SWFA 3-15 FFP Review
- Thread starter JoeWayneRhea
- Start date
I have this scope and really love it. I also have a 3x15 sfp scope. I don’t think there making this one anymore. The thinner reticle on it makes it my choice for target shooting
I don’t know why but the glass is better on the ffp.
Its an excellent hunting scope. The reticle is a bit thick for target shooting by manageable. It’s my favourite scope.
Im sure there are better scopes out there but not until I have quite a bit more cash to spend.
Thanks for enlightening me to just how good these scopes are Joe.
I don’t know why but the glass is better on the ffp.
Its an excellent hunting scope. The reticle is a bit thick for target shooting by manageable. It’s my favourite scope.
Im sure there are better scopes out there but not until I have quite a bit more cash to spend.
Thanks for enlightening me to just how good these scopes are Joe.
Upvote 0
As one Joe to another ...... I thank you for your opinion re my question about resolution of Leupold vs SWFA scopes. I value that opinion and will wait for the SWFA Tax Day Sale to order the 3-15x42 Tactical FFP. I value your reviews; very good detail and candid, honest presentations!
Joe in Tucson
Joe in Tucson
Upvote 0
I have a question about reticules. I see that SWFA offers a choice of MOA or Mil-Dot reticules. I'll be using holdover, rather than changing elevation/windage using the turrets. I want a reticule that is not cluttered with a lot of tiny hash marksIts. As an example, its easier to count 3 widely spaced hash marks rather than 6 tiny ones. So, for me, a reticule with the fewest hash marks, covering a specific distance, is easier/quicker to use. Which one has more widely spaced hash marks, MOA or Mil-Dot?
Upvote 0