|
|
|
Discussion Forums
Forum Index
> Optics
> S-TAC vs SIII
S-TAC vs SIII
@ 10:43 am (GMT) |
marcosHiI am going to buy my first long range scope. I have decided that it will be a Sightron, but I am hesitating between these two models: S-TAC 4-20 x 50 FFPZS IRMH FFPZS SIIISS624x50LRCM/MD The STAC has zero stop and ffp reticle, the SIII is sfp with the turret markings in gold color, characteristic of Sightron, it doesn't have zero stop. Basically they cost almost the same here, I understand that the SIII is superior quality, but there are many opinions about it. Any suggestions or advice? Thanks All the best Translated with DeepL.com (free version) |
Replies
|
@ 07:38 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: S-TAC vs SIIIHi Marcos, sorry I have blundered this. Will start fresh with comparative specs specs and with regards to low light shooting, minimum zoom.Here is a video showing the standard S-Tac 6x24 reticle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eZn7m8vfVo Scope in the video is set at 4x resulting in .5 MOA reticle thickness at 100 yards. .5 MOA divided by 3.438 = .145 mils. The S-Tac FFP mil reticle is .035 mils. .035 x 3.438 = .120 MOA. The SIII mil dot reticle is .096 mils which equals .33 MOA (over twice as thick as S-TAC FFP scope) I wrote about the issues regarding FFP scopes in Long Range rifles, second edition. The reticles are now so thin that the maker has no choice but to add illumination. It is not an 'additional feature' but rather a fix for a problem created by the idiotic tactical crowd. One of the sales reps at Sightron had told me that they had improved the reticle of the S-Tac but looking at the specs, I cannot see any improvement. Taking all of this into consideration, I recommend the SIII mil dot. You don't really need the zero stop, just make a note of the zero hash mark on your chart. There are also notes on generating a wind column for your chart, versus the mil dot reticle - within the technical section of my book long range shooting. You also don't really need FFP once you get to know your kit. As an aside, the reticle thickness of the SIII MOA-2 scope is .3 MOA @ 6 power. OK, hope this provides a clear comparison. |
@ 10:07 am (GMT) |
Marcos GarcíaRe: S-TAC vs SIIIThank you Nathan.I hadn't thought of it that way, I should have done the math. At 24x the thickness of the SIII reticle is .024 Mils. The STAC FFF reticle thickness is .035 Mils. The classic SIII mil-dot is thicker at low power/low light, even thinner at long daylight distance. I've already made up my mind. I can’t thank you enough. Best wishes. |
|
@ 07:50 pm (GMT) |
Marcos GarcíaRe: S-TAC vs SIIIHi,Has anyone been able to compare the old Sightron SIII's with the current ones? I know that this modelo has been updated over time. I have found a new one from 2011 and it cost 400€ less than one of the current ones (marks on the white turret), I would like to know if any of you have had the opportunity to compare to know if it is worth it, or if they have made many improvements. Can you compare in optics these old SIII with the current STAC, Vortex Viper...? I would appreciate any comments, as I have not had any SIII in my hand. Thanks a lot guys |
|
@ 07:50 pm (GMT) |
Marcos GarcíaRe: S-TAC vs SIIIHi,Has anyone been able to compare the old Sightron SIII's with the current ones? I know that this modelo has been updated over time. I have found a new one from 2011 and it cost 400€ less than one of the current ones (marks on the white turret), I would like to know if any of you have had the opportunity to compare to know if it is worth it, or if they have made many improvements. Can you compare in optics these old SIII with the current STAC, Vortex Viper...? I would appreciate any comments, as I have not had any SIII in my hand. Thanks a lot guys |
|
@ 10:53 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: S-TAC vs SIIIHi Marcos, quality is the same between the models. Its not going to be a problem for you whichever way you go.The first SIIIs were basically a mil dot reticle with a capped turret. The caps were quite handy, good for protecting zero etc. The uncapped model with MOA reticle came along a bit later. But generally, its been much the same all along with minor changes such as the recent zero stop units. I have compared optical clarity between the various SIII models with current Vortex and the S-Tac. All are similar, simply because glass comes from the same source. |
|
@ 09:30 am (GMT) |
Marcos GarcíaRe: S-TAC vs SIIIHi NathanIt is very kind of you to answer so many questions. I can't wait to get my hands on that Sightron! Thank you! |
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 |