I got my new sightron,but.....


Sep 8, 2001
Hello All,
I just receieved my new Sightron 6 x24 Mil -dot. I've always used Leupold in the past and thought I'd try something else. Has anyone out there used the Mil-dot version yet? It seems to me that the dots are awfully large...........But then again Ive never used a mil-dot before.The turrets have a funny spacing also at the 7 to 0 position. Is this normal? I was thinking of sending this one back and exchanging it for the standard reticle,But I thought this might just be one of those things that a you don't like at first but get used to later.
Other than that the scope seems to be pretty impressive so far,Though I haven't put it on a rifle yet(in case I want to exchange it)
Anyone have experience with these?
I can listen to the Rose Bowl radio broadcast and check the boards. That's a Happy New Year.

You can find the scope specs and reticle subtension (i.e. how thick the lines/dots are for you in Rio Linda) right here: http://www.sightron.com/index.php?action=view_category&cat_id=1047415683

not to worry, the mildot spacing should be standard at 24x or very close to it. If you don't want the scope, I'd be interested in buying it from you if the price is right.

Good choice you made -- I've used their 4-16x42 w/mildot reticle for years, and it's and excellent piece of work.

USC just scored...

Oh yeah, regarding the target turrets, this scope has 1/8 MOA click adjustments, which work out to 7.5 MOA per complete revolution of the knob. Different yes, but nothing you can't get used to with a little practice.

[ 01-01-2004: Message edited by: Nate Haler ]
Still interested in the Scope? I put it on my 6.5 x 284 and don't think it'll work for what I need. I shoot free recoil and this one doesn't have enough eye relief,so says my eyebrow!! Anyway- No ring marks as it was nly in aluminum Kelbly rings only fired a few times.
just tell your friends you got it at Tae Kwon Do practice or something.

Yes, I'm interested in your scope. Please PM with what you're looking to get for it.
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.