Review of Weaver Tactical 4-20x50

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Z

zebra

Member
Sep 29, 2015
1,779
70
New York
Before you follow the crowd and order that Hawke sidewinder or Leupold, let me show you one of the other options. My new Weaver Tactical 4-20x50 FFP mil dot / mil turret arrived from Midway a few days ago so I thought I'd share some first impressions.





The Tactical is part of Weaver's Super Slam line which are their flagship product. They differ from the other models in that they are FFP and have holdover reticles (on the same scope). It has a side focus (25 yards to infinity). The model I got is mil/mil and it adjusts in 1/10 mil clicks. The turrets are the locking kind.





To give you an idea of where they sit in the pecking order, the quality (of glass and build) is comparable to a Leupold MK4. Midway usually sells this model for $850 (although I got it on sale). Natchez currently has this model on sale for $700 and the 3-15x50 version for $570 which is just about the best deal I have seen on a new scope.

While I like the FFP models, the options available should cover most tastes. They also come in SFP, as well as models with moa turrets, illuminated reticles, enhanced mil dot reticles etc. 

My my first impression is that the glass is noticeably clearer than all my other scopes. I like my other FFP scope a lot but my Primary Arms 4-14x44 is a budget friendly option while the Weaver is high mid-range. I can literally see better at 50 yards on 4x with the weaver than I can on 10x with the PA or 9x on my Clearidge, or 12x on any of my Hawke scopes. I can see things that I didn't know were there.

had I known that I would be able to so well on the lower power settings with this scope, I probably would have chosen to save $130 and gone with the 3-15x50 model. I can't think of many scenarios where going higher than 15x would be needed or even desirable for airgun use. I don't feel the same for all scopes but this thing is clear enough for me to see the pellet holes on dark tree branches at 70 yards on less than 10x.

The other thing I checked immediately is it's suitability for airgun distances as it only focuses down to 25 yards. I could get a crystal clear image up to 6x in the garden directly below by bedroom window and if you can't see your target at 6x at 15 or 20 yards with this scope, then you can't see.

I got the scope for my Ataman Ultra Compact as it's been crying out for some better glass before I review it. The Tactical is not particularly light at 28oz but on a super light gun like the Ataman, it feels good. 

The rings btw, are the Weaver Tactical high 6 screw rings and I'm not sure I like these but I'll get to that.


Over the next few weeks I'll update this thread when I have tested the scope properly but the question I intend to answer is if a scope like this is really worth the extra cash for air gun use. 

TBC
 
Well, I'm glad you finally got a Weaver (after all the problems) and your initial report makes it clear you are happy ... so far.

I am also pleased to notice that Weaver seem to understand the importance of a 'decently' recessed ocular lens (it looks deeper than most modern scopes) - that could be a real benefit in high Summer (or just bright :) ) conditions or when you are shooting with the sun over your shoulder somewhat.

Keep us updated !
 
Upvote 0
"JoeWayneRhea"Zebra I been waiting on you to get this in !!! I'm going to Bass Pro this weekend and its one of the few scopes I'll bother the clerk to let me look thru ..I've heard they are incredible for the price . There's only one way to get that kinda quality optics ...Take a deep breath and scrape into that emergency fund in your wallet and set that money free :)
Click to expand...
It's sad but true. Cheap scopes are getting better but the difference is still very noticeable.

I think the Natchez deal on the 3-15x50 for $570 is a particularly awesome price for a scope of that quality. The 3-15 normally sells for $850 too.

They also had deals around $500 for the enhanced mill dot SFP versions of the 4-20x50 Super Slam and I assume the glass is the same quality. 

The thing that has me girlishly happy today is my tests on the turrets. I've never really cared about turret quality because I use the reticle but I didn't appreciate how much easier it is to use quality turrets with precision adjustments.

I was zeroing the scope and the first test shot was one mil left. I simply counted 10 clicks right and I was bang on perfect. It took me just two pellets to zero it perfectly.

There was none of the usual turning it left and back to right multiple times and hoping it eventually landed on the poi. I have cheaper scopes that make the right clicking noise when you turn the turrets but the crosshairs never move in sync with the clicks. On the Weaver tact, you can see precise instant movement with each click. I like precision!

More importantly, this extra precision translated into a better group than I have ever shot before. This could be partly explained by the 1/10mil clicks allowing me to dial in a more precise zero. The extra clarity also helped me take advantage of the fine tuning opportunity. My eyesight is not the best so I don't normally bother trying tweak my zero finer than 1/4 mil.

You don't want to talk to the long range power burner guys about a purchase you are proud of though. No matter what you buy, they feel it's their duty to remind of what it isn't. If you buy the top Weaver you get "well it's no Nightforce but great for the price". If you buy Nightforce you get "well it's no March but great for the price". If you buy March "it's no Schmidt and bender but not bad if you're on a budget. Nobody is ever allowed to be happy with a scope.
 
Upvote 0
Yeah there's always a Debbie Downer in every group !!! Man what you said about zero " settling in" is dead ON for most cheap scopes . I absolutely HATE watching the POI shift around for half dozen shots till it decides where it wants to point ! Then when it does , you're afraid to move it again . I have an old Weaver fixed 15 power on a prairie dog gun and it absolutely stops when you quit making adjustments. Same with my Leupold . What amazes me about a lot of the scopes I see guys recommend are scopes I KNOW have issues with tracking . I think some guys just accept it as the way it goes . ? Can't wait to see one of those scopes in person !
 
Upvote 0
I heard that those old Weaver scopes from the days when they were American owned and still run by the family, were exceptional. That's really the period when Weaver built up their reputation. Today "Weaver" is just a brand. Their higher end scopes are all made by Light Optical Works in Japan, (where pretty much all decent Japanese scopes are made these days). 


The fact that there is still a market for 20 and 30-year-old Weaver scopes and businesses who still repair them, is a testament to their quality. It makes me want to pick one up off eBay to see what the fuss is about. 

On scope recommendations and tracking, for me it always comes down to setting expectations properly and not trying to use a scope for something it isn't meant for. I'll never understand why so many people who have never seen high end glass have to tell people that their $200 scope performs like one. It's the most overused exaggeration in reviews.

Similarly, it always makes me roll my eyes when people post these YouTube reviews where they test the tracking on a $250 scope and complain that it doesn't give them the same precision as $1000+ for long range work. Like it's a big surprise to them every time. They bought a used Chrysler for $10,000 and feel it's their duty to warn the world that it doesn't perform well on the formula 1 race track. 

On the other hand, it warms the space where my heart should be when I see reviews from people who seem to get it. For example, there was tons of reviews for the Primary Arms 4-14x44 FFP but this is the one that persuaded me to give it a try:


The reviewer is a long range guy who uses $3,000 scopes on his personal rifles. He uses turrets for corrections but for this review, he got the point that you only use the holdover reticle on an FFP $230 product. He still tests the turrets and explains accurately what they can and can't do, then he set my expectations at the right level, so there was no disappointment.

On a cheaper scope, I expect to use the turrets only once to sight it in and then hopefully never touch them again. I can live with poor tracking as long as it's cheap, I didn't expect good tracking, I am still able to sight it in, it holds zero, has a holdover reticle and did I mention cheap? If I spend the extra cash though, I expect everything to work well. 

When someone recommends a product, I like to know what they are comparing it to (and what they expected). Nothing is good or bad in isolation. Tracking might be good for someone comparing it to the scope that came free with their $80 Walmart Springer but be a complete abomination to someone who is used to a Leupold MK6. 

Joe, you've spoilt yourself with Leupold scopes and I think that might have condemned you to a life of being disappointed by scope recommendations from airgun forums. Unless you spend a fortune on March or Schmidt and Bender, there aren't many commonly used airgun scopes that are going to be better than the equivalent Leupold. The best you can expect is maybe matching the Leupold quality and hopefully getting a few extra features.

If I can add a few to the list of scopes you should check out if you get the chance:

The SWFA 3-15x42 FFP. This is the other one I considered before choosing the Weaver. The price was the same (as the Weaver on sale) and it focuses down to 6 yards. Approx half the world prefers this one and half prefer the Weaver. 

The Weaver Grand Slam zero stop. I haven't seen this one in person but it's turret heaven, apparently. I'd be interested to hear what you think of you get the chance.

The Sig Sauer Tango 4 4-16x44 FFP. Again, I haven't seen these in person but Sig will laser etch custom turrets for you and the idea of it is making me lose control of my wallet... I need you to tell me that they suck, even if they are awesome. These were $50 more than the Weaver and SWFA 

 
Upvote 0
I haven't seen the Sig stuff in person but want to . I prefer a target dot or one like the new er MOA quad that swfa offers . I use my turrets all the time and hate it when a scope can't be adjusted for fear of it not settling back in just right ..
I'm a big fan of the fixed power swfa stuff for sure . but not because the glass is that great ( good but not great ) its the fact they track right , hold zero, and are repeatable . For me optical clarity is hard to put in words . But for me personally the floor is about at Leupold VX2 range of glass. And if its higher mag ( like over 12 power) I like glass just a tad bit better . Guys don't wanna hear it , but most of the Hawke scopes are below that line in the dirt . The stuff coming out of Light Optical is all good stuff !!!! To get better than that , takes a price jump I can't handle very often .
 
Upvote 0
I've never been able to get along with Hawke scopes either. Some scopes make me feel like I got more than I paid for but the Hawkes I bought left me with that "I just got mugged" feeling. They aren't terrible. It's just that my other scopes in the same price range are much better. 

I don't really get why anyone recommends them still. They have a similar place in my head to the magnum springer - I.e. the rookie mistake of choosing stuff based on which has the highest number on the box. They certainly pack in the specs but they aren't quality specs. 10-50 on a $500 scope has never been good.... They have the opposite problem to Leupold. I haven't seen their latest generation though to be fair. 

They do have genius marketing those Hawke guys. They managed to get a number of usually smart people to give up a lot of glass quality and other important features for this essentially useless "half mill dot" branding. 

Btw, What's the deal with target dot reticles? As in what advantage do they offer over basic crosshairs or a German 4? One of the Weaver Super Slam 4-20 models is available with a target dot reticle and it's less expensive that the ones with holdover reticles. I've just never had the chance to try one.

I understand that, as a target shooter, you use the turrets so they are more important than the type of reticle, but why is a mil dot reticle a disadvantage to you?

The reason why I ask is because I have been really enjoying using these quality precise turrets in conjunction with the mil dot reticle. Having the clicks marry up perfectly to the reticle is making accurate ranging and working out the required number of clicks super easy and fun, and quick.

For example, I was shooting a tree today and all I knew was that it was beyond 50 yards. I zoomed in and saw the poi for the first shot was 1 1/2 mil dots down so I counted 15 clicks and the next 10 shots were dead on. I was thinking "who wouldn't want this? This is awesome!". 
It is equally useful in windy conditions using the same method. 

Even if you use a range finder, having that frame of reference could be useful. E.g. If you miscalculate the windage correction in a match, being able to see instantly how many dots left or right the poi was, means you can quickly dial it in for the next shot. Do you use the match targets for this instead?

 
Upvote 0
This is what the reticle looks like on 6x. It's not representative of how clear it looks in person (or even close). It's just going to show the difference between 4x, 6x, 10x and 20x etc without being an FFP scope:




It's actually not an easy pic to to take because the glass is clearer than my other scopes so the auto focus doesn't want to focus on the reticle, it's like it can't see it. Plus, there is 4" of eye relief so it looks small on my camera phone unless I use the digital zoom (which makes it grainy).

This pic is still at 6x but zoomed in on my phone camera:



Anyway... the key point is that the reticle is very thin. It's a good bit thinner than what I'm used to and it still looks fairly thin at 20x (I'm still working on that pic). I'm not sure if you can tell in this pic but the center of the crosshairs is just that - I.e. A very fine crosshairs, there is no dot covering the actual target unless you choose to holdover.

As it's FFP, you have 10 clicks of adjustment between each dot, even when it's tiny at 4x, or at 20x - it's largest setting. 

Using this scope today has suddenly given me an understanding of why Leupold charges more for the custom shop to add a mil dot reticle than it does for non-holdover reticles. It's not just a case of choosing different artwork on the etching machine. Somebody has to make sure the clicks on the turrets marry up to the holdover graduations on the reticle. That sounds complimicated. They don't need to bother on cheaper scopes, so they are... um.... you know... cheaper...

I very nearly chose to save a little money and buy a used mil / moa version of this scope off ebay, as I thought "I'll probably never use the turrets" but I am happy I went for the mil / mil version now. It turns out that I do like using turrets when they work properly.

Btw, the feature set is something to watch out for if anyone is thinking of buying this scope. It isn't immediately obvious which versions have which features. Depending on what is important to you, make sure to ask if the one you are buying has the illuminated reticle, the mil or moa turrets, the regular mil dot or enhanced mil dot reticle etc. Both the 4-20 and the 3-15 come with or without any of those things.

more reticle pics to follow....

 
Upvote 0
Btw, that target was left over from the previous scope that couldn't hold zero. All the shots were aimed at the center bull. The group on the far right was the first one with this scope mounted. That's 26 shots in that tight cluster. Big difference....

Things were a lot more random with that old Leapers scope, which is why it is in my draw instead of on a gun now. 
 
Upvote 0
Zebra, I'm not sure honestly why I prefer the target dot ? Maybe because I'm A.D.D. as hell and its easier for my brain to wrap around .
This i s gonna sound crazy , but when I'm aiming with a dot no matter what I'm shooting at its like I'm relaxed ...With a intersecting crosshair I feel like I'm having to concentrate on the sight picture to stay centered , a dot just kinda wants to " go " to the center . Best way I know how to describe it .
Dude I'm with you 1000% on the Hawke thing. I like the little inexpensive stuff they have , its good to average for a budget scope ....But NO way I'd spend money on their priceier stuff . There are too many options with Way better glass . I haven't owned a Sidewinder or any of their other better scope s. But I've looked thru them and I get the same feeling I get when I look thru say an Aeon scope ....Yep you can use this to aim with ...
But I don't get that " wow " thought in my head like I do with better optics .
 
Upvote 0
I had a sidewinder and that was the scope that gave me the biggest sinking feeling because it cost me a lot and I was instantly disappointed when I looked through it. My expectations were set so too high by the recommendations and the price tag. 

At the time I really thought I was buying something good. I hadn't learnt yet that those silly high magnification settings were a waste of time on a $500 scope and on one for a PCP rifle that never shoots beyond 150 yards. 

BTW, I have ADD so I understand what you are saying about how a less busy optic relaxes you. I guess I feel like that about the glass being clear so my eyes focus on the target instead of the glass. For hunting though, I love having quick holdover reference points.

Those little mil dots become the target. The line connecting them on this scope is so thin that you can hardly see it if you aren't on a higher power setting. That's why the mil dot section is framed in those thick posts, so it draws your eyes to right place when using lower power settings in low light. 

If you don't need to holdover then you can definitely get better glass for less money for some brands. If I didn't care about the mil dot reticle I could have got a used one I passed up on for $450 with a German 4 (FFP) or the target dot SFP model for $550 (that was new from Natchez). 

My theory is that you like the target dot because your Leupold 6.5-20x40 had that reticle and that was your best scope so you associate it with good memories and no disappointment. Maybe part of the reason for it being relaxing to use and not drawing your eye to the reticle instead of the target, was the clarity of the glass. 

I know you've had a number of good and clear scopes but that Leupold is a particularly sweet one. If they ever made it with side focus and efr (on the same model)....

 
Upvote 0
"JoeWayneRhea"I been looking online at the Weavers ....No two ways around it ...If you wanna play , ya gotta pay . I haven't seen a single bad review yet !!!!
Click to expand...
All the good deals on the Tactical models have sold out at Natchez now (which doesn't surprise me as they were great deals) but they still have a 4-20x50 Super Slam with target dot for $460. I have yet to find a better deal for this level of scope:

https://www.natchezss.com/weaver-super-slam-riflescope-4-20x50mm-sf-fine-x-reticle-matte.html

This is an SFP model and the turrets look different (I can't tell if they lock like the tact) but the glass should be equal in quality. It does have a fine cross hair with the dot but, if it's anything like the tact, it will probably be too thin to bother you. If it is the same quality glass and functionality of turret (as they are both models of super Slam), then it's as close to a bargain as you get in the scope world imo. 

They still have some of the 3-15x50 models on sale as well too. 
 
Upvote 0
Here's some more pics of the Weaver tactical:

The reticle on 20x:




I haven't yet found a need to use this scope on 20x but this is the thickest it gets. In person it actually looks a little thinner but I had to take the pic from an angle so the digital camera would focus on the reticle instead of the sight picture. 

Here's the locking mechanism on the turrets. 

The turret locked:




and unlocked:




In case you can't see the difference, the turret is pulled up to unlock it. When it's down, it can't be moved. Apparently the benefit is that you can't knock it and move the turrets off your zero by accident or without noticing. In all honesty, I have never once moved a turret even one click by accident but I guess if you were an army sniper on a mission crawling through the dirt in the woods, or something, it's one less thing to worry about. Whatever....

There are extra markings under the turrets in a ladder-like design to show you which rotation you are on for an easy return to zero:





Now here is something that is of benefit to me. The power adjuster ring has this little handle sticking out:





As well as making it easier to turn and showing you what power setting you are on, it also allows me to feel which setting I am on in low light and make adjustments without taking my eye off the target, which is great. 

Even better is that it has a little screw holding it in position and the screw can be replaced with an additional longer handle for those that want it. I want it!


The rings I'm using here are the Weaver Tactical 6 screw high rings:





Having 6 screws instead of 4 is meant to make everything more secure but I have my doubts if it makes any actual difference other than making it take longer to install. I'm not sure I'd buy these rings again. The fit is snug and it leaves no visible gaps when all the screws are tightened but the fit is a little too snug for my liking. It's so tight that when you put the scope in, you can't turn it to position it probably (i.e. correcting any cant issues) without taking the whole scope out and lowering it back in. This makes installation a royal pain in the backside. Any attempt to turn the scope, even a little, results in horrible scratches and scuffs on the anodized finish. Like all anodized finishes, they can't be repaired once you scratch them. 



 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu