OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Scopes > Tactical Scopes
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - New SWFA SS 3-15x42 FFP
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

New SWFA SS 3-15x42 FFP

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 9>
Author
Message
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/09/2013 at 16:36
Originally posted by Sparky Sparky wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Originally posted by Sparky Sparky wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:



and makes it a little easire to deliver good optical quality on a budget.

ILya


Interesting. I have a hunch why that is but why guess when I can ask an expert.

Oh good, let me know when you find out...

ILya


Let me know when you get back with yourself.

After a brief consultation with myself...  Big Smile

Take a look at any scope you have.

Imagine where the front focal plane in that scope is (whether it contains a reticle or not).  Typically, it is either right under the turrets or right in front of them.  Estimate how far back from the objective lens that front focal plane is.  For a scope like the new 3-15x42 SS, it is somewhere between four and five inches.  This distance is called the focal length.

All of the light that hits the objective lens, while traversing that distance between the objective lens and the FFP, somehow throttles down to a very small diameter beam.  The lenses in the objective lens system (and their number varies between scopes) are designed to guide the light path in a specific way by having it bend inward for lack of a better term.  The more you have to get the light path to "bend" the harder it is to do so without picking up aberrations.  If the new SS had a larger objective lens with the same overall length, it would be that much harder to keep all of the image artefacts in check.  It would either require additional lenses or more complicated lens shapes.

Of course, for a larger objective lens, you could go with an overall longer scope with a longer objective focal length, but if you make a scope too long you run into other issues, both optical and mechanical.  The rest of the scope's optics would need to scale up accordingly.  The diameter of the focal plane would go up.  Adjustment range would go down (unless you used a larger tube).  Then there would be a mechanical problem with having the mass of the objective bell far forward and away from the mount, putting additional stress on the tube under recoil, etc.

Scope design is an exercise in compromises.  When I see a moderately priced scope that is very short with a large objective lens, I get concerned.  The SS looks like it was designed with an eye out for manufacturability.

ILya
Back to Top
BeltFed View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar

Joined: February/12/2008
Location: Ky
Status: Online
Points: 22287
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BeltFed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/09/2013 at 19:03
Well, ILya, since you put it that way, the new 3-15x42 is perfect for what I need, and at the right price pointBig Smile
Life's concerns should be about the 120lb pack your trying to get to the top of the mountain, and not the rock in your boot.
Back to Top
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 23679
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kickboxer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/09/2013 at 19:50
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Originally posted by Sparky Sparky wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Originally posted by Sparky Sparky wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:



and makes it a little easire to deliver good optical quality on a budget.

ILya


Interesting. I have a hunch why that is but why guess when I can ask an expert.

Oh good, let me know when you find out...

ILya


Let me know when you get back with yourself.

After a brief consultation with myself...  Big Smile

Take a look at any scope you have.

Imagine where the front focal plane in that scope is (whether it contains a reticle or not).  Typically, it is either right under the turrets or right in front of them.  Estimate how far back from the objective lens that front focal plane is.  For a scope like the new 3-15x42 SS, it is somewhere between four and five inches.  This distance is called the focal length.

All of the light that hits the objective lens, while traversing that distance between the objective lens and the FFP, somehow throttles down to a very small diameter beam.  The lenses in the objective lens system (and their number varies between scopes) are designed to guide the light path in a specific way by having it bend inward for lack of a better term.  The more you have to get the light path to "bend" the harder it is to do so without picking up aberrations.  If the new SS had a larger objective lens with the same overall length, it would be that much harder to keep all of the image artefacts in check.  It would either require additional lenses or more complicated lens shapes.

Of course, for a larger objective lens, you could go with an overall longer scope with a longer objective focal length, but if you make a scope too long you run into other issues, both optical and mechanical.  The rest of the scope's optics would need to scale up accordingly.  The diameter of the focal plane would go up.  Adjustment range would go down (unless you used a larger tube).  Then there would be a mechanical problem with having the mass of the objective bell far forward and away from the mount, putting additional stress on the tube under recoil, etc.

Scope design is an exercise in compromises.  When I see a moderately priced scope that is very short with a large objective lens, I get concerned.  The SS looks like it was designed with an eye out for manufacturability.

ILya
All true, and I made no reference to price point or complexity, merely that MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE WOULD BE FOR A LARGER OBJECTIVE.  It has advantages I like and am willing to pay for in many instances...  one must choose his poison carefully.  I am willing to sacrifice "cost" for "requirements".  SWFA chose a "market"... I am proud to say that I will be a part of that market.  In choosing a piece of hardware, one must consider all of the options, all of the trades... the objective size is NOT significant enough to "break" the deal on all the other advantages the SS 3-15x42 offers.  The objective size, for ME, is adequate... no detriment.  Near 3.0 exit pupil at max power is plenty good enough for me. Means I could shoot at light levels that would be illegal for most hunting and in cases where night hunting is allowed would be able to shoot at short distances under most moonlight conditions above "dead dark".  There are trades in every scope selection... everything the 3-15x42 offers outweighs the things it does not, for me... for many, my considerations would not be considerations at all... I'm good with that.  If you only shoot in "high light" conditions, 42mm is fine and at 10x it is fine for most people for most low light conditions... for me, a 3mm exit pupil is "good enough", though I would like MORE.  Not a deal breaker and certainly should not concern most shooters..  Few shoot in the dark without additional aids.  I like to push the envelop... under the right conditions.
SWFA made exactly the right choice for the majority of potential users.  I would probably have made the same choice... however, I would have made me ONE with a 56mm objective...
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living
Back to Top
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Location: SD
Status: Online
Points: 4569
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/09/2013 at 20:57
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Originally posted by Sparky Sparky wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Originally posted by Sparky Sparky wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:



and makes it a little easire to deliver good optical quality on a budget.

ILya


Interesting. I have a hunch why that is but why guess when I can ask an expert.

Oh good, let me know when you find out...

ILya


Let me know when you get back with yourself.


Thanks for taking the time to educate me.

After a brief consultation with myself...  Big Smile

Take a look at any scope you have.

Imagine where the front focal plane in that scope is (whether it contains a reticle or not).  Typically, it is either right under the turrets or right in front of them.  Estimate how far back from the objective lens that front focal plane is.  For a scope like the new 3-15x42 SS, it is somewhere between four and five inches.  This distance is called the focal length.

All of the light that hits the objective lens, while traversing that distance between the objective lens and the FFP, somehow throttles down to a very small diameter beam.  The lenses in the objective lens system (and their number varies between scopes) are designed to guide the light path in a specific way by having it bend inward for lack of a better term.  The more you have to get the light path to "bend" the harder it is to do so without picking up aberrations.  If the new SS had a larger objective lens with the same overall length, it would be that much harder to keep all of the image artefacts in check.  It would either require additional lenses or more complicated lens shapes.

Of course, for a larger objective lens, you could go with an overall longer scope with a longer objective focal length, but if you make a scope too long you run into other issues, both optical and mechanical.  The rest of the scope's optics would need to scale up accordingly.  The diameter of the focal plane would go up.  Adjustment range would go down (unless you used a larger tube).  Then there would be a mechanical problem with having the mass of the objective bell far forward and away from the mount, putting additional stress on the tube under recoil, etc.

Scope design is an exercise in compromises.  When I see a moderately priced scope that is very short with a large objective lens, I get concerned.  The SS looks like it was designed with an eye out for manufacturability.

ILya


Thanks for taking the time to educate me.
Back to Top
MZ5 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: July/03/2012
Location: Arizona, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 126
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MZ5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/11/2013 at 12:42
Interesting entry. A smaller (vs my 50mm) objective would make it ever so slightly easier to get cheek weld without so much padding/riser. OTOH, a $700 scope with the same glass as my couple-years-old 10x42 seems ...high. Can anyone directly compare this offering with the basically-same-price Weaver Tactical 3-15x50, optically-speaking?
Back to Top
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Location: SD
Status: Online
Points: 4569
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/11/2013 at 12:51
Originally posted by MZ5 MZ5 wrote:


 OTOH, a $700 scope with the same glass as my couple-years-old 10x42 seems ...high.

 


Your 10x is a fixed power. It is considerably more complex to build a variable power scope. Plus this one has a 5x erector.

Plus you will spend $100 more for the Weaver 3-15x50.

http://swfa.com/Weaver-3-15x50-Tactical-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P49448.aspx
Back to Top
MZ5 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: July/03/2012
Location: Arizona, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 126
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MZ5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/11/2013 at 13:46
Whatever the 'complexities,' they're all built in to the Japanese-made Weaver already. The Weaver's feature set is also richer, and the objective lens more expensive, assuming same quality. The optical quality difference between the two scopes I mentioned and have on my rifles right now is huge. That's why I asked for/about an optical comparison. Hopefully the SS fixed power line has made large strides in optical quality since I got mine. A side-by-side would tell.
Back to Top
TRP_Operator View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/26/2005
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 67
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRP_Operator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/11/2013 at 15:18
After looking at the design and reading the information about this optic. For the price this just maybe the setup I need to complete my new Remington 700 in .308. Really like the low end at 3x and 15x will be more than enough for ringing steel at distance.
Back to Top
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 11814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote supertool73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/11/2013 at 15:28
Originally posted by MZ5 MZ5 wrote:

Whatever the 'complexities,' they're all built in to the Japanese-made Weaver already. The Weaver's feature set is also richer, and the objective lens more expensive, assuming same quality. The optical quality difference between the two scopes I mentioned and have on my rifles right now is huge. That's why I asked for/about an optical comparison. Hopefully the SS fixed power line has made large strides in optical quality since I got mine. A side-by-side would tell.


But is the Weaver designed to take the beating of a .50 cal and rifles like the M1A?  I would be my left nut that the internals mechanisms between the two scopes are pretty drastic in the reliability dept. 

Not dogging the Weaver, but one of the best parts of the SS line has always been their strength.


Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack.

"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own."
Back to Top
MZ5 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: July/03/2012
Location: Arizona, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 126
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MZ5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/11/2013 at 21:46
Yes, my fixed non-HD SS seems very stout.  Kinda mushy, but stout.  I haven't clubbed any baby seals with either it or the Weaver, but the Weaver _feels_ at least equally stout.  Only time can answer your question about durability.  I'm dialing them both back and forth all day at least a couple days a month.  My SS sits on a heavy 223, so if it ever fails for any reason at all, I'll deem it deficient in comparison to a Tasco Varmint. Big Grin Wink
Back to Top
WYcoyote View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: April/06/2010
Location: Kane,WY
Status: Offline
Points: 154
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WYcoyote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/13/2013 at 15:50
Glad to see this scope offered. I have been using the Weaver/Nitrex Super Slam/TR2 3-15x42 for a similar alternative. Of course they are 2nd FP with MOA turrets. But the configuration is excellent IMHO for an all around hunting scope.
Back to Top
badkarma View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: March/22/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote badkarma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/13/2013 at 17:03
So, the $699.99 question...what time on the 25th can we click "add to cart" ? :)

Ready for a scope that I don't have to send back via UPS lol
Back to Top
Shoalwater View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: January/22/2013
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shoalwater Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/17/2013 at 19:35
Maybe I am looking at it wrong, but it looks like to me this is a fast focus eye piece without the lock.  That is one of the things I really like about the 5-20, let be honest, once you set the focus on the eye piece you are not going to really be moving it.  Am I just seeing things?
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/17/2013 at 20:13
Originally posted by Shoalwater Shoalwater wrote:

Maybe I am looking at it wrong, but it looks like to me this is a fast focus eye piece without the lock.  That is one of the things I really like about the 5-20, let be honest, once you set the focus on the eye piece you are not going to really be moving it.  Am I just seeing things?

That is correct.  All of the scopes in the Classic line have fast focus eyepieces.  What I usually do is slip a flip up cap onto the eyepiece after focusing it.  It holds the adjustment ring in place just fine (although I have never had one of the SS scopes shift eyepiece focus on me without it either).

ILya
Back to Top
Jon A View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: March/14/2008
Location: Everett, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 670
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jon A Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/24/2013 at 04:52
First the important stuff:

Reticle calibration and click value measure accurate within 0.5%.  Reticle is square with the movement of the turrets within 1/2 degree.  Tracking has been perfectly repeatable so far. 

Total elevation travel of my example:  41 Mils    26 Mils "up" available after a 100 yd zero when mounted in a 20 MOA mount.  Now they only advertise 36 total so they may not all have as much as mine does, I'm just reporting what I see.










The reticle on 3X, 10X and 15X:







At the range:

Size comparison with SS 3-9 and 5-20HD:







It was a dark, gloomy day at the range which is not good for pictures.  So don't attempt to judge the glass quality from these pics as it's impossible to take good pics through a scope in such conditions.

100 yds:





300 yds:







A couple 100 and 300 yd targets:



I was in somewhat of a hurry and not doing my best shooting, but even so 39 of 40 rounds went sub MOA.

The eye relief on this scope is by far the best of all the Classic line, longer and more friendly than the well known fixed models.  This will make the scope well suited for hard kicking hunting rifles among other things.

I haven't spent much time comparing glass yet, but it looks at first blush pretty good, clearly the overall best of the Classic line.  I was able to see the 6mm holes in the paper at 300 yds without too much trouble.  But yes, you can see quite a bit more detail with the 5-20 HD as you should with more magnification and higher price.

All in all I'm quite impressed with the scope for the price.  Knowing how durable the classic line is, with all that elevation travel it has, this scope can do most things up to and including ELR use without spending a lot of money.
Back to Top
c0d3x5 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: December/24/2012
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote c0d3x5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/25/2013 at 01:40

can you post a pic of where it says "Made in ---"  ?

Back to Top
Jon A View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: March/14/2008
Location: Everett, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 670
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jon A Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/25/2013 at 04:45



Back to Top
CROWSNIPER View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: May/30/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 48
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CROWSNIPER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/25/2013 at 09:11
These should easily out do the vortex PST if the glass is any good at all,i would have prefered a 50mm lens up front and no illumination is fine with me,never have used it on the scopes i owned that had it.
Back to Top
c0d3x5 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: December/24/2012
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote c0d3x5 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/25/2013 at 12:05
I wasnt expecting these scopes to be made in Japan,  wow that puts a damper on things..
 
I am torn between this scope now and the weaver 3-15x50
 
I hear good things about both scopes!
Back to Top
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Location: SD
Status: Online
Points: 4569
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/25/2013 at 12:07
Originally posted by c0d3x5 c0d3x5 wrote:

I wasnt expecting these scopes to be made in Japan,  wow that puts a damper on things..
 
I am torn between this scope now and the weaver 3-15x50
 
I hear good things about both scopes!


What is wrong with made in Japan?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 9>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.582 seconds.