What model and reticle are you referencing? The moa H reticle on mine is fully illumianted, not just the center dot.
Upvote 0
Sightron SIII FIELD TARGET 10-50X60 IR Why is it so recommended/used for field target?
- Thread starter MysticalDragon
- Start date
MOA-H is the preferred reticle for Hunter class FT, because it is all lit. Those are the reticles I have in all of my Sightrons.
Upvote 0
"Because it ranges very well". I've been shooting Hunter Field Target for about 5 years now and I believe the ability to range and the ability to shoot offhand are the two determining factors that allow me to compete well. Off hand is tons of practice, but ranging is the scope. I have an Aztec Emerald 5.5-25x50 in first focal plane that is "ok" at best, but better than an older SFP one. I have looked through and briefly tried a new Athlon Ares SFP 15-60x56 and it seemed to "snap" into and out of focus at 15 power (Hunter Field Target). I'm wondering if anyone is using this scope? Is there some "Optical Benefit" for ranging at the lowest power setting of a scope vs mid range 16 power on a 5.5-25 scope? I know ranging at High power really shortens the depth of field and that is why WFTF shooters can take advantage of that feature. But does ranging at the scopes lowest power setting do anything for you?This
Any thoughts on the Athlon Optics Ares ETR UHD 15-60x56mm BLR1 SFP IR MOA Riflescope? I really like the reticle!
Any concern about only 15 vs 16 power because of the Hunter rule on setting the scope at a marked power?
Upvote 0
If it ranges well at 15x, I would take it over a scope that ranges poorly at 16x. The only reason people use 16x over 15x is because they are trying to do anything they can to get the scope to range better. I've only looked through one Ares and I think it was FFP. The reticle was very fine, I would definitely go with a SFP for a scope with that much magnification.
I'm sure you know this, but just for any kids reading this: with a FFP scope, the reticle shrinks when you turn the magnification down. So if you have a 15-60X scope that is FFP, if you turn the mag down to 15x you are at the bottom of the magnification range and you will loose all of the sub tensions in the reticle. It will basically be a fuzzy crosshair. With a SFP scope, the reticle size is constant, so this isn't an issue. However, you do have to make sure that the magnification is set to the same value every time or your hold overs will be off.
I'm sure you know this, but just for any kids reading this: with a FFP scope, the reticle shrinks when you turn the magnification down. So if you have a 15-60X scope that is FFP, if you turn the mag down to 15x you are at the bottom of the magnification range and you will loose all of the sub tensions in the reticle. It will basically be a fuzzy crosshair. With a SFP scope, the reticle size is constant, so this isn't an issue. However, you do have to make sure that the magnification is set to the same value every time or your hold overs will be off.
Upvote 0
Sorry, I was trying to make a point about the differences between FFP and SFP. I should have known that if I didn't look up all of the different Athlon models, I would be corrected. Thanks for always being on top of my posts.
And for the record, the scope I looked through was a Heras 15-50x. The reticle was so fine, I assumed it was FFP. It appears that the Ares and Heras are both MOA but have different model numbers for the reticles. As near as I can tell on the website, the reticles look identical.
Upvote 0
So I’ve shot my first season and a half of FT in Hunter division using a SIII 10-50x60 FT scope. When I bought it I was looking for a field target capable scope and I didn’t realize that maybe it was overkill for Hunter class. Maybe.
Long story short the “ranging” is depth of field at a given magnification setting. I consulted an optics design pro who charitably helped me better understand that depth of field is not the same from one scope to another with externally equal features and specs, and so I couldn’t calculate the expected depth of field of a given scope based on published specs. We can only test.
Generally more depth of field is desirable because most shooters don’t want to fart around with the parallax knob for long. So good ranging in FT is the opposite of normal.
That said, I think there is an advantage to a scope set up by the manufacturer to be a field target scope. The designer can stretch out the available parallax adjustment to improve the 8-55y range. The designer can also make the depth of field as shallow as possible. And although the depth of field deepens at lower magnification, it’s still better than most non FT scopes.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
