Rifle Scopes SWFA 3-9x Mil-Quad or Nightforce 2.5-10x

[hk dave]

Hey guys

I own an SWFA 3-9x mil dot, and though I am highly impressed with the clarity and build, the mil-dot feels a bit chunky to me... or maybe i'm just bored of mil-dot.

I'm been contemplating buying another SWFA with the mil quad reticle... or i wonder if you guys think it's worth it to go to say a Nightforce 2.5-10x

Anyone put both side by side?

Scope will be on a precision SPR type build shooting 77grain SMK.

Thanks!

***UPDATE with Review***

So because I was extremely curious and none of my friends own a Nightforce 2.5-10x, I decided to order one and compare it side by side with my SWFA 3-9x.

Here's what I found... I'm just an average Joe weekend shooter and no expert so please take this all with a grain of salt.

I compared a Nightforce 2.5-10x Zero Stop Mil Dot vs a SWFA 3-9x Mil Dot.

Optical Quality: I sat there for an hour or so, looking at different things through both scopes and I'm having a really difficult time telling the two apart. I can pick out the same minute details from both scopes. I did find that the Nightforce has a smaller field of view, but that's to be expected with the smaller Objective lens.

Eye Box: The SWFA eye box was easier to use and more forgiving. There was no doubt that the SWFA was better.

Build Quality: Both look to be exceptionally well made. Whereas the SWFA looks like expertly made aluminum construction and I can find absolutely no flaw with it, the Nightforce feels like I could use it as a baton. They both look like quality pieces. If I HAD to choose which was tougher just by the feel of it, I'd say the Nightforce. In reality, what do I NEED in terms of toughness is entirely different.

Turrets: This is where the Nightforce stands out, the turrets have a really obvious tactile feel per adjustment whereas the SWFA is not quite at the same level. It's kind of mushy, not at the level of the Nightforce. Oddly, all my other SWFA scopes could be said to feel similar to the Nightforce... very crisp between adjusments... perhaps the 3-9x I have is a dud in terms of turrets?

Size: The Nightforce is much more compact. There is no doubt about it. I was surprised that something so much smaller with a smaller Objective would be so sharp and bright. It kind of goes against everything I've learned about optics... but they did it somehow. My guess would be that this is where a lot of the extra cost for the Nightforce comes into play.

Other: The Nightforce I ordered came with Zero Stop. It's a really nice option to have but I don't think it's necessary for me. The SWFA turrets are obvious enough that Zero stop isn't a big deal. The Nightforce also has illumination which is a nice option to have.

One big difference that I haven't mentioned is the fact that the SWFA is FFP. The FFP is REALLY nice however I preferred the mil dot reticle of the Nightforce as it is less obstructive. (Of course this could all me a moot point if I have compared the Nightforce to the Mil-Quad SWFA)

All in all, both are excellent scopes. Now that's I've compared them, I know I'll probably buy SWFA the next time I need a scope in this mag range. The 2.5x premium of the Nightforce wasn't worth it for an average joe like me.

It's amazing to me how much scope you get for your money with SWFA. I hope they keep coming out with new designs.

When I get some photos taken, I'll try and add them to this mini review.

 

[azimutha]

Re: SWFA 3-9x Mil-Quad or Other like Nightforce

I'm not quite clear from SWFA's pix on their site whether the mil quad reticle for the 3-9 is the same as the the 5-20, but if it is, you would probably like it. I've run side-by-side comparisons of the 3-9 with the NF 2.5-10X32 and if money is no object the latter has more features and a more refined feel. But at twice the price or more it had better. Regardless of what you get, I do recommend matching turrets to reticle, whether or not the scope is FFP or SFP.

 

[hk dave]

Re: SWFA 3-9x Mil-Quad or Other like Nightforce

I have the 5-20 and love the reticle.

My guess is i'd love the mil quad on the 3-9 as well..

However a part of me has always been curious whether the Nightforce would be worth 2.5 the cost of the swfa. If it really is in terms of glass quality and features, i'm happy to pay it... but if it's really not much of a difference, I see no real need to spend the extra cash.

I like the zero stop, but i don't "NEED" it... the mil/mil is a must though for me.

Frankly though, I don't really see a need for FFP in a scope that goes 2-10 or 3-9 so i'm open to SFP.

Any thoughts on glass quality?

I'm also considering a Vortex PST 2.5-10.

 

[SWFA]

Re: SWFA 3-9x Mil-Quad or Other like Nightforce

 

[azimutha]

Re: SWFA 3-9x Mil-Quad or Other like Nightforce

In my side-by-side comparison, the NF 2.5-10X32 glass is not better than the SS 3-9. As for the SFP vs. FFP in lower mag range scopes, I've found it's not a huge issue to have SFP. Shots where you might range or use the reticle to correct aim I take @ 10X. One thing to note: You're right about not needing zero-stop, but in its absence it's nice to at least have a turn indicator. The NF compact turrets lack that so I sprang for zero stop when I had my turrets converted over to mils.

I really like my NF but nothing like the SS 3-9 was available when I bought it. It is a compact, bomber scope and has served me well. It is a worry-free scope. But is it really worth 2.5X as much? Not IMO. If SWFA comes out with a 3-12 or 4-16 with illum. it would be hard to consider anything else other than the uber scopes put out by the likes of Premier, Hensoldt or S&B.

 

[prplhaz72]

Re: SWFA 3-9x Mil-Quad or Other like Nightforce

Having an FFP is not just nice for ranging, if you are leading a target it can be very helpful as well. Lots of times when you have to lead a target it is quick and many times on a lower mag. So having one that allows the lead to be the same on all mags would be nice.

 

[hk dave]

Re: SWFA 3-9x Mil-Quad or Other like Nightforce

Thanks for the photos SWFA... is it me or does the mil quad photo look sharper? Surely it is not indicative of the difference in resolution between the two scopes right? It's just a camera thing?

azimutha: Thank you for your responses, they're a great help... as much as I would love to try the Nightforce... I'm having a hard time justifying it over the SWFA 3-9 at 2.5 times the price. Given that the swfa tracks extremely well, is robust, has glass that is comparable and weights the same... the primary thing it's lacking is illumination but outside of that seems I should just go with the SWFA and get myself a new spotting scope.

So why is it I keep wanting to order the Nightforce? The heck is wrong with me?

TheOneTwo: Good point there, but would it matter leading a target at low magnification? Most prey would not be moving all that fast at the type of ranges you'd use 3x or 4x right where you'd need to compensate right? Or is my inexperience shooting moving objects making me think incorrectly?