Rifle Scopes SWFA 3-9x42mm and Nightforce 2.5-10x32mm

[hk dave]

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.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Optical Quality:</span> 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.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Eye Box:</span> The SWFA eye box was easier to use and more forgiving. There was no doubt that the SWFA was better.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Build Quality: </span>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.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Turrets: </span>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?

<span style="font-weight: bold">Size: </span>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.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Other:</span> 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.

(This is from a previous thread that I deleted by mistake... didn't know "delete post" means "delete thread")

 

[Postal0311]

Re: SWFA 3-9x42mm and Nightforce 2.5-10x32mm

IMHO, the only main benefit of the NF 2.5-10x24 is that it will clear accessories mounted on a top rail. If you do not need this ability, you may be better off with the 2.5-10x32, or something else like the Super Sniper.

I feel that the Zero Stop is necessary on the NF compact. With out it, there is no way of telling what rotation the turret is on. On my 10.5 inch barrel, 1 turn from the 100yard zero, put it on at 565 yards. However just looking at the scope, there is no way at knowing if it is on its 100 yard zero, or the 565 yard zero. So I have to dial it down to my zero stop, then back up to my 100 yard zero to be sure.

 

[hk dave]

Re: SWFA 3-9x42mm and Nightforce 2.5-10x32mm

I didn't realize the non Zero Stop Nightforce turret design is the same as the Zero Stop. I figured it was similar to the SWFA with the marks that make your position obvious.

If that is the case, I'd def want zero stop on the Nightforce scope. I'd be lost without it.

 

[azimutha]

Re: SWFA 3-9x42mm and Nightforce 2.5-10x32mm

hk_dave, having done the same comparison I agree with what you wrote. I haven't really noticed that the NF 2.5-10X32 is hard to get behind and the turrets on the SS 3-9 were mushy on the scope I had. The NF compact turret design is nice, especially in the mil version (no caps to remove and a little larger) but the lack of a turn indicator makes zero-stop essential.

If price is taken out of the equation, I'd favor the NF for its compactness and a more refined design. Or if I needed illum. FFP or SFP isn't much of a factor to me in scopes 10X and under. But with price factored in the SS 3-9 is what I'd go with. If it had been available at the time I bought my NF I wouldn't own one, although it's a nice scope to be stuck with! Having used and owned Premiers (currently running the 3-15 LT) and the SS 5-20 with its HD glass, I'm no longer impressed with NF glass. If SWFA comes out with an FFP SS 3-12 HD that's illuminated and keep the size down (maybe a 42mm objective) for less than $1500 I'd hardly look at anything else.

 

[lennyo3034]

Re: SWFA 3-9x42mm and Nightforce 2.5-10x32mm

I haven't tried the 3-9 SS, but do have 2.5-10X32 ZS Nightforce, a few notes about it:

1. I love the velocity reticle. It is perfect for factory 175gr GMM and I'm trying to tune handloads to it.

2. ZS is absolutely necessary for this reticle. I set the zero stop at its 100 yard zero (at the main crosshairs). When I use the velocity reticle, I turn it to the 200 yard zero which is exactly 2 MOA in my case. I could have set the ZS at the 200 yard zero, but it find it easier to use when dialing to start from 100 yards.

3. I like how small it is, however it is very heavy for it's size. I replaced a 4.5-14X40 Mark 4 with it, and the Mark 4 was noticeably lighter. I chose it over the SS because of it's size. I wanted to keep it as low as possible on an M1a, and the tapered design of the eyepiece allows me clear the rear sight. I would have had to mount the SS much higher due to the large eyepiece.

4. The glass is very good, but can not compare to big 50mm objective scopes. I don't expect it to. I really like how there is no tunneling on it as I use 2.5X a lot.

5. Its built like a Nightforce, no explanation needed.

 

[hk dave]

Re: SWFA 3-9x42mm and Nightforce 2.5-10x32mm

Agreed, if price was not a factor, I'd choose the Nightforce. If the Nighforce with Zero Stop and Mil Adjustments came in at say... $1000 or so, i'd choose it over the SWFA, but at $1549, the SWFA gets my money every time from now on.

If SWFA does come out with a FFP SS 3-12 HD with illumination at 42mm objective, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't look elsewhere myself.

What would also be cool, which probably wont happen, is an illuminated 1.8-8x scope.