SWFA or Athlon?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
I've seen both as I was just making a similar decision myself.

I was deciding between saving money with the Argos or another PA4-14x44, or treating myself to something nicer with either the SWFA 3-15x42 FFP, the Weaver Tactical 3-15x50 FFP or the Weaver Tactical 4-20x50. I went with the Weaver 4-20 but I got a chance to look at the others.

The SWFA is a much better scope than the Argos. It's not easy for someone else to decide if it's worth the extra for you though. It kinda depends on what you are using it for, what it's going on, your skill level, how wealthy you are and your expectations. 

Looking through both of them together is like the difference between SD and HD tv. With the SWFA you will be able to see more detail and lower power settings will be more useful at longer ranges even though that model doesn't use their version of their "HD glass". 

The turrets are far far more precise on the SWFA too. Athlon has a new model coming out that it more inline with the SWFA for around $600 for people that want to use the turrets instead of just the reticle. 

Personally, I think the 3-15 or 4-20 is a better range for a multi-purpose air gun scope than a 6-24. I like to have a 4x option for hunting or close range plinking but, the Athlon is very nice for an entry-level scope. I could easily be happy with one on one of my other guns - I wouldn't put expensive glass on every air gun I own....

Sorry, I know that's not very conclusive but it's one for you to decide. If you want another option, Natchez currently has the Weaver tactical 3-15x50 FFP on sale for $570 (vs $850 at Midway) and it's very comparable to the SWFA. I think the Weaver is better but there are definitely people who prefer the SWFA too.

As a general point, if you don't need to save the money then it is usually better to go with the higher quality optic. if you do need to save the money, you can easily live with the Argos. Very easily. They definitely aren't junk. If you hunt, I would consider the Athlon 4-14x44 FFP or the Primary Arms 4-14x44 FFP too. They easily cover all useful air gun ranges. 
 
Upvote 0
"NMshooter"Heres what Matt Duber has to say:
Click to expand...
That guy obviously has more cash than many of us. "I was curious about SWFA so I bought every scope they sell just to see what the fuss was about". Nice work if you can get it!

I don't agree with what he said about fixed power always being clearer. I mean, it is sometimes and especially on certain brands but what he was seeing at 15x in the 3-15 was the loss of clarity you get at the extreme ranges of most variable power scopes. 

I've had that 3-15x42 SWFA next to the fixed 10 and at 10x (which is more within it's sweet spot), I found the 3-15 to be clearer. This is no surprise though. The scope costs double the price. 

I think fixed power scopes are a good way for benchrest shooters to get higher quality glass for less money. They serve a very specific purpose though.

I think it's good advice to find out what the real useable power range is before choosing any scope. If you want something to be crystal clear at 15, I would want to buy something that goes up to at least 18 (and probably more). 

I haven't seen them in person but I would be willing to bet that even those $3000 March 10-60x56 or 8-80x56 will lose some clarity on the highest setting. I would also bet good money that, at 16x, they will be clearer than the SWFA fixed 16. 

I totally agree with what he said about SWFA making a great product. I've only seen a few of their scopes in person but they were very pleasing. 
 
Upvote 0
At this time, I think I have decided to go the Athlon route. Turns out a buddy of mine actually has both, so I got to spend some time looking through both of them and messing with them today.

Here's why I made my decision:

-FOV is obviously larger on the Athlon. 8mm doesn't seem like much, but it does make a difference in how quickly you make target acquisition
-Turrets felt on par with the SWFA
-Reticle layout is better, IMHO, on the Athlon...although the Mil-Quad is still a very good and easy to use reticle
-Illuminated reticle....nice for low light shots
-Cash savings

Today was overcast, but looking through both, to me the had the same brightness and sharpness at 50-75 yards.

Now, if this was on a duty rifle, something that my life depended on, I would probably stick with the SWFA, as they have a proven track record. But seeing as how this is an air rifle, and I don't beat the crap out of my stuff, I think I'll be just fine.

But these are just my observations after spending about 30 mins with both of them.
 
Upvote 0
If you are someone who can tell the difference then that's a good enough reason to save the cash imo. There is no point in paying extra for features you can't appreciate or can't use.

BTW, the quality of turrets is not just about how they feel or the noise they make. Check out this video for an explanation of the problem with using the turrets on cheaper scopes like the Athlon Argos and PA 4-14 (they test both these scopes side by side):


It's very long and boring but that's why the good lord got together with Buddha to create the ability to fast forward to the 1 minute of relavent info among this hour long sea of boredom.

To net out the conclusion of the video, the turrets on both scopes have alignment issues that could and would be enough to make someone lose a match shot at 100 or even 50 yards. The problems became noticeable (on both scopes) when he reached 10 mils of elevation at 100 yards. He was using a powder burner so you would encounter the issue at closer range with an air rifle as their trajectory is far less flat. 

At 10 mils of elevation, the alignment issue sent the poi 1/2" left or right on both scopes. No issue for most hunters but not good enough to compete in a match. 

Personally, I think the guy was an idiot for even making the video in the first place (let alone making it an hour long). I could have told him that the turrets were not going to be super precise on a $300 or $400 scope with no tests at all. 

Anyone with sense will just use the reticle instead of the turrets to get around this issue (on most cheap scopes) instead of worrying about how fast their moped gets from 0-60mph compared to a BMW M3. Unless you compete in FT or BR matches, you can easily live without super turret precision. Serious target shooters probably wouldn't choose this scope but for almost everyone else, they are awesome for the price.

most of us don't use the turrets at all once it's sighted in. 

I for one intend to buy plenty of Athlon products in future as I won't put expensive glass on every gun I own and they make one of the best low cost options. 
 
Upvote 0
"zachary"zebra it is like there are 2 lines on the right then three lines one the left and i dont understand what they mean. im used to a hawke 1/2 mil retical. i think it would have been better if they just centered them all.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the windage markings or the distance markings? They are to help with ranging and calculating the correction for the wind. It's quite an intuitive reticle. 

I have a slight preference for less busy reticles but as long as they have some type of holdover reticle then I am usually happy. 

More important than the aesthetics of the reticle, is how useful it is. The simple fact is that the reticle on the Athlon Argos is automatically more useful than on any Hawke scope because it's first focal plane. I'd take any FFP holdover reticle over any Hawke reticle. 

On Hawke and all other SFP scopes, the mil dots are only correct at one power setting. That means that at every other power setting, you have some math to do if you want to use the reticle to make a precise shot. That kinda takes away the time saving and convenience of not having to dial in the correction. 

I've decided that I'm just not smart enough to effectively use the mil dots on a SFP scope unless it's for something where I can leave it on one power setting and not move it. 
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu