Anyone have any first hand experience with the Sightron 3-16X42 FFP Mil reticle?

Sightron

I am interested but I can't find any pictures anywhere of what one looks like looking through the scope. I have read several reviews on Sightron's site about the reticle being thin and easy to lose on the SFP MOA reticle.

Assuming that the FFP reticle is even thinner on lower powers, I would like to see what it looks like and how visible it is in actual hunting environments.

Also, does anyone own one and do you like it?

I appreciate any assistance!

I just picked up a Sightron SFP with the Duplex reticle from Cameraland on sale.I could have had one of these for the same money ,but was leery of the the FFP reticle.They have great glass.

Leery? why? Seems like a lot of scope for just over $400.00 .

FFP is fantastic. I don't get it.

How do these compair to the swfa 3-15 and the Athlon Midas tac and Athlon Helos BTR GEN2 2-12x42

I would love to know this as well.

Especially the Athlon Helos comparison.

The reticle is super thin,even on 16.

I should have the Athlon Helos in hand next Tuesday, and have had the A-Tac for a few weeks. Hopefully shoot ‘em both next weekend. Initial impressions of the S-Tac are good. The illumination will definitely help on the lower powers.

How tight is the eyebox? Particularly at higher power? I have read that the FOV is pretty narrow and the eyebox can be tight. But what is tight to some might be fine to me. My only point of reference is Leupold 2-7x33 and 3x9x33 EFR.

How does the reticle do at lower power? Particularly against a mottled background like woods or brush? Is it hard to find?

Crowhunter I think you are asking the right questions. Exit pupil nearing 16 power is going to be really small . Not a user of huge objective scopes but for 16 power I gotta think a 50mm objective a more appropriate minimum.

Just pulled the trigger on the illuminated FFP. I'll report back when I get to use it some.

And that can be a huge problem when you turn it down. How's the reticle when you are on 3x, 5x, 9x? That's the downfall of having a FFP on a hunting rifle. Some guys may like that, but I don't.

Curious as well

The skinny-a$$ reticle in fading light can be a pretty huge problem when you're trying to kill stuff. I'll report back.

I'll put some rounds through it tomorrow, but initial impression on this 3-16 FFP is that glass is as good or better than my LRTS and that the heavier part of the reticle is slightly darker/thicker/easier to see than my LRTS (which isn't a huge accomplishment) and the light gathering is decent. There's a zero stop on the elevation but the windage knob is probably too easy to turn. Clicks are positive. Reticle illum is bright.

Followup: this thing tracks perfectly and overall feel of turrets, focus, power selector, illum, glass, is very good. Clicks match the reticle, turrets track in line with the reticle, the thick bars of the reticle are heavy enough to see at low power at dusk with the illum off.

At low powers, the reticle is much easier to see than my unlit LRHS, to my eye the glass is clearer than either my LRHS or any of my SS 3-9's. Haven't used the similarly priced Athlon but this seems to be another reliable sub-$1K scope. Sub-$500 at current prices. Will report more after I've beat on it some.

Overall I substantially prefer it over the LRHS in terms of glass clarity and the reticle. Only thing I like better about the LRHS (or SS 3-9) is that the windage knob is harder to bump on those scopes (impossible on the LRHS).

That's encouraging to hear.

Interested in trying one of these,i like the donut reticle on the btr for hunting.

When stating that the reticle is "much easier to see on low powers than an unlit LRHS", is the the reticle on the Sightron lit when comparing the two?

This Sightron reticle, unlit, is much easier for me to see in dim light than the LRHS reticle, unlit. The skinny part of the crosshairs isn't all that much thicker (if at all) vs the LRHS, but the heavy bars are solid instead of partially solid, like on the LRHS.

Smart folks bought the LRHS with illumination. I didn't.

I'm going to use this for real for a while and report back.

Are you thinking of the LRTS instead of LRHS? The LRHS has solid posts, while the LRTS has “partially solid” posts that are made up of hash marks.

I have the Athlon Helos BTR 2-12X42

I haven't gotten a chance to shoot with it yet, but I have it mounted to a Tikka T3X and I have been pointing it at various critters around the house/backyard to get a feel of it.

Likes:

-Glass is okay. It is as good as the Leupold 2-7x33 VX-II and Freedom 3-9X32 EFR scopes that I have on hand. The Leupold Vari-X III 4.4X14 has similar glass.
-Reticle is easy to see in low light without illumination at 5X and up, below that in lower light I need illumination to see it
-Eyebox is pretty good, not quite as good at the Leupold 2-7X33 but better than the Freedom scopes and equal to a hair better than the Vari-X III at full magnification.

Dislikes:

-It is noticeably heavy on the rifle. It makes the rifle want to "tip over"/rotate in my hand where the Leupold Vari-X III is more neutral
-The eye relief could stand to be just a hair longer, the Tikka has a 14" LOP and when I am standing I have to crane my neck forwards to not have scope shadow, prone and braced I tend to climb the stock a little so it is okay there. For reference I am 5'11" 155 lbs thin build. When I reach up with my right hand to adjust something on the scope my deltoids/pectoral muscles noticeably affect the scope shadow
-The mount that I am using, MTN Tactical 20 MOA rail interferes with the objective bell such that I can't move the scope back any further, if the rail was scalloped out/missing the first crossbar or the optic was just a tad longer, it would allow me to get my preferred eye relief

Observations:

-The center dot of the reticle is .36 Mils (1 MOA) and it is kind of fat compared to other scopes, but it has been visible on every target that I have pointed it at: Turtles at 75-115yds, housecats at 200-250 yds and cows at 400-600 yds. I could see if you were shooting at very small targets it might be a problem though
-The cross hair thickness is .08 Mils which is quite a bit thicker than the 0.05 mils in the Sightron. The ranging reticle at the bottom is a .07 and that would be at the limit of what I would want to use in the field I think, .05 would be thin enough that I would have trouble with it with my eyes
-At 2X there is a bit of fish eye effect that you can see when you pan with it. If you move off the very bottom 2X it goes away

It seems to be an okay scope so far, it isn't what I would consider the end all of scopes but it is my first FFP scope and I plan on trying it out shooting before I make my final decision. If I would have had experience with this scope on a rifle before I bought it, I probably would have kept it on my list but likely would have kept looking for something better. Unfortunately where I live there really aren't any places I can go to experience scopes mounted before buying without driving several hours down to Memphis, which I try to avoid. However, for a $500 scope, I don't think it bad at all.

If I had my druthers, I would prefer a 20 oz 'ish FFP scope that had a reticle that was just slightly thinner with or without the doughnut with a equal or slightly better eyebox and longer eye relief.

If you have any other questions, let me know.

ETA one more dislike.

The Moutain Tactical rail and SWFA low rings are a bit too high for my dolicocephalic head and I had to get a Triad Tactical stock pack to raise my cheek up enough to get a good sight picture. I would prefer to have the scope lower.

Oops. Good catch Jordan. I have an LRTS. The "partially solid" posts give me a fit in low light. But it works fine for shooting rocks or steel.

Yeah, the non-illum LRTS is not my first choice for a general-purpose hunting scope simply because the reticle is not very visible at all in low light.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought maybe there was some model confusion there, given the design characteristics of the LRHS reticle.

IIRC, The lit LRTS reticles are actually slightly thicker than the non lit. In the LRTS, I prefer them to be lit, but I'll snap up any 3-12's I happen across; likewise for any 3-l2 LRHS.

In any case, it looks like Sightron did a very nice job with the FFP mil reticle in the S tac. So far, I've read nothing but good reports on the S tacs. Seemingly a high value proposition.

It would be nice if a few other companies would take notice and offer something similar for FFP reticles. You look at a lot of FFP's with narrow lines carried all the way to the edge in all directions from center and wonder who that actually shoots at anything would think it's a good idea to design or buy such a reticle? Seriously, who can make use of 9-10 mils windage, even with a long range rimfire or ML? Better to bring a thicker or double line in to 4-5 mils like Sightron did and have something to bracket game with at low X.

Would like to see a look at the second focal MOA reticle

Lefty

A small thing perhaps, but I like the nice index mark behind the top turret. Grandpa should be able to see that without tilting his bifocals.

The weight is just under his self-imposed limit for stuff that might get carried around.

Looks like it would work well for a Tikka CTR .223. That's if Tikka would ever get any more made and shipped over here.

Picked up a Sightron S-TAC FFP 3-16x42 yesterday. Got ti mounted up and put about 50 rnd through my PRC. Impressions; Easy to set up the zero stop with good directions make every thing easy. Shot different ranges out to 500. Tracking,return to zero good .

Glass is pretty good and the illumination makes the reticle usable at lower powers.


This is my first focal plane scope and I like it.

Lefty

Nice. Thanks for the reviews!

Forgot to add I ordered This scope Mon. afternoon and received it Wed. afternoon + free shipping.

Excellent service from Camera Land

Lefty

Sightron 3-16x42 or SWFA 3-15x42 for hunting - I'm leaning sightron for the illumination?

Haven't hunted with it yet.....but shot some steel just before dark and iit worked fine. Illumination easily adj, where you could see the reticle yet not too bright to cause flair on target.

Anyone have any updates on their use of the S TAC? Still like it? Hunt with it? Ditch it?