Sightron S-TAC 3-16X42 FFP Mil experience

[Crow Hunter TN]

Anyone own or have used the S-TAC FFP?

https://sightron.com/products/s-tac-ffp-3-16x42-zero-stop

I have read that the reticle is thin. The specs say it is .05 Mil, which is the same as the SWFA 10X and the SWFA 5-20. While that is thinner than the SWFA 6X and 3-9 (.07 Mil) it does have thicker illumination.

It also appears to have a fairly narrow FOV compared to others in its class.

There is very little use information online about it. I suppose that might be a clue.

 

[gbflyer]

I have one. I haven’t thrown it off the house to see if it holds zero so I can’t say for sure that I would bet my life on it. The movements are accurate enough. I’d say the fov is pretty tight at 16X. I find the reticle to be very usable. There are no yardage graduations on the parallax adjustment knob. I don’t think you get much better until you start spending a lot more money. They have a solid rep as a budget brand scope.

 

[bigbuckdj]

I had one and I agree the FOV was tight. The turret clicks were very nice. I never checked to see if it tracked accurately or held zero when dropped. I went to a swfa 3-9x42 on that rifle when I got my hands on one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Crow Hunter TN]

How was the view/reticle on 3X?

Could you use it to bracket an animal in low light or was the illumination enough to make the reticle usable?

Could it be used on small game animals/P-dogs?

Do you feel it was a better target shooting scope than a hunting scope?

I appreciate the info.

 

[gbflyer]

To me it’s useable at 3x. I shot a coyote with mine out the shop door this winter. No P dogs here.

 

[MHWASH]

I sent mine back before mounting it. I could not see the cross hairs against a wood power pole out my bedroom window.

 

[Lonewolf72]

Does anyone have any experience comparing this scope to an SWFA 3-15x42mm scope, and using it for hunting? Which scope would you prefer for hunting and why?

I've been waiting on the backorder list for an SWFA 3-9x42mm since April, but given their track record, I don't have much hope the order will be fulfilled in 2024.

Gonna be looking at at the Maven RS1.2 at the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo this weekend, but was hoping not to spend that much to get a decent scope. I suppose a slightly cheaper alternative to the Maven is the Trijicon Tenmile. But my eyes are having trouble with "fine" reticles these days.

 

[Crow Hunter TN]

I have a lot of trouble with fine reticles when there is a cluttered/mottled/dark background as well. I have tried both the SWFA 3-15 and the Sightron 3-16,

Sightron- The reticle was so fine that I could only make out the hash marks at 8X or greater in anything other than very bright light and from 13X-16X the chromatic abberation was so bad, that it was nearly unusable. Looked like an one of those old kaleidescope toys if you moved your head even slightly off axis. I have never had a scope that had such a picky eyebox. It was for all intents and purposes a 8-12X scope that was difficult to see in low light without the illumination on. It only has a .05 Mil "thick" reticle.

The SWFA wasn't nearly as bad about the eyebox but I would lose the reticle at reasonable hunting magnifications when I was sitting in shade on my patio and looking at squirrels in the hickory tree about 50 yards away unless I put a toilet paper tube over the occular and looked through that. My hypothesis is that the glass just wasn't letting enough light through and my eyes were picking up light around the occular and so the reticle just faded from view without enough light coming to my eyes through the scope itself. When I put the toilet paper roll on the occular, all the light I could see HAD to come through the scope and then I could see it. At magnifications of 9X or higher, it was visible without the tube.

My control in the experiment was a Credo 3-9X40 Mil Square. I could see it in more conditions than either of the before mentioned scopes. I only have trouble with it about 20 min after official sunset. I start losing the reticle in the dark mottled areas and have to turn on the illumination.

If I were picking between those 2, I would pick the SWFA. The reticle was harder to pick up but it was at least useable at higher magnifications and throughout the range when the lighting was good.

However, I would get the Maven (or at least try it out first). The reticle is .10 Mil "thick" so in theory it should be MUCH more visible than both SWFA at .06 and the Sightron at .05 Mil at all magnifications and thicker than the Credo, proportionally down to 3-4X. Plus it should have noticeably better glass and capped windage/zero stop elevation. I plan on buying one to try once the leaves come back out here so I can get a "test" similar to what I did with the others I have evaluated.

 

[BCD]

I have a lot of trouble with fine reticles when there is a cluttered/mottled/dark background as well. I have tried both the SWFA 3-15 and the Sightron 3-16,

Sightron- The reticle was so fine that I could only make out the hash marks at 8X or greater in anything other than low very bright light and from 13X-16X the chromatic abberation was so bad, that it was nearly unusable. Looked like an one of those old kaleidescope toys if you moved your head even slightly off axis. I have never had a scope that had such a picky eyebox. It was for all intents and purposes a 8-12X scope that was difficult to see in low light without the illumination on. It only has a .05 Mil "thick" reticle.

The SWFA wasn't nearly as bad about the eyebox but I would lose the reticle at reasonable hunting magnifications when I was sitting in shade on my patio and looking at squirrels in the hickory tree about 50 yards away unless I put a toilet paper tube over the occular and looked through that. My hypothesis is that the glass just wasn't letting enough light through and my eyes were picking up light around the occular and so the reticle just faded from view without enough light coming to my eyes through the scope itself. When I put the toilet paper roll on the occular, all the light I could see HAD to come through the scope and then I could see it. At magnifications of 9X or higher, it was visible without the tube.

My control in the experiment was a Credo 3-9X40 Mil Square. I could see it in more conditions than either of the before mentioned scopes. I only have trouble with it about 20 min after official sunset. I start losing the reticle in the dark mottled areas and have to turn on the illumination.

If I were picking between those 2, I would pick the SWFA. The reticle was harder to pick up but it was at least useable at higher magnifications and throughout the range when the lighting was good.

However, I would get the Maven (or at least try it out first). The reticle is .10 Mil "thick" so in theory it should be MUCH more visible than both SWFA at .06 and the Sightron at .05 Mil at all magnifications and thicker than the Credo, proportionally down to 3-4X. Plus it should have noticeably better glass and capped windage/zero stop elevation. I plan on buying one to try once the leaves come back out here so I can get a "test" similar to what I did with the others I have evaluated.

I had the SWFA 3-15 and thought the reticle was terrible and completely unusable at low magnification. Does the Maven come in Mils or only MOA?

 

[Crow Hunter TN]

I had the SWFA 3-15 and thought the reticle was terrible and completely unusable at low magnification. Does the Maven come in Mils or only MOA?

Both.

The RS1.2 2.5-15X44 variant. I think the original RS1 only came in MOA.

The Mil reticle looks much better done to me.

 

[Highvoltage1]

I also have the sightron and feel like anything below 8x is extremely hard to see. Mine is illuminated so that helps but I do like the moa reticle a lot. Mine tracks very well so no complaints. I haven’t tried anything else because my setup shoots so well to 600 and I don’t want to touch it. I’ve heard from a few folks that their 2nd focal plane is much better. Best wishes.

 

[Lonewolf72]

Crow Hunter TN...thank you for your thoughtful explanation, as well as the input from the rest of you. You all have been very helpful. Sounds like I need to find a used SWFA 3-9x or "pony up" the big bucks for a Maven RS1.2.

I have a 3-9x SWFA and a 3-9x Credo Mil-Square, both of which I find acceptable. But I once owned a 3-15x SWFA and was not impressed, so my guess is the Sightron will fall in that category as well. I am looking for a dialing scope, so hopefully I can find a Maven to look at this weekend. Probably should've held on to my LRTS and LRHSi...

 

[Sportshooter5]

I have 3 of the Slll PLR with the MOA reticles . The reticles are a lot bigger, I use them for target shooting and hunting. I think that they have great value for the money.

 

[Crow Hunter TN]

Crow Hunter TN...thank you for your thoughtful explanation, as well as the input from the rest of you. You all have been very helpful. Sounds like I need to find a used SWFA 3-9x or "pony up" the big bucks for a Maven RS1.2.

I have a 3-9x SWFA and a 3-9x Credo Mil-Square, both of which I find acceptable. But I once owned a 3-15x SWFA and was not impressed, so my guess is the Sightron will fall in that category as well. I am looking for a dialing scope, so hopefully I can find a Maven to look at this weekend. Probably should've held on to my LRTS and LRHSi...

If you didn't like the 3-15 SWFA, you definitely won't like the STAC.

You can still get the Bushnell LRHS with the G2H reticle from GAP. When I emailed and asked them, they said that they still had quite a few of them.

If you get to see the Maven, definitely let me know your opinion as a person who also has trouble with thin reticles.

 

[Lonewolf72]

If you didn't like the 3-15 SWFA, you definitely won't like the STAC.

You can still get the Bushnell LRHS with the G2H reticle from GAP. When I emailed and asked them, they said that they still had quite a few of them.

If you get to see the Maven, definitely let me know your opinion as a person who also has trouble with thin reticles.

Exactly the information I need to hear...and will do.

In the meantime, if anyone has an SWFA 3-9x42mm HD scope they want to let go at a reasonable price...PM me.