Rifle Scopes Vortex 2.5-10x32 vs SWFA 3-9x42

[RiverRatMatt]

I'm narrowing down my options for a hunting/500m scope for my ultralight .30-06.

These two seem to be perfect for my application. Both FFP, both are a great mag range, both 18-19oz.

I tend to prefer SWFA over Vortex (love my SS HD 5-20x50). But the Vortex does offer a little wider focal range and is smaller. I don't care about illumination and I love both MRAD reticles. The SWFA's 42mm objective will be better in low light but not by a huge margin. SWFA is slightly cheaper but it's not that big of an issue.

The Vortex seems pretty new vs the SWFA's proven track record.

What do you guys think?

 

[BobinNC]

I think you've already made your decision. If Illumination or lack thereof is not a consideration, the rest of your logic is impeccable. Go with the SWFA....

Though I would at least take a gander at Burris's new XTRII 2-10x42mm. It's price is in the same ballpark, and it's 34mm FFP scope Mil/Mil non illuminated, although it's weight is a bit more than you may want..

 

[RFutch]

To me it's simple. Japan > Philippines.

 

[RiverRatMatt]

The Vortex is made in the Philippines? I know some of their stuff is Japanese...

If so that would decide it in favor of the SWFA.

 

[RFutch]

The Vortex is made in the Philippines? I know some of their stuff is Japanese...

If so that would decide it in favor of the SWFA.

Yes the entire PST line is Philippines.

 

[Voltron]

I'd probably go with the SWFA. You will get what you want in the scope, and you won't be paying extra for stuff you don't want. Sounds like a win win with the SWFA.

 

[Rockhopper]

i chose the vortex. couldnt be happier. it is an amazing optic.

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

I've owned both, I still own the SS (x3). The PST has more features and that one has very good glass, but I think the reticle and quality feel are much better on the SS (opinion), and it also has a terrific field of view at 9x (tangible fact). I found the PST exit pupil a bit small at 10x and would end up with 8-9x in most lighting conditions, cancelling out the benefit. The PST reticle was too fine for me at 2.5x, while the SS was entirely useable at 3x. In fairness, the SS has some tunneling below 4x, and its fixed parallax is not ideal at very close or long distances. But, IMHO, if you need more precision or magnification the SS, you really need more scope than that PST. (like, hint hint cough cough, the Bushnell 3-12x44.)

 

[South tx]

I'm loving the bushnell elite tacticals, 3-12x44 and 3.5-21x50. I never wanted anything to do with bushnell until I got these scopes. Ditched my mark 4s and ss

 

[BCP]

I've had both, still have the Vortex but I would buy another SWFA 3-9 too if I found a deal. Say 450$ used.

 

[BCP]

I'm loving the bushnell elite tacticals, 3-12x44 and 3.5-21x50. I never wanted anything to do with bushnell until I got these scopes. Ditched my mark 4s and ss

Those two scopes are ridiculously good considering their prices on the used market.

 

[RFutch]

I had a Bushnell 3-12x44 and sold it. The eyebox was extremely tight on 12x compared to my other scopes. My eye had to be perfectly straight behind the scope or the reticle would disappear. Everything else about it was great though.

 

[South tx]

I had a Bushnell 3-12x44 and sold it. The eyebox was extremely tight on 12x compared to my other scopes. My eye had to be perfectly straight behind the scope or the reticle would disappear. Everything else about it was great though.

I like to try to always be straight on the scope when I shoot

 

[3DHUSKER]

That is easy....... SWFA SS

 

[CSTactical]

Vortex PST.


I agree with BobinNC about looking at the Burris XTR II 2.5-10x42mm. The scope feels really good in the hands, the turrets are very positive, glass is clean, lot of elevation in the turrets do to the 34mm tube, and the 34mm just makes the scope look bad ass.




Mike @ CSTACTICAL

 

[RiverRatMatt]

Vortex 2.5-10x32 vs SWFA 3-9x42

I'm really liking the Bushnell 3-12x44 with the G2DMR reticle. A bit heavier but... That reticle...

Where is it made?


How is the glass on that Burris compared to the Bushnell and SWFA? Where is it made?

 

[South tx]

The bushnell elite tactical are jap made

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

I'm really liking the Bushnell 3-12x44 with the G2DMR reticle. A bit heavier but... That reticle...

Where is it made?

How is the glass on that Burris compared to the Bushnell and SWFA? Where is it made?

That Bushnell is made in Japan. It's an amazing scope for about the same price as the PST.

I don't have that Burris but I have the 1-5x gen2 XTR and it has excellent glass and everything for the price. The 2-10x XTRII would be another good choice in this price range.... but I see some minor drawbacks:
-no illumination compared to PST or BTR-MIL in the Bushnell
-mildot with 1/2 mil hashes vs. all-hash reticles in the others
-34mm tube means you can spend $120+ on rings or go with cheapo Burris rings; all others are 30mm which gives you lots more options at sub-$100 prices.

 

[3DHUSKER]

From Vortex 2.5-10x32 vs SWFA 3-9x42 to

I like about every kind of optic there is........ That is where this thread has gone.

I love the..... it looks bad ass so you need this one, and it does mind you but every tactical scope looks bad ass "Everyone wants to be operator as f@#k" Entertaining for sure.

 

[Tactical]

Question was asked between Vortex and SWFA. I would go with 3-9 SWFA. I have used one since they came out and very good scope. I prefer a 3.5-10 MK4 M2 Leupold for my hunting rifles though

 

[deadnbrkn84]

Vortex

/Thread

 

[CSTactical]

I really like the New Bushnell reticle.

 

[RiverRatMatt]

Question was asked between Vortex and SWFA. I would go with 3-9 SWFA. I have used one since they came out and very good scope. I prefer a 3.5-10 MK4 M2 Leupold for my hunting rifles though

Why do you prefer the 3.5-10 Leupold?

Currently it's between the 3-9x42 SWFA and the Bushnell 3-12x44. Leaning toward the SWFA due to the 5 oz saved in weight.

The other question I have about the Bushnell is how useable are the .1 mil hash marks with a 12x maximum? Seems like they'd be more useful on a 20x+ optic.

 

[Tactical]

I prefer the MK4 because I have custom dials made for my rifle that allow for instant adjustments for where I am shooting. The BDC is not perfect but close enough to dump anything to 700 yards with my 308. I know where and when I typically hunt has a one moa shift up at 100 yards from my average home 100 yard zero. I just dial down one moa from normal home zero and then take off home BDC knob. Then install my needed BDC and I am ready to go. Of course I still need to make a slight adjustment for fine shooting but minute of a pig is taken care of.

Lastly the Leupold has numbers big enough for me to see up close without wearing reading glasses. The 3-9 SWFA does not. I hate old age

Why do you prefer the 3.5-10 Leupold?

Currently it's between the 3-9x42 SWFA and the Bushnell 3-12x44. Leaning toward the SWFA due to the 5 oz saved in weight.

The other question I have about the Bushnell is how useable are the .1 mil hash marks with a 12x maximum? Seems like they'd be more useful on a 20x+ optic.

 

[Tactical]

I like that reticle also.

I really like the New Bushnell reticle.