• Please consider adding your "Event" to the Calendar located on our Home page!

Sightron SIII FIELD TARGET 10-50X60 IR Why is it so recommended/used for field target?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
MysticalDragon

MysticalDragon

Member
Sep 6, 2023
751
881
columbus, ohio, usa
SIII FIELD TARGET 10-50X60 IR Why is it so recommended/used for field target? More importantly for hunter division of american field target? What are the characteristics that this scope meets?

I know FFP SFP is a debate and preference as is reticle types.

I've got a Hawke Sidewinder 6-24x56 FFP Half Mill scope and a couple Athlon Argos scopes. What does the Sightron SIII FT have that these dont? Is there that much clarity and quality improvement with the SIII?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobbybeef and maxtrouble
MysticalDragon said:
SIII FIELD TARGET 10-50X60 IR Why is it so recommended/used for field target? More importantly for hunter division of american field target? What are the characteristics that this scope meets?

I know FFP SFP is a debate and preference as is reticle types.

I've got a Hawke Sidewinder 6-24x56 FFP Half Mill scope and a couple Athlon Argos scopes. What does the Sightron SIII FT have that these dont? Is there that much clarity and quality improvement with the SIII?
Click to expand...
One other point is quality for price. Most high power quality scopes are also pretty expensive. Of the quality ones, the SIII is probably the best bang for the buck, being the cheapest quality one.
As a side, you can try the Falcon X50 too. I actually just picked up my first Falcon to try out after owning 3 (I think) Sightron 10-50’s. Supposedly made very similarly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MysticalDragon
Upvote 0
Smok3y said:
One other point is quality for price. Most high power quality scopes are also pretty expensive. Of the quality ones, the SIII is probably the best bang for the buck, being the cheapest quality one.
As a side, you can try the Falcon X50 too. I actually just picked up my first Falcon to try out after owning 3 (I think) Sightron 10-50’s. Supposedly made very similarly.
Click to expand...
I will be interested to hear your thoughts on the Falcon X50. Do you think the lack of illuminated reticle of the X50 could be a problem?

I've participated in two hunter division ft matches at our field so far. There were a couple times it was hard to see the reticle due to the lighting and target and background being dark.
 
Upvote 0
Thank you everyone. I've obviously not had the chance to look through a Sightron yet and wanting to understand what makes them so well liked. I poured over the posts about the SIII FT that I could find but nothing really mentioned why they were liked and used so much.

I'm debating on getting one for my FT rifle, but it is a large investment to make. Its why I'm trying to learn from the vast experience here. Especially since I've not mounted a scope on my FT rifle and spent the time making a dope sheet yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobbybeef
Upvote 0
MysticalDragon said:
I will be interested to hear your thoughts on the Falcon X50. Do you think the lack of illuminated reticle of the X50 could be a problem?

I've participated in two hunter division ft matches at our field so far. There were a couple times it was hard to see the reticle due to the lighting and target and background being dark.
Click to expand...
This is the one worry I have. I’ve rarely needed it, but the targets are sometimes placed in some tough places where it comes in handy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MysticalDragon
Upvote 0
Falcon X50 is pretty much the same as the Sightron, just a little bit cheaper, and in my opinion Sightron has the better reticle. Both of them are produced in the same factory. The only downside is that they both have the tendency to shift temperature wise, but which scope doesn't. ;) So you get a very good quality scope for the price, that won't let you down during a competition. They are excellent choice for FT, but I don't think they would give you that much of advantage in the Hunter class, having in mind the fact that the class is restricted to just 16X magnification.
MysticalDragon said:
I will be interested to hear your thoughts on the Falcon X50. Do you think the lack of illuminated reticle of the X50 could be a problem?
Click to expand...
I've been shooting WFTF for quite some time but I have never experienced the need to use that feature in my Sightron.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Str8tshooter, scotton and MysticalDragon
Upvote 0
MysticalDragon said:
I will be interested to hear your thoughts on the Falcon X50. Do you think the lack of illuminated reticle of the X50 could be a problem?

I've participated in two hunter division ft matches at our field so far. There were a couple times it was hard to see the reticle due to the lighting and target and background being dark.
Click to expand...
I also found the X50 reticle too fine in low light condition. Maybe younger eyes wouldn’t have this problem but it was a deal breaker for me. Uj
 
  • Like
Reactions: rrann and MysticalDragon
Upvote 0
  • Like
Reactions: oledawg
Upvote 0
https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/category/categoryId/3478 looks like the sale is over. I bought one from them on sale a few weeks ago for under $1200. May call them and see if they will extend it for you. They had all the big SIII scopes marked way down.

I really don’t have a large sample size of FT scopes to compare. I have a Bushnell 4200 8-32X, Hawke Sidewinder 8-32X, Sightron FT 10-50x (older one that ranges from 9-55yards), this new Sightron SIII FT I just got (ranges 10-300yds). I have never been too pleased with my first Sightron. I only bought the second one because I needed another, at least decent scope, and it was on sale for under $1200. I just got it on the rifle and have not messed with it much. Seems clear. I plan to start setting up ranges on the wheel tomorrow. So not including the new SIII, the best scope I have is the Bushnell 4200. It’s clearer than the Sightron, ranges better, and doesn’t seem to be temp sensitive. I don’t care that it’s not side focus. Wish it was 40X.
 
Upvote 0
Another thing about the Sightron that I find a waste. They come with a nice 5” wheel. It should have been a 6” or some sort of comma wheel. So I bought new wheels for both my Sightrons. The gaps are too close at the long yards on the 5” wheel. It should have come with a sunshade. I would have rather had a sunshade than the wheel I cant use. My first SIII I use on 40X as the optics degrade beyond that. I haven’t got that far with my new SIII to determine if the optics degrade beyond 40X. I don’t like the small set screws of the turrets on the SIII. Hawke and Bushnell are far superior In that regard. The Falcons and Big Nikkos have a reputation, haven’t used either, of snapping into focus. That sounds great. The SIII does not do that. There is a lot of back and forth of the wheel trying to figure out where it is the clearest. I many cases you just kind of give up and roll with it. Much easier to do with the Bushnell 4200 than the SIII but I wouldn’t classify the 4200 as a snappy focusing scope it just works good. After writing all this it makes me wonder why I just bought a second SIII. I hope this new one with the 10-300yard focus range is better. There have been a number of times my older SIII, that ranges 9-55yards, was unable to focus on targets at 55 yards as it showed them beyond that. Probably to to tempeture shift.
 
Upvote 0
In my opinion, for Hunter the reticle is of primary importance. Since you can't click, being able to hold over with precision is necessary. Half-mil hashes is not the level of precision I am looking for. It's rare to find a scope that ranges very good past 40 yards at 16x, so being able to bracket is also important, which goes back to the reticle. Motorhead had an interesting post recently where he talked about setting up his Hunter class dope to the nearest .2 mil. At the time, I felt like this was unnecessary because all of my scopes had half-mil hashes. Since then I've bought scopes with .2 mil hashes and now I get it.

I know a lot of people use the SIII for Hunter class, and they are probably all smarter and better looking than me, but I feel like it's overkill. I would (and have) rather spend half as much for a scope with a more suitable reticle. I hesitate to give a recommendation because I've decided not to shoot Hunter class for the foreseeable future. It just doesn't get my blood pumping the way that WFTF does. For WFTF and Open, the SIII is hard to beat for price .vs performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MysticalDragon
Upvote 0
BrazosbyNemo said:
I to am amazed at all the Hunter class people shooting a 10-50x SIII? It seems way overkill. Sometimes it makes me think they are turning them up in power to cheat. I shoot open and wftf because I like using high powered scopes. I wouldn’t buy an expensive 50x scope to shoot Hunter when I could only use a 16X scope.
Click to expand...

I've touched on this in other discussions in the last two ish years, but Hunter seems to be what most field target people are excited about these days. Of course there are still people shooting in other classes, but seems to me that Hunter participation has snowballed lately. So those guys that were really serious competitors in other classes are now in Hunter. And the serious FTers like to spend money. I've got a friend using a Thomas with a Khales on it, probably a $9-10k rig. Prior to Hunter he was shooting the same gun/scope in Unlimited, but got so much grief about shooting in a non-AAFTA class that he switched to Hunter. He often shoots clean scores. I think he had three matches in a row with perfect scores 8 or 10 months ago.

The types of guys that attend the same AAFTA style matches that I frequent sure don't come across as cheaters to me. Some of the scopes they're using are high end and definitely capable of mega zoom, but Id have a hard time believing if it somebody told me they're cheating by using that high magnification in Hunter. They're simply at a point in life where they can afford nice things.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Motorhead, KerrShoot and MysticalDragon
Upvote 0
scotton said:
In my opinion, for Hunter the reticle is of primary importance. Since you can't click, being able to hold over with precision is necessary. Half-mil hashes is not the level of precision I am looking for. It's rare to find a scope that ranges very good past 40 yards at 16x, so being able to bracket is also important, which goes back to the reticle. Motorhead had an interesting post recently where he talked about setting up his Hunter class dope to the nearest .2 mil. At the time, I felt like this was unnecessary because all of my scopes had half-mil hashes. Since then I've bought scopes with .2 mil hashes and now I get it.

I know a lot of people use the SIII for Hunter class, and they are probably all smarter and better looking than me, but I feel like it's overkill. I would (and have) rather spend half as much for a scope with a more suitable reticle. I hesitate to give a recommendation because I've decided not to shoot Hunter class for the foreseeable future. It just doesn't get my blood pumping the way that WFTF does. For WFTF and Open, the SIII is hard to beat for price .vs performance.
Click to expand...
Please don't hesitate to give advice just because you aren't currently shooting a division or dont see yourself participating in it, when you have recently.

I've only shot two hunter division matches, both with an S510XS with an athlon argos that I borrowed from a friend who had it as his backup rifle and a solid dope sheet. I noticed that often my holdovers were .25 to .5 mil. Thankfully the scope had .5 mil markings. Ive been surprised by many scopes that were recommended that didnt have at least this. Or they have them after 5mils etc not near the center where we need them for hunter division.

What quality scopes have you found with a .2 mill marking in the center of the reticle?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobbybeef and baranjhn
Upvote 0
I have one sightron and it's a great scope for when I thought I was thinking I would do open but hunter nope. It ranges great to that magic 40-45 yardage and like all at 16x power about the same. The only reason I'm keeping it is I might try WFTF with my piston gun but mine is the moa-h reticle and I hate it for hunter. I like FFP better anyways so I really like my helos g2 with mils. So if I stay in Hunter class and get a PCP I'm not going to blow a lot of money on my set up. l started this this year and soon fell down the rabbit hole needing or wanting the best for something I might do once a month. I hunt a lot more and I'd rather buy better guns for hunting.
 
Upvote 0
Franklink said:
I've touched on this in other discussions in the last two ish years, but Hunter seems to be what most field target people are excited about these days. Of course there are still people shooting in other classes, but seems to me that Hunter participation has snowballed lately. So those guys that were really serious competitors in other classes are now in Hunter. And the serious FTers like to spend money. I've got a friend using a Thomas with a Khales on it, probably a $9-10k rig. Prior to Hunter he was shooting the same gun/scope in Unlimited, but got so much grief about shooting in a non-AAFTA class that he switched to Hunter. He often shoots clean scores. I think he had three matches in a row with perfect scores 8 or 10 months ago.

The types of guys that attend the same AAFTA style matches that I frequent sure don't come across as cheaters to me. Some of the scopes they're using are high end and definitely capable of mega zoom, but Id have a hard time believing if it somebody told me they're cheating by using that high magnification in Hunter. They're simply at a point in life where they can afford nice things.
Click to expand...
I think I'm gonna start doing unlimited for hunting practice. There is nothing about Field Target here in the USA that is supposedly about hunting. Nothing, I've hunted all my life with all sorts of guns and Hunter class has nothing to do with hunting. People can say all they want that is supposed to represent hunting it does not at all And I'll piss people off but I don't care it's true. I think the closest thing to hunting is the UK version of Hunter. But that'll never happen here in the states.
But I knew going into this Field Target has nothing to do about hunting it's about shooting and I like to shoot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baranjhn and steve123
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu