Rifle Scopes SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

[Hokie]

Original Review of the SWFA 1-4HD: LINK


Hello all. Here is a blue collar comparison of seven low power variable scopes. A friend of mine let me borrow them so I could spread the good word across this great nation of ours. I'm simply giving my personal observations with regards to glass quality, construction, reticle design, illumination, price, etc. I didn’t put any rounds downrange with these scopes. This is soley based on my handling and comparing them to each other. Moreover, this is a review of how they stack up to the SS 1-4 HD. Simply looking to pay forward my time spent reading Snipershide. Cheers!

Pictured, from left to right:
BSA Cats Eye, Leatherwood CMR, Nightforce NXS 1-4 Mildot, Trijicon TR24 German #4, Vortex PST 1-4, Vortex Razor HD 1-4, and S&B 1.1-4 Short Dot. Up top is the SS 1-4 HD.

I'm of the opinion that a performance at 1X is extremely important, otherwise, why go with a 1X-4X at all? I'm also of the opinion that an AR15's usefulness is best served below a few hundred yards. Reticle design is paramount. That said, I think an accurized carbine is certainly capable beyond that range. Again, reticle design is paramount as is glass quality. To be able to do it all through a low power variable - that scope needs to cater to CQB type applications at 1X magnification yet boast some real legitimate benefits at 4X. Having the chance to weigh several scopes against each other I am absolutely in favor of the SS 1-4 HD. I'll do my best to explain why. For a general purpose low power variable scope, the SS exceeds every option I’d want to ride my carbines.

First - the comparisons. Cut and pasted specs from each company’s page. Mind you these are just my opinions, nothing more.

BSA Catseye:

*I wrote the specs on this one…
Weight (oz): fat hamster
Length (in): skid mark
Eye Relief (in): not far enough
Field of View @ 100yds (ft): thumb’s width
Exit Pupil (mm): wtf does it even matter, really
MOA: 1 click = 16” oak tree
Lens Coating: Lard
Warranty: Couldn’t pay me to mail it in.

This rubberized paper towel roll sucks so bad; I had a hard time taking pictures of it. The illumination broke, the reticle is canted, and the glass is speckled with toenail grit from the floor of a low budget Chinese factory. The glare off the ocular requires you to wear sunglasses. It never made it back inside the house. It's 20 something feet into the treeline. Hit an oak and careened off into a hemlock. It will probably stay there unless it offends the wildlife and gets thrown back through my kitchen window. Priced at $75 or something....it's the perfect scope for a pellet rifle or spitball straw. Compared to the SS, this scope should be crushed, melted, and recycled into Butler Creek flip up scope covers.

Leatherwood CMR:

Weight (oz):16.5
Length (in):10.2
Eye Relief (in):3
Field of View @ 100yds (ft):94.8 - 26.2
Exit Pupil (mm):11.1 - 6
MOA:1/2
Lens Coating: Diamond TuFF14
Warranty: Limited Lifetime

I don’t feel like writing too much on this one. The value is primarily with its cost. It’s made in China. Unmistakably feels less quality compared to some of the other optics in the line up. Most of my hesitation lies with the fit and finish. Pretty sure it wouldn’t take much to mar the coating on this optic. The reticle is overly complicated in my opinion. The illumination is green and isn’t consistently bright across the horseshoe. Not daytime visible. Worth it? For an affordable entry level “tactical” scope under $300? Absolutely. As for how the CMR compares to the SS, it really doesn’t on any level. It’s a fraction of the SS at a fraction of the price. Still, I think the CMR has its place although for the money I’d probably want a reputable traditional scope over a budget tactical option. That’s just me though. YMMV.

Trijicon Accupoint TR24-3G:

Magnification 1x-4x
Objective Size 24
Bullet Drop Compensator No
Length (In) 10.3
Weight (oz) 14.4
Illumination Source Fiber Optics & Tritium
Reticle Pattern German #4 Crosshair
Day Reticle Color Green
Night Reticle Color Green
Eye Relief 3.2
Exit Pupil 17.5 to 5.1
Field of View @ 100 yards (ft) 97.5 to 24.2
Adjustment @ 100 yards (clicks/in) 4
Tube Size 30mm

Who doesn’t have some love for the Accupoint? It’s a great scope, great glass, with great incorporation of fiber optics to boast constant illumination regardless of ambient light. I will say that should one want a TR24, the triangle version is the only way to roll. At 1X, where reticle design matters most…the TR24’s primary advantage is its fiber optic. Otherwise, the scope has no substantial mojo over other scopes on the market. The triangle, mind you, is truly an incredible option for daytime shooting below 200/300 yards. Some use it well out to 400. Beyond point blank range, the reticle usefulness nosedives unless you know the range and want to mess with the turrets. Some do some don’t. Once the night falls, I don’t think the tritium does much for you outside of adding some contrast to the reticle. Once you touch off a weapon light – the reticle goes black. Manual illumination matters and Trijicon doesn’t employ the technology. Whereas the TR24 is certainly daytime savvy, the SS is night and daytime savvy. Where its daylight illumination level (setting #11) may not gleam like the Accupoint, the black reticle jumps right out and contrasts extremely well. At night, the SS is the obvious choice. Compared to the TR24, the SS has equal or better glass. The TR24 is a great choice, but I think the SS is a better option in a general 1X-4X. It’s simply more versatile. On an AR15, I feel the TR24 isn’t the 24/7 optic everyone wants it to be. I feel the SS is. No disrespect to the Accupoint though. I love that optic. I have a 3-9 on my deer rifle. That fiber optic reticle is such a bonus for a deer hunter.

With those three options out of the way, we can concentrate on some better optics that are worth a deeper evaluation and comparison to the SS 1-4 HD. I believe the following five scopes all machine their tubes from solid bar stock 6061-T6 aircraft-grade aluminum alloy. So let’s assume construction is on par. All adjustments and moving components on the following optics are also comparable and do not offer a real advantage over the other. Not that I can tell anyway. There may be some stark differences internally – but everything works as advertised. The real differences between the following are in the glass quality and reticle design.

Nightforce NXS 1-4 NXS Compact Mil Dot:

Magnification: 1-4x
Objective Diameter: 24mm
Exit Pupil Diameter: 16mm @ 1x 6mm @ 4x
Field Of View: 100ft @ 1x 25ft @4x
Eye Relief: 3.5in (90mm)
Internal Adjustment Range: 100moa elev. 100moa wind.
Click Value: .250moa
Tube Diameter: 30mm (1.18in)
Ocular Diameter: 33mm
Mounting Length: 5.4in
Weight: 17oz (1-4x)
Overall Length: 8.8in
Reticles: NP-1, FC-2, Mil-Dot

Nightforce Optics has a well known reputation for heavy duty construction. No argument here. It’s a compact rugged option, for certain. I’m also convinced there’s a reason they don’t call themselves Dayforce Optics. The hollowed out reticles are damn near invisible for practical ranges that justify 1X-4X variable scopes. Frankly, the NXS 1-4 Mil Dot sucks at 1X. Up close, I really like the FC-2 option for daytime use as its design clearly inspired the SS. Even so, the FC-2 doesn’t offer much in the way of precise aiming past the 5.56 cartridge’s point blank range. I went with the Mil Dot here to compare against the SS’s FFP reticle. At 4X, the NF offers absolutely no discernable advantage over the SS. In fact, I find the NF’s reticle to bleed/bloom while illuminated. I also find the SS to have better glass, comparatively. The glass quality of the NXS is great, but not SS great. The SS is exceptionally crisp and bright. That bump in clarity makes the SS’s crosshairs really sharp. The SS has horizontal stadia as opposed to mil dots. I like that myself. By my account the SS blows the NXS Mil Dot away at 1X and outperforms it at 4X. Comparing it to the FC-2 version at 1X, the SS is comparable but blows it away at 4X. Construction wise, I couldn’t tell which optic appears stronger. They’re both very robust optics. Overall I’m of the opinion the SS is a better scope than the NF, regardless of what reticle the NF is wearing. Considering the SS lists at $800 vs. $1100+/-…the decision is an easy one.

 

[Hokie]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics


Vortex PST 1-4X24:

Magnification 1-4 x
Objective Lens Diameter 24 mm
Eye Relief 4 inches
Field of View 98-27.5 feet/100 yards
Tube Size 30 mm
Turret Style Tall Uncapped - CRS Zero Stop
Adjustment Graduation .2 mrads
Max Elevation Adjustment 64 mrads
Max Windage Adjustment 64 mrads
Parallax Setting 100 yards
Length 9.7 inches
Weight 16 ounces

I’d have to say that comparing the SS to the Vortex PST and Razor was the cornerstone of my enthusiasm on this follow up review. Everyone’s looking to save a few bucks and get the best value in an optic. With a $300 price difference, the PST is rockn’ and rollin’ through the industry. With the PST in hand I can understand why. It’s a nice scope for $500. That said, there are some aspects of the PST that highlight some key disadvantages if one is to compare it to the SS.

First, the glass quality. Between the two the differences are noticeable. If one is to take the two and look through them back to back – it’s very evident that the SS is a brighter and crisper experience. Does this matter? At extended ranges it sure does.

Second, the reticle. The PST hit the market with a SFP reticle design that allows the shooter some boldness at 1X and some precision at 4X. The SFP of course stays the same size through the magnification whereas the FFP grows and shrinks. It is with the reticle comparison that I draw my primary bias for the SS. At 1X the PST’s broken circle and lack of horizontal and vertical posts focus your attention at 1X on the 4 black quadrants. Not many scopes even approach the PST/SS’ CQB intentions with their reticle…so to that end the PST is a winner. Compared to the SS however, the PST grossly falls short with regards to speed. I also don't understand why Vortex felt compelled to etch the reticle's name into the glass. Is it there to remind the shooter in the event he forgets?

Third, the illumination. Brightness is on par with each other. However, simply stated the SS’ reticle has more real estate – and to that end is brighter. The red is almost neon. Both reticles are daylight “practical” and will light up against most backgrounds. Both rheostats will last at full brightness for a healthy work day, patrol, coyote hunt, or stroll through the local zombie park. All said and done if the illumination went dead…you’d better hope you had the best bold black reticle design on the market. Pictures speak a thousand words:

(4X zoom through 1X magnification on the scopes)

PST’s reticle

SS’ reticle

The turrets and calibration of the PST are nice. It has .2 mrad adjustments as opposed to the SS’ .1 adjustment. Big deal? On a 1X-4X variable...not really, but I'd make the case that more precision potential is a good thing.. The rest of the comparisons are worth noting, but aren’t deal breakers. I like the Spartan simplicity of the SS’ construction over the PST. Less is more as far as I’m concerned. PST added some bells n’ whistles that I feel are neat, but not necessary for a rugged knock around AR scope. I also like how the SS has a deep 5/8” objective over the glass as a protective measure and sunshade. I like the infinite adjustability of the ocular. Takes a spell to get it right, but once you do – it’s amazing. The PST is faster to adjust, admittedly. The PST has no locking mechanism either, which is a detriment IMHO. All said and done, I won’t knock the PST because it’s a great option at $500. Still, comparatively…the SS is a better scope with better glass, better construction, and a much better reticle. Worth $300 more? Yes. The SS is in a different, and higher, tier than the PST.

 

[Hokie]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics



Vortex Razor 1-4 HD:

Magnification 1-4 x
Objective Lens Diameter 24 mm
Eye Relief 3.9 inches
Field of View 94.5-24.2 feet/100 yards
Tube Size 30 mm
Turret Style Tall Uncapped
Adjustment Graduation 1/4 MOA
Max Elevation Adjustment 200 MOA
Max Windage Adjustment 200 MOA
Parallax Setting 100 yards
Length 10.3 inches
Weight 20.2 ounces

In my opinion the Vortex Razor is the only Vortex optic that can truly be compared to the level of quality and finish I think is now owned by the SS 1-4 HD. This review will be brief. The glass quality rivals that of the SS in terms of noticeable brightness and impressive clarity. The construction of the Razor itself is also nice. Same bells and whistles as the PST, but more refined. The turrets are fatter than the SS and PST, and are real tight to the point where it’s a bitch to manipulate. Not a problem leaning over the gun but concentrating on a target at 4X will shift your FOV significantly. The Razor also has ¼ MOA adjustments, which I don’t personally care for.

As for the reticle, there is no comparison…as there’s nothing to compare! The EBR-556 confuses me. It’s invisible at 1X and too clustered for my liking at 4X. I think the Vortex had some great intentions with the EBR-556, but it’s lost on me. If one wanted a precision reticle in a 1X-4X scope, they should have kept it SFP and beefed up the horizontal and vertical stadia. Its too late though as SS beat them to the punch with their crosshair reticle option.

Even with the Razor’s level of quality which rivals the SS more so than the PST, I’d rather have a PST than a Razor. Still, I’d much rather have a SS than either!

Schmidt & Bender 1.1-4 Short Dot:

Magnification: 1.1 - 4x
Field of view @ 100m: 10m - 32m
Exit pupil: 14mm - 5.5mm
Eye relief: min 85mm
Light transmission: min 85% day & night
Diopter setting: +2 to -3
Elevation increments: 1/2 MOA per click
Elevation range: 26 MOA
Windage increments: 1/2 MOA per click
Windage range: ±13 MOA

I have to admit, I was anticipating being blown away by the $2,000+ tactical superiority of the coveted S&B 1.1X-4X Short Dot. I’m not, at all. While the S&B boasts some significant advantages with its illumination and innovative turret construction, I find it grossly lacking in terms of glass quality and reticle design. I might get hung out to dry on this one by the general public, but having had the opportunity to mess around with the S&B – I don’t want one.

The turrets are cool though in that you lift them up to turn them. They’re on a spring system which automatically locks them into place. It has ½ MOA adjustments…which again, I don’t care for. Otherwise the construction is all that it should be. The S&B is certainly heavier than the other options too.

With all the smoke & mirrors out of the way, what you pay for in the Short Dot is daytime illumination akin to an Aimpoint. This particular aspect intrigued me so I spent some time with it. Stacked up to an Aimpoint H-1 at its highest setting, the S&B’s max brightness was one illumination below it. The SS’ illumination was one brightness setting below that.

What’s that mean? It means the H-1 and S&B are daylight visible. The H-1 has an edge though with that extra setting which gets you a visible red dot in the event you’re aiming directly into the sun. The S&B is daylight visible under every venue. I’d like to think that bright sun beaten snow at high noon on a cloudless day is about as bright a background one could encounter. The SS blackens out under these circumstances but the bold reticle takes over and delivers a better contrasting design than the H-1 and S&B. For what it’s worth, I’d rather have a black reticle on bright backgrounds instead of experimenting with what will and what won’t wash out.

I also noticed that at 1X magnification, the S&B’s reticle is essentially useless without the red dot. It’s too fine a FFP crosshair with a hollow frame to be of any practical use. You need the dot which means you need the battery. Not sure I like that dependency. Beyond the 1X issues, the glass quality is bluish and dull. I find the quality of glass compared to the SS to be … well, horrible. The crosshair thickness at 4X seems to lack the level of precision the SS has as well.

S&B and H-1 at full brightness:

So, in summary – the SS 1-4 HD has construction, glass, and reticle advantages that set it far ahead of every low power variable optic I’ve had the pleasure of evaluating. At $800, the scope is not only a superior scope, but it’s a great bargain. The SS doesn’t have to compete with any scope on the market. Other scopes have to compete with the SS.

For me…I have a 14.5” carbine with an Aimpoint, and a 16” with a SS 1-4 HD. It’s all I want and all I need. With its unique FFP reticle design, high quality glass, and rugged design, it does everything the shooter could want. After perusing AR15.com for over 10 years, I’ve read and contributed to threads and endless discussion on what would constitute the perfect 1X-4X scope for the AR. Heck at one time a true 1X magnification level was a pipe dream! But here are in 2011…and SWFA hit the nail on the head with the introduction of the SS line of HD optics. It’s evolution in motion. I truly feel this scope is the best representation of over 10 years of industry feedback.

Hope this helps. If I missed anything or didn’t touch on a particular aspect, I apologize! Thanks for taking the time to read.

 

[senator.giles]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Thanks for this review! I was pretty sure that I was gonna get a SS 1x4, but now I am certain. I like that this is written for blue collared folk--makes it easier for me to comprehend at the end of the day......or the beginning or middle for that matter.
Oh, and thanks for the bsa review. I've been looking for more precision from my spit ball shooter!

 

[bigsteve]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Well I had a little coffee shoot out the nose and on my keyboard while reading your BSA "spec" sheet. Funny stuff and good review.

 

[chalwie]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Thanks for the well-written review. Did you actually buy all those optics? Great information.

 

[jwaj]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Nice review. I'm in the market for one of these and it answered a few questions I had. Thanks...

 

[trophyhunter]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Hokie great review and very valuable information on choosing a scope. I'm in the market to pick a short range 1-4x and you have almost narrowed all my choices. I have only one other scope in mind and would like your opinion on it. Its the IOR Pitbull, before I get chewed i've read countless articles on it some bad and some great. I love the huge field of view and very clear glass. Its not that much more than the SS, so price is not a big factor. It has a BDC reticle which in some views awesome and others a hindering factor. Help me decide ??

thanks again for your input
Gilbert

 

[Redmanss]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

A very concise and well written review, and the comparative pictures really help those of us without each individual optic in front of us make our own judgments too.

Thank you and job well done!

 

[Jinta]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Thank you for taking time to post the review. Photos showing different reticles are really benefitial. I've been thinking about buying one of the 1-4 type scope.

 

[tarugs]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

I'm in the market for a 1-4 and this review helps a lot in my buying decision, got it narrowed down to two. Thank you for posting.

 

[Prairie Dog Dundee]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: trophyhunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hokie great review and very valuable information on choosing a scope. I'm in the market to pick a short range 1-4x and you have almost narrowed all my choices. I have only one other scope in mind and would like your opinion on it. Its the IOR Pitbull, before I get chewed i've read countless articles on it some bad and some great. I love the huge field of view and very clear glass. Its not that much more than the SS, so price is not a big factor. It has a BDC reticle which in some views awesome and others a hindering factor. Help me decide ??

thanks again for your input
Gilbert </div></div>

I think we would all agree that the reason we want a 1-4 optic is to maximize the effectiveness of our rifles from CQB range out to midrange, (which I define as 700 yards, YMMV) in all lighting conditions. Some designs excel at one or the other end of the range spectrum but fail at the other. The same can be said of light conditions. If our rifles and ammunitions’ capabilities exceed those of our optics we have shorted ourselves. Like you I considered the Pitbull and while I have never used one I decided against it because of the DBC reticle. In my experience the mildot can serve as a BDC and is superior for precision shooting when coupled with accurate mil adjustment on the turrets. I have not found the DBC reticles as well suited for precision shooting or as accurate for range estimation. Many 1-4 optics lack good target style turrets or mil adjustments. In my view they are not superfluous.

I own or have owned an ACOG, Trijicon TR24 and SWFA SS 1-4 HD and have used the Burris TAC30 and Vortex 1-4 PST and by far prefer the SS 1-4 HD with the Vortex coming in a distant second. I have over a thousand round through rifles using the SS 1-4 HD from 25 yards out to 800 yards and believe it to have the best combination of features and quality to meet the requirements of the 1-4 optic. I have timed it and scored it against an Aimpoint from 25-100 yards and found it would keep up with the Aimpoint under 50 yards and out score it between 50-100 yards. Below are some photos of medium range targets. The industry has introduced some outstanding advances in the last few years in low powered variable optics. The dominance of the lower powered fix magnification and red dot scopes may be drawing to a close. It is an interesting time to be a shooter.

The scope used on both rifles was the SWFA SS 1-4X24 HD
LMT MWS 700 yards
[img
LMT MWS 700 yards second group
Uploaded with ImageShack.usimg]
[img
Freakishly small group fired with Colt M4 at 500 yards
Uploaded with ImageShack.usimg]

[img

Uploaded with ImageShack.usimg]

Close up of M4 500 yard group
[img

Uploaded with ImageShack.usimg]

M4 at 600 yards
[img

Uploaded with ImageShack.us img]
M4 at 700 yards
[img

Uploaded with ImageShack.usimg]

 

[EXSOCAL]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Well, I bit the proverbial bullet and placed my order for the SS 1-4x... Time to see how this stacks up against my TA11H-G ACOG at some run n' gun!

Thanks for the review!

 

[Swift]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

How come no Nikon or Leupy .223 scopes?

 

[Prairie Dog Dundee]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How come no Nikon or Leupy .223 scopes? </div></div>

The man took his own time to round up scopes that were available to him and took the photos and did the write up. He did this for free for the benefit of others. He states he got the scopes from friends. Yet someone complains? ROund them up and do your own review!

 

[prplhaz72]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Awesome review, thanks for taking the time to do that. I have two of the SS 1-4xs and have enough saved up for number 3 for my Marlin 45-70. I just cannot say enough good about this scope. I also have a 10x HD. I cannot wait for the 5-20x to come out. I have a feeling it is going to rewrite the rules once again.

 

[BW88]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Hokie, very nice job! Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I've been looking at 1-4 scopes, manhandled a few, and read a bunch. I agree, the 1 power usefullness is the cornerstone of this type of scope's application. If it isn't top notch at 1X, what's the point?

One counterpoint I'd proffer:
While I can't speak to glass clarity or quality, I do favor the reticle of the Viper PST over the SFWA. With practice/training and experience, we generally notice the eye naturally centers the target in the scope. I've found heavy or thick reticles to be overkill and distracting in practical use. I prefer the unobstructed view of a simple reticle when holding surveillance and shooting at distance. When reacting to up-close-and personl targets, the thick/heavy lines are unnecessary as your eye naturally finds the center and puts the target there--the circle, broken circle, or dot are perfect.

Both scopes appear to have very good CQB/Entry reticles (Circle and broken circle with dot type) when compared to other 1-4 scopes; although, I'm sure most would choose a dedicated Aimpoint or Eotech for close work.

I'm no expert on weapons or optics but I do have leo related training and op experience to draw my opinion from.

Thanks again for putting all this information and review together as I found it very helpful.

 

[BIPMaster]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigsteve</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well I had a little coffee shoot out the nose and on my keyboard while reading your BSA "spec" sheet. Funny stuff and good review.
</div></div>

Length = Skid Mark. LMAO

 

[athhud]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

I do wish the bars and circle in my SS reticle were thinner, but that is my ONLY complaint. They addressed the biggest issue in the reticle update. Makes me regret getting the early model.....

 

[BW88]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Athhud, what changes have they made to the reticle?

Are the exposed turrets stiff enough to prevent unintended turning during hard use and movement slung over a plate carrier and kit? Would the covered turrets be better for this type of use?

 

[athhud]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

They removed the short thinner lines that were between the circle and the thicker lines on the outer portion of the reticle.

 

[Scottyman]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Here's the new reticle at 4X.
I apologize for the terrible pic.
I cannot for the life of me take a decent pic of the reticle. Using a Nikon D90/50mm. How do you guys do it?

 

[pickpick]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

tag

 

[Pat Thomas]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

tag

 

[dcjs]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scottyman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the new reticle at 4X.
I apologize for the terrible pic.
I cannot for the life of me take a decent pic of the reticle. Using a Nikon D90/50mm. How do you guys do it?</div></div>
Set the camera to aperture priority (A), set the aperture to f/11 or f/16 and up the ISO value until you get a decent shutter speed. You were using f/5 and 1/250s in the image at ISO 200. A 50mm lens at f/5 will result in an entrance pupil of 10mm, wichih is bigger than the exip pupil of the scope. Not good. In good daylight, it is no ptroblem pushing the ISO value in exchange for stopping down the lens and thus reducing the entrance pupil.

 

[Scottyman]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scottyman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the new reticle at 4X.
I apologize for the terrible pic.
I cannot for the life of me take a decent pic of the reticle. Using a Nikon D90/50mm. How do you guys do it?</div></div>
Set the camera to aperture priority (A), set the aperture to f/11 or f/16 and up the ISO value until you get a decent shutter speed. You were using f/5 and 1/250s in the image at ISO 200. A 50mm lens at f/5 will result in an entrance pupil of 10mm, wichih is bigger than the exip pupil of the scope. Not good. In good daylight, it is no ptroblem pushing the ISO value in exchange for stopping down the lens and thus reducing the entrance pupil. </div></div>

Thanks! I'll give it a try.
Alright. I finally was able to get a somewhat decent pic.
Camera/head position is soooo critical at 4X. Very frustrating.

[img:center]

[/img]

2X was much easier to get a pic.
[img:center]

[/img]

 

[hyena74]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

just ordered a ss based off this. finally, ill have my ar complete after 2 years

 

[elephantrider]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Anybody know the reason for the circle reticel change? The newer version is possibly a little less clutterd on 4x? Not sure which one I would prefer.

 

[gathumper]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

I really appreciate the review, helped me out quite a bit. I need more friends like yours!!!

 

[PeterN]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Great review. Ihave two NFs. One is a 2.5-10 and the other is a 5.5-22x50. Happy with them except for reticle thickness (too thin). These excellent pictures show the differences. Hopefully someone at Nightforce follows this site.

 

[longmj82]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

Regarding the SWFA 1-4, at 1x, does it have the same eye relief? I haven't had a chance to be hands-on with one yet, and I'd like to know just how similar it is to a red dot at 1x. Also, how feasible is shooting with both eyes open?

For me, the ideal situation would be that there is only a fixed eye relief when you are at something other than 1x to facilitate easy both eyes open shooting.

 

[swamp2]

Re: SWFA SS 1-4HD compared to a few other optics

<span style="font-weight: bold">Great</span> comparo Hookie. Thanks so much. Really nice broad work you accomplished and contributed. It would be immensely valuable as well to have a similar comparison among some of the new/upcoming 1-6x/1-8x options:

-SWFA SS 1-6x
-Leupold Mark 6 1-6x
-Swarovski Z6i 1-6x
-Bushnell Elite Tactical CQB 1-6.5x
-Schmidt and Bender PMII Short Dot 1-8x ?
-US Optics SN-8? 1-8x (true, built in, optional reflex sight?)
-??

As others have said the low power variable market is really heating up here. Will be very interesting to see if SWFA can stay on top.

Of course I realize that most of the scopes here were donated/borrowed for the comparison. I also realize it probably could not be until summer at the earliest when all competitors will be available.