- Joined
- Dec 24, 2009
- Messages
- 15,044
- Reaction score
- 6,901
I got to say these scopes i got for a very fair price and the SWFA was an outright deal on sale but how to they compare? Well i set the STACs on 10x and adjusted parallax on all of them. In overcast light the STACs held their own quite well with an edge to the 4-20 due to the larger OBJ. Still really like the SWFA MIL-Quad reticle a bit better but might be a tad fine for somethings.
Turrets--Frankly i like the feel of the STACs better but the SWFA's are exposed
Weight--The SWFA is quite a bit lighter
Eye relief--They are all about the same. Around 3.9" give or take a tenth.
Build quality--They all look/feel really well made
Best for hunting---Probably the 3-16x42 if you dont mind 23+ ounces. The 4-20x50 is about the same but longer.
Parallax--SWFA hands down and adjustment is no where near as stiff. Its marked and seems to be marked really close. The STAC isnt marked
Range of adjustment---SWFA hands down...Roughly 140MOA (40 mil) total for both elevation and windage.
Size--While lighter the SWFA is longer (14") than the 3-16 because it has a built in sunshade. The OBJ lens sets about an inch and a half back in. The 4-20x50 is almost 15" long. My longest Murphy is just right size to span it. My shorter Murphy is a perfect fit for the SWFA and the 3-16x42.
I think if someone wanted a semi formal target scope the SWFA SS is going to be hard to beat for $300 or less. The sale of $200 was a absolute bargain for a Japanese made scope. The reticle is fine enough for a good view but not so fine its hard to see. Light enough that making "hunter class" wont be a problem. Feels reliable enough its not gunna let you down even on hard kickers. Biggest con is if it does and they are out of stock you might be waiting awhile for a replacement.
Out of the 2 STACs, i really like the 4-20x50 more even though its huge. Mounting on some actions could be an issue without a nice rail. Murphy rail with 2 extra slots and .870 tall rings fits sweet on my Mountaineer. Other than the total weight this will make a nice hunter and a semi formal range setup.
I dont think anyone would be that unhappy with any of them depending on what you needed.
Turrets--Frankly i like the feel of the STACs better but the SWFA's are exposed
Weight--The SWFA is quite a bit lighter
Eye relief--They are all about the same. Around 3.9" give or take a tenth.
Build quality--They all look/feel really well made
Best for hunting---Probably the 3-16x42 if you dont mind 23+ ounces. The 4-20x50 is about the same but longer.
Parallax--SWFA hands down and adjustment is no where near as stiff. Its marked and seems to be marked really close. The STAC isnt marked
Range of adjustment---SWFA hands down...Roughly 140MOA (40 mil) total for both elevation and windage.
Size--While lighter the SWFA is longer (14") than the 3-16 because it has a built in sunshade. The OBJ lens sets about an inch and a half back in. The 4-20x50 is almost 15" long. My longest Murphy is just right size to span it. My shorter Murphy is a perfect fit for the SWFA and the 3-16x42.
I think if someone wanted a semi formal target scope the SWFA SS is going to be hard to beat for $300 or less. The sale of $200 was a absolute bargain for a Japanese made scope. The reticle is fine enough for a good view but not so fine its hard to see. Light enough that making "hunter class" wont be a problem. Feels reliable enough its not gunna let you down even on hard kickers. Biggest con is if it does and they are out of stock you might be waiting awhile for a replacement.
Out of the 2 STACs, i really like the 4-20x50 more even though its huge. Mounting on some actions could be an issue without a nice rail. Murphy rail with 2 extra slots and .870 tall rings fits sweet on my Mountaineer. Other than the total weight this will make a nice hunter and a semi formal range setup.
I dont think anyone would be that unhappy with any of them depending on what you needed.