Millett TRS 4-16x50 vs SWFA SS 10x42(or 12x42, 16x42)

sigcurious · January 31, 2013, 12:11 AM

I've been looking at scopes and these two seem to be the standouts so far. They both seem to give good bang for buck, but I'm having a hard time narrowing it down further. How do they compare in clarity, light transmission etc? I could take or leave the two major differences, illuminated reticle and variable power.

Also, what height(and brand) rings are folks using with these? The safe bet seems to be mediums from the height chart at brownells and the specs I can find. But medium also seems to vary a bit between manufacturers. For both I've looked at the DNZ one piece rings/mount for simplicity, or the millett tac rings and 1 piece base.

Jimro · January 31, 2013, 11:40 PM

If you are looking for a tactical optic to put on top of a rifle that needs to be accurate after being drug through the mud...

SWFA 10x gets my vote. Unless the rifle is a 300 Win Mag or larger, then go with the 12x. The 16x doesn't get very good reviews, better to try to find a used IOR 16x.

Any quality rings and base will work, the ones you listed will never give you any trouble as long as you torque them tight with a dab of blue threadlocker.

Jimro

ronl · January 31, 2013, 11:48 PM

I've used both and I prefer the Super Sniper. The Millet TRS I used was large and rather heavy. It had decent features and clarity was good. The fixed power SS's are easier to use, tracking is very good, clarity was very good and the scope is built like a tank. I prefer the less expensive rear focus to the side focus, but that's just my preference.

sigcurious · February 1, 2013, 02:07 PM

Thanks for the input. After reading more reviews, I decided to go with the SWFA. It seemed to get more consistent reviews. Now it just needs to get here

January 31, 2013, 12:11 AM	#1
sigcurious Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2011 Posts: 1,755	Millett TRS 4-16x50 vs SWFA SS 10x42(or 12x42, 16x42) I've been looking at scopes and these two seem to be the standouts so far. They both seem to give good bang for buck, but I'm having a hard time narrowing it down further. How do they compare in clarity, light transmission etc? I could take or leave the two major differences, illuminated reticle and variable power. Also, what height(and brand) rings are folks using with these? The safe bet seems to be mediums from the height chart at brownells and the specs I can find. But medium also seems to vary a bit between manufacturers. For both I've looked at the DNZ one piece rings/mount for simplicity, or the millett tac rings and 1 piece base.

January 31, 2013, 11:40 PM	#2
Jimro Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2006 Posts: 7,097	If you are looking for a tactical optic to put on top of a rifle that needs to be accurate after being drug through the mud... SWFA 10x gets my vote. Unless the rifle is a 300 Win Mag or larger, then go with the 12x. The 16x doesn't get very good reviews, better to try to find a used IOR 16x. Any quality rings and base will work, the ones you listed will never give you any trouble as long as you torque them tight with a dab of blue threadlocker. Jimro __________________ Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one.

January 31, 2013, 11:48 PM	#3
ronl Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 2007 Posts: 1,100	I've used both and I prefer the Super Sniper. The Millet TRS I used was large and rather heavy. It had decent features and clarity was good. The fixed power SS's are easier to use, tracking is very good, clarity was very good and the scope is built like a tank. I prefer the less expensive rear focus to the side focus, but that's just my preference.

February 1, 2013, 02:07 PM	#4
sigcurious Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2011 Posts: 1,755	Thanks for the input. After reading more reviews, I decided to go with the SWFA. It seemed to get more consistent reviews. Now it just needs to get here