Rifle Scopes Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMD/CM Review
- Thread starter Sapper524
- Start date
Re: Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMD/CM Review
You had beef with the reticle size, outside of that it sounds like it did exactly what a person could ask of it, and did it well.
Durability comment is simple hearsay until you actually test it to see if the "plastic" knobs hold up.
I don't quite understand the NF or USO comment at the end, unless it was strictly in regards to reticle choices and perceived durability? I understand the kind of hero worship people get when they hear NF, S&B, USO... but objectivity based on facts should be the goal in a review, pointing out how fervently you looked for a NF in a review about a Sightron shows a bit of a bias, and leads me to believe you had already believed you were settling for a "lesser" optic before even giving it a chance.
Thanks for doing the write up, I hope we get to hear more as you use and abuse it.
You had beef with the reticle size, outside of that it sounds like it did exactly what a person could ask of it, and did it well.
Durability comment is simple hearsay until you actually test it to see if the "plastic" knobs hold up.
I don't quite understand the NF or USO comment at the end, unless it was strictly in regards to reticle choices and perceived durability? I understand the kind of hero worship people get when they hear NF, S&B, USO... but objectivity based on facts should be the goal in a review, pointing out how fervently you looked for a NF in a review about a Sightron shows a bit of a bias, and leads me to believe you had already believed you were settling for a "lesser" optic before even giving it a chance.
Thanks for doing the write up, I hope we get to hear more as you use and abuse it.
Re: Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMD/CM Review
I have a SIII 6-24x50 with the MOA-2 reticle and really like the scope. Like you, I don't really like glass comparisons (unless they are obvious) but it really isn't any different than my Mark 4. Good write up...I hope we both continue to be pleased with these optics!
I have a SIII 6-24x50 with the MOA-2 reticle and really like the scope. Like you, I don't really like glass comparisons (unless they are obvious) but it really isn't any different than my Mark 4. Good write up...I hope we both continue to be pleased with these optics!
Re: Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMD/CM Review
S&B PMII also use friction lock on the turrets, they are not exactly cheap. It does let you offset from the ticks a bit which can be helpful for the windage knob since your head is rarely level with the scope (I'm always looking over it from the left side).
S&B PMII also use friction lock on the turrets, they are not exactly cheap. It does let you offset from the ticks a bit which can be helpful for the windage knob since your head is rarely level with the scope (I'm always looking over it from the left side).
Re: Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMD/CM Review
I don't understand the SFP comment on FFP being used to contain costs. FFP
cost more to produce from everything I have bought , seen and read.
I don't understand the SFP comment on FFP being used to contain costs. FFP
cost more to produce from everything I have bought , seen and read.
Re: Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMD/CM Review
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: calling4life</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You had beef with the reticle size, outside of that it sounds like it did exactly what a person could ask of it, and did it well.
Durability comment is simple hearsay until you actually test it to see if the "plastic" knobs hold up.
I don't quite understand the NF or USO comment at the end, unless it was strictly in regards to reticle choices and perceived durability? I understand the kind of hero worship people get when they hear NF, S&B, USO... but objectivity based on facts should be the goal in a review, pointing out how fervently you looked for a NF in a review about a Sightron shows a bit of a bias, and leads me to believe you had already believed you were settling for a "lesser" optic before even giving it a chance.
Thanks for doing the write up, I hope we get to hear more as you use and abuse it.
</div></div>
I am a big USO fan, I won't deny or even try to hide it. The reference to looking for a Nightforce was to show that even when shopping used I couldn't stay in budget. Im not a big Nightforce fan simply because the whole rear eyepiece turns. Besides the reticle, I was very impressed with what I got for the cost. At the end when I said a USO or Nightforce would out perform the SIII ... I guess you missed the part where I said at 2 or 3 times the cost.
That was the whole point of the review ... an alternative to the $2000 scopes that will get you to those ELR distances and not break the bank.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigwheeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't understand the SFP comment on FFP being used to contain costs. FFP
cost more to produce from everything I have bought , seen and read. </div></div>
Not following you ... The cost down "compromise" statement at the end of the RETICLE section was directed at the reticle size not that it was SFP. FFP scopes are more expensive ... poor wording placement on my part.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: calling4life</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You had beef with the reticle size, outside of that it sounds like it did exactly what a person could ask of it, and did it well.
Durability comment is simple hearsay until you actually test it to see if the "plastic" knobs hold up.
I don't quite understand the NF or USO comment at the end, unless it was strictly in regards to reticle choices and perceived durability? I understand the kind of hero worship people get when they hear NF, S&B, USO... but objectivity based on facts should be the goal in a review, pointing out how fervently you looked for a NF in a review about a Sightron shows a bit of a bias, and leads me to believe you had already believed you were settling for a "lesser" optic before even giving it a chance.
Thanks for doing the write up, I hope we get to hear more as you use and abuse it.
</div></div>
I am a big USO fan, I won't deny or even try to hide it. The reference to looking for a Nightforce was to show that even when shopping used I couldn't stay in budget. Im not a big Nightforce fan simply because the whole rear eyepiece turns. Besides the reticle, I was very impressed with what I got for the cost. At the end when I said a USO or Nightforce would out perform the SIII ... I guess you missed the part where I said at 2 or 3 times the cost.
That was the whole point of the review ... an alternative to the $2000 scopes that will get you to those ELR distances and not break the bank.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigwheeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't understand the SFP comment on FFP being used to contain costs. FFP
cost more to produce from everything I have bought , seen and read. </div></div>
Not following you ... The cost down "compromise" statement at the end of the RETICLE section was directed at the reticle size not that it was SFP. FFP scopes are more expensive ... poor wording placement on my part.
Re: Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMD/CM Review
I didn't miss it, and I'm not trying to make it sound as if I'm attacking your point of view.
You're just using price as a determinant of quality with that statement, are they better because they cost more, or are they better because they are better in objective study...
I had a lot written here, I decided against it as I don't want this to look as if I'm trying to discredit what you wrote.
I just believe that when you give a review of how the optic performed, it should be based on performance, the name, the cost, the reputation gets dropped, all that matters is the facts that sit right in front of you.
It tracked perfectly to incredible distance, clarity gave you all you asked, you got the elevation you wanted. At the extreme ends of adjustment it maintained its precision.
It just makes me wonder, if the Sightron had been $2000, would it have been a better optic... if it had S&B stamped on the side, would it have tracked any better... It almost read as if you started disappointed that you had to use the scope, then ended disappointed because it didn't read Nightforce or USO, regardless of performance.
But, maybe I'm just being a little bitch about it...
I didn't miss it, and I'm not trying to make it sound as if I'm attacking your point of view.
You're just using price as a determinant of quality with that statement, are they better because they cost more, or are they better because they are better in objective study...
I had a lot written here, I decided against it as I don't want this to look as if I'm trying to discredit what you wrote.
I just believe that when you give a review of how the optic performed, it should be based on performance, the name, the cost, the reputation gets dropped, all that matters is the facts that sit right in front of you.
It tracked perfectly to incredible distance, clarity gave you all you asked, you got the elevation you wanted. At the extreme ends of adjustment it maintained its precision.
It just makes me wonder, if the Sightron had been $2000, would it have been a better optic... if it had S&B stamped on the side, would it have tracked any better... It almost read as if you started disappointed that you had to use the scope, then ended disappointed because it didn't read Nightforce or USO, regardless of performance.
But, maybe I'm just being a little bitch about it...
Re: Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMD/CM Review
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're just using price as a determinant of quality with that statement, are they better because they cost more, or are they better because they are better in objective study...</div></div>
A USO is better than a SIII. The features and reasons why are numerous. A SN3 of similar magnification cost triple what the SIII does. Where's the confusion?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It tracked perfectly to incredible distance, clarity gave you all you asked, you got the elevation you wanted. At the extreme ends of adjustment it maintained its precision.</div></div>
Yep ... and thats what I said ...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It just makes me wonder, if the Sightron had been $2000, would it have been a better optic... if it had S&B stamped on the side, would it have tracked any better... It almost read as if you started disappointed that you had to use the scope, then ended disappointed because it didn't read Nightforce or USO, regardless of performance.</div></div>
If the SIII had cost $2k I wouldn't have bought it. I started listing the options and features I wanted for the project. The Sightron fit the parameters and thats why it was used. The tracking was not a negative, other aspects were. Those negative aspects ... Turrent caps and reticle are areas where a USO or Nightforce are better. It ended with mission accomplished for a third the cost of the other options.
The final line of the review ...
"You get what you pay for and we got repeatable hits and enough elevation to get to a mile, ill take it."
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: calling4life</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But, maybe I'm just being a little bitch about it... </div></div>
You said it not me ...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're just using price as a determinant of quality with that statement, are they better because they cost more, or are they better because they are better in objective study...</div></div>
A USO is better than a SIII. The features and reasons why are numerous. A SN3 of similar magnification cost triple what the SIII does. Where's the confusion?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It tracked perfectly to incredible distance, clarity gave you all you asked, you got the elevation you wanted. At the extreme ends of adjustment it maintained its precision.</div></div>
Yep ... and thats what I said ...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It just makes me wonder, if the Sightron had been $2000, would it have been a better optic... if it had S&B stamped on the side, would it have tracked any better... It almost read as if you started disappointed that you had to use the scope, then ended disappointed because it didn't read Nightforce or USO, regardless of performance.</div></div>
If the SIII had cost $2k I wouldn't have bought it. I started listing the options and features I wanted for the project. The Sightron fit the parameters and thats why it was used. The tracking was not a negative, other aspects were. Those negative aspects ... Turrent caps and reticle are areas where a USO or Nightforce are better. It ended with mission accomplished for a third the cost of the other options.
The final line of the review ...
"You get what you pay for and we got repeatable hits and enough elevation to get to a mile, ill take it."
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: calling4life</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But, maybe I'm just being a little bitch about it... </div></div>
You said it not me ...
Re: Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMD/CM Review
great review i have been thinking of buying one and i think i will go for it thanks.
great review i have been thinking of buying one and i think i will go for it thanks.
Re: Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMD/CM Review
Thanks for the good review. I have a Sightron SIII and have been happy with it as well.
Thanks for the good review. I have a Sightron SIII and have been happy with it as well.
Re: Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMD/CM Review
Other than the white on black text, that was a good review.
It confirmed my convictions, SIII has the features I want and is cheaper than USO.
Other than the white on black text, that was a good review.
It confirmed my convictions, SIII has the features I want and is cheaper than USO.
Re: Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMD/CM Review
I love the Sightron SIII scopes!
I love the Sightron SIII scopes!
Re: Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMD/CM Review
Thanks for the review, I have the Sightron Big Sky that I use for hunting and am very satisfied. I have a 30 year old Savage 110 in 30-06 that I have been thinking of swapping barrels and stock to a manners or mcmillan. I think this combination might get me to 1200 yards.
Thanks for the review, I have the Sightron Big Sky that I use for hunting and am very satisfied. I have a 30 year old Savage 110 in 30-06 that I have been thinking of swapping barrels and stock to a manners or mcmillan. I think this combination might get me to 1200 yards.
Similar threads
