|
|
|
Discussion Forums
Forum Index
> Optics
> Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42
Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42
@ 11:18 am (GMT) |
AprioriHi All,Long time lurker, first time poster. My old Zeiss Conquest 3-9 x 40 has seen better days & it's time to upgrade. I'm going to buy a S-TAC 3-16 x 42 based on Nathan's recommendation (and follow-up searches on the web). Guessing the S-TAC 4-20 x 50 won't offer a huge advantage for hunting in forested areas? Decision time - which reticle ? I'm guessing I should stick to the duplex I'm used to, but I see they offer a non-illuminated MOA reticle too. How to you all find the MOA reticle for hunting in forests, especially under dawn/dusk lighting? I own three of Nathan's encyclopaedias, so if this is covered better in one of them, please flick me the page/chapter number ! Cheers, Apriori |
Replies
|
@ 04:29 pm (GMT) |
AprioriRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42Hi All,Have re-read a few of the other posts & found the question has already been asked, just in different ways. Next time will re-read other posts before asking questions that have already been answered, several times. Ooops ! [/b] |
@ 12:11 am (GMT) |
Hamish GibbsRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42Hi there, guess you have your answer but I will re affirm, DON'T BUY MOA for any situation when lighting or fast target aquisition is a requirement in the 3-16, the question had been asked on the duplex reticle but no feedback as yet? Sightron do have great diagrams with all the reticle sizes/measurements on there website but personally I want to site one before committing next time. If you end up with duplex in 3-16 please give some feedback. |
@ 07:47 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42Hi Apriori, yes, this has been answered before. But just to clarify, there is some footage of the MOA reticle in one of my most recent youtube videos. Unfortunately, the 3-16 reticle cannot be seen under the bush canopy. Hopefully this is something that can be rectified in the future. |
|
@ 09:29 am (GMT) |
AprioriRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42Thank you Hamish & Nathan for responding.Forgive the "handle" - can't make it too easy for the SJW's in HR to get me fired for cis-heteronormative-patriachal "wrong-think" or something that might make the trans-vegan-peta empowered coalition "uncomfortable". It's pretty Orwellian at the moment & management are looking for _ANY_ excuse to shed staff. This is typical of the issue around optics isn't it? I've spent the last month going around in circles, getting more and more confused with all the fluffy marketing. I've read & watched so darn much that I forgot what I read here in previous posts. And now I'm back to where I first started looking for the straight info, and back at the initial scope I considered. Full Circle. Eye relief, clarity & a decent reticle for my aging eyes are key decision points in that order, but quality is not-negotiable. For what I want to do, I think the S-TAC 3-16 x 42 duplex will be spot on, and the only thing missing is an illuminated reticle. The budget (uncertainty with work due to the beer virus) prevents me stepping up to a newer SIII or S-TAC with a IR. Thanks again for your assistance Nathan. I'll have to buy a fourth encyclopedia from you ! Cheers, Apriori |
@ 12:17 am (GMT) |
Warwick MarflittRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42Apriori. Have you looked at the S-Tac 2-10x32 with the Duplex Or HHR2https://www.opticsplanet.com/sightron-s-tac-30mm-2-10x32-riflescope.html |
|
@ 12:46 am (GMT) |
AprioriRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42Hi Warwick,To be honest mate, I'd like something with a bit more power, because I am considering dual use - I can't afford both a hunting rig and a target rig at the moment. There are some very sharp deals going on the Zeiss Conquest V4 in 3-12 x 56 ($1100 AUD) with the IR duplex reticle, but they are a bit cagey with their eye relief - claimed 3.5" but no mention of what power that's at. Probably just what I need for a dedicated hunting rig in a forest. Zeiss clarity has always blown me away & a 56mm objective sounds ideal for dawn & dusk in the forest, but not so hot as an entry into the extended ranges. Primary use will be hunting. But want to try my hand at stretching out the ranges - strictly against paper - to see if I have what it takes to get involved in the LR addiction. I'm really tempted to go to the S-TAC 4-20 x 50 because of this. Final question; is there a preferred model of Burris scope ring for the S-TACs? |
|
@ 09:18 am (GMT) |
Hamiish GibbsRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42Apriori if the 'bulk' of a 56 does not concern you there is or once was a 2.5-17.5 x56 STAC with an illuminated reticle, higher price point and quality? Not sure they are still produced but there is still the odd one around in stores. Never sited one personally but reviews on them are boomer(for what it's worth). Guy named Richard Uting does in depth review on YouTube, will give you a good overview of the scope of nothing else. May be someone here has firsthand experience. |
|
@ 09:30 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42Hi Apriori, its more the base that is of concern. Ideally, the bases are best scalloped. EGW make the best base for this, offering plenty of clearance for the large zoom ring.Burris medium height 30mm Optilock rings work well with this scope. Torque the cross bolts up to about 40 inch-lb and then recheck / torque the following morning. Also check the top screws the following morning. This simple recheck ensures they sit well for years. Mounts are covered in my accurizing book but specifics (issues) for the S-TAC are covered in the M700 trouble shooting vid. |
|
@ 12:16 pm (GMT) |
AprioriRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42Hi Nathan and Hamiish,Just pulled the trigger on the S-TAC 4-20 x 50 with duplex ret as the local gunshop gave me a deal just too good to refuse ! I have a warne 20 MOA steel rail on my Savage model 12. I'll have a look in the accurising book (seriously - trying to remember where I read everything is a challenge - they are bl00dy encyclopedias !). Will follow your suggestions & the book and let you all know how it goes. Thanks to Nathan and the guys that chipped in with advice - greatly appreciate the help. Will keep you all informed. Cheers, Apriori |
|
@ 12:33 pm (GMT) |
AprioriRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42Quote: . . . Apriori if the 'bulk' of a 56 does not concern you there is or once was a 2.5-17.5 x56 STAC with an illuminated reticle, higher price point and quality? . . .
Hi Hamish, Thanks for your input mate. The IR version S-TACs are available here, but out of my budget (due to current uncertainties, being as tight as I can without compromising quality). I'm old school - 5'11", wrong side of 50, pretty active, fit & strong at 100kgs. My rifle is a varmint rig (5kg all up - no Tikka Ultra-Super-Pansy-Lite blow away in a fart for me), and a few extra hundred grams won't be noticeable - remember this is Aussie sclerophyll forests in Southern NSW, NE Vic, not the real-deal kiwi-style mountains/forest you guys are blessed with. Cheers & MANY thanks, Apriori |
@ 12:47 pm (GMT) |
IainRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42Watching with interest.Both the 3/16/42 and the 4/20/50 S-TAC have attracted me for a while, with the availability of the duplex being a big reason. The two things that have held me back, are the lack of a zero stop and the capped turrets. The caps seem like a big time waster to me. Is the sealing good enough to simply hunt with the ele. cap removed ?. |
|
@ 11:17 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42Hi Iain, I haven't had the elv cap of the 4-20 on my .308 since I have had the scope (two or three years now). I think its good that folk are given the option to have it on or off.Zero stop is neither here nor there. I wrote about this in the LR shooting book (in the drop chart section). No need for either of factors to interfere with your decisions. If you want an S-TAC duplex, go for it. https://youtu.be/-AHDiV4Gq5M |
|
@ 10:04 am (GMT) |
IainRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42Thank you.My zero stop problem is a personal one, and is not to do with losing track of where I am. For some reason, I intuitively want to screw down, clockwise, to increase elevation. Can't seem to to shake the habit, but a zero stop won't let me do it, and then my brain kicks in. |
|
@ 10:05 am (GMT) |
IainRe: Reticle decision for S-TAC 3-16 x 42If I am looking at markings on the dial, it's less of a problem, but if I am simply counting clicks, I can easily stuff up. |
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 |