Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Vortex Scopes ?

The local Sportsman's Warehouse has these scopes priced pretty reasonable, but I've never heard of them. The guy behind the counter told me the Company was started by some Leoupold Co. workers that were not happy. Any body know if these scopes will hold up? The glass looked good to my eyes, but it's getting so anything's an improvement on my sight. Whats the story on these scopes, good, bad, indifferent?

Vortex optics in general have been well received. I have Viper binos and Diamondback scopes and feel that they both offer quality and performance above their price point.

FWIW my diamondbacks ride on a savage 220 and a ML. Both get use and both have held zero etc. No turret twisting though. I believe everything has been under 250yds with these.

I'll buy more.

There are, of course, several levels of quality from crossfire-diamondback-viper, etc... I am sure others will chime in with experiences.

Never trust the guy behind the counter. Vortex was started by the Hamilton family, whose first business venture was opening a Wild Birds Unlimited Store. The parent company, Sheltered Wings came later as did spin offs Eagle Optics and Vortex. No former disgruntled Leupold people involved. Kruger Optical did have some founders as former Leupold and Bushnell people, not Vortex. Vortex has their own small development, test and repair facility in Wisconsin. One of the owners, one Sam Hamilton has a degree in optics design and is the man behind the Vortex designs. When they get the prototype stuff done to the point where they're done, they contract production of the design to wherever they can get the best deal for the price point they are after.

Vortex has pretty good midrange stuff and are starting out into the higher end stuff to a degree. They have excellent warranty and service. Warrant is attached to the optic not the first user and if it gets FUBARed, they will fix or replace free of charge. I've had most of their binoculars and several of their scopes in Crossfire, Diamondback, and Viper series.

Thanks for the inside info on the Vortex Co. I just picked up a Vortex Scope.

Vortex scopes are real popular with some long range guys on another forum I frequent. I decided to give one a try, so I got a Vortex Viper 4-16x50 PST FFP. I like it a lot, though I'm a bit new to turret cranking. Prior to this scope, I was always an SFP guy. I have made no personal decision yet as to whether I prefer SFP or FFP after a year with FFP. I can see positives and negatives of both.

The Vortex Viper PST's have what is probably the highest rate of failures of any modern LR optic, save IOR's SH Editions. A bit of googling will turn up a ton of posts highlighting the personal knowledge of their great service.


I have had every one of my personally owned Vortex Razors, both Gen 1 and 2, fail, as well as several Viper PST's. Have seen dozens of others and they have all developed issues.



Having said that, the current Razor 1-6x I have is doing well with around 1,000 rounds in the last two months, after the first was replaced for inability to hold zero and incorrect adjustments. The current 1-6x Razors are an issued optic to a select military organization and are doing extremely well.

Form,

Any insight or initial testing of the 34 mm Razor Gen IIs?

Thx

The Gen 2's are quite a bit better. Better erectors, lenses permanently bonded like the NF NXS Milspec's, etc. From a design standpoint they should be awesome. Having said that a 1-6x24 wouldn't hold zero, and by that I mean shifts of 9-12 inches, and the adjustments were way off. One of the first 4.5-27x's had a .2-.4 mil shift intermittently that was verifiable through a tracking test. The replacement 4.5-27x is working fine as far as I know. They are redicously heavy, and have not come out of the gate as good as they should have.

Form, it's possible that I didn't do all the homework I should have on the Vortex PST, but I did spend a lot of time looking at the scope and reading reviews. I didn't want to spend a $1k on a scope and be disappointed, but I didn't find many failure reports on the PST's. Most folks seemed quite happy with them, and a few guys really bragged on them, most of those guys being long range shooters. What was it that broke on the PST's that you had that failed? It appears that you do more shooting in a month or two than I do in a year, so it's quite likely that I'll never work a PST to death - unless it just has a mechanical failure. Where's the weak spot on the scope?

I've been a Leupold guy for decades, with a few Nikons, Weavers, Redfields, Burris, and Bushnells thrown into the mix from time to time. This is the first Vortex. Glass seems pretty good. I like the MRAD reticle, though it is a bit busy - but I guess I've gotten used to it by now. It'll stay on the gun till I find something else I want to try.

Along these lines, Vortex failures, been interested to hear more details. Fail to track in high volume work? Fail to hold zero? Anything more is appreciated. I have one of the Midway Viper HS 5-15x44 Mil/Mil scopes and just getting to using it. Fubar? It won't be under constant usage, and I'm not going to purposely torture it, but intend it for dialing and want consistency and readiness for game, when the chance occurs. Should I dump it, swap for my SWFA 3-9?

I have had a couple dozen Leupolds when hunting big game. When I quit, I decided to hunt sage rats and rockchucks so I needed more power. My two shooting partners and I ended up with 7 Vortex Vipers and 1 has a cheaper diamonback, (I believe the model). The Vipers have proven to be reliable with multiple adjustments being made in a season, both on chucks and targets.The optics are not the highest quality, but equal to my Leupolds. The optics have never ever caused me to lose any game.

For the money paid for a Viper, I could buy almost three while only buying one leupold. The cost of Leupold insurance is pretty high.

I have shot thousands of rounds thru guns with the Vipers with nary a problem.

I had horrible luck with my viper 3-10x50. Would not hold zero. Glass not as good as leupold IMO. I will stick with Swarovski z3's. When I can afford them! Lol!

I wonder if they like Leupolds in that once repaired they'll hold up? Lol

Posted reviews are not real reliable. Read them myself. However you read reviews on power tools that were written as soon as the box was opened. I want to know what you think after awhile. Same with bullets " they are great. I shot a 1/4" group." If its a hunting bullet I want details on how it worked on a few animals.

First a brief reflection of how I and those I know/work with test and why most don't even know their scopes aren't working.

Most mount a scope, bore sight, fire 1-3 rounds, adjust, fire 1-3 rounds and if the bullets are somewhere near their "zero" (usually 1-3 inches high at 100 yds), then they say the are done. If the scope seemed like it adjusted the bullets close to the desired amount they state that the scope works fine. Really the only thing they care about is staring at and bragging about the "glass".

There are several problems with this.

1) The most important is that just about every name scope has glass that is more than sufficient to see with and kill under just about any legal light. "Glass" is just about last on the list of importance for almost any use. Doesn't matter if it's long range shooting or hunting in the timber with a lever gun. You are far more likely to miss or wound an animal because the sighting device lost zero or adjusted incorrectly than you are because you couldn't see it to shoot.


2) 3 round "groups" are completely and totally insufficient to determine where any one shot will land. There is no- "hunting rifle", "1st shot from cold bore", "only the first shot matters"- nonsense. ALL guns fire in a cone. This is a fact. The purpose if zeroing is to move the center of the cone to point of aim (POA). It takes a certain number of shots to adequately determine where the center of the cone is. If you have a rifle that generally produces 3 shot "groups" of around 1 MOA, than you really have a gun that is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 MOA for the cone. This is important to understand as those three shots are almost meaningless and has a high likely good of being farthest from the center, rather than closest (there is more to it than that). That means that when you think you are zeroed, you can be almost 2 MOA off from actual ZERO. This alone should make it fairly obvious that doing the above will never allow one to see point of impact (POI) shifts of .5 to 1 MOA. Let alone knowing what size target we can hit, or if the scope is adjusting correctly.






3) Adjustments of a few MOA shows nothing of a scopes correct functioning. Lots of scopes have dead spots, shifts, under adjustments, over adjustments, flat spots, backlash, failure to return to zero, etc., anywhere throughout the adjustment range. Only tall target tests, with frequent POI measurement will show this. Adjustments of 30 plus MOA/10 mils with POI measuerd at least every 4-5 MOA/1 mil is needed. Now there will be plenty claiming that they don't shoot far enough for it to matter, however that's not the point. Any of the above conditions point to mechanical problems and a high likelihood of future problems that are much more severe.

Scopes don't get "better" with use. Any scope that exhibits the above issues is broke and will only get worse. Again most will say that none of that matters for none turret twisters... that is flat out wrong. For instance- a regular hunting scope say even a fixed 4x that will never be dialed, has dead spots, shifts and backlash. Doesn't matter once the scope is zeroed, right? Wrong. Those conditions are a sign of a faulty erector system, an erector system that is designed to be stable and in correct function in order to maintain zero. All else being equal that scope will have a measurably shorter life and a way higher probability of failing at any time.



This is a scope that was never dialed. There are plenty of really good three shot groups in both targets, and they even overlap somewhat. Firing just 3 rounds may have not shown the shift. Or it could have been attributed to any number of other factors.






Here is the exact same scope a year later after being totally remounted and a trip to Afghanistan with no abuse other than normal use, being zeroed before a major match.





Exactly one day later after going down in the middle of a LR stage




Top " group" was shot first, followed by the bottom with no adjustments made. Notice the two rounds right of the dot were fired first, then it shifted and the third is the one on the edge of the cardboard.



This can and does happen to hunting scopes ALL THE TIME. But most don't see it because of several reason i get to below and those above.




4) "Zeroing". The only way to have a true zero- that is the center of the cone overlapping the point of aim..... Is to have the center of the cone overlapping the point of aim. You do not have a zero if your gun is sighted in 2 inches high at 100. Or you do, but you have no knowledge of where that zero actually is. You may think it's close, and it may be to some uncertain point down range, but unless you fire enough shots to determine POI at THAT SPECIFIC range and have the POI match exactly the POA, you are guessing that it is zeroed. You do not know.



This-




And this-





Is NOT zeroed.



This-

(Sorry about the finger. Smack talk knows no bounds... grin).




And this-

(POA was the tip of the diamond)
[img]http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx87/Vereor1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsebae0825.jpg[/img]


Is zeroed. Both are 10 round groups and both are centered over the point of aim to the mechanical limit of the adjustments. Any zero shift will be immediately apparent.


5) Constant tinkering and changing ammo. It is impossible to determine stability in the scope if you change ammo, lots, or makes. Most are constantly tinkering with "loads" and therefor can have no idea whether the zero shifted.





How the zeroing process should go-


1) Choose scopes based on mechanical function first. Reliability and durability mean more than every other attribute.

2) Mount properly with a ring and base system proven to be extremely stable and durable.

3) Zero with 10 round groups at a minimum, insuring that you have 100% point of aim, point of impact.

4) Conduct a tall target test to show any erector flaws.

5) Ensure that what the ammo that was initially used to zero is used to check zero every single time it is shot. Same make, same brand, same lot. If hand loads are used then have enough left over to check long term.

5) Give absolutely no excuse for zero shifts, "fliers", or any hiccups with the scope. Any shift in POI/POA is a failure, even the first time, and WILL HAPPEN again.


Bottom line is that of my bullets aren't going to crosshair intersection, I do not fire enough rounds to determine both the center of the group and mechanically what size target those rounds will hit, and I do not test mechanical function, I have no idea if the scope is working, no clue or advance knowledge of potential problems, no idea whether it will even hold zero, and no idea whether a missed shot or wound was me or my equipment failing.

Although I rarely go through the lengths shown heretofore, I recently worked with a Rem 700 XCR-II with a Viper PST mounted. I was to get it ready for an elk hunt for a guy that needed to shoot across a canyon. He really only needed 500 yards but has bad eyes and needed every advantage he could get. The gun gave me fits. I would get an occasional good group but nothing consistent and I would have unexplained fliers. I finally pulled the NEW PST off and put a Leuplod VX3 LR on it. Groups were now small and consistent and repeatable. He used my scope for his hunt and sent his back.

I have it back now to re-install his scope and see what happens. I thought it was sharp, nice adjustments and adequate eye relief. It just wouldn't hold any zero and who knows how the turrets were reacting. I never made it past 200 yards as it shot terrible at 200.

I am not impressed with anything Vortex save their great warranty. They are another company with mediocre optics and a great warranty.

As far as use, round counts, etc., before problems- it could be anything. Straight out of the box, 50 rounds later, 200 rounds later, a single bump on the scope...


A high percentage, probably approaching nearly 100% of normal hunting scopes will show at least one of the mechanical issues I wrote in the last post. That is not saying that scopes with some of those issues can't be used to kill animals, it is to say that they are not doing what they are supposed to, and eventually will have serious issues. This is one of the reasons that fixed power scopes are generally more reliable and stable. There is less to go wrong. Even with some issues they tend to hold zero better than variables of the same make and design.


Why is it that hunters universally agree that you MUST check zero every year before season? Why is it that if you fly or travel it's almost mandated to recheck zero? Because subconsciously we know that scopes move. But they shouldn't. Not at all. There are scopes made that fit just fine on normal hunting rifles that have nearly a 100% correct function rate and will outlast a dozen barrels.

I have several rifles and scopes that I hunt with that don't get changed and the same exact ammo is always used and they have not lost zero since first being mounted. Years of use, thousands of adjustments, abuse that would make most cry, and yet not one uncalled shot. Not one loss of zero.




As to the Vortex PST's.... Every single one that I have used or seen has exhibited at least one of those issues staright out of the box or within a couple hundred rounds... And I have seen a bunch. Every year a friend or coworker will buy one just to see what's up, and not one of them has kept it. I, myself have had 4 personal Vortex's this year just to remain current. The only one that has worked correctly is a Razor HD II 1-6x. That's after the first went down. Of course I'm only at about 1k rounds in the last couple months, but that particular scope is an issued optic to some, and they are doing well so far.



I am not trying to bash Vortex. The people from there that I have met and dealt with are good. Their customer service is excellent (which is good... grin). Their scopes do seem to generally be getting better, though still not there, and their 1-6x scope is the best commercially available 1-6x on the market in my opinion. But they do have issues and there are scopes with significantly lower rates of problems.

Very interesting. I have had scopes go bad, but most of the 'breakdowns' were very noticeable. The one bad Nikon I had was not really noticeable and was leading me to shotgun grouping. It was on a new rifle that I hadn't shot much for load workup, so I assumed the problem was the rifle. Wasted a zillion rounds, till a dim light went off in my brain and I swapped out the scope. Put a Leupold on it and all is well and groups are small. With the Viper PST, it's on an extremely accurate rifle. I check POI from time to time. I walk past my shooting bench on the way to and from my favorite blind, so checking sights is easy. So far, a year into ownership of the Vortex, and all bullets keep going where they are supposed to. In the Spring, I'll put targets out to 500 in 100 yard intervals, and I'll give the gun and scope a more serious workout. I'll be pretty upset if the scope doesn't hold up. If I shoot poorly, it isn't the gun. It'll be me or the scope, and I hope it's neither.

All that said, if I was to buy another scope and pay between $1k and $2k, I'd likely try something else, but I don't know what and will resist thinking about it.

Oh, I forgot to mention one thing. Mention was made of aging erector parts in scopes. I sent two Leupolds back for new reticles and when I got the bill and statement of work, I saw that they had redone the erector guts (no charge).

Thanks for the info. You satisfied my curiosity.