New Sightron SIII MOA

[Pdvdh]

Just received my new scope. Tikka Lover was great to deal with. Fast shipping and great price. A+ in my book.

I may be looking to sell off some of my other scopes just to pick up a couple more of these new SIIIs.

Good shooting

BT

That's what I've done and am doing. I started to shift into the SIII 6x24-50mm scopes three years ago, using their mil-dot reticle. Now I'm adding a couple of the 6x24-50s with the 2-moa reticle. A number of Leupolds scopes have been set loose because the glass doesn't compare. A couple IOR 3-18's have been cut loose due to their excessive weight for my backpack style of hunting, and because the earlier IOR models came unglued internally with my use of muzzle-braked 300 Win Mag and .338 Edge rifles. IOR did replace the scopes under warranty. Just got tired of the fuss and hassle of not knowing when one might come apart and have to be sent back in for replacement.

I don't care what color the objective ring of the SIIIs are relative to the rest of the scope tube body. It's insignificant... not an issue - at least to me. Guess my list of priorities is quite a bit different than the members objecting to a differing shade of black matte finish.

Hope you enjoy your SIII as much as I have mine. Good to hear Tikka Lover is a good source for the SIIIs. I like TikkaT3s also, so I'll keep him in mind to further my collection of the SIII 2-moa reticle scopes.

 

[kennyg]

Hey what do you guys think of the MOA-2 reticle for low light shooting? I hunt at dawn and dusk a lot, and I was wondering if it disapears in low light? You said you also shoot the LRMD model; do those bigger mildots make it easier to find the reticle when it is getting dark?

 

[Pdvdh]

I can't comment based on any wealth of experience on the low light capabilities of the LRMD. Even though I've been hunting with them for several years now, I don't really hunt in failing light to any significant extent. Also, I won't receive the first of two of the new 2-moa reticle SIII scopes until this coming week.

I'll compare the two in dim lighting conditions after I receive the 2-moa reticle version and let you know my impressions for low light use at that time.

I can say that the dots are fairly large in the LRMD on the lower power settings, and they could be used to get you in the ball park on a large game animal in dim light, but the intersection of the cross hairs is no wider than cross-hair width. So I'm not sure how well a guy could refine the point of aim in failing light conditions. I think it would be difficult to design a scope with a relatively large cross-hair aiming point/intersection and still get refined aiming on small targets in good lighting conditions. The LRMD dots could be used similar to the way the old, standard 4-Plex cross-hairs have been promoted - to get the cross-hairs generally aligned on the target in dimming light conditions.

 

[Tikka Lover]

Hey what do you guys think of the MOA-2 reticle for low light shooting? I hunt at dawn and dusk a lot, and I was wondering if it disapears in low light? You said you also shoot the LRMD model; do those bigger mildots make it easier to find the reticle when it is getting dark?

I would have to say in low light conditions or shooting at something black the MOA-2 reticle would be pretty much like any other non illuminated reticle.......... Harder to see in that situation, the lines are thin but I like the lines thin. The mildot reticle is definitely thicker and yes, you can pick it up better in lower light.
If you like the Mildot version I can do those for $715 or the LR Dot $700.

 

[llklein]

i got my s3 from tikka and love it so far,might be getting another form him for my buddies lapua when he can swing it.havent got it mounted yet,im waiting for rings.the bell on mine looks the same to me.the clicks are very nice and the glass is awesome.i like the size of the dot,it looks to be the same size as the cross hairs to me also.ill look through mine this evening and let you know how it works at low light kennyg.

 

[Pdvdh]

If you like the Mildot version I can do those for $715 or the LR Dot $700.

Those are VERY competitive prices for these two models. This from a guy that's been paying attention to their advertised pricings for the past several years.

 

[Pdvdh]

I'll compare the two in dim lighting conditions after I receive the 2-moa reticle version and let you know my impressions for low light use at that time.

I can say that the dots are fairly large in the LRMD on the lower power settings, and they could be used to get you in the ball park on a large game animal in dim light, but the intersection of the cross hairs is no wider than cross-hair width. So I'm not sure how well a guy could refine the point of aim in failing light conditions. I think it would be difficult to design a scope with a relatively large cross-hair aiming point/intersection and still get refined aiming on small targets in good lighting conditions. The LRMD dots could be used similar to the way the old, standard 4-Plex cross-hairs have been promoted - to get the cross-hairs generally aligned on the target in dimming light conditions.

OK,
I've now looked through the MOA-2 reticle in fading light. The LRMD reticle would be better if your priority is centering the kill zone on a reasonably close range large game animal in dim lighting conditions. Neither reticle is going to allow for fine tuning the POA at long range in dim lighting. There is no such thing as a reticle that will do both of these things well. One or the other would have to be the priority. IF the priority is closing range use on relatively large targets in dim light, go with the LR Mil Dot. Plan on using it just like a 4-plex in failing light.

 

[kennyg]

Thanks for the reply, that is good info!

 

[PDA]

I recently bought a SIII 6-24 MOA-2 and put it on my 300WM. I love the floating dot reticle. During a recent coyote hunt it was perfect on a dog at 800 yds, and a deer at 1800 yds I was watching. I did not shoot at either at that range (called the coyote closer as there was two). Previoulsy I had a Bushy 4.5-30 on this rifle and it was mounted on an AR for side by side comparison. At close range the 4.5 power of the Bushnell is much better than the 6 power of the Sightron for moving shots. The ONLY reason I am going away from the Bushnell is lack of internal travel. I have shot to 1200 yds with it, but want to try a mile.

I used an "opical test chart" I found online to compare the two scopes, plus a NF 3-15 on my work gun. The Bushnell is slightly brighter with slightly better resolution at all powers, though it is only really noticible at the higher end. I limited the Bushnell power to 24 to be apples for apples with the Sightron. With all three scopes on 15 power, the NF was obviously clearer. I tested the scopes at 50 yds in low light, and 450 yds on a hot day with high mirage. The Sightron was the worst at "cutting through" the mirage, the Bushy was mid, and NF the best. Now I know the NF is twice the money, but it is a known standard in optics and a good baseline.

All in all the Sightron is a great scope, I love the MOA-2 reticle with floating dot, the turrets, and power adjustment which is silky smooth. I wish the glass was at least as good as my Bushnell, but it is hard to have everything at this price point.


Aaron

 

[kennyg]

This is interesting because it is the first review I have read where the Bushnell had better glass then the Sightron.

 

[Rstraw]

What kind of price?

 

[kennyg]

PM TikkaLover, hes got good prices and great service!

 

[PDA]

Here are some pictures from my range session. The green box is from the Sightron, Red from Bushnell, only I messed up and they should have been on the corresponding numbers for the next size smaller lines. I apparently saved the picture with paint and could not go back and fix it.

 

[ZSteinle]

Just ordered mine from tikka lover. cant wait to get it. Have you attempted to trim the vortex shims or try shims from another source to get them to work. Zero stop would be awesome on that scope!