12,16, or 20x

decided on a swfa ss fixed power scope for my dedicated long range rig. seems like its easily the best scope for the money.

All 3 are avaiable in MRAD, and with the mil-quad reticle. im just not sure what the best magnification will be. im leaning towards 16, so its still functional at 100 yards, but 20x would be nice for being able to see hits at a farther distance. what say ye?

I can only speak of the SWFA 1-6 and 5-20x50mm, so I can't help with the models you are considering. I can say that I am very pleased with the 5-20. It is easily my favorite for optical quality and repeatability of the turrets. The 1-6 had fogged up (had condensation inside) during the latter part of deer season so I need to look into sending it back. Other than that I am happy with it as well.

For shooting if there is not too much mirage I like the 5-20 cranked all the way up, but if there is mirage I turn it down a bit. That said the 16x would probably be your best all round choice. Just one opinion.

Hope this helps.

another quick question, do i need a 20 moa base with these scopes? just want to order once.

I have a Vortex 6-24x50, and during the THF rifle match I never turned past 16, way to much mirage. Since it's not adjustable, I wouldn't go higher then 16x. For the match 16 wasn't needed, I think most people were using around 12x or less.

that was the way i was leaning, just wasnt sure if going over 16 on a fixed power would be a hinderance or not, sounds like it could be. sounds like 16x may be the ticket. still open to more opinions. got about 3 weeks til im buying.

Yes you do need to mount it on a 20 MOA base, that's the way it was designed to be mounted.

I'd go 16X out of those options.

i thought so. no problem switching bases, just want to make sure it was necessary before replacing a perfectly good 0 moa base.

SWFA will let you trade it in.

its just a $25 weaver base, but it works. doubt id get much for it. but, since i dont need it, i guess anything is better than nothing if they will even accept it.

6 or 10x

The others are a simple no go for me.

I ran the 12x at Jason's range with no issues and could watch my impacts at 800 yards

Would you mind elaborating on why that is? Everybody has different styles, and I'd like your take on it.

Field of view, under stress, is paramount.


You only need enough magnification to identify the target, and put a proper wind hold on the reticle. The idea that the target must take up as much space as possible in the scope is silly to me.

I fell for the high magnification trance too. My main target scope is a gen 1 razor 5-20. It rarely gets turned above 15x, and sits below 10x the majority of the time. For me, being able to transition from target to target easily requires a large field of view. At high magnification, it's real easy to get lost in transition.

You make a good point but you are in the minority. For a pure range rifle, 10X and above is better. The higher the magnification, the smaller you can shoot, like 1 MOA out to 800. The reason I turn down on the range is because of mirage. Other than that I use all I can get. Hunting, I turn down to 5X while walking around, in case of the need for a snap shot. Slightly wobbly I still start around 8X or 10X. I've looked down my range to the end with 6X and those targets are tiny. Crank it up above 10X and it's do-able.

Thats the beauty of ffp reticles. As soon as you can make out the reticle clearly on the target, that is all the magnification you need. If I can clearly hold 1.5 mils right of the target at 6-8x, then increasing magnification is only decreasing field of view. 1.5 mils will always be 1.5 mils. You don't need any more or any less.

The only time high magnification is helpful is during target identification. Is that a pig? Yes. Or is that the target I am supposed to be shooting? Hold 1.5 mils right for wind, and keep an eye out for other animals that may be walking into the kill zone.

Even on a range rifle, if the targets are spread out over 40-60 degrees. The extra field of view will help you swing between targets efficiently. 10 targets over say 50 degrees under time stress, and I will take as much field of view as possible.

this is a 100% dedicated range rifle. i have 2 very capable hunting rifles, in in 250 savage for smaller stuff, and one in 7mm for deer, pigs, and whatnot. i have the space at my place to shoot up to 600-700 yards if i can situate the targets correctly. and thats the ranges i want to practice at.

I realize I'm in the minority. That's ok.

Even for a range rifle, give me the 6 or 10x.

I'm an FFP user myself. I know well what you mean, and we're on the same page. Tff caribou is limited to a fixed power right now. So if limited to fixed, I'd rather have 16X for a dedicated range rifle.

yep, im building on a budget, and the swfa fixed powers seem by far to give me all the features i need for the least amount of money. turrets, mrad, mil reticle, fixed means i dont have to spring for a FFP scope. i would prefer to get a viper pst ffp, but its simply not even close to being in the same budget range. i can get the swfa ss in a couple weeks, and get started on learning to shoot at distance with a fully capable scope, and i can afford reloading equipment sooner than later.

It would be an interesting test. Take your ffp 6-24 or 5-20 scope. Keep magnification on 6 or 8 power. Run through 10 targets over a 50-60 degree area. Say the targets are from 310-900ish. Keep the time at 1 minute. Repeat that same series of targets at 16x just to see if the same number of hits could be had.

After all, hits are all that count. I may run through this test as well. If more hits can be had at 16x, then I will report as such. No loss, just trying to stay sharp.

Good plan. Later when you can afford it, sell the fixed power and get an SS 5-20 FFP. The fixed SS will still be worth close to what you paid for it.

Good call I've done it with the low end on 12X and targets over 90-120 degrees. Both eyes open while searching is the key, I'm sure you know that.

I want no part of 900 yards on 6X

I was only using the ffp scope as an example. Because with a ffp scope you can truly see the difference in what a fixed 6 looks like compared to a fixed 16 or 20x.

I am a huge fan of simple fixed power scopes. I wish there were more on the market to choose from. I am only giving you examples of how I shoot long range rifles, and how field of view can really be a hindrance on high magnification scopes.

Having said that, if you are on a square range where the targets are basically lined up. Field of view doesn't really help.

Service rifle and palma shooters sure do have it tough using only the mark1 eyeball, at 600 and 1k respectively.
From a sling, no less.

Now that is impressive. My hats off to those guys.

Caribou, as you've seen from my other posts today, I'm in the same boat with building my first long range non-hunting rifle. Ended up deciding on the SWFA SS 16x42, and my plan is exactly what Jason mentions above. I haven't got it yet, but you just can't get the features in that unit for anywhere near that price in other scopes.

FWIW, here is a comparison of the scopes field of view and clarity.

http://www.opticstalk.com/swfa-ss-classic-line-in-mil-mil_topic32195.html

Look at the 10x and 12x for the 300-yard target in my link. That target would look awful small at 500-800 yards.

Look at the thread I just bumped. Through the scope pics 5X-20X looking at a 12" plate at 600 yards.

Yeah that's a really nice comparison. The link I posted doesn't show anything past 300 yards.

Thanks Jason. I had forgotten about that thread. That's a great comparison.

You bet.

This is what I plan on running. Anybody see an issue with anything I've picked out? I plan on driving out to swfa to purchase everything when I'm ready to buy. Figured I'd let the experts get me all mounted up and boresighted while I'm at it.

I didn't realize SWFA had their own rings. Quite a bit cheaper than the Burris XTR rings I was looking at. Thanks!

I'm assuming medium would be fine for the 16x42, even with the 20MOA base, but I'd like to see one of the experts confirm that.

I just added mediums to the cart for demonstration purposes. That's why I'm going to make the drive over to swfa get it right the first time. I'm assuming mediums will be fine though. It's just a 42mm bell.

Mediums will work. I have no experience with their rings, just heard they're so-so. I would lap them.

I bet you can get away with lows

I think of bases, and rings to a lesser extent, as a fixed cost item. Assuming you will stay with a 30mm tube, then the rings can also be considered a fixed cost item.

Actions,stocks,triggers, and bases are all examples of fixed cost items.

Barrels and ammo are the consumables.

Within a budget, of course, I always try to buy once cry once on the fixed cost items. Because they are a one time buy, and will pay dividends every time you pull the trigger.

Barrels and ammo are where the real money is spent, if you shoot on a regular basis.

Not judging either way, just trying to give perspective. If you plan on upgrading the scope at a later date, make sure the rings will fit the updated scope as well.

I agree with that. I can spend a little more on rings, just felt like those looked good. I can't bring myself to spend more for a rail though. I could probably swing $60-80 for rings if you guys had a better recommendation in that range.

Never had a issue with swfa rings... But will say I had hell with a set of Leopold mark 4 rings

I like my rails to either be pinned in place, have a recoil lug, or both if possible. Finding a rail with a recoil lug is easy. It just depends on what action you are looking for.
The lugs and pins take the force off those tiny little screws, and will hopefully keep the rail in place.


Does the EGW rail have a lug?

None of mine do. I use low hold Locktite and have not had a single EGW come loose. Even on the 7 Rem Mag.

Use the blue locktite on all my bases and rings from here on out .... Had em come loose on my 300 win mag wasn't going through this on my 338lm