Rifle Scopes SWFA SS 1-6 or Razor 1-6?

[XTR]

I've searched and read a lot of threads and these threads can get tedious but comparing the two, I get that the Vortex is a great setup for 3 gun and I know how to use a reticle for holdover/holdoff but I've read comments to the effect that the two scopes really have different applications but I'm missing it somewhere.

I'm confident that both are good scopes. Both companies have good reputations, and I know the difference between FFP and SFP, but based on my shooting experience with this kind of scope I'd expect to be on 1x or 6x and not a lot in between (could be wrong there) so I don't get to wrapped in the FFP vs SFP difference.

Can someone explain where the two would be different and what applications they'd each excel or why the Vortex would be a better 3 gun reticle than the SS?

....

I'm looking for an optic for a flat top carbine, I know I don't want a single purpose unit like an ACOG but I've become accustomed to having a reticle that lets me hold over for stuff out to 400 on game and longer on targets, but I want one that still works on a CQB type target. (and I don't want to spend Swaro money, I've got one with a BRX reticle on my hunting rifle and love it but cnat justify a scope that costs that much for an AR that I shoot mostly for fun)

Thanks

 

[NoFail]

Me, I have SS 1-6, I am SWFA fan so I am inclined to be SS 1-6 biased. So I will not attemp to make any real comparison, besides I have nill vortex 1-6 gen 2 experience. I won't discount the vortex.

The SS 1-6 would be a fine scope for cqb, dangerous game type stuff at 1x. At 6x, & I agree with you I too find myself only intersted in the use of either 1x or 6x, but at 6x the mil scale application is obvious for what it is. Ranging or holdovers and all that.

I understand 1-6 gen 2 is daylight bright illumination. SS is not, I don't need it to be, really. It does work great as for if you are in daylight but pointing retical into shadows or dark backgrounds, that does matter too me and I am quite pleased with it.

SS 1-6 has some nice features you can appreciate. For $1k, and that IMO is a great feature itself, it's got to be hard to beat in this class. My general statement about the reticle is that it is BADASS!!

I never had a BDC type reticle. I was turned off by it when I had considered the IOR 2-12 Spartan. I was afraid of being limited to a specific bullet weight/velocity.

 

[XTR]

NoFail, the BDC thing is what bothers me about the Vortex. I got the Swaro for my hunting rifle because it is the only light weight hunting scope that has a true mil scale reticle and not someone's BDC that works with one bullet that I'll probably never shoot at one set of atmospherics. I'd much rather have my .5 mil hashes and dots and either have a dope card or just know where my drops were for 250, 300, 350 out to 500 or so. (I shoot a whole lot of F-TR and I know what wind you can't see does to a bullet past 600 yards, I don't take those shots on animals)


I'm leaning to the SS but just wondering what others experiences were.

 

[NoFail]

Well, okay, I'll name off some comparisons based in the specs of these two, but from memory.

SS is not all that light, 22.4 oz., but Gen 2 is even heavier, 25 something oz.

You know the illumination thing as I stated.

SS mil/mil, gen 2 MOA/MOA BDC

Gen 2 115' FOV @ 100 yds, 1x.
SS 95' FOV @ 100 yds, 1x.

Gen 2 quality glass, SS quality glass

SS turret caps, thread protectors I you wanna run without caps.
Turrets feel like quality, I'm no expert. Can't say a word about gen 2 since I don't know.

SS seems built with quality, again I no expert. I read review that gen 2 has high quality internals, maybe why it's so heavy?

Both 30mm tubes.

All this or most you probably know from your own research.
You also know SS $$ is hundreds less. And that right there, based on comparisons I am confident about talking about, and how I think the SS should be more useful to my needs (I don't do no 3 gun or anything like that) is a no brainer.
I was all over it, the SS, had to wait for it, it is well worth it.

It's on my semi auto LR-308, mounted in a BOBRO slightly extended, also well worth it.

 

[42769vette]

For me personally I would not want FFP on a scope that goes down to 1x. Like most things in optics that's personal preference. For me FFP on the swfa is the deal breaker.

 

[Bedlam]

For me personally I would not want FFP on a scope that goes down to 1x. Like most things in optics that's personal preference. For me FFP on the swfa is the deal breaker.

While I understand that point of view, it really depends on the reticle. SWFA has specifically designed their reticle to work well at 1x and 6x. They have taken advantage of how FFP works to provide you with two different reticles. At 1x you have a donut with crosshairs in the middle; that's an excellent reticle for 1x. At 6x the donut disappears and you have MIL hash marks show up in the cross hairs for holdovers and to hold for wind. I've personally taken shots out to 750 yards with it. Perfect for 6x.

So really, it's the best of both worlds, and I hope you'll take a second look at it before simply judging it based on 1x and FFP alone. Instead of FFP, think of it more as a dual reticle scope optimized for each end of the magnification range.

I'm an MOA shooter yet I picked up this MIL-only scope just because it works so well. The great glass and great price are cherries on top. If only there was an MOA version, it would be perfect for me.

 

[NoFail]

If the SS was not FFP the retical would not work like it is supposed to, meant to.

 

[beenjammin]

The SS is superior. I love mine. I dont know why vortex went with a BDC reticle ? If they had just left it like the PST versions with a usable reticle I would have gone vortex.