With all the positive talk about SWFA's scopes around here, I'm tempted to buy one with the great deals going now.....but....I never saw one in person, and the "hollow" diamond shaped mil reticle doesn't appeal to me. Is it something that has to be used to be appreciated, or does it grow on you? I generally like MLR better than dots as it is. Thanks-
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes SWFA reticle ok?
- Thread starter Fatelvis
- Start date
I have a mil quad reticle in a 5-20x50mm SWFA and I think the reticle is my least favorite part of the scope. I mostly shoot groups at 100-300 yards and for that the triangle is not ideal. The scope however is very good other than that. Compared to the Bushnell 3.5x21 the SS bests it in terms of optical quality. I think I prefer the turrets on the Bushy but only sightly because of the push down to lock feature. Overall its not a bad reticle and depending on what you are going to do with it, it could be perfectly fine. But for precision shooting its not ideal but workable. I have mine on a 338 Lapua bolt gun and it seems to live up to the recoil fine also
Love my 5-20x50. The diamonds have dots in them to add precision when you're fully zoomed and i like the differentiation between the lines and diamonds. The lines are at the .5 mil marks and diamonds on every 1 mil.
For example, my .243 drops .4 mils at 200m, so I can hold over at the first line very quickly. At 300m it drops 1.1 mils, which is pretty much right on the first diamond. Easy to remember.
For example, my .243 drops .4 mils at 200m, so I can hold over at the first line very quickly. At 300m it drops 1.1 mils, which is pretty much right on the first diamond. Easy to remember.
Last edited:
Before I bought one with a mil quad reticle I was used to and preferred the NF's MLR and the vortex type with nearly the same set up over the mil-dot types. Once I started using the mil quad though, it grew on me. I actually prefer it now as I can mil to a finer degree and quicker. The diamonds are .2x.3 and offer a defined edge the dots types lack so it is easy to judge .1, .15, .2 and .3 quick. Also, it has smaller milling lines that are either .25 or .2 at the edges of the reticle. I dont mil often... one day at a rifle's only class and a few times at a match. Where I use it more is when hunting. It is easier to judge rack size on antlered animals or body size once you get the range from your laser rangefinder than stalking in to find out. YMMV...
I'm not a fan of the reticle, either. In fact, I sold my 5-20x because of the it. That said, it's a very useful reticle with no unnecessary frills. I just bought an SWFA 3-15x with the same reticle, so we'll see if I warm up to it more this time around.
I like the mil-quad reticle in my SS 3-15x. I shot a competition in the desert this summer with it. The more I use it, the more I understand the thought processes behind the design.
I love the mil quad, but then again I only had traditional mil-dot before. I can range much more precisely than with mil-dot.
IMO the mil quad is very precise, I used mil dot for years before I bought the SS 5-20 HD. After several thousand rounds I would not go back to the mil dot, in fact I just mounted a SS 3-15 on my LMT MWS and it's awesome, the reticle is a little different than the 5-20 (thicker) but measurements were the same so it was an easy transition.
i have put the 5-20 through its paces and it has performed flawless. I would suggest getting the parallax gripper as it's fairly stiff.
i have put the 5-20 through its paces and it has performed flawless. I would suggest getting the parallax gripper as it's fairly stiff.
Similar threads
