Comparing Element Titan 3-18x50 for field target against Sightrons and Athlon

Jump to latest Follow Reply
cavedweller

cavedweller

Member
Dec 5, 2018
4,210
1
5,272
Mobile, Alabama, United States
I have 3 of these particular Element scopes with a price point of roughly $780.00

Element Titan 3-18x50 all FFP
2 are MOA
1 is MRAD

All utilized a 6” scope werks wheel for setup. All scopes and wheels setup in overcast conditions = intentionally.

The good = at 16 X you get a 290 degree usage on the wheels rotation for ranging 9.5 to 60 yards.

The bad = at 16 X like most all scopes, once you get to 40 yards focal point repeatability or “pop” is difficult
(you really have to work at it) and work it the same way every time. Some people refer to this as mushy because your focus points don’t snap or pop in.

Of note - to my 67 year old eyes, when compared to a new Sightron S6 MHFT @$1900.00 or a Athlon Heras SPR 6-24x56 @$750.00 or a Sightron S-Tac 4-20x50 @$700.00.
The Sightron (s) in general win clarity and crispy focal points at 10-35 yards; the Athlon with the smallest amount of wheel rotation/ spread is the more repeatable from 40-55 yards but requires some guess work because the lack of spread on the wheel; but overall the Element with practice is the best blend of near too far, but will require absolute user consistency.

If you own any of these scopes please share your experiences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dpbuckeye, Welldone, Uglyjohn and 1 other person
I appreciate you sharing such detailed comparisons with us on the regular. It is hard for many people to get out and try too many different things, so details like these that you can’t get on paper and rarely find reviews of are significant.

That Element has intrigued me since I first read you talk about the range on the wheel. I still haven’t pulled the trigger, because I like my Falcon. With not being able to shoot much this year, I haven’t convinced myself I need to try one yet. I also never heard many great things about the Titan line, but this 3-18 line might be different enough for me to try.

I like the Sightrons I have owned, but the price of the big one turns me off for my needs, and I was never interested in the 4-20, but I know a lot of people really like that model.

I have been a fan of Athlon since the beginning, but it is hard to keep up with all the new models! I am glad they offered some new options and catered to us a little in the newer offerings.

Whether I try either of these in the future will depend on how much FT I shoot, but these discussions are keeping me interested in trying something new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cavedweller, Welldone and Uglyjohn
Upvote 0
Smok3y said:
I appreciate you sharing such detailed comparisons with us on the regular. It is hard for many people to get out and try too many different things, so details like these that you can’t get on paper and rarely find reviews of are significant.

That Element has intrigued me since I first read you talk about the range on the wheel. I still haven’t pulled the trigger, because I like my Falcon. With not being able to shoot much this year, I haven’t convinced myself I need to try one yet. I also never heard many great things about the Titan line, but this 3-18 line might be different enough for me to try.

I like the Sightron's I have owned, but the price of the big one turns me off for my needs, and I was never interested in the 4-20, but I know a lot of people really like that model.

I have been a fan of Athlon since the beginning, but it is hard to keep up with all the new models! I am glad they offered some new options and catered to us a little in the newer offerings.

Whether I try either of these in the future will depend on how much FT I shoot, but these discussions are keeping me interested in trying something new.
Click to expand...
I left a detail out which may or may not be of interest. The Sightron S6 MHFT has a 34 mm tube body as does the 3-18x50 Element Titan. What intrigues me about the 34mm tube body is = these two scope get the most spread on the wheels... even at 16X.
I had a March X Highmaster FT scope with a 34 mm tube that spread the numbers nicely as well.
I wonder how the larger 34 mm tube body / optics are able to increase the spread on the wheel.
Math is not my thing but i do know that in general terms Optics and light, etc... are all about math.
@Smok3y - thanks for the kind words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Welldone and Bramezy
Upvote 0
aledesma said:
Bushnell just sent me an email. Their new Match Pro ED in 3-18×50 just came out.
Click to expand...
Bummer = the minimum parallax focus is 15 yards. darn.

www.bushnell.com

MATCH PRO ED 3-18X50 RIFLESCOPE

match pro, 3-18X50, scope, riflescope, MP31850DMI
www.bushnell.com www.bushnell.com

the reticle at 15 X may be a tad too fine / thin ? Def. worth looking through.
719RVMMayCL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I have Sightron S-Tac 4-20, S3 10-50 and several Athlons. I've never used the Athlons for FT but the Sightron S3 is tops. I don't like FFP scopes for FT because the reticle size changes with magnification. Actually, I also used a Hawke Sidewinder 6-24 with the 1/2 mildot 20X reticle. It's reticle is nice for holding over. I've never owned an Element but looked through them-meh! Just because Elements are associated with FX doesn't make them the best. I just don't understand why they are so popular when there are so many other choices. If you look at the FT match results, the Sightron S3, or it's variants, are by far the most popular scope for top shooters. What does that say?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cavedweller
Upvote 0
jps2486 said:
I have Sightron S-Tac 4-20, S3 10-50 and several Athlons. I've never used the Athlons for FT but the Sightron S3 is tops. I don't like FFP scopes for FT because the reticle size changes with magnification. Actually, I also used a Hawke Sidewinder 6-24 with the 1/2 mildot 20X reticle. It's reticle is nice for holding over. I've never owned an Element but looked through them-meh! Just because Elements are associated with FX doesn't make them the best. I just don't understand why they are so popular when there are so many other choices. If you look at the FT match results, the Sightron S3, or it's variants, are by far the most popular scope for top shooters. What does that say?
Click to expand...
@jps2486 that's good info. In my quest for the perfect HFT scope, i haven't been concerned with name brands or dollar amount. What i have been trying to find is that do it all "scope" that repeatably ranges accurately at 16X AND spreads the numbers out sufficiently on the wheel between 40 through 55 yards to actually use the right holdover. I have a couple second Focal Plane Sightron FT scopes that do okay but they lack sufficient information / holdover points on the reticle for my eye brain connection to work with. I am more and more intrigued by the 34 mm scope tube bodies spreading the numbers out the way they do. In this case I’m comparing 3 scopes that are at a similar price point.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
cavedweller said:
Bummer = the minimum parallax focus is 15 yards. darn.

www.bushnell.com

MATCH PRO ED 3-18X50 RIFLESCOPE

match pro, 3-18X50, scope, riflescope, MP31850DMI
www.bushnell.com www.bushnell.com

the reticle at 15 X may be a tad too fine / thin ? Def. worth looking through.
View attachment 495758
Click to expand...
It's. 04 mil line thickness so too fine at lower magnification.

My H59 reticle in the S&B is .05 mil.

I don't understand why these manufacturers are adverse to putting slightly thicker reticles on scopes made to be used at 3× to 4x on occasion. It's like they think a target can't be hit with the extras width or ???.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cavedweller
Upvote 0
I just moved from a athlon helos 6-24x56 to a athlon 4-20x50 to try for field target. Anymore i only use this reticle as it is easy for me to see and i dont loose it in dark lanes like the ctr dot.
IMG_4639.jpeg

I really like the 34 mm tube and 56 mm objective and it does work well but seems to be inconsistent in its ranging. Im on today off tomorrow with it. Hence the change and it might be for the better for me as the 4-20 seems to hit the mark much more consistently. (So far) 1 thing i woul like to mention to you is there is a very large change in how the scope ranges depending on how the ocular is set. Currently im wearing my dollar store readers to be able to have the ocular adjusted in and still see the cross hair clearly. Heres a shot of my wheel for the 4-20 yellow marks are 10-55
IMG_4638.jpeg

Just thought id add im sending the 6-24 back to have them look at it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cavedweller
Upvote 0
cavedweller said:
@jps2486 that's good info. In my quest for the perfect HFT scope, i haven't been concerned with name brands or dollar amount. What i have been trying to find is that do it all "scope" that repeatably ranges accurately at 16X AND spreads the numbers out sufficiently on the wheel between 40 through 55 yards to actually use the right holdover. I have a couple second Focal Plane Sightron FT scopes that do okay but they lack sufficient information / holdover points on the reticle for my eye brain connection to work with. I am more and more intrigued by the 34 mm scope tube bodies spreading the numbers out the way they do.
Click to expand...
No scope is perfect. The 34mm scopes are too heavy and most are FFP which I don't like. You have to spend time carefully calibrating your ranging wheel. What I did, knowing the trajectory of my pellets, is to set up an eye chart at 10 yards, then mark your wheel. Then at every 1 yard increments up to 18 or 20 yards, mark your wheel. My setup shot pretty flat between 18 and 35 yards. Then, set your eye chart at 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 yards and mark your wheel, all at the same time make a chart of your holdover points on the scope's reticle. The eye chart helps focusing because you can use the smaller letters to assure that you know the focus point at the exact range. You will get plenty of exercise going back and forth down range to move your chart. BTW, use a 100 ft tape measure to get accurate target placement. I hope I made this clear enough. Before you start, zero your rifle at a given distance. I zeroed mine at 25 yards.

Eye Chart.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billions and cavedweller
Upvote 0
jps2486 said:
No scope is perfect. The 34mm scopes are too heavy and most are FFP which I don't like. You have to spend time carefully calibrating your ranging wheel. What I did, knowing the trajectory of my pellets, is to set up an eye chart at 10 yards, then mark your wheel. Then at every 1 yard increments up to 18 or 20 yards, mark your wheel. My setup shot pretty flat between 18 and 35 yards. Then, set your eye chart at 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 yards and mark your wheel, all at the same time make a chart of your holdover points on the scope's reticle. The eye chart helps focusing because you can use the smaller letters to assure that you know the focus point at the exact range. You will get plenty of exercise going back and forth down range to move your chart. BTW, use a 100 ft tape measure to get accurate target placement. I hope I made this clear enough. Before you start, zero your rifle at a given distance. I zeroed mine at 25 yards.

View attachment 495845
Click to expand...
I do basically the same but take it a step farther i focus on a field target from 10-21@every 5 yds from 35-55 + i shoot a paper target i put along side the field target and write my aim points on my wheel along with marking yardage
IMG_4636.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: dennisu, cavedweller and RScott
Upvote 0
cavedweller said:
I have 3 of these particular Element scopes with a price point of roughly $780.00

Element Titan 3-18x50 all FFP
2 are MOA
1 is MRAD

All utilized a 6” scope werks wheel for setup. All scopes and wheels setup in overcast conditions = intentionally.

The good = at 16 X you get a 290 degree usage on the wheels rotation for ranging 9.5 to 60 yards.

The bad = at 16 X like most all scopes, once you get to 40 yards focal point repeatability or “pop” is difficult
(you really have to work at it) and work it the same way every time. Some people refer to this as mushy because your focus points don’t snap or pop in.

Of note - to my 67 year old eyes, when compared to a new Sightron S6 MHFT @$1900.00 or a Athlon Heras SPR 6-24x56 @$750.00 or a Sightron S-Tac 4-20x50 @$700.00.
The Sightron (s) in general win clarity and crispy focal points at 10-35 yards; the Athlon with the smallest amount of wheel rotation/ spread is the more repeatable from 40-55 yards but requires some guess work because the lack of spread on the wheel; but overall the Element with practice is the best blend of near too far, but will require absolute user consistency.

If you own any of these scopes please share your experiences.
Click to expand...
How well does the Sightron S6 distinguish 55 vs 53 vs 50 yards for you? Can you tell the difference optically? Is it repeatable and crisp?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cavedweller
Upvote 0
RScott said:
How well does the Sightron S6 distinguish 55 vs 53 vs 50 yards for you? Can you tell the difference optically? Is it repeatable and crisp?
Click to expand...
At 16x not so much but turn up the magnification and I can discern by the foot at 55 yards. That said im shooting HFT unless I switch to open or unlimited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RScott
Upvote 0
Solo1 said:
I just moved from a athlon helos 6-24x56 to a athlon 4-20x50 to try for field target. Anymore i only use this reticle as it is easy for me to see and i dont loose it in dark lanes like the ctr dot.
View attachment 495799
I really like the 34 mm tube and 56 mm objective and it does work well but seems to be inconsistent in its ranging. Im on today off tomorrow with it. Hence the change and it might be for the better for me as the 4-20 seems to hit the mark much more consistently. (So far) 1 thing i woul like to mention to you is there is a very large change in how the scope ranges depending on how the ocular is set. Currently im wearing my dollar store readers to be able to have the ocular adjusted in and still see the cross hair clearly. Heres a shot of my wheel for the 4-20 yellow marks are 10-55
View attachment 495800
Just thought id add im sending the 6-24 back to have them look at it.
Click to expand...
Your readers will definitely throw off your ranging because the angle of your eyebox can shift with a slight change in angle. Do you wear progressive glasses?
Sightrons S-Tac 4-20x50 with the MH4 reticle does a good job and is very repeatable at 16X and on sale at times for $475.
IMG_7590.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
cavedweller said:
I have 3 of these particular Element scopes with a price point of roughly $780.00

Element Titan 3-18x50 all FFP
2 are MOA
1 is MRAD

All utilized a 6” scope werks wheel for setup. All scopes and wheels setup in overcast conditions = intentionally.

The good = at 16 X you get a 290 degree usage on the wheels rotation for ranging 9.5 to 60 yards.

The bad = at 16 X like most all scopes, once you get to 40 yards focal point repeatability or “pop” is difficult
(you really have to work at it) and work it the same way every time. Some people refer to this as mushy because your focus points don’t snap or pop in.

Of note - to my 67 year old eyes, when compared to a new Sightron S6 MHFT @$1900.00 or a Athlon Heras SPR 6-24x56 @$750.00 or a Sightron S-Tac 4-20x50 @$700.00.
The Sightron (s) in general win clarity and crispy focal points at 10-35 yards; the Athlon with the smallest amount of wheel rotation/ spread is the more repeatable from 40-55 yards but requires some guess work because the lack of spread on the wheel; but overall the Element with practice is the best blend of near too far, but will require absolute user consistency.

If you own any of these scopes please share your experiences.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Motorhead said:
Learning the nuances of where & why ranging errors occur with a particular scope that might not be "Snappy" will give better pay back in better score potential than chasing an "Ideal Optic system" and not learning how to better shoot FT.
Click to expand...
Makes sense.
I used the element 3-18x50 today for the first time in a HFT shoot. I was paired with a shooter using the exact same scope. We were ranging within 1-2 yards of each other so definitely seeing consistency there. I’m still not convinced that the additional wheel travel is as important as the crispy picture, I’ll be playing with the Athlon Heras SPR tomorrow trying to figure out the winner.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RScott, Welldone and Motorhead
Upvote 0
A new point of interest in comparing the TWO different versions of the Element Titan 3-18X50 (34mm scope tube body) FFP / IR

MOA has 3 hold over points zero to one - or 3 tick marks before your large line (bottom picture)

MRAD has 4 hold over points zero to one - or 4 tick marks before your large line (top Picture)

what this means to my eyes and brain - is it's easier to differentiate on those dicey close range holdovers having that one extra line of markation.

Thoughts?

elementtitanapr2d.JPG

APR-2D-MOA-3-18-Titan-600x600.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Dairyboy said:
.2 MIL is around .72" at 100yds so yes with the MIL/MRAD you have a more precise reticle.
Click to expand...

Yep, and the hashes on the Element Titan MOA reticle are 1 MOA, or 1.047", at 100Y.

I must admit I've always preferred .2 mil reticles from say 14x and up. I had a ton of success in centerfire long range steel matches with the H59 reticle using holdovers and holdoffs because .1 mil is easy to bracket between the hashes when needed. Also tree reticles helped when I needed to aim out far for wind which was often here in Arizona.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cavedweller and Dairyboy
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu