|
|
|
Discussion Forums
Forum Index
> Optics
> Sightrons stac versus S3
Sightrons stac versus S3
@ 09:15 am (GMT) |
bryan longAny strong opinions betweenS-TAC 2.5-17.5X56 IR MOA versus SIII 30mm 3.5-10x44IR MOA (which is $100 cheaper) anyone got both that they can compare and contrast or strong views on which to get? Thanks Bryan |
Replies
|
@ 05:03 am (GMT) |
bryan longRe: Sightrons stac versus S3You guys can't all be using open sights? ; )Bryan |
@ 07:14 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: Sightrons stac versus S3Heck, sorry for missing this Bryan.The 2.5-17 is still relatively new. I have had a small level of input into this latest generation. The 3-16 S-TAC had a very fine crosshair and it was hard to see it at 3x in low light. The new 2.5-17 crosshair is nearly twice as thick and also has the IR (illuminated reticle) as extra insurance. I have not had a chance to test it yet. I would have been happy to have this without the IR but the design team wanted to cover all bases. As a negative, I have noticed that the eye relief on this model is not as forgiving at others at 3.5-3.7". I find that scopes with this eye relief are best housed on fairly low recoiling rifles, not ideal for a lightweight high recoiling rig or rigs with unique rings / bases / receiver relationships. Most folk would not notice the difference but when I am unraveling a client flinch, this is one of the pieces of the puzzle. The 3.5-10 SIII is a favorite of mine for a compact .308 rifles. I have uploaded some images onto this optics section of the forums. Eye relief is slightly better at 3.6 to 3.8". If the majority of your work is at normal ranges with less than 50% of your shots being from say 400 to 700 yards, this scope is ideal. On your M700 tactical, it will allow you to reach to 700 yards without any issues. But for those who are spending most of their time shooting at longer ranges, more zoom can be useful. The final decision is a personal matter really. Some guys want to keep their rigs as trim as possible, others are happy with the the extra bulk (24X models) with their focus being on shooting at longer ranges. As for my own .308, for the past few years I have been running the S-Tac 4-20 MOA, putting it through its paces. Being that this is the cheaper model compared to the SIII, I did not expect a great deal. Yet it has been very good, tracks well, reliable, have not had to readjust it at any time. It is certainly more bulky than a 10x but has been a joy to use. Again, this is very much a personal thing depending on your specific interests. About the only time I find guys get stuck is when they don't have clear goals on how the rifle is to be used. Not sure if that helps any. |
|
@ 08:10 am (GMT) |
bryan longRe: Sightrons stac versus S3I would have thought Sightron would send you test samples. You sell enough kit for them. Get on to them.There's instagram stars getting free everything (they might be afraif of the honesty of your feedback ;0 ) I got a great deal on the walmart site for S-Tac 4-20 and bought it at $399 (I've a brther in the States that'll post it back. The IR in the other 2 look tempting, all we have in Ireland is low light during the winter. Is I have a second scope I'll have to build a second rifle. Got a seconhad Jewel trigger for the Reminton this week as well. Thanks as always, Bryan |
|
@ 02:55 am (GMT) |
bryan longRe: Sightrons stac versus S3When I read back over my own posts I realise people might be right about me being dyslexic (that took 3 attempts to spell)But what the hell I understand them ; )))) |
@ 12:01 am (GMT) |
Warwick MarflittRe: Sightrons stac versus S3Donchya hayt it whun theiy mayk wurdz ewe karnt spall lyik Dylicsex? |
|
@ 12:50 am (GMT) |
bryan longRe: Sightrons stac versus S3dislike sex, is hard to spell |
@ 06:16 am (GMT) |
Hamish GibbsRe: Sightrons stac versus S3Hey i have sex daily! I mean dyslexia.I am also still waiting on the new ret that sightron was reported to be releasing on the stac this year. |
|
@ 07:27 am (GMT) |
Warwick MarflittRe: Sightrons stac versus S3If only I could make my own scopes? |
@ 01:30 pm (GMT) |
Robert McLeanRe: Sightrons stac versus S3I have a choice to make too. Sightron SIIB Big Sky 6.5 -20 MOA-2 or STAC 4-20. Big Sky is used of course but about $100 less. After Nathan's response I an leaning toward the new STAC. |
@ 07:00 am (GMT) |
Ryan NafeRe: Sightrons stac versus S3Guys, got the S-TAC 3-16x42mm in the mail yesterday. I’ve noticed something about the scope that I don’t understand. I’m not sure if it’s a defect, if it’s normal, or if I’m doing something wrong with the various adjustments to cause the problem:- There seems to be quite a lot of edge distortion. I can make it mostly go away by playing with the eyebell focus knob and the parallax adjustment, but it’s still there to some degree. Can anyone tell me if this is normal or not? I realize it’s a bit hard to understand without actually looking through the optic, but anything you guys could do to help would be very much appreciated. |
|
@ 10:39 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: Sightrons stac versus S3Hi Ryan, the 3-16 in particular should be very clear. This is a budget scope so some distortion at the outer edges is to be expected but generally, the glass is normally extremely good, far better than one might expect from a budget scope. If you have any doubts, send it back for re-inspection. |
|
@ 11:41 am (GMT) |
Ryan NafeRe: Sightrons stac versus S3Nathan, I have been tinkering with the scope settings this afternoon and I mounted the rail, rings, and scope in order to really get a good look through it. Just a temporary mount (half torque settings, no adhesives, and after checking for ring alignment with that Wheeler kit) and I think I have it nailed:- There is some minor edge distortion that remained, even after I set the eye relief, eyebell focus, and parallax. However, it’s quite minimal. Perhaps the outer 10% of the picture at the most. About the same as my Leupold FX-II 4x32 I really don’t think that’s a problem at all, and as you noted the actual optical clarity and contrast of the picture itself is REALLY nice. Easily comparable to my Leupold FX-II. I just did a side-by-side a few minutes ago in the twilight hours, and I cannot tell any significant difference in the sharpness or clarity of the images, but there is actually a slight edge in favor of the Sightron when it comes to the contrast and richness of various colors in the image. The Leupold is slightly more monotone and flat-looking in terms of the colors. For the $280 I paid for the S-TAC, I have a hard time naming a different scope with a better list of features or a more versatile magnification range at anywhere near this price. It should be good for in-close woods shooting and all the way out to my own range limitations, though I would need a rangefinder and drop chart for sure because I went with the Duplex reticle. One other thing about the S-TAC: I had seen a TON of people online complaining about the sharp edges on the flip-up zoom lever, and either Sightron has fixed this, my hands are way more hardy than those guys’, or both. The part was pretty clearly buffed/deburred before it was anodized and assembled. |
@ 07:35 pm (GMT) |
Brendon GreigRe: Sightrons stac versus S3I have a S-Tac 4-20×50 on my 7mm remag and have just put one on my 223 that I have got for rabbit shooting love it |
Please wait
ABOUT USWe are a small, family run business, based out of Taranaki, New Zealand, who specialize in cartridge research and testing, and rifle accurizing.
|
KNOWLEDGEBASE |
KNOWLEDGEBASE |