Discussion Forums

John D. Hays - New Mexico

Looking at covering the rifles in my stable with Sightron scopes, I made this little table:



If I am looking at cost/benefit, with weight being the primary cost factor for a having a hunting rifle of field-manageable weight, then there are three categories: 16oz. - 21 oz. - 24 oz.

If I am looking for a rifle with intended range of 300/400-yard, the the STAC 2-10x32 would be adequate. At 16 oz., it is half a pound less than the 24 oz. scopes, and would make a bit more portable rifle, particularly a high-country rifle.

The SIII 3.5-10x44 is a better quality optic and more easily adjustable, but it is still just a 10-power at best, and the weight savings over at 24 oz. scope is only 4 oz. Not enough to make an appreciable difference in portability.

The STAC 3-16x42 weighs in at 23.5 oz. and is in the same weight class here as the other 24 oz. Sightrons. At the same weight as the STAC 4-20x50, why would anyone choose to sacrifice the larger objective lens and the greater maximum magnification?

Finally, looking at the SIII 6-24x50 what is the benefit of the STAC 4-20x50 except for the cost differential? The SIII is obviously of better quality. There is no weight advantage over the other 24 oz. class of these Sightrons.

BTW, the prices I list here are US standard prices for these Sightrons, but with online shopping, or buying online used, I can generally find these for 20% to 40% less. It requires diligence and patience.

So, what am I missing here? What is the appeal of the STAC 3-16 or the SIII 3.5-10 ?