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.

I am actually pretty happy with my Vortex. I have had a couple set of Bino's, the Vultures and the Kaibab series. Both have nice glass. I had the Vultures fail me but I sent them back and got em fixed. No issues since.
The scopes, we went cheap and got a few of those Crossfire scopes Doug had on sale a few years ago. The 6-24 I think it is, is mounted on my best friends 7mag. 7 deer later and longest shot being over 600 yards, we aren't complaining too much lol. I mounted one of the 4-16s on my 25-06 and after zeroing it in, I noticed a spec of dust inside on the lense. The scope functions nice but that spec bothers me so it has to go back.
because I like how these low end Vortex have worked out, love the warranty concept, and feel their customer service is outstanding with the couple calls I have made and numerous emails, and have had minimal issues, I am looking to get a Viper HS for my 300 mag. I am hoping they have made improvements on the Viper scopes. Reading online on forums like this one, I have read numerous people complaining about the Viper and Viper PST. Some send em back and get them fixed and sell em and others have remounted and been happy.

Kique

Thanks for putting those posts together!

I recall other suggestions, but how about it again? Readily available scopes for Big Game hunting, that will pass the test?

It's a pretty short list... Something like:
S&Bs?
Nightforce NSX
SWFA SS Fixed (and the 3-9x42?)
Bushnell Tactical _ _ _ _
Leupold 6x
?

Vortex is the first place I look for glass....currently using

2-3 PST's...couple HS-T's along with a couple HS-LR's....

Razor bins.....never a moments problem....

Pretty close.


NF NSX and ATACR
SWFA
Bushnell 3-12x LRHS


Used to be that S&B's were great, however the issued PSR's are not good, and while it seems to not have affected the hunting lines, I don't generaly see enough in a year to make a solid statement. As well as the Leupold 6x's used to be very solid, however have seen more problems from them recently.

Have heard that the NF SHV's are doing well, and talking to NF they are building them correctly, at least for function, but they are not nearly indestructible as are the NSX's.


When seen in great numbers it is appalling how few scopes actually work time after time.

If you don't mind... Could you share some details. I.e.- rifles, mounts, round counts, zeroing procedures, testing, frequency of zero conformation, what kind of use (abuse) do they see and do you check zero after drops, car rides, Etc.










Genuine question,

Why after a 50% return for service rate, would you want to spend more money on them? Granted, the speck on the glass may or may not be a real issue, but I'd bet money that there's more than that going on.






No one, and I mean- no one, would be ok with a rifle make/model that didn't fire 20-30% of the time straight from the factory. No one would be ok with about any other product that had as many reviews of problems, as they are with Vortex.

Apples and oranges.

Where sir do you get the 50% return rate? Love my Vortex spotting scope.

He stated that he and his friend have four Vortex optics. Two binoculars, two scopes. One binocular failed, and he's about to send the scope back for service. Unless my math is that bad, that's 50%.

I like my Vortex Viper HS, it has yet to fail miserably and I have plenty of three-shot groups to prove it, although one today near the edge of the target, appeared to only have two holes!

Thanks Formi...

the interesting thing to me about vortex is how they have taken the hunting optics world by storm. they have somehow got themselves into nearly every sporting goods store. They have also convinced the tactical community that some problems with scopes are ok.

vortex doesn't make anything to my knowledge they just private label optics from various parts of the world. quite a few other companies do this too.

The warranty is great and the company does respond to comments and suggestions. I for one would not buy their top end stuff like the razor line because I don't think it will hold its resale value that well. I also think its too close in price to big name brands. I have a vortex viper spottings scope I like quite a bit.

Thanks to all for replying. I've had so much trouble staying logged on I've just been reading. Really appreciate thee info/responses. Think I'll bit the bullet and buy something on the suggested list. Pardon my ignorance, but what is SWFA?

I've owned 2 Vortex Vipers in higher power ranges. They tracked "ok" but the glass left much to be desired.

I sold both within a few days of getting them and won't waste my money on another.

I've tried 3 vortex sold all of them

What platform are you accessing the site on? The reason I ask is that I have the same problem on my iPad, using two different browsers.

As far as Vortex goes, I don't have a scope, but did buy a Sparc II red dot and think that it was a good buy. It's mounted on a .357 and has lasted about 50 rounds of heavy loads so far. I chose it for the 2min dot and the warranty. I went through three Bushnell red dots a couple years back, with the two replacements failing out of the box. I've had good luck with the mid-range Bushnell scopes (3200 & 4200), and even a couple of their Trophy models. Like Vortex, I believe their lower end stuff is farmed out to the lowest bidder. This is a risky idea IMO, as it puts you at the mercy of folks who will start out making good stuff to get a contract and then start cutting corners. Other manufacturers may outsource components to some degree, but if they control the final assembly and testing, they can keep defective stuff off the shelves.

SWFA SS Fixed 6x


SWFA SS 3-9x42mm

Ditto.......

Once again thank you Sir. Given the considerable effort you put in evaluating scopes, your opinion is highly valued.


Pappy, I have a laptop, HP, with the most recent Windows program. It gives me fits on here, freezes, closes, takes forever to load ads. PITA.

No problem and I hope it was of some help. Our goal should be to have reliable and durable equipment that allows use to zero and then get off the bench as soon as possible to learn and practice field shooting. THAT'S the crux of the matter.

How about regular/typical low magnification variable hunting scopes (1.1-4, 1.25-4, 1-6, 1.5-6, etc.)? Just don't see myself putting one of the above tacticool scopes on any of my DGR's to hunt Africa...

I thought it might be the iPad iOS.

I've taken to writing most posts offline, then copy and pasting. Must be the website software.

NF 1-4x
S&B 1.1-4x Shortdot
SWFA SS 1-4x and 1-6x HD's
Bushnell 1-6.5x
Vortex 1-6x HD II



I haven't used the Bushnell Tactical 1-6.5x on big rounds, I have the others and they are made for it.


The Nightforce 1-4x and S&B Shortdot's are probably the best bet for DGR's for most. Just due to most wanting and traditional reticle. The Vortex Razor 1-6x MRAD is most like a duplex and would be a great choice, though is relatively heavy.

Once again you make it painfully obvious to all that you don't know what a "regular typical hunting scope" is.

If it ain't tacticool, it ain't good. Right?

The man specifically asked for a hunting scope. And yet you offer none.

You youngsters crack me up.

There are more Leupold 1.5-5x20s on DGRs than every scope you list, combined. And always will be.....

Actually it seemed like he was asking about scopes that work, that were appropriate for DGR's. However, I wouldn't say the average hunter that pays someone to hunt an animal is the barometer of much of anything with regards to the rifle, as very few actually shoot. Those same hunters just love Vortex scopes as well....


You think I haven't shot 1.5-5x Leupolds? You think there is something that makes that scope better then the rest of Leupolds scopes? It'd be a safe bet that I've seen more 1.5-5x20mm Leupolds go down in a single week than you've seen in your life. And if 5.56's can make them fail.... You're right, 375's, 416's, and 458's must be easier on scopes than varmint rounds..... Give or take.


Glad you acknowledge that "regular typical hunting scope"s are garbage on the average.








Ps. If you do pay to hunt and you do shoot awesome. The above wasn't meant for you.

There may or may not be useful information within these threads regarding the site's stability, if you can stay on long enough to read 'em... Good luck.
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/9460169/1
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...ck_please_fix_the_out_of_con#Post9459227
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...es_the_ad_column_on_the_righ#Post9454234
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...Browser_issues_with_the_fire#Post9467416
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth.../One_way_to_fix_the_ad_issue#Post9452011
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/9449773/New_Ads_SUCK#Post9449773

Yes, I bet LOTS of the scopes you listed are HIGHLY popular on DGRs in Africa....

And that would mean what? When that same scope won't last on a 223, we should trust it for hunting lions, tigers, and bears... oh my?

People use it because they don't know better. For a long time it was the best that was available. Not anymore. Not even close.


Maybe one day hunters will wake up and realize that mechanical function is the first thing to worry about and hold manufacturers accountable. Then we may get scopes that weigh 13oz and actually work. Until then I'll take scopes that hold zero.

Can't believe I'm siding with 2muchgun. I need Advil.

D'arcy Echols and David Miller must not know jack $hit of DGRs or those Leupolds they mount on those $35,000 rifles they build.

You should give them a call and instill your infinite wisdom upon them. Don't forget to tell them how old you are and how many 223s tear up those 1.5-5Xs.

Tape it if you would. I can always use a good laugh....

Whatever floats your boat. They only two I've mounted on a 375 H&H and a 416R, broke in less than 50 rounds. They had virtually the same failure rate with the same problems when they were an issued optic, as every other Leupold hunting scope that's marketed as a tactical optic.


That scope along with the CQT is why the Shortdot even exists. Leupold refused to fix them so that they worked, among other issues.

It is truly amazing how every Leupold you see fails, yet of the vast amount of them I own/shoot, none fail.

I currently have 2 of said Leupolds. My 2 good buds have 2 more. Between the 4 scopes they have taken everything a 444, 450, 375, 35 Whelen can dish out. No bullets under 250 gr. in any gun ever. The same guns have broken 3 Burris, and 2 Bushnell scopes.....

This is exactly my point. The SD is a CQT scope. NOT a hunting scope, and certainly not a "regular typical hunting scope" as the OP requested.

Another really good DGR scope that is very popular and seems to be gaining popularity every day from what I can tell, is the Trijicon Accupoint 1-4x24 with amber or red triangle. We have 3 Trijicons between us, and they work well. They are a local company and I have shot with a few of their employees.

I'd not hesitate to use a newer 3X or other fixed Leupold. And the Weaver Grand Slam would be worth a look as well. I have beaten the tar out of some Weavers. The GS has micro-trac, and that is a good thing. It has stood up well on a bud's custom 375 H&H that we dropped off at Karl's house........

I got a kick out of the Nightforce 1-4 recommendation. Absolute schit reticle choices for a DGR. That IHR could get a guy killed.

Vortex Viper HS Tactical 5-15x44 off to Fleabay...

It is not a reticle I would want for hunting dangerous game.....

Nor I.

Great scopes, but their reticle choices leave a lot to be desired.

I'd just go with a Leupold 3x or 2.5x and call it good.

The Shortdot is an evolution of their 1.1-4x "dangerous game scope", it WAS made for hunting.

I suppose you think that the Trijicon 1-4x was made for hunting? Or should I say game hunting... It was designed for the same general purpose as the Shortdot. But hey, scopes designed for one thing can't possibly be used for another.

The IHR is a crap reticle. They have others.




Since PG and 2MG want to talk about it,

Could you two regale us with all of your dangerous game exploits?

You'd be hard pressed to find me guessing about something, so I can only believe that y'all have killed goodly amounts of lions, elephants, Cape buffalo, brown bears, Etc. and have found certain reticles and scopes lacking in that regard?

Oh so you have lots of dangerous game experience? Was that before or after your Bear Grylls inspired elk hunting trip?

Pretty tough to take anybody who bragged about a cluster [bleep] like that seriously when it comes to their advice on anything regarding hunting.

I'm sorry that you feel so inadequate that you need to talk about a single trip of mine more than you do your own, but do you or do you not have experience killing lions, brown bears, elephants, etc?


I didn't bring it up, I answered a question.

As for my dangerous game experience? None with the animals you mentioned. But I sure as hell am going to take the advice of what actual PHs and guys like Phil Shoemaker use instead of some tactical yahoo on the internet who won�t post up his qualifications.

I asked you a question.

It�s pretty hard to take you seriously when you don�t qualify your experiences.

Besides, it doesn�t take a Finn Aagaard to realize that this reticle is not what a guy wants for a close in hunting rifle.

I would never own another Vortex Optic... I had two Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50's that would not track right outta the box... Much better optics out there for the money...

As for using a Leupold in a life/death situation I would have to pass on that as well... I've had way to many variable Leupys fail to use one in that scenario... Early on I had no choice to use Leupy's and at that point in time the fixed 10x worked as advertised... As of today that is the only Leupy I own but do have a 6x leupy on the way to satisfy my curiosity on the max range one can achieve with a fixed 6x in hunting conditions...

I don't have a DGR but I do use a short barreled 338 Federal with 185 TTSX at 2810 fps... This rifle is topped with a NF 1-4X with the FC 2 reticle and has accounted for 37 bears and 8 mountain lions... The furthest shot on any of those being 35 36 yards and the closest being 3 yds... These are not treed animals... These are rogue critters shot in Urban environments... I use a 33 yd zero which gives me a 4" PBR of 0-250 yds... I would not use another optic in this situation... I have not tried the other optics in this situation nor would I as the NF has been proven to be the best optic in my situations...

YMMV...

I�ll admit that FC 2 has a lot more going for it than the IHR. But I�ll take a Heavy Duplex, thank you very much . Thank you for qualifying your experiences, EHG.

As for Vortex....no thanks. I�ve spent time around five of their optics that I can remember; two quit after a few days use. One scope and one set of binos.

Appreciate the input. Always interesting to hear others opinions and recommendations, even when I disagree.

In regards to Vortex riflescopes, I've only fiddled with a couple crossfire scopes. Wasn't impressed.

I've noticed over the past couple years the increase in the number of Vortex products some of my hunting acquaintances are sporting. They crow about them, and how they're cheaper and just as good as the top end optics.... I just smile and carry on.

Never really been a fan of a Heavy Duplex but will admit my time behind one is very limited... The FC-2 is a perfect reticle in my application IMO.... If I have a critter in the "Donut of Death" when I squeeze off they are done for... Fast target acquisition and easy for a follow up if needed... Allows both eyes to be open for situational awareness and peripheral threats... If they could make the illumination on it daylight visible I feel that would be the cats ass...

I have an FC-3 version on the way for an AR-15 that will be used for Urban predator control... I'm hoping it works as well as the FC-2...

PG,

I have not killed lions, tigers or brown bears. I have seen those scopes that I listed continue working when those you think are awesome continuously fail, and I have seen a lot of killing that has been done with them at very close ranges.

As far as hunting goes, I would be happy to read about you travels across the country for backpack solo hunts and your success and failures therein.





EHG,

You'll dig what's coming from NF. No matter how many Vortex 1-6's I see at work I will not be able to trust them like I should, I use them because no one else builds a better one.... Yet.

Formid, nice finger there bud. POI a little off but nonetheless pretty good. I wish I had a good finger picture, but these will have to do. Regular ol hunting rifles with regular ol hunting scopes and hunting bullets. No match grade bullets harmed in the making of these groups:

[img]http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x401/chiefbsa/IMG_0584_zps60ab582b.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x401/chiefbsa/019_zpsb52e9d82.jpg[/img]

I agree with you about Vortex viper pst scopes too. They suck... Have a great year buddy!!!...

Hell, you could fit three 3-shot groups in one of them! Big bullets take up more space....

I dig the critical test criteria laid out earlier in this thread. Maybe excludes some ptretty good optics folks are fond of that work almost always. All the 'post your creds' 'prove it buddy' stuff should be directed towards folks claiming junk is good (not saying anyone here's doing that), not the guy claiming the proven are proven...

I'm scraping up for a LRHS.

What I can tell you is that the Trijicon Accupoint was in fact made for hunting. A
nd that if you look at any 3 of the reticles offered, that should be apparent. One is a duplex, the other a #4. All the better than the short dot for hunting. It also happens to be quite popular on DGR rifles.

The amber triangle would do well for both, as you say.

The short dot comes in 1 retcle and it is called CQB. You do the math.

And no I don't hunt African DG. But to think that means I don't know what a good DGR scope entailsbis kinda ludicrous on your part. I have hunted bear and hogs in dark timber if that counts. Because I would use/recommend the same type of scopes.

I got football to watch now.

Have a good one and GFY......

I don't know if S&B still offers it, but I know that the 1.1-4x20mm PM Short Dot was available with the Flashdot #7 and #9 reticles as Alex Roy at Euro Optic had them at one time.

Form & EHG, either of you have experience putting the Zenith and/or Klassic line through it's paces?

I've got a couple Zenith's with the Flash Dot, and had a Klassic. Granted, I was never twisting turrets but I've put some rounds down range and have used the Zenith's over the years to hunt, and they appear to be serving me well.

FO... The only Classic(3-12x50)I have ever used was an old school one when Holland first came out with his ART reticle back in the day... I remember having issues getting it zero'd due to the lack of travel in the erector.... Once I had the mount situation figured out it lived a long life on a 300 WM Sendero... Of course I never dialed for shots with it and in the 4 or so years I had it I never had to re-zero other than the 5 times I changed barrels on that particular rifle... It seemed solid IMO.... That is only a sample of one naturally...

BSA,

That's what I'm talking about.





2MG,

You are wrong on both scopes. Google can be your friend, but not in this case. The Trijicon 1-4x is an outgrowth of a military organizations, and competitive 3- gunners use of the 1.25-4x scope. They wanted the same scope but with 1x and finger adjustable and resettable turrets.

There have been at least three versions of the Shortdot, as well as FFP and SFP, and multiple reticles including "hunting" ones. It IS a hunting scope, just like most Leupold Varible Mark 4's are nothing but rebadged versions of their hunting scopes with different turrets and reticles, except that for the most part ShortDot's work....




Fost,

I am sure there are some here that have more experience with S&B's hunting scopes, as I only see a few used heavily a year, however they do seem to be good scopes and as good as they always have been. For their purpose I would not hesitate to use them and would test, and watch them just like every other scope.

EHG,

My experience (and a few friends) is that the newer generation Klassics and Zenith series have a little more erector travel as there's been no issue with zeroing no matter the mounts utilized.

The limited erector travel withstanding, for a "set it and forget" scope I've found the Zenith and Klassic to be solid. Same with the Zeiss Victory Divari VM/V / Varipoint and the Swarovski PH/PV.

Dual erector system...

I've had 2 scopes and 2 binos. I never like the scopes and got rid of both. One pair of the binos in very good (Vipers) another cheaper pair are less than worthless.

My dad has a pair of the crossfire binos that had to returned. My brother has one of crossfire scopes that have been back. To Vortex's credit they repaired both. I think there are much better options out there.

So you have experience with the Leupold 2.5x and 3x continuously failing on heavy recoiling rifles?

I don't trust most variables either, and while I don't have experience will all of those on your list, I agree with the majority. It's just that there are better options than the ultra thin Nightforce reticles for hunting, IMO.

As for my solo backpack hunts, they aren't very interesting. Pack in, sometimes shoot something/sometimes not. Pack out. Try and keep the near death experiences to a minimum by not jumping off cliffs or running out of water.

Here's a pic from an Unlimited Bighorn hunt.

Holy smack why are you using the life sucking green tick!?



And I would find your Unlimited experience extremely interesting.




I have limited use of those fixed power Leupolds, I am sure they are good, but I personally want 1x if I'm working close.


I like doing what others can't/won't. Including jumping off of cliffs and other such nonsense.

Formidilosus,
Would you please elaborate on the problems you've seen with the recent Leupold fixed 6x's? I thought I might be in the market for one.

Thanks,
Steve

I do have some experience with dangerous game, having hunted grizzlies and a few buffalo, both Cape and water. Have also been charged by other animals, including elephants, brown bears, and even one moose and wild pig. Have also helped a friend and his PH follow up a wound leopard at night. The leopard declined our "invitation," turning away twice, which is what the PH has experienced over the decades. He actually prefers to follow wounded leopards at night, since you can see their eyes shining in a light long before you'd see a leopard in the grass during daylight.

I have used quite a few 2.5x and 3x Leupolds both for hunting dangerous and non-dangerous game. The only one that ever bobbled in any way was a 3x. The Duplex reticle snapped between the tip of the right post and the center crosshairs, but that was only after the scope had been on a number of rifles, the lightest recoiling a .300 H&H, the hardest-recoiling a .458 Lott. Interestingly, the rifle was still sighted-in, though I only shot one more group before sending the scope back to Leupold.

Did use one variable on a .416 Rigby for a buffalo hunt, the Burris 1.75-5x Signature Safari, which also held up extremely well on a bunch of hard kickers. Other people have had the same experience with the same scope.

Dunno if 1x would work better, but haven't had any difficulty shooting at large animals close up with 2.5x or 3x. Have also killed buffalo with iron sights, both open and aperture, at ranges as close as 17 yards. (Jeff Cooper once pointed out that big dangerous game is not only a large target but usually shot close up.) The irons worked fine, and in some ways I'd rather have the express sights on my .416 Rigby than any scope for extremely close work. I adjusted the buttstock with a rasp so that when it comes to my shoulder the sights are lined up perfectly. In fact I can hit softball-sized targets easily by aiming with only the front sight, out to 50 yards.

My last Cape buffalo was killed using a 3x Leupold with Heavy Duplex, which worked fine at 30 yards even though the bull was in deep shade under a big tree. Have also killed deer-sized game at 300 yards with the same scope, no problems.

Just got one of the new Nightforce SHV 3-10's with the IHR in for testing. My first reaction to the reticle wasn't all that positive, but am going to test it quite a bit before making up my mind.

Formidilosus,

Apparently NF is open to a hunting reticle, see the IHR (International Hunting Reticle). How could they possibly screw it up so bad? Who tested this reticle? I am at a loss.

Just seeing the usual problems. Incorrect tracking, failures to return to zero, and occasional loss of zero. They are still better than the variables.

It used to be that the only things you had to worry about was the rear ring breaking the reticle if over tightened, and the adjustment values being off. They held zero well, adjusted consistently, and returned to zero.

Doesn,t Phil Shoemaker use 2 and 3x Leupold scopes on his DGR rifles ?

Thanks for your help!
Steve

I was fresh out of the Army at the time of that pic and that's what I had for a pack! Have since greatly improved my pack selection, but I still use the ALICE for some short distance pack outs - it stays in the back of the pickup for hunting season and if it blows out or gets stolen I figure they did me a favor.

John, I had not read your post when I posted the above. Dont hold back on your evaluation of the IHR. If you cave in we may never get it fixed.

bcraig,

Phil's a big fan of the 2.5x Leupold, having had one on his main .458 Winchester brown bear back-up rifle for decades. It's been used from at-your-feet ranges to several hundred yards.

MD,

Appreciate that. No doubt that 3x is fine for hunting. My thoughts with regards to 1x was more about worst (or best depending on how you look at it... grin) case of following wounded animals. In that case, from my own experience I prefer in order- 1x red dots, 1x scopes with daylight usable reticles, irons.




Ct,

Very often military shooters, competitors, and hunters don't cross pollinate. That is they believe that they know best and therefor the others have little to offer them. The IHR appears to me what happens when target shooters try to design a hunting reticle. I will talk with them and see if a better design can't be offered. I know most "believe" that they want a plain duplex, however that would be wasted on a scope that is truly designed for dialing. Am thinking a very duplex looking reticle of proper thickness with low profile mil ticks for wind.

No you are wrong on both scopes and I have no idea where you come up with half the $hit you say. I shoot with 2 guys from Trijicon. The Accupoint is their hunting line. Look at the reticles for gods sake.

The short dot is a CQB scope and comes with a CQB reticle.

How you could argue either point shows your ignorance......

If they steal it, the first time they use it they'll know karma is real....

Wow... Keep googling.

Formid,

Forgot to mention I did use a Trijicon AccuPoint 1.25-4x on the grizzly at about 65 yards--and the bright triangle would have worked fine with the scope on 1.25x if he'd charged.

Did shoot him again to make sure as he ran past me, angling somewhat closer, but that was a blind run as the first bullet had taken out both lungs. Didn't bother to turn the scope down off 4x, though.

Imagine that.

Keep inserting your foot further into your mouth Formid. You are clearly fighting a losing battle.......

Count me in! Maybe your feedback combined with John's (because John will shoot straight with them, right John?) will get the wheels turning.

Thanks John,I thought I remembered that.

I hunt and target shoot. The NP-R1 is my favorite, followed by the MOAR-T.

However, would you ask them to please make 1 MOA hash marks on the windage axis of the NP-R1? They fixed the elevation from the NP-R2, but I never understood the reasoning for 2 MOA on windage on the -R1.

2muchgun you are incorrect... The Gen 1 shortdot was offered with an FD7 reticle and the Gen II version which came from the Zenith Hunting line but badged the Zenith LE and listed as a PM II scope is available in FD2, FD7 and FD9 reticles and also has a 24mm objective...

Police Marksman II line:

9467 - 1.1-4x20 Short Dot (Gen I) w/ Flashdot#7 reticle (illum.)
946SDL - 1.1-4x20 Short Dot (Gen II) w/ Short Dot "CQB" reticle
946SD - 1.1-4x20 Short Dot (Gen I) w/ Short Dot "CQB" reticle

9762 - 1.1-4x24 Zenith Short Dot LE (Short Dot II) w/ Flashdot#2 reticle (illum.)
9767 - 1.1-4x24 Zenith Short Dot LE (Short Dot II) w/ Flashdot#7 reticle (illum.)
9769 - 1.1-4x24 Zenith Short Dot LE (Short Dot II) w/ Flashdot#9 reticle (illum.)

John...

Which color triangle do you use... I seen somewhere in the thread that an amber was recommended but in my experience the amber would seem to wash out in light colored (IE: sand, yellow grass, sandstone etc.) backgrounds... I have only used the Green accupoint but had The Reflex sights in amber and they washed out terribly....

http://www.schmidtundbender.de/en/products/police-and-military-forces/11-4x20-pm-shortdot.html

Yes, I'm incorrect......

BSA what scope is on your 9.3x62?

ctsmith... What would be your ideal reticle to replace the IHR...

Yes you are... All that I listed was available at one time, and can still be purchased online if one really wants one...

How about them Lions...

Example... http://www.eurooptic.com/schmidt-bender-pm-11-4x24-sd-le-flash-dot-7-lt-ccw.aspx#

Something that can be seen would be a nice start. Simply replace the hollow section with the 1.5 MOA thick solid section, or reducing it to .75 MOA would work. Make the center crosshairs .25 MOA vs .18 MOA.

The below pictures are in full sun. If anyone took this reticle to the woods at sunset (without illumination, i.e. the new 42mm SHV) they would realize immediately that it is totally inadequate.


THIS




NOT THIS

That is what generally happens when non-hunters design "hunting" reticles.

elkhuntingguide,

I've used all the triangle colors in various AccuPoints, and don't really have a preference, since they've all worked fine for me.

I suspect the differences in what others have reported are due to varying degrees of color blindness and color perception. Men have about an 8% rate (in women it's less than 1%) of some sort of color blindness, which I apparently don't have.

Because the Bino's were fixed and have worked flawlessly since, the spec in the lense hasn't affected its tracking that I know of. I get bothered looking at it, thats why its going back. If it didn't bother me, I wouldn't send it back since the scope works well.
I like the glass, I think they are clear and have worked well for me. If they sent em back and they didn't work or failed again, I wouldn't spend more money on them. But since they work well that's why I keep using em and spending money.
What has really changed my mind on buying based on reviews is the fact that my family for many years and I am sure many of you guys had bought various items without reviews. We talked to people that had em and went by that. it wasn't until the internet that we started reading reviews and getting sensitive to others thoughts. How we survived buying items without reviews is besides me. No wonder Tasco, Bushnell and others that are low end are still in business. In this case, I am happy with the optics Vortex puts out and I can deal with issues as long as they are not a trend and as long as they get fixed. Warranty is big to me because I tend to break stuff putting em thru the test.

Enrique,

I appreciate the response. I can understand what you wrote and why you feel that way, however for the same money there are optics that are significantly more reliable from companies that while having great warranties, very rarely need it. A company that sells itself on how great a warranty is has and where most users have had to use it, is not putting out a good product and they will continue putting out products that fail because people keep buying them.


I truly hope that those work for you and you get a lifetime of service out if them.

My wife became quality control where she works. She used a phrase, We make products that don't come back for customers who do.

That should be any company's moto.

"We make products that don't come back for customers who do."

Excellent motto! Too bad it's hard to find many companies following this.

In the last year I've purchased a couple Vortex Viper PST's, one for my brother and one for myself as I wanted to get mid ranged scopes that could be used for longer range target shooting without breaking the bank and didn't need bombproof construction. Haven't had any problems with either yet but haven't really used them a whole lot yet either or put them to the test. Will have to run them through the paces, but hey that's a excuse to do more shooting:) At least they have a good warranty. I'm disappointed to hear of the potential problems, but not too surprised. A lot of folks have used them and been happy with them too, so hoping for the best.

I think some are giving Vortex short shrift. I am one of the guys mentioned in an earlier post by FredWillis. Our scopes get a lot of ammo under them in a year and are transported in soft cases many miles each year. That includes time banging around on farm track and across pastures. Are the Vipers the perfect scope? Hell no. Have I found anything else in the $300. range that is better. Again, hell no.

The particular scope in the Viper line that is noted for problems is The 4-16 PST FFP. The reports of failure normally include a description of a heavy recoiling rifle with a brake. The effects of such a rig on a scope have already been noted.

Formid... has offered what he believes are better alternatives. If compared feature for feature they are also significantly more expensive alternatives. SWFA also has a great warranty, are terrific to deal with, offer some terrific values on their SS line of scopes and I own several of them.

The difference is that Vortex offers scopes, spotters and binoculars in a broad range of price. The customer who buys a Diamondback gets treated in the same manner as the guy that buys the Razor. Not all of us are prepared to spend $1500-$3500. for every optic we buy. Vortex deserves serious consideration.

Yup.

I got around to putting the PST back on the 300 mag that broke it the first time. Here are some observations:

Vortex gave very detailed packing instructs for the return of the scope but it came back just thrown in a box with NO packing and the turrets had knocked holes in the factory box. Very disappointing.

When I mounted it today I noticed that they returned it with either a dead battery or a malfunctioning switch for the reticle. Also disappointing. I will have to shoot the rifle to see how it is tracking and if it can hold a zero.

I get the impression that they (Vortex) are slipping a little in the customer service dept which was their biggest asset!

This thread made me $$$, I sold my HS Tactical 5-15x44! Preemptive maintenance...