Leupold or Sightron???

[Ernie]

Yo! Ernie

I got this scope from Sightron about 6months ago, so I am assuming it is one of the their newer ones.

Did some interesting comparisons today, semi-looking into the sun (some glare toward the late afternoon @ 1,200+ yards on antelope again) and then looking about a 1/2 hour after sunset toward the East..

 

[jmason]

Some more scoop on the Sightron SIII and when the upgraded SIIIs hit the market at this web link:

The New Sightron SIII 6-24X50mm Mildot LR Scope - Calguns.net

phorwath would you agree that the cross hair intersection at 1000 yds is 1/10MOA? The article in the link mentioned that with the mildot reticle. I keep hearing the cross hairs are too thick. If they are really 1/10 MOA @ 24X how much smaller could it be?

 

[Pdvdh]

John,

The Sightron web site states that their SIII 6-24x50mm LR Mil-Dot cross hair is 0.7 inches thick with the scope set on 6X power, but only 0.1 inches thick with the scope set on 24X power. These dimensions are at 100 yds. So with the scope set on 24X, the thinnest cross-section of the crosshairs should cover 1" at 1000 yards. I didn't specifically test or verify this on my scope in the field - I guess mostly because the size of the crosshair looked fine to me with the scope turned to the 24X setting. Next time I shoot I'll specifically examine the crosshair width on target and see if those dimensions are correct.

BTW, I never said I thought the crosshairs were too thick for hunting. I believe Nathan, the gentleman I purchased my scope from, said he thought the crosshair was too thick for his competition shooting. He also stated he'd never looked through a scope that had better glass than this SIII. In my opinion, the width of the crosshair in my SIII 6-24x50mm LR Mil-Dot reticle is just fine - a non-issue.

If you buy an SIII, my primary words of caution are - make sure you buy and receive the current model SIII. It sounds as if there was an earlier Generation SIII that may not have been up to snuff.

I suspect Ernie has the earlier Generation SIII or else a Sightron "second" (Leupold). And I'd guess jsthntn247 is in the same situation... If they ever look through the current model SIII, their SIIIs will be FOR SALE!

I'm throwing out the tinder here but nobody's biting... Not even a nibble!

 

[Pdvdh]

I got this scope from Sightron about 6months ago, so I am assuming it is one of the their newer ones.

Ernie,

If you want to post a pic of your SIII, I'll post a pic of mine and we can compare the two. djkynoch's post stated that we'd be able to identify the older generation SIII from the current model SIII. This might help others that are getting ready to purchase. If your scope looks like it's the same Generation SIII as mine, then you got a lemon and I'd return it for another.

 

[trueblue]

phorwarth,
How to you use your scope with the mildot reticle, and 1/4 MOA turret.
Is the mildot used for ranging and holdovers, and then the .25 clicks used for dialing ?
I am unfimiliar with mildot, but it would seem more logical to have mill turrets with mildot reticle. I don't know if I am off base here with the thought process.

 

[Pdvdh]

trueblue,

Yes, they can be used exactly as you described. I've used mil-dot reticle hold-overs to shoot caribou out to 850 yds and Dall sheep out to 730 yds, and targets out to 1000 yds without any trouble. This was using an IOR MP-8 version mil-dot and the Zeiss Conquest mil-dot reticles.

There are scopes available with both mil-mil (mil-reticles and mil-turrets), as well as scopes with moa-moa (moa-reticle hashes and moa-turrets) features. Those are probably a bit simpler in use, but the scopes with these options tend to cost $1400 or more, on up to +$3000. I haven't suffered any significant handicapp/problem with the 1/4 moa turrets and mil-dot reticles. If you're serious about using reticle holdovers for long range hunting then having a reticle with a total of 15 mils (10 mils of holdover beneath the crosshair intersection & with 1/2 mil divisions (such as the IOR MP-8 reticle) is a good approach. I sight my 300 WM in at 450 to 500 yds and use the IOR reticle for holdunders and holdovers. With this reticle I can get out to 1000 yds without any turret twisting.

This winter I purchased the Patagonia Loadbase 2.0 ballistic software and a Dell Axim pocket computer. I've only used the reticle holdover method in the past, but I'm now positioned to be able to either twist the elevation turret OR use the reticle holdovers. With this software there is a feature that provides the target correction in either "Clicks", "MOA", "IPHY", or "Mil-Rad". By selecting "Clicks" the software provides the correct number of turret clicks for proper elevation & windage adjustment. By selecting the "Mil-Rad" option, the software provides the correct number of Mils required for proper Mil-Dot reticle holdover and windage offset. Pretty slick. Depending on how much time I have to prepare for the shot, I can decide which is preferable in the field and then run with that option.

There are some very experienced guys on this forum that prefer turret twisting - especially for yardages exceeding ~1000 yds. There are other experienced members that have expressed complete satisfaction using the reticle holdover/holdunder approach out to ~1000 yds. I can only vouch that the reticle holdover method has been effective and sufficient for me out to 1000 yds with my IOR MP-8 reticle (which supplies a total of 15 elevation mils broken down to 1/2 mil hashes), and out to 850 yds with a standard military mil-dot reticle, like the mil-dot reticle available on the Zeiss Conquest. Hope this makes sense...

 

[djkynoch]

I don't like to toot my own horn. But in this case I think it fits. My shooting partner and I wrote a review on the new Sightron SIIIs. It shows a picture of the new one and the old one side by side. If you scroll all the way to the bottom there is a picture of a old one with two new ones behind it. Here is a link to it:

Western Shooter - Online Shooting Magazine

I did a good test on the tracking using Len's method that he wrote about in an article on this site. I messed up and pulled a couple of the shots fired to test the windage adjustment but the elevation tracked flawlessly. I feel any discrepancies were error on my part I was shooting off a bipod and sometimes it is hard to be really consistant.

 

[Pdvdh]

I reviewed your article and indeed I have the current model SIII 6-24x50mm LR Mil-Dot.

 

[jmason]

I would be nice if we had a Product "buzz worthy" section or something to keep all the info on new products getting "buzz" together. Like this scope and the new ziess range finder.

 

[Ernie]

Ernie,

If you want to post a pic of your SIII, I'll post a pic of mine and we can compare the two. djkynoch's post stated that we'd be able to identify the older generation SIII from the current model SIII. This might help others that are getting ready to purchase. If your scope looks like it's the same Generation SIII as mine, then you got a lemon and I'd return it for another.

Mine is a current version that was sent, specifically for checking it out.
E

 

[Pdvdh]

Mine is a current version that was sent, specifically for checking it out.
E

I'm dumbfounded... There's no golden ring around the objective?

I eagerly await the results of your field-comparison with these scopes.

On the SIII, seriously, you may want to verify that yours is up to snuff. I've looked through and used a lot of scopes. My SIII is definitely hitting on all cylinders. Maybe I got lucky.

 

[Pdvdh]

John,

Next time I shoot I'll specifically examine the SIII mil-dot crosshair width on target and see if those dimensions are correct.

I shot with the SIII 6-24x50mm LR Mil-Dot yesterday and with the power set at 24X, it looked like the cross-hair was covering ~ 0.3-0.4" @ 300 yds. According to the Sightron literature and specifications, it should cover 0.3" @ 300yds.

 

[Ernie]

I'm dumbfounded... There's no golden ring around the objective?

I eagerly await the results of your field-comparison with these scopes.

On the SIII, seriously, you may want to verify that yours is up to snuff. I've looked through and used a lot of scopes. My SIII is definitely hitting on all cylinders. Maybe I got lucky.

Patience my friend
I will say that the S-3 did well in after sunset comparisons-In fact, all that we looked at did good. All of them were more than capable at taking down big game after legal shooting time in WY in the conditions we had on Thursday.
In looking somewhat toward the sun in the late afternoon, the S-3 came in last of all that were compared.
In fact, beyond 1,000 yards even the 5-22 NXS came in behind the new VX-3 8.5-25 when dealing with a glare (all magnifications were moved to 20x since the Huskemaw optic is in the mix). Even the owner of the NF agreed.
I was surprised to say the least. Having said all of that, all of the scopes being compared are more than optically able to do LR work. There is more to a scope than what we have been talking about: repeatable clicks, holding zero, etc. In other words the full package is what we are looking for. So far I have been impressed by all the optics being considered.

 

[jsthntn247]

Ernie, since you have experience with both models of SIII. How would you rate the old SIII to the new LR model. If the new LR model was a ten, what would the old model be and why