Rifle Scopes Sightron SIII 1-7x24 experiences

[sirhitalot]

Hi. Im looking for updated experiences on the SIII 1-7x24 scope.

I will use it for hunting on short to medium ranges, and wonder how well the reticle stands out at 1x and how visible the red dot is during the day.
I have read that its not a real daytime dot. Any idea if this will be available on the next model and when it comes out?

I also wonder if it is possible to get the 4A reticle with target turrets? (mount turrets on the hunting version?)

I guess the mil-dot style reticle will be too skinny on the long range magnification if it is FFP, but i have not figured out if it is?

thanks.

 

[mscott]

The illumination on mine is no good in the daylight. Mine is not first focal. I'm thinking Sightron does custom reticles and knobs, so you might give them a call.

 

[sirhitalot]

Thanks for the reply. Wonder why they haven made it daylight ready... This is not a night scope after all... Will go for the 4A reticle i guess.

 

[fdkay]

Check out the Weaver 1-5, might be better suited for what you want.
Mueller optics also makes a 1-4 red dot scope that might interest you.

 

[delixe]

One thing that gets missed a lot... an illuminated reticle does not need to be daytime bright to be useful during the day.
If the FOV is too bright to see the illumination then you can see the reticle without illumination.
If the FOV is too dark to discern the reticle without illumination, the illumination will be bright enough.

FFP is not desirable in a 1-x power scope in my experience.
At low power in an FFP scope with a 7x erector the graduations are too small to see, but low power is only used at close range where holds are unnecessary. Situations that occur at those ranges require a reticle that really stands out. Also, an FFP illuminated reticle at 1x in a 1-7 power scope is 1/49th the brightness of the same illuminated reticle at 7x.

 

[sirhitalot]

Yea. I dont want ffp for the exact reasons you say. I dont need mil dot etc and turrets etc, but of course its not negative to have them. I need a scope that goes from 1x to either 5-6-7-8 and works well for hunting. Its for subsonic or big game hunting, so the reticle has to stand out well at short range and low magnifications.

 

[WaveNature]

One thing that gets missed a lot... an illuminated reticle does not need to be daytime bright to be useful during the day.
If the FOV is too bright to see the illumination then you can see the reticle without illumination.
If the FOV is too dark to discern the reticle without illumination, the illumination will be bright enough.

True but the human eye is drawn to light first and contrast second. That means a daylight visible illuminated reticle will be easier and faster to pick up in the field of view, regardless of reticle size.

FFP is not desirable in a 1-x power scope in my experience.

I'm curious what your experience consists of. Do you hunt? More specifically, do you hunt with a 1x variable scope? If so, how often?

At low power in an FFP scope with a 7x erector the graduations are too small to see,

Not true here.

but low power is only used at close range

I'm curious what your definition of close range is.

where holds are unnecessary.

That's true for elevation but not for lead. You must not have much opportunity to shoot moving targets.

Situations that occur at those ranges require a reticle that really stands out.

Which is why daylight visible illumination is important.

Also, an FFP illuminated reticle at 1x in a 1-7 power scope is 1/49th the brightness of the same illuminated reticle at 7x.

I'm curious where you got this info from?

Looking forward to your response.

 

[sirhitalot]

SWFA SS HD 1-6x24 Tactical 30mm Riflescope

maybe the SS 1-6x24 is a better choice? Its really important for me that the reticle stands out at all magnification levels.

 

[BobinNC]

Just to update this Thread. Sightron has a new scope called an S-TAC 1-7X24 IRMH. This one has a Mil reticle w/mil adjustments (and 29 Mils of adjustment vs 27 mils on the older SIII model) and is credited with now having a daylight bright illuminated reticle (no I've not seen it yet). Just looking at the reticle sub-tensions this new Mil reticle is certainly heavier in most critical dimensions, except for the main posts. The center dot @1x when from 2.92 Mils to 3.5 Mils which is a useful 20% improvement for close shots.

SIII Model

Sightron Riflescopes SIII Series SIII17x24IR4A

S-Tac Model

Sightron Riflescopes S-TAC Series S-TAC17X24IRMH

 

[delixe]

Also, an FFP illuminated reticle at 1x in a 1-7 power scope is 1/49th the brightness of the same illuminated reticle at 7x.
Inverse square. Look it up.

As for your other points, apparently Vortex, a company that is known for responding to the market and user input, agrees with me re: SFP in a 1-x scope, being as their 2nd Gen Razor 1-x is SFP even though the first Gen was FFP.

 

[lennyo3034]

Also, an FFP illuminated reticle at 1x in a 1-7 power scope is 1/49th the brightness of the same illuminated reticle at 7x.
Inverse square. Look it up.

As for your other points, apparently Vortex, a company that is known for responding to the market and user input, agrees with me re: SFP in a 1-x scope, being as their 2nd Gen Razor 1-x is SFP even though the first Gen was FFP.

I'm looking through my SWFA 1-6 FFP scope with the illumination on. I'm not seeing it as 36X less bright on 1X as on 6X. In fact, no notable change in brightness at all.

 

[delixe]

I'm looking through my SWFA 1-6 FFP scope with the illumination on. I'm not seeing it as 36X less bright on 1X as on 6X. In fact, no notable change in brightness at all.

Yep, the laws of physics are wrong, that must be it.

Try this.

Look through your scope outside during the day at 1x (maybe 1.2x so the entire ring is visible... yeah, I owned one of those) and turn the illumination up until you can just see it begin to glow.
Now turn it up to 6x and tell me if it's as bright, or, if you can even see that the illumination is on.

 

[lennyo3034]

Yep, the laws of physics are wrong, that must be it.

Try this.

Look through your scope outside during the day at 1x (maybe 1.2x so the entire ring is visible... yeah, I owned one of those) and turn the illumination up until you can just see it begin to glow.
Now turn it up to 6x and tell me if it's as bright, or, if you can even see that the illumination is on.

So I'm going to assume you mean the optic should be 49X brighter at 1X vs 7x based on the inverse square law (Intensity= (1/(distance^2)). Thereby when the distance is reduced by 7X the intensity is 49X brighter. I am not arguing this. You're probably thinking this applies since the magnification lenses move closer to the eye at lower magnification vs high, therefore the reticle should be brighter at low magnification.

However the FFP reticle does not move with magnification change. These were stolen from shooting voodoo:
Shooting Voodoo :: Anatomy Of A Tactical Bolt Action Rifle: The Riflescope

Location of FFP Reticle:

Movement of lenses during magnification change:

So in the case here (distance) does not change, hence the lack of change in intensity.

Also, the donut on the SWFA is easily visible at 1X or 1.2X, you're probably thinking of 6X where it disappears at the edges. I would have to take it down to 5.8 or so for it to be visible.

 

[delixe]

So I'm going to assume you mean the optic should be 49X brighter at 1X vs 7x based on the inverse square law (Intensity= (1/(distance^2)). Thereby when the distance is reduced by 7X the intensity is 49X brighter. I am not arguing this. You're probably thinking this applies since the magnification lenses move closer to the eye at lower magnification vs high, therefore the reticle should be brighter at low magnification.

However the FFP reticle does not move with magnification change. These were stolen from shooting voodoo:
Shooting Voodoo :: Anatomy Of A Tactical Bolt Action Rifle: The Riflescope

Location of FFP Reticle:

Movement of lenses during magnification change:

So in the case here (distance) does not change, hence the lack of change in intensity.

Also, the donut on the SWFA is easily visible at 1X or 1.2X, you're probably thinking of 6X where it disappears at the edges. I would have to take it down to 5.8 or so for it to be visible.

Yes, I'm aware the focal plane does not shoot out the end of the tube when magnification is decreased.
Nonetheless, the effect is the same. Ask someone who designs scopes, they'll tell you the same.
I should have said 1/49th the intensity; brightness is perception, and functions on a logarithmic scale... 10x the intensity will only double the perceived brightness.

My bad, 5.8x, not 1.2x.

Did you try my experiment?
The difference is more striking on my Bushnell 1-6.5 FFP with the inverted horseshoe which gets absolutely tiny at 1x. The SWFA reticle has a much greater illuminated surface area, diminishing the effect. Add to that the fact that the SWFA 1-6 has abnormally bright illumination and it's a moot point on that scope; my point was a generalization.

I had one of those SWFA 1-6 scopes. Their reticle with the huge circle at 6x that is still pretty sizeable at 1x makes FFP forgivable as it still facilitates target acquisition, but the graduations are still useless to me at low power. I picked mine up on sale for $800, which was a steal. Even at its regular price of $1000 it's a bargain. Really solid design, build, and function. Their business model of cutting out the middleman benefits the consumer greatly, too.

 

[lennyo3034]

Yes, I'm aware the focal plane does not shoot out the end of the tube when magnification is decreased.
Nonetheless, the effect is the same. Ask someone who designs scopes, they'll tell you the same.
I should have said 1/49th the intensity; brightness is perception, and functions on a logarithmic scale... 10x the intensity will only double the perceived brightness.

My bad, 5.8x, not 1.2x.

Did you try my experiment?
The difference is more striking on my Bushnell 1-6.5 FFP with the inverted horseshoe which gets absolutely tiny at 1x. The SWFA reticle has a much greater illuminated surface area, diminishing the effect. Add to that the fact that the SWFA 1-6 has abnormally bright illumination and it's a moot point on that scope; my point was a generalization.

I had one of those SWFA 1-6 scopes. Their reticle with the huge circle at 6x that is still pretty sizeable at 1x makes FFP forgivable as it still facilitates target acquisition, but the graduations are still useless to me at low power. I picked mine up on sale for $800, which was a steal. Even at its regular price of $1000 it's a bargain. Really solid design, build, and function. Their business model of cutting out the middleman benefits the consumer greatly, too.

I tried it, but it's already dark where I am so I had to settle for a lit room. I can barely see the reticle lit at lowest power at both high and low magnification. A lit room is not the same as daylight though.

I think you're missing the point here though. The distance of the light source (the reticle) from the eye does not change. Therefore the inverse square law of light does not make a difference as distance is a constant.

I agree with your assessment of the SWFA, the circle is still a little too big at 1X. I only use the graduations at 6X as well so I actually agree with you on the FFP vs SFP for a 1-X scope. But I can get by with either as long as the reticle is well designed for a FFP.

 

[delixe]

I tried it, but it's already dark where I am so I had to settle for a lit room. I can barely see the reticle lit at lowest power at both high and low magnification. A lit room is not the same as daylight though.

I think you're missing the point here though. The distance of the light source (the reticle) from the eye does not change. Therefore the inverse square law of light does not make a difference as distance is a constant.

I agree with your assessment of the SWFA, the circle is still a little too big at 1X. I only use the graduations at 6X as well so I actually agree with you on the FFP vs SFP for a 1-X scope. But I can get by with either as long as the reticle is well designed for a FFP.

Actually, you are the one missing the point.
It is not the distance in and of itself that creates the drop in intensity; it's the apparent size of the illuminated object. Whether the change in apparent size is due to distance or demagnification is irrelevant.

 

[lennyo3034]

Actually, you are the one missing the point.
It is not the distance in and of itself that creates the drop in intensity; it's the apparent size of the illuminated object. Whether the change in apparent size is due to distance or demagnification is irrelevant.

I'll buy that. However [and I will admit this is conjecture on my part] on a FFP scope, the energy going into the reticle from emitter is the same regardless of magnification. The same energy is now spread over a smaller area. So if we take the same area of reticle at 1X vs 6X, then individual area at 1X will be more intense as it has more relative energy going into it.

Alternate explanation (since I suck with words): Emitter puts Z number of lumens into an area Y at 1X. At 6X that emitter is still only putting Z lumens into an area 6Y that is now 6 times the size. So the relative intensity/area now changes.

So now the apparent size is larger increasing the intensity, however the lumens per square mm is lower, decreasing the intensity. In the end the emitter is still only emitting Z lumens at a constant distance from the eye.

This is my conjecture on the issue based on my experience with my optic as I look through it. If I am proven wrong, I will happily stick foot in mouth and will have learned something new. I know you and I are not the only ones that own a FFP illuminated optic so I'm hoping others can do your experiment, preferably in daylight, and report back.

 

[lennyo3034]

I made a poor choice of letters to use as figures in that last post so I made an edit.

 

[Kamkaze]

As for a FFP not being useful in 1-X I completely disagree, the reason I like FFP is that when at 1X the Mil ret/BDC depending on scope all but disappears but then is useful at the X magnification whether it be 4 or 6 or 7 or whatever you have. I find that on SFP scopes in the 1-x variant that the mil/ret/BDC is distracting whereas with a FFP you just see the dot or circle. Thats just me though but I know I am not the only one that feels that way.

 

[Si-snipe]

My friend had the 1-7 STAC. Whilst I am a big Sightron fan I was not keen on this particular scope. I found the eye box small and fussy which to me is something I would hate in a low mag scope designed for fast handling. I'd be looking for huge FOV and un fussy eye box.