifle that the 16X sits on is in a Manners MCS-T with adjustable comb. Based on my experience with my other Howa 1500 with a SWFA 3-15X42 (that used to be in the Manners and now sits in a KRG xray) I know that the design of that Manners stock is a big source of my problem. I have a KRG xray chassis on the way to replace the Manners.
BTW, this is not a slam on Manners. Their product is ultra high quality. It's just an issue of compatibility between the design of the MCS-T and my physique/facial features. Even after adding an adjustable comb to it, I still can't get comfortable with it and this is after several years of trying. In contrast, 30 minutes after getting the rifle into a KRG xray I had it all adjusted to where it feels like the scope is an extension of my eyeball.
Last edited:
This applies to me. I am really new to longer distance shooting and thought more would be better. I'm glad I subscribed to this forum and asked the question before I made the purchase. These response have been really helpful. The touchy eyebox was something I had not even considered.
i've had a 10x mildot, and the 12x milquad. i wouldnt go higher than 12x, havent had any problems with the 12x. truth be told, i wish i had grabbed the 6x instead. why? cause 6x is a good fixed power for a hunting scope. and, you can still do pretty dang well with it at distance. i have a 1x on my 7x30 waters pistol, and have no problem smacking fist sized rocks at 200 yards.
i REALLY wished they would make a fixed 6x HD model...i'd jump on that shit. but then again, i wish they'd make a ss pistol scope in 3x or 4x. now THAT would be the titties.
i REALLY wished they would make a fixed 6x HD model...i'd jump on that shit. but then again, i wish they'd make a ss pistol scope in 3x or 4x. now THAT would be the titties.
Well I got my krg x ray in yesterday and moved the rifle with the 16x to it. Just like I thought the eyebox issues pretty much went away after setting up lop and comb height. Its a little touchier than my swfa 3-15 but easily managed now. Noticeably clearer in low light than the 3-15 at 15x but that was expected.
Only minor complaint is I wish the reticle were maybe 50% thicker.
Only minor complaint is I wish the reticle were maybe 50% thicker.
My ss 16x mil quad my first scope, and I was excited to get it. I love the mil quad reticle. The eye box is ok, and with time behind it, I had no problem getting a full picture. Then I took it out to 600 yards and 1000 yards and felt the clarity was lacking, but at no fault to SWFA. It's an awesome scope for the $250 I paid for it. Knowing what I know now, I'd probably rather the 12x, and definitely not the 20x. The glass isn't there for that application, as I feel more magnification sacrifices clarity, but again, a great value for what it is.
scott
scott
