SS 3-9x42

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by megastink, Dec 7, 2011.

  1. megastink

    megastink Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    244
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    I am looking for some info. I have a Savage 10FP in need of some glass. Shooting/hunting out to 600 yards. Looking for info on repeatability, pictures through the glass, how do the turrets feel (any play, are they positive?), any info that I can get my head around. Thanks!

    -Megagun)
     
  2. megastink

    megastink Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    244
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Has no one in here used this scope??????? Just looking for your personal experiences. Thanks!
     

  3. ToKeepAndBear

    ToKeepAndBear Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    72
    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    I have one with the mil-quad reticle on my AR-15 with an 18" SS barrel. I like it, especially for the price.

    My primary long range rifle is a Sako TRG 260 Rem with a Zeiss Hensoldt 4-16 with NH1 reticle. Comparing it to premium glass it is not as "sharp" but certainly serviceable. It does seem to provide noticeably better optical characteristics than the SS fixed (non- hd)10 power scope I have on a 223. Contrast is OK, low light performance is pretty good. Eye relief is good. Image is degraded substantially by direct light on front lens compared to my Hensoldt. This is easily prevented with a sunshade for most shooting situations. The clicks are precise and positive. Compared to the Hensoldt, the clicks are further apart and somewhat clunky, tracking has been precise. The biggest downfall of the turrets is that they are only 5 mils per revolution. You have to pay more attention to what turn your on compared to the Hensoldt that is 12 mils per turn. They are at least in mils and match the reticle. About the mil-quad reticle, I like it very much. It has half-mil hash marks and is a similar design to my NH1 reticle. The mil-quad is thick enough that it is visible at 3 power. At 9 power I do not find it overpowering but some may find it on the thicker side. I find it to be a good compromise in reticle thickness for being useable at both ends of the power spectrum. I do think it will be fast to pick up for hunting situations for a non-illuminated type reticle. It does tunnel at 3 power but goes away just before 4 power. It is somewhat heavy for a hunting scope but seems very rugged. I plan on buying another for a lighter Sako 85 Hunter in 260. I have not found anything better for the price and I consider myself rather picky. I just really wish the turrets were 10-12 mils per turn.

    My buddy picked one up with a mil-dot reticle a couple months ago for a new Savage 308 and he likes it as well. We are going to bang some steel at over 1000 yards this weekend. Yes, 9 power is enough for shooting steel at 1000 yards.

    Hope this helps with your decision.
     
  4. megastink

    megastink Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    244
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Thanks a lot. I think 9 power is plenty for steel, and hunting, out to 1,000. There is nothing wrong more magnifiation, but I think that anything more than 15/16x is a little ridiculous. Its not meant to be a spotting scope, just a point ofaim (arguable, but MHO).

    the review helps. I'm torn between the SS and a Weaver Tactical 3-15x50 with the EMDR (only because the matching mil/mil, I dont care about illumination). It will come down to price.

    Let me know what your buddy thinks about his SS's performance at 1,000. Thanks!

    -Mega.
     
  5. dogdinger

    dogdinger Writers Guild

    Messages:
    697
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    dont have the variable. they are fairly new to the market, but i have 3 fixed power. a 10, 16 , and 20 X. they all track flawlessly and perform beautifully.

    as far as the magnification needed, i did quite a bit of comparing the 10X to higher magnification at longer ranges, as i have a 1K range right out my shooting room window. With the 10x i can hold on a baseball size target easiliy @ 1000 yds. head shots would be no problem. only if you were wanting extreme target accuracy would you need any more magnification. AJ
     
  6. Jon A

    Jon A Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    I like the scope very much. For hunting (including LR) or long range plinking I like more power but I feel this is a very good all around scope that can reach out to great distances just fine as long as you aren't shooting at tiny targets.

    Here are a few pics:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    Tracking is 100% repeatable, the turrets don't make much of an audible click but are very stiff and positive and stay put well while hunting. These scopes have been around awhile now and developed a really good reputation for durability.

    The Weaver is also very nice and would be very high on my list. I'd make the choice on what size/weight/magnification you think would make you the happiest. The 3-9 is lighter, more compact, is more "point and shoot" simple without sidefocus which is often what people prefer for general hunting.

    The Weaver will have a bit better glass, allow you to see details at long range better, eliminating parallax may shrink your groups a bit at long range but is a good bit bigger and heavier.
     
  7. Scot E

    Scot E Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,312
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Did you get all the links I posted to the other thread you started about your scope search?

    Scot E.
     
  8. megastink

    megastink Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    244
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    I did, thanks. I'm still torn. If that Weaver were as "cheap" as the SS, this wouldnt be an issue.
     
  9. Scot E

    Scot E Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,312
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Well, the good news is that both of those scopes are top notch IMO and for a very good price. They both were on my short list and I ended up with the SS but am sure I wouldn't have been disappointed with either.

    Scot E.