I've been trying out 100 yard shooting with my pellet rifles and having only one 4-16X scope, and normally using something 10x or 12X, I thought the memorial day sales offered a chance to have something with a bit more zoom.
So I ordered the 6.5-20X44 Hawke Sidewinder, and I'm kind of let down. Upon initial examination, I was surprised that the SW was much darker and the eye box much tighter than what I expected. It quickly made me think of testing it head to head with an old Tasco TS Japan 6-24X target scope, and here's the surprising results.
First, the darkness issue. The TS and SW are nearly identical, with an edge, MAYBE going to the TS, but with me switching scopes and looking at the same things at the same distances, and same powers, it's easy to forget nuances of each scope, but I would say the TS and the SW are fairly equal in light gathering abilities. Both also have 44 mm objectives, so it makes sense. It also tells me Tasco used some pretty good lens coatings for the 1990's.
Second, eye box. The TS has a pretty forgiving eye box. I mean by that, it IS a high power scope and all scopes of this magnification are going to be somewhat less forgiving than say a 3-9X, but the TS is easy to use. The SW is much more finicky, but not the worst I've seen. However, it is quite noticeable especially when you have both scopes side by side.
Third, the view. The SW has a funny, I guess you would call it, muddy view. It's clear enough, though not "crystal" clear, and the colors seem muted, but it's ok. It certainly doesn't "pop" out at you. There is noticeable chromatic aberration, with very good edge to edge clarity. Also, there is some flare, or more accurately, washed out areas of bright sunlight reflected on the target. The TS is very well mannered in optical qualities, chromatic aberration is not apparent in any situation, edge to edge is great, flare well controlled, and image quality is much more pleasant than the SW. This scope is, in every way, superior in image quality to the SW.
Fourth, parallax settings on the SW are somewhat off, which is no surprise in any scope, maybe a bit more off than usual. I have probably 10 or so Hawke scopes all Airmax but one Vantage and all are pretty darn close, if not right on. It just surprised me that this more expensive SW was off as much as it was, but I don't hold that against it. As funny as it is, the TS is right on, and that scope is, what? 30 years old maybe!
Using the TS along side the SW, just points to the glaring differences, from a scope that probably cost 1/6th the price of the SW, which adjusted for inflation is probably more like less than half.
Of all the Airmax scopes I have, all handily beat the SW in image quality and light gathering abilities, when set at the same power. I have a 4-16X 30SF Airmax that blows the SW away optically from 6-16X on both scopes. There's no comparison. My compact Airmax 30 3-12X also beats the SW from 6-12X.
I am just pretty bummed at the lack of lenses in the SW. It sure seems the SW range is nothing more than a "dolled up" scope with more features than image quality. I'm trying to see the difference between the H2 lens system of the Airmax and the H5 of the SW range. It sure looks to me like the H2 is superior. I'll tell you one thing, the 30 some odd year old Tasco, though not having all the purdy new features of the SW, sure beats it in image quality and I've used this scope for years and it holds zero well, so it, most likely, will work well on pcp airguns.
The jury is still out on whether the SW goes back or not. It certainly is not what I had expected or hoped for. I'm not saying it's junk, it's not, but it's not head and shoulders better than the Airmax, which it should be.
Before I make a decision on returning it, I'd like to hear anyone's opinion of the SW range of scopes and any scope they would buy in the 6-20 or 6-24 range that would best the SW.
So I ordered the 6.5-20X44 Hawke Sidewinder, and I'm kind of let down. Upon initial examination, I was surprised that the SW was much darker and the eye box much tighter than what I expected. It quickly made me think of testing it head to head with an old Tasco TS Japan 6-24X target scope, and here's the surprising results.
First, the darkness issue. The TS and SW are nearly identical, with an edge, MAYBE going to the TS, but with me switching scopes and looking at the same things at the same distances, and same powers, it's easy to forget nuances of each scope, but I would say the TS and the SW are fairly equal in light gathering abilities. Both also have 44 mm objectives, so it makes sense. It also tells me Tasco used some pretty good lens coatings for the 1990's.
Second, eye box. The TS has a pretty forgiving eye box. I mean by that, it IS a high power scope and all scopes of this magnification are going to be somewhat less forgiving than say a 3-9X, but the TS is easy to use. The SW is much more finicky, but not the worst I've seen. However, it is quite noticeable especially when you have both scopes side by side.
Third, the view. The SW has a funny, I guess you would call it, muddy view. It's clear enough, though not "crystal" clear, and the colors seem muted, but it's ok. It certainly doesn't "pop" out at you. There is noticeable chromatic aberration, with very good edge to edge clarity. Also, there is some flare, or more accurately, washed out areas of bright sunlight reflected on the target. The TS is very well mannered in optical qualities, chromatic aberration is not apparent in any situation, edge to edge is great, flare well controlled, and image quality is much more pleasant than the SW. This scope is, in every way, superior in image quality to the SW.
Fourth, parallax settings on the SW are somewhat off, which is no surprise in any scope, maybe a bit more off than usual. I have probably 10 or so Hawke scopes all Airmax but one Vantage and all are pretty darn close, if not right on. It just surprised me that this more expensive SW was off as much as it was, but I don't hold that against it. As funny as it is, the TS is right on, and that scope is, what? 30 years old maybe!
Using the TS along side the SW, just points to the glaring differences, from a scope that probably cost 1/6th the price of the SW, which adjusted for inflation is probably more like less than half.
Of all the Airmax scopes I have, all handily beat the SW in image quality and light gathering abilities, when set at the same power. I have a 4-16X 30SF Airmax that blows the SW away optically from 6-16X on both scopes. There's no comparison. My compact Airmax 30 3-12X also beats the SW from 6-12X.
I am just pretty bummed at the lack of lenses in the SW. It sure seems the SW range is nothing more than a "dolled up" scope with more features than image quality. I'm trying to see the difference between the H2 lens system of the Airmax and the H5 of the SW range. It sure looks to me like the H2 is superior. I'll tell you one thing, the 30 some odd year old Tasco, though not having all the purdy new features of the SW, sure beats it in image quality and I've used this scope for years and it holds zero well, so it, most likely, will work well on pcp airguns.
The jury is still out on whether the SW goes back or not. It certainly is not what I had expected or hoped for. I'm not saying it's junk, it's not, but it's not head and shoulders better than the Airmax, which it should be.
Before I make a decision on returning it, I'd like to hear anyone's opinion of the SW range of scopes and any scope they would buy in the 6-20 or 6-24 range that would best the SW.
