Actually $578 on amazon at the moment and occasionally less on AGN classifieds. But price wise you can do a whole lot more damage with some other less performing scopes.
Upvote 0
The right glass is increasing my joy factor
- Thread starter cavedweller
- Start date
I am shooting rings only so how wide fits in the eye box is not my first or second consideration. My attention is more into details.
I like to zoom into the ring center, I want to see how the pellet is chewing the paper edges.
x32 for up to 50-60 meters and x50 for 100, this what I got used to.
For backyard plinking squirrels x5 up to x10 can work, but I have tried to use these for longer then 40 and I am lost...
I like to zoom into the ring center, I want to see how the pellet is chewing the paper edges.
x32 for up to 50-60 meters and x50 for 100, this what I got used to.
For backyard plinking squirrels x5 up to x10 can work, but I have tried to use these for longer then 40 and I am lost...
Upvote 0
I always liked the S-TAC series — but here's what kept me from buying them:
Their narrow field of view (FoV) at the bottom end of the magnification. I need a wide FoV for close range rushed shots.
For comparison (all are FFP) — note the wide variations in FoV despite the same magnification:
first numbers are the FoV — at min. and max. magni — at 100y — in ft:
29-6 ● 3-16x42 ▪ Sightron S-TAC
35-7 ● 3-15x42 ▪ SWFA
33-6 ● 3-18x56 ▪ Meopta Optica6
39-7 ● 3-18x44 ▪ Vortex Strike Eagle
41-7 ● 3-18x50 ▪ Element Titan
26-6 ● 4-16x44 ▪ Element Helix
28-7 ● 4-16x44 ▪ Athlon Midas TAC
30-8 ● 4-16x44 ▪ Arken EPL4
22-4 ● 4-20x50 ▪ Sightron S-TAC
28-6 ● 4-20x50 ▪ Athlon Helos BTR
Matthias
Upvote 0
Truthfully I sort-of-dislike reading peoples' opinion on good scopes,soon as I seen you were talking Sightron I knew you knew what you were talking about
Upvote 0
Some people would be way better off with a good spotting scope,like me when I want to see pellet holes past 100 yards or mother nature ,or the Moon .etc.
Upvote 0
I don't as far as .05 mil so my preference is .1 mil for most purposes including FT. Not the greatest shot around but have won plenty of FT matches and a few EFT.
Upvote 0
It's somewhat assumed that if someone wants the larger FOV for low magnification in a FFP scope that the shot will be a closer and easier shot so when the reticle is small, although not ideal, it's not as hard to make the shot as one would think.
If one has illume, or hopefully daylight bright illume, then making the shot is easier, and in specific circumstances superior to a SFP reticle lacking illume.
A fun example was using a Cronus G2 4.5-29x56 at 10Y shooting flies and also on the 10M black bulls. At 4.5x both were no problem but with the illume on it was easier to do. Ideal no.....
For me a SFP is better for some purposes and one would be benchrest comps using high magnification.
I wouldn't be opposed to shooting squirrels in a tree 20 yards away either like when I was a boy.
But the Athlon Helos G2 DMR 2-12x42 in mil is a perfect example of a MPVO that excels for many tasks and its FFP. Hunting, plinking, speed, long range dialing or holding, its incredibly versatile.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
My own experience is that when if I’m using the low power setting it’s for hunting at close range where a shot might only present itself for a second or two and any holdover is just an educated guess. I’m sure it could be done with a small reticle, but it just seems sub-optimal for it.
That said, I’ve yet to actually try a decent FFP scope. I had a couple of Soviet 3-9x FFPs ages ago and I found them to be almost unusable, (they also adjusted your elevation as you zoomed in). Those things left perhaps an undeserved bad taste in my mouth.
Upvote 0
I think you'd be in for a pleasant surprise with these modern FFP scopes. Yep the higher the mag ratio and the thinner the reticle in a FFP the harder it'll be to see on low mag. Often the scope doesn't need to be on the lowest magnification. For example say you had a 3-18 FFP scope, on 4x the reticle will be appreciably easier to see than 3x.
I got distracted and didn't finish writing about it. It's the FFP Athlon Helos G2 DMR 2-12x42 in mil that I like so much. The reticle is much easier to see on low magnification than just about any other FFP scope. General duty it's my favorite so far. It's fun just to experiment with in different shooting scenarios.
Upvote 0
What Steve said!
With scopes, as far as I understand, we have not just entered a "new decade," we have entered a "new century." Drastic changes. For the better.
Quality, repeatability, funcionality, versatility — and prices! All have taken leaps forward in the last few years.
What a great time to be a rifle shooter!
Matthias
Upvote 0
Agree about the improvements. I've got a couple of 3-9x Leupold scopes from back in the day that cost around $200 each in 1990's money and I would rather have a 3-12x Accushot than one of those decent quality scopes from that era.What Steve said!
With scopes, as far as I understand, we have not just entered a "new decade," we have entered a "new century." Drastic changes. For the better.
Quality, repeatability, funcionality, versatility — and prices! All have taken leaps forward in the last few years.
What a great time to be a rifle shooter!
Matthias
I think we're also about to see a revolution in scopes when it comes to the digital side of things. With a digital scope you can have a FFP without any of the downsides of a FFP and the only limit on magnification is the number of pixels.
Upvote 0
That's true.
I was just stating how a FFP scope on low mag could be used even though the reticle looks smaller.
The Cronus wouldn't work for FT because of the ranging aspect as far as using the side wheel, and it still doesn't focus perfectly at 10Y on 4.5x, but one can still hit stuff like in my example of shooting flies and 10M bulls.
Upvote 0
I had not been one for high end scopes.
My wife has fought the eye box on every scope We tried on her gun. It was to the point she shot with me out of courtesy rather than a desire to shoot. She was clearly very frustrated.
One day we are at the local shop and while I am talking with some other shooters she talks with one of the employees and mentions her frustration with scopes so he takes out to the indoor range and they start trying scopes. I was watching at a safe distance so as not to interrupt the process with any input. She finally is shooting a gun and smiles and said “that is the first scope I have looked through that I can see clearly and do not have to move my head back and forth to find the proper placemen. Her shooting provided proof enough of her assertion.
I left a lot lighter in the pocket book but with a happy wife. She now shoots at every opportunity.
I am not going to mention the brand but suffice to say it cost several times more than my scopes do. I look through it and the glass is very nice but my needs do not require that kind of glass.
She is happier now with shooting and is shooting better as well. Was it worth it? Yepper sure was. Would I spend that kind of money on glass for me? No way in God’s green earth.
My wife has fought the eye box on every scope We tried on her gun. It was to the point she shot with me out of courtesy rather than a desire to shoot. She was clearly very frustrated.
One day we are at the local shop and while I am talking with some other shooters she talks with one of the employees and mentions her frustration with scopes so he takes out to the indoor range and they start trying scopes. I was watching at a safe distance so as not to interrupt the process with any input. She finally is shooting a gun and smiles and said “that is the first scope I have looked through that I can see clearly and do not have to move my head back and forth to find the proper placemen. Her shooting provided proof enough of her assertion.
I left a lot lighter in the pocket book but with a happy wife. She now shoots at every opportunity.
I am not going to mention the brand but suffice to say it cost several times more than my scopes do. I look through it and the glass is very nice but my needs do not require that kind of glass.
She is happier now with shooting and is shooting better as well. Was it worth it? Yepper sure was. Would I spend that kind of money on glass for me? No way in God’s green earth.
Upvote 0
For some times I have been wondering what is the this craze about putting huge scopes onto PCPs then shooting max 200 yards? When on my centerfire hunting rifles I have 3-18 being the largest. That is a up to 200 max 300 yards rifle. But after watching videos when guys bench, it is really nice to zoom in more and PCPs do not kick. So it is not like you lose your target or impact point after each shot. So I decided to keep my Vortex Strike Eagle 5-25, which I was going to sell. I don't recommend that scope to anyone because while the image is very nice, it does have a very narrow eye relief at 25x. And if you do shoot max zoom all the time, that gets old fast.
Upvote 0
I've been an S-Tac fan for awhile. I'm very surprised how much under the radar they are. They have the same glass as the big FT Sightron and for me range just as well at equivalent magnification. It is surprising that people are willing to use the big Sightron for HFT and not try and save some weight with the S-Tac
Jerry L.
Jerry L.
Upvote 0