SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs Vortex 2.5-10x44

I'm getting a Steven's 200 in .223 to start a rifle build, and obviously need to put some glass on it. I shoot anywhere from 100yds to 300yds, sometimes even 500yds if able. After reading reviews, and with a limit of $600, I've narrowed it down to these 2 variable power scopes and a fixed power. Looking for an input on these 3 scopes, I am not too knowledgeable when it comes to optics.

SS 3-9 and don't look back. probably my favorite scope I've ever owned. 

3-9 SS.

I can't say enough good things about the SS 3-9.  Being a FFP design so at the low end of magnification the reticle resembles a standard duplex.  At the high end - a mil dot.  No parallax adjustment, robust design, excellent quality...there isn't much to say other than "go get one!"

SS

Another vote for the SS!  If you don't mind getting the older Mil-Dot model with the same matching reticle and turrets, you'll find a couple of those for $499 right now on the Sample List.

You guys may disagree, but having already owned a 33 3-9, I would look elsewhere.  For that power range, I wouldn't mind giving the vortex pst or vx-r patrol a try.  Having said that I have no experience with either the pst or vx-r.

6.5x47 wrote: You guys may disagree, but having already owned a 33 3-9, I would look elsewhere.

6.5x47 wrote: You guys may disagree, but having already owned a 33 3-9, I would look elsewhere.  For that power range, I wouldn't mind giving the vortex pst or vx-r patrol a try.  Having said that I have no experience with either the pst or vx-r.

A few observations of my ss 3-9 after shooting it for a few years. 

Sorry about the sausage in the above post.  It's the only pic of my old ss, that I had handy.

Your experience with the 3-9x SS is completely, 180 degrees, opposite of mine....other than the box test.

Mmmmmm sausage!

6.5 yours is actually the first complaint I have ever heard of a 3-9 SS having anything wrong with it. 

Maybe I received a rare lemon scope, but surely we can all agree that mag ring design is flawed at best. And maybe, just maybe, the scope is to large for a simple 3-9.

6.5x47 wrote: Maybe I received a rare lemon scope, but surely we can all agree that mag ring design is flawed at best. And maybe, just maybe, the scope is to large for a simple 3-9.

While I am a big fan of SWFA scopes, and I think every prospective buyer needs to realize that unit variation and lemons occur with all scope lines and models, I appreciate 6.5 sharing his experience and opinion.

Bitterroot Bulls wrote: While I am a big fan of SWFA scopes, and I think every prospective buyer needs to realize that unit variation and lemons occur with all scope lines and models, I appreciate 6.5 sharing his experience and opinion.

cheaptrick wrote: I just respectfully disagree that we all have to agree with his findings/opinions, Matt. You agree?

6.5x47 wrote: but surely we can all agree that mag ring design is flawed at best. And maybe, just maybe, the scope is to large for a simple 3-9.

Edited by cheaptrick - April/22/2012 at 16:54

I think I see what the confusion here is about.  My original post on here was to the OP, and not a response to your post that came right before mine, CT.  Now that I reread it, I can see how it might have been taken as directed at your post.

I have a SS 3-9x42 as well, and I'm not as impressed with many of the people on here are. I do like it, but there are several things about it I wish were better.

Unlike the above poster, I don't mind the mag ring, the size, etc. The windage and elevation ring with the hash marks does tend to come loose, and need to be super glued on. This has happened on the one I have.

My next issue with it is the glass. I don't find the glass great by any means. It's clear in respect to being decent in both daylight and low light, but I find at the upper power range, while clear in the center it's got a blur around the edges. I also see a lot of chromatic aberration with it, which may just be my eyes, as I get a lot of it with the Nikon Monarchs as well, but other scopes such as the Burris FFII, Zeiss Conquest, many cheaper scopes such as the VX-I even though I hate to admit it, etc. don't do it for me. The glass really gives me a headache if I look through it for long periods of time from this. That said, to just shoot at the range, or take hunting where I don't use the scope for glassing for long periods of time, I can handle it.

What I do love about the scope is the solid feel of the adjustments, the mil adjustments to match the reticle, the ability to perform a box test and track well, as well as the durability. I use it on my hunting/long range rig. During hunting season I dropped it several times, once hard on some tile and the scope always stayed zeroed. I was impressed with the durability of it. To me, the tracking and durability make the glass worth putting up with, but I wish the glass was better. The way people talked I expected it to blow the Conquest's away with glass quality, but it really doesn't come any where close to it, or even the FFII's.

Can't believe anything on the internet! Haha

On the length issue, I just don't like long scopes on an ar15 or dmr style rifle.  The vx-r and pst mentioned above are almost a full inch shorter than the ss, and so is the nightforce 2.5-10x32.  An inch may not seem like alot, but it is just an observation.  Heck, even Leupold makes a 3-18 that is shorter than this 3-9.

What do you mean by the scope not holding focus?