Sightron S-Tac 4-20

[watercam]

Does anyone have input on the Sightron S-Tac line of scopes? Understand the turrets are not as weather proof and limited reticle choice. Considering as a scope to replace iron sights for NRA Match Rifle from 600-1000 yds. My older Leupolds just not cutting it.
Thanks!
Mike

 

[JDBraddy]

Does anyone have input on the Sightron S-Tac line of scopes? Understand the turrets are not as weather proof and limited reticle choice. Considering as a scope to replace iron sights for NRA Match Rifle from 600-1000 yds. My older Leupolds just not cutting it.
Thanks!
Mike

For what game? Highpower? F-CLass? Palma?

 

[Coyotefurharvester]

I have 3, all are capped turrets so weather has never been an issue. I really like the moa2 reticle for pd and load work up on hunting rifles. The moa2 is difficult to see in low light hunting situations, my other 2 are duplex much better for hunting. Never have had any sort of irregular turret adjustment or poi change.

 

[jepp2]

Does anyone have input on the Sightron S-Tac line of scopes?

I also have 3 with the MOA 2 reticle. The glass is clear and bright. I haven't shot them in low light conditions as I have used them for prairie dogs and target. Mine have been used on rimfire mostly although I have one on a 54 caliber muzzleloader currently.

That said, I have other scopes (Vortex) that I like as well and have bought for better discounted prices at OpticsPlanet. But not necessarily cheaper.

 

[10at6]

Does anyone have input on the Sightron S-Tac line of scopes? Understand the turrets are not as weather proof and limited reticle choice. Considering as a scope to replace iron sights for NRA Match Rifle from 600-1000 yds. My older Leupolds just not cutting it.
Thanks!
Mike

I would consider the SIII 6-24 with target dot. It would be about perfect for what you describe. Well worth the extra $$

 

[watercam]

For what game? Highpower? F-CLass? Palma?

If you re-read the post, it's in there. NRA Match Rifle allows unlimited power optics now.

 

[watercam]

Thanks folks.

 

[ballisticxlr]

One of my long range students (one of my most talented students at that) uses one on his rifle. We've had little trouble going well beyond 1km with it. That said, it's not what I would call the cat's meow. It's just a good scope. I was really surprised how well it did against some really expensive optics in tracking and tall target tests. That all said, unlike with many other scopes I've had the opportunity to work with in larger sample sizes, I have experienced only 1 of these so I wouldn't call it a recommendation or assessment of the average quality of the model so much as a confirmation that they CAN be really quite good.

 

[dmoran]

@watercam
I have a Sightron S-Tac on a 223-Rem and like it very well. But I do not believe it would make for a good 600-1000 target scope like your wanting, primarily do to lack of magnification (aim small, miss small).

Will suggest the SIII 10-50x60 or Vortex GE 15-60x52 for your match rifle instead. Both have proven out well at distance target matches.
My 2-Cents

 

[stacy]

I HAVE 3 4X20X50 STAC DUPLEX AND 1 3X16X42 DUPLEX ON A BOLT 6.5 GRENDAL HUNTING RIFLE AND IT DOES AS GOOD AS ANY SCOPE I OWN AT ANY DISTANCE I SHOOT FROM DAWN TO DUSK THE 4X20 ARE ALL ON LONG RANGE HUNTING RIGS 243 ACKLEY,22BR,223 ACKLEY

 

[Ned Ludd]

I have the S-TAC 4-20x50 with a simple duplex reticle. This scope has very good glass for a modestly-priced optic. You could certainly use a 4-20x50 optic to shoot 600 to 1000 yd. Would it be optimal? Or even pretty decent? I guess much of that would depend on what you have been using up to this point.

The S-TAC scope has great optics, is reasonably priced, and you could certainly see the target out to 1000 yd with a 20X scope. Compared to iron sights, it might seem like the next best thing to sliced bread at 600 to 1000 yd. However, I also own a Nightforce 5.5-22x50 scope, which is in a whole different class as compared to the S-TAC. Frankly, I wouldn't choose either one to compete at 600-1000 yd in F-Class, unless I had no other choice, much preferring to use upper magnification in the 30-35X range at those distances.

Obviously, your scoring rings will be twice the diameter of an F-Class target, which would work in favor of lesser magnification, as would the requirement that the shooter supports the rifle completely, front and rear. If you go too high on the mag, it could well be a deterrent to good shooting of the reticle is dancing all over the target face at every minor movement. Nonetheless, a solid adjustable scope with upper magnification in the 32X range would allow you to dial up to 32X if condition warranted, or drop it back to around 8X if you needed to. I'm a big fan of the 8-32X optics, largely due to the usefulness of the mag range, and have a couple of the NF 8-32x56 scopes on F-TR rifles. The Sightron SIII 8-32 scopes would be also good choices, and a little more reasonably priced.

 

[watercam]

Appreciate the replies folks. All points taken.

 

[OKBoomer]

I’m very happy with my 4-20 S-TAC with the MOA-2 reticle. I’ve used it in several 600 yard FTR matches this year. It tracks very well, is clear and bright, and the reticle with the floating target dot is ideal for me. It’s a solid scope with high value - I found one new for less than $400. As others have said, I think a higher magnification, like 8-32 or 10-50, would serve 1000 yard targets better, especially for F-Class.

 

[284winner]

Being a non-competitor, I use the STAC 4-20 on hunting rigs. I love the MOA 2 reticle. It's a SFP scope so if I need to range with the reticle it's obviously on 20X. As Ned said, these are very clear good quality optics for the money but IMO just excellent optics. Not to be compared to Nightforce, they are still very good scopes. I'm wishing for the same scope in an IR reticle for low light. These reticles (MOA2) are tough to see in low light especially on the hide of an animal at near end of legal shooting hours. I had an issue this year. Saw antlers outlined in the snow but couldn't see crosshairs on the animal. An illuminated reticle is the answer.

 

[Rick300]

I’m very happy with my 4-20 S-TAC with the MOA-2 reticle. I’ve used it in several 600 yard FTR matches this year. It tracks very well, is clear and bright, and the reticle with the floating target dot is ideal for me. It’s a solid scope with high value - I found one new for less than $400. As others have said, I think a higher magnification, like 8-32 or 10-50, would serve 1000 yard targets better, especially for F-Class.

Where did you find one for under $400? I'm looking for a PD scope

 

[284winner]

Where did you find one for under $400? I'm looking for a PD scope

The STACs have gone up a bit since introduced. I paid around 315.00 when I bought mine. Today there over 400.00. The new FFP STAC 4-20 is 700.00.

 

[ballisticxlr]

I use Sightron on several ELR rigs and they hold their own. S3 6-24x50 has 100moa of elevation and windage. Sightron is the best value in high end optics in the industry!
EJ

I would vigorously debate that but only on the rather snitty grounds that I don't consider them to be remotely high end. They're very very good but as far as high end. I place them very firmly on the high-ish end of the middle ground so I guess one could argue they're also at the lowest end of the high end but I see that particular cup as being a half a cup. Not half full and not half empty.

 

[mgdietrich]

I have the 3-16 STAC on my course rifle, 223. Simple duplex reticle, repeats well and for an inexpensive scope does the job. I like the smaller objective for standing being a smaller sail in a wind. 50mms objectives aren't a need for target scopes as we are not shooting in the dark.

 

[284winner]

I would vigorously debate that but only on the rather snitty grounds that I don't consider them to be remotely high end. They're very very good but as far as high end. I place them very firmly on the high-ish end of the middle ground so I guess one could argue they're also at the lowest end of the high end but I see that particular cup as being a half a cup. Not half full and not half empty.

Having owned numerous and continue to own numerous Leupold scopes, I'd put the STAC glass equal to the VX3 Glass. Not really sure where Leupold VX3 Glass stands but I typically use Mark 4 scopes which I find to be excellent optics. I'll say the STACs are very close if not equal also to the Mark 4 glass. I've used both at very long ranges and in very poor environmental conditions and I believe they both are on par with each other. Durability wise I've not tested.

 

[ballisticxlr]

Having owned numerous and continue to own numerous Leupold scopes, I'd put the STAC glass equal to the VX3 Glass. Not really sure where Leupold VX3 Glass stands but I typically use Mark 4 scopes which I find to be excellent optics. I'll say the STACs are very close if not equal also to the Mark 4 glass. I've used both at very long ranges and in very poor environmental conditions and I believe they both are on par with each other. Durability wise I've not tested.

VX3 would occupy the same territory in the high end of the middle ground but for my money are not also contained within the low range of the high end. The color rendition on Loopies is too dark for me to place it there. It's like wearing blue blockers. Not that I don't 100% love that when hunting but not for precision shooting.