No large variable, just a plain small to medium variable w/a regular hunting reticle. What say ye fire? powdr

I like the 2 X 7 Viper have 3 think its discontinued.

not in my opinion.

I've had 3 of those, & been thrilled. I believe CameralandNY has had (is having?) special runs of that scope made for them - It's probably worth a call to Doug/Joel/Neil (Kneel?).

FC

I'll find out over the next month or so if the D'Back HP 4x16x42 was the right choice for Texas ...or the same thing in a 3x12, instead of the Burris 4.5x14x42 I bought, for either the 270 or 300WSM as companion rifles to the T3 260 & 2-10x50 Minox, both of which I also bought this year.

All 3 scopes, for the 3 rifles on hand, were under $300 net net & the $K that I had budgeted for scopes in this Total Make Over. This time next year one the rigs is gonna get swapped off prolly for another 9.3x62 - most likely the 260 & Minox is the only keeper - and who knows what'll be next after that.
Ron

vortex never crosses my mind when it comes to scopes. I think there's always something as good and usually better in the same price ballpark.

Uncle Rico, how would you know if you always think elsewhere?

Long time no see sticky fingers. What I have owned or used works so well, Vortex doesn't enter the equation, and I have used a whole lot of stuff.

For someone entering into the shooting/hunting sports area, Vortex has a lot to offer for the money. Just make sure you baby them. Think about it. Lots of features for a great price point. Where are they cutting corners? THIN tube walls is one. Get much over 15-17 in lbs of ring pressure and you're bound to start impressing the internal mechanisms with less than desirable effects. For the more serious/experienced shooter/hunter who demands/needs reliable optics, look elsewhere.

I have one of their red dots and like it very much, but since Leupolds have always given excellent service and are made here, I see no reason to mess around with other stuff these days. A good scope is a significant purchase for an old, retired guy and if it didn't pan out, it would cause me great anguish. If I wanted to save a few bucks, I'd just buy a VX-1 or a Rifleman, or go used.

Thin tubes????????? Why does the Vortex weigh 4 ounces more on roughly equivalent scopes? Surely you do not mean that?

So two things you clearly know nothing about move you to post... What else ya got?

Boy, I would be hard pressed to recommend either of those models to a friend over say a Prostaff or FFII. The VX-1s and Riflemans I had were some of the worst glass I've looked through save the economy scopes. I think buying used would be a better option for sure.

As for Vortex, I own a couple of Viper 6.5-20x44s and for what I use them for, mainly PD hunting, I have been very happy with them. I have also looked through their HS model which I thought was very clear. Do not have any experience with their lower end models though so no help there.

I have two 2X7`s on lever actions and am quite happy with them.

I'm concerned the reticle on mine is too thin for low light, but I guess I won't know till I use it....

Last year I mounted a Vortex 4 x 12 on a CZ 527 Hornet. So far so good. Use it on crows and groundhogs so it is not used in low light conditions, but it has held zero since I mounted it. Glass is not clear as a Leupold, but it easily resolves individual .224 holes at 100 yards. Considering what I paid for it from CameraLand I am pleased. YMMV.

vortex is a marketing company, I do like some of their stuff but keep in mind much of it comes and goes and gets blown out at a steep discount. leaving you with little resale value. So know that going in and make sure the optic matches your expectations. I bought a viper HD spotting scope. great scope for the money and I didn't pay retail for it. but there simply wasn't anything else really even close to it for the $550 I paid for it. I figured I would buy it and if I took a hit at resale so be it. It was enough better at that price point to justify it. their products haven't been problem free but they mask that up with insanely good customer service. I personally would rather not need it. but I am an optics snob and I suspect GSSP is too. nightforce spoils you that way.

I put the 3 Vortex Viper 2 X 7 one on my LH 375 Ruger, one on My LH 308 Win, and one on my buddies 338 Win mag. So far they have held up fine. Very clear and adjustments are great. Shoot mine in a lead sled, which is hard on scopes. I like the length of the tube for mounting on a Ruger LA. Not every model of every scope makers scopes are the best. But I like the Viper 2 X 7 and the Viper 3 x 9. Just MHO!

^Yup^ +1

If only this was true.All Leupold Green Ring products are Chink made.

I bought one. Won't buy another. Bad "tunnel vision" when looking through the scope. Leupoold still makes the best hunting scopes in my book.

Seen several, enough of them to know I don't want one. I've never had a hunter show up in camp with a Vortex anything either, for good reason. The only reason people buy Vortex riflescopes is that they are cheap, and they have a great warranty. Otherwise, they offer nothing earthshaking. I take your advice on Vortex about like your advice on Accubonds......laughble. Now go steal something else and give us a report.

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/vortex.pl?page=vortex_diamondback_hp_2-8x32

I would buy one of these side focus 2-8's in a heartbeat for a nice .22LR

I have a couple and so far so good. I have a Viper Hs 2.5 x 10 x 44 30mm tube on a custom 25-06 I had built. Not a hard kicker but decent glass. Had it for 3 hunting seasons no issues so far. I also have some Viper HD binoculars I like a great deal. Many companies source and market product, not sure I get that argument but oh well. Some here are fond of the leupold line...I like it as well. I honestly have had very few problems with any optics I own. I have about 25 different scopes without any failures . Knock on wood.....happy shooting, goodshot.

I've never owned a Rifleman, but have a VX-I 4-12 I bought about 2005. I have no complaints with it, friction knobs and all. I realize that some have more stringent requirements than I do, but as a SIGHT, the VX-I has performed well, as have the 2-7 shotgun/ML scopes. Reliability is my main requirement, much more than a couple of percent of light transmission or a little loss of detail on the edges ( you didn't specify why the low-end Loopys are "some of the worst", so I'm just guessing ).

I've never owned a Nikon, and the only Burris I had went back to the dealer when I discovered that the scope in the factory-sealed box was actually a lower grade than the box was marked (and I paid for), and also that the fixed 6x had less eye relief than a Leupold Vari-XII 3-9 set at 6X. That and stories about Burris' terrible CS, put me off them for good. I do have a Fastfire that has worked well.

A new VX-1, made with a double letter serial number, is nothing to sneeze at for clarity and resolution.

Never seen a Leupold Green Ring scope, which is what the thread is about.
Unfortunately they have gone that direction with some of their Redfield line along with most of their binos and spotters. Those aren't on my buy list either.

Vortex is a great scope and i love the 2x7 . Plus Vortex has the best warranty in the businees along with Leupold

I had had a 3x9 Crossfire II mounted on a Rock River arms Lar 15, compared it to a Nikon and Redfield, the Vortex was at least equal and cheaper. Liked it so much that I bought a 4x12x44 and had it mounted on my M 70 270 wsm, going to buy another 4x12 for my 264, it will be replacing an old 6x Redfield Wideview. The only scope that I own that appears a little clearer is my Burris fullfield and not by much.

I have a couple of these also - no complaints...

Bought a 2-7 and 3-9 Viper three or four years ago and they were good scopes. For my eyes and my eyes only they were great in good light and not up to snuff in low light compared to other scopes I own or have owned. Plus I wasn't thrilled with the eye relief.

My number one requirement in a scope is good low light transmission so there are other scopes that work better for me. Plus I prefer German #4 reticles and have never found a Vortex with one or something comparable(not to say they don't make them I just never have seen one).

I'll take a Fullfield II over a Diamondback and a VX-2 over a Viper. Maybe if I was a target shooter I would feel differently. When I look at a Crossfire for under $500.00 with all the bells and whistles some of them have, something just doesn't feel right. Neither one of the Vipers I had ever had any mechanical issues though. They were not on heavy recoiling rifles though, a 30-30 and a 30-06.

I have bought several Vortex from Doug at Cameraland. No complaints. That 2-7 Viper is superb for the money. I prefer it to my 2-7 Leupold.

Uncle Rico
When is your movie coming out? Surely you have enough film of yourself by now...

Sitting here looking at a Viper PST 1-4x24 that has been used to shoot more bears, black and brown than you will ever see. Some shot at a fair piece and some pretty freaking close. Same rifle has had a number of different scopes and has a pretty fair number of Kodiak bears in its wake. A 375AI is not all that hard on a scope, but enough to separate the dreamers from the doers...

As for Accubombs... Little makes me happier than realizing we are 180 out on them. The difference is I have seen them used on deer, Kodiak bears, moose, bison, caribou, and black bears. I have seen less than one in ten leave an exit hole. Would love to catch an X bullet sometime...

Had one TTSX go lengthwise through a Kodiak bear and exit while four Accubombs shot broadside through the same bear failed to exit. Saw seven 338 Accubombs destroy a bison shoulder without a single lung puncture... Have seen the meat damage caused by a number of Accubombs and have never seen close to the same damage while looking at far more X bullet trauma.

The fact you do not see it probably explains why you play Uncle Rico so beautifully... So busy posing you have no idea what actually happened...

And nice touch bringing in the hint you were actually guiding someone... Hows the price of feeder corn there?

I like the 6.5-20x44 Viper on a 22-250 it hasn't seen enough time being dragged around yet to say it is a great hunting scope but has been consistent and held zero nicely. I put a crossfire on a friends AR recently and for a cheap scope it looked and worked very well.

My rifles have lots of scope brands represented and Vortex wouldn't be my first choice but they haven't been disappointing so far.

Off topic but my Barnes performance stories are better than my Accubond stories and accuracy has been a little better too. I've eaten quite a few elk steaks courtesy of the Accubond so they do work a bunch of the time.

Have no issues with mine.. the military dot over the 264 is LR heaven.

the only Vortex I have is a blow out priced 6x32 binoc which for $200 bucks was a good deal for bow season. With optics there just is no free lunch, you get what you pay for. Get a Meopro fixed 6 or Leup fixed 6 or find a used Conquest etc, heaven forbid a Leup VX3. I would sooner buy a plastic pack scope from Walmart than spend $100 more on a Vortex.

TF.. how Vortex scopes continually get a bad rap by folks who don't own one!

BTW the scope in my pic wasn't a cheap buy at five bills but worth every penny as it's as good or better than several of my Leupold's.

Sitka, use what you like. Makes no difference to me. I've only guided 120 or so over the past 13-14 years. Glad the Vortex makes you happy. BTW, I'm headed to Namibia as we speak, loaded with 7mm 160 acubonds.

Here's wishing you a very prosperous 2015 shoplifting season.

OP, keep a couple things in mind as you read the replies. Most of the Vortex hate is coming from people who has not used Vortex products. It's painful when people post real life examples of cheaper products (Vortex) performing on par/better than their higher priced Leupold. They bash them to justify their live and die Leupold commitment.

I can say the same thing for Vortex that other have said for Leupold. I don't even consider Leupold when I can have 2 Vortex for the same price roughly.

I tried to talk myself into a Leupold VX-2 to save some weight, but the Viper HS outperforms the VX-2 by such a large gap at the same price range, I'll live with the extra 3 oz.

Another thing for the OP to keep in mind is that optical performance as measured by eye is very subjective. Better to rely on actual test results from a reliable source or your own eyes at least.

Anecdotal evidence about reliability and customer service can be very helpful. I usually spend some time reading customer reviews about stuff before taking the plunge. It's usually fairly easy to sort out the ones from folks who know what they're talking about.

In general, I'm a little leery of companies that outsource production as they may switch suppliers for reasons that may or may not be to your advantage as a buyer. That's not to say the practice can't produce a good product, but there is the potential for ending up with an item that was manufactured before they "got it right" at the new factory. Vortex CS has a great reputation, so at least you can depend on them to make it right if there's a problem.

I use my eyes to judge and have looked through 3-4 of them. I cannot comment on mechanical reliability.

I agree with you 100%, I have never owned a Leopold so I am not going to knock them. It's like the over priced Swavorski, they cost ten times more than an equal Vortex, is their clarity ten times better, I think not.

I agree 100%. Even with that in mind, most folks that bash Vortex have not even given them a look.

Someone should warn your babysitter... errrr PH...

No need to prove again your cluelessness...

I guess you guys are right, let me rephrase my comments! The edge distortions, thin reticules along with in some cases lower FOV's are not bad for an inexpensive scope, many will enjoy using them.

Leupold lenses, in their gold ring line, are outsourced from Asia. I think it is rare for anything to be made completely in the U.S.A. Ford's are made in Mexico, General Motors cars are made in Canada, Kia's are made in Georgia and Hundai's are made in Alabama. I stopped looking at where things are made and focus on quality.

Some very good lenses come from Asia, even China.

The Leupold nut huggers would rather hone in on an imaginary origin claim than worry about product results.

It's funny that the people saying that Vortex's warranty is so good because it's often needed, are also big fans of Leupold. IME, I've had to send just as high a percentage, or higher, of Leupolds in for repair as Vortex's. Leupold was the first to offer a bullet-proof warranty and sell scopes with the "comforting" promise that when (not if) it fails, they will take care of you. Vortex just followed suit...

I don't like Vortex because their scopes are relatively heavy. For instance, one of their 2x7s comes in at nearly fifteen ounces. Why? And why mess with that when you can get a Leupold 2x7 with better eye relief that comes in at less than ten ounces? Or if you want to go cheaper, a Burris that will come in at eleven or so. And that isn't even mentioning the excellent Japanese Weaver that also comes in at less than ten ounces for about half the price of a Leupold.

Good points. I don't know why they outsource the lenses. Could just be price, but might also be to avoid EPA hassles.

Environmental troubles sank the old Redfield, or at least were the final nail in the coffin.

Funny, I've never had a scope fail. My brother lost a couple way back: an early Leupold Pistol scope mounted on a light .44 mag and a couple of old Weaver variables mounted on slug guns.

I must be doing something wrong.

What's amazing to me is how angry some get over this stuff. If someone asks a question that I have an opinion on, I offer it, but I don't give a rat's ass what they buy or why. Can't understand what makes folks so defensive about their choices or why they have to try to tear down other peoples stuff. They act like someone said something nasty 'bout their Mama.

Interesting to note that many folks are comparing their scope to Leupold.

I had a Crossfire that was good for the money. I would like to try a Viper but they cost what a Leupold.

I've got one of the Viper 3-9x40 with the BDC reticle. Have had it a few years and it's made the rounds from a 30-06 boltgun, to a 10/22, and now on an AR15. It's a solid versatile scope in my experience. I believe I picked it up for $299.

I like the resettable turrets that require no tools.

I don't care much for the power indicator thingy, but I do like that they hid the numbers under the caps. All that tacty-type stuff ( as in tactical, not tacky) looks out of place to me on a hunting rifle, as do all the colorful logos and such. I like my scopes to be black and white, with maybe a metallic accent (gold ring!) here and there. No orange, blue, or red and please, no little gold stars around the turrets. Rubber gripping surfaces can be handy, but not when they interfere with mounting.

I own three vortex scopes, all mounted on hunting rifles. I have an hs lr 4-16x50, an hs 4-16x50, and a vortex diamondback hp. I will never say never but, I don't know if I desire another scope at this point. For the money they are absolutely fantastic. Crystal clear optics, tracks well, and possibly the best warranty on the market.

I'm not emotional about products, either. If they work, great. If not, I'll say so. It's not like I have a stake in any of the various companies. I just get annoyed by irony, hypocritical thinking, and fan boys when it comes to this stuff.

As do I..

[img]http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/zz14/Arch48/IMG_1527.jpg[/img]

I agree that optical performance is subjective depending on an individual's eyes. Nikon makes quality scopes but I don't see as well out of them as I do others.

Today I replaced a Redfield 6x with a Diamondback 4x12x40 with the dead hold BDC, the old redfield was mounted on my Pre 64 M70 264 mag, I bought the rifle and scope in 1975, hated to do it since they were togeather so long but my old eyes need help.

Hello, my name is Alan and i'm an optics snob!

I see and use a bunch of scopes every year. Leupold, Vortex, Nightforce, S&B, Hensoldt, Bushnell, SWFA, Steiner, Khalas, etc, etc. Lots of rounds fired.


The consensus in this post seems to be spilt between "they're awesome and have great costumer service" and "you'll need it". With those that love them claiming that people don't have experience with them. Ok. I've used 7 Vortex scopes this calendar year. Mostly Viper PST's to Razor Gen II's. Every single one has had problems. I have seen at least twice that many used seriously in that same timeframe. There have been a couple higher power Razor Gen II's that seemed to be working properly.


Ignoring the tracking errors, ignoring failure to hold zero with anything close to real use...... Their tube walls are ridiculously thin, or I should say the tube and erector system tolerance is ridiculously easy to bind with anything more than around 13-14in lbs causing issues.... Besides that- they don't hold a zero with just average use. Any knock and users learn to sprint straight to the zero range and check zero. I'm on the third Razor Gen II that has failed. The first went 3,500 +/- rounds, the second around 2,700 rounds, and the third less than 15, when they lost zero.




Every single person that i have met got into Vortex like an addict to crack because-

1) Price
2) Features
3) Warranty/customer service

And were driven there by flashy marketing.



None because of-

1) Mechanical function
2) Durability
3) Reliabilty

With a reputation for not not needing that customer service.

Serious question Formid....during the course of a week, weekend, or whatever venue you are part of.......how many times do you or a student/whatever you call it, twist and turn the turrets?

NAILED IT!

I haven't had to send any of my Vipers in yet, although apparently they will all fail soon. Just a matter of time I guess.

Had a Leupold Vari-X III that would fog when you turned up the magnification. Sent it in to use the amazing Leupold warranty. Got it back, turned it up to 10X and looked like a cup of milk. Sent it back again and they replaced it with a newer model.

Not a complaint on Leupold at all. They've been great for any of my problems and there have been a few. Fact of the matter is, they fail too. To praise one company and criticize another for the exact same customer service offering is hypocritical at best.

It all depends. Most military guys just use the reticle for everything as they don't trust dialing.


A 5 day range may be 500-700 rounds of 308 per shooter if that's all we're using, and of that maybe half of those shots are dialed. So around 250-300 "dialed" not including zeroing and tracking tests for those that do dial.

The OP wanted to know about using Vortex's normal hunting scopes for what appears to be "normal" hunting. . I try to address the concerns of the people asking and not interject things that may not matter to them. I have zero tolarance for scopes that don't hold zero. And by that I mean that I don't care if the rifle and
scope are blown up in an IED, when I get to it that scope should still be zeroed.... unless the rifle is destroyed beyond function as well. Reliability, durability and correct mechanical function are my first requirements. Everything else is secondary. However, I know that not everyone has the horse/cart pairing properly arranged and other things mean more to them, and therefore I do try to tailer my responses.

For the OP's use I would not choose nor trust a Vortex.

Thanks for the reply Formid. Good info.

i try to not be hypocritical..Leupold sucks just as bad as vortex.

I am confused. You say you dislike Vortex, but you still use them. Why? Are you forced to use them, even though your experience is they are going to fail, and the owners using them are going to have failures.....

Why would you continue to use an inferior product? From my reading, a person with the knowledge that you report, I am surprised to don't tell these folks the same things you post here.

Allen

I would be OK with a hunting rifle that may not hold zero after being blown up with an IED.

I don't really think I run that risk either - IED's are hard to come by - here in BC.

Scope snobs make me laugh, I have stood in one of the biggest retail outlets here in BC and watched the snobs almost twist themselves inside out trying to convince anyone in earshot that the Leupold VXIII is better than the the Viper PST / HST - I mean just look through it .... Wha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

The same snob isn't impressed when he finds out that the Leupold VXIII glass was sourced from exactly the same glass factory as the Vortex, Bushnell, Burris, Tasco etc. in Asia.

If you want to truly buy made in America - then Buy US Optics, if you want to pretend to be a scope snob, buy Schmidt and Bender - otherwise stop flinging manure!

I do not use Vortex for serious things, but there are several reasons that I use them. One is an issued scope, part of my job involves testing and validating equipment, I see a lot of rounds fired with a lot of different gear, and probably the biggest reason is that people are generally ignorant. Some are mostly stupid. I have watched a dude have three complete failures of PST's and still buy a fourth just gushing about the "customer service". There is no end to the people that ignore thread after thread and person after person of those who have experienced their fantastic customer service.










The point isn't that you should require a scope to stay zeroed through an IED blast, that's my requirement, the point is that scopes are aiming devices and only serve a useful purpose so long as the crosshairs point where the barrel's looking. There are scopes that range in price from $300 to $4,500 that are built with that in mind and to choose to use scopes that are garbage shows a lack of understanding. The fact that you believe "glass" has anything to so with it only solidifies that. "Glass" is a nebulous concept and is quite possibly the least important trait of an aiming aid once past the ability to see the target.

There is more to "glass" than just the material origin and/or composition. The optical system design and quality of execution thereof matter as well.

I have compared my VX-3 6.5-20x40LR Leupold against various Vortex scopes, and the Vortex scopes didn't exhibit any optical advantage.

I'm not a Vortex hater, just reporting what I've seen.

Formid,

The 3 Vortex Razor Gen II scopes that you have had fail- were they all 1-6x models that have been in production for quite some time, or were any of them one of the higher-mag models that were just released recently?

The newer high-mag models are heavy as sin, and most likely have much thicker tube walls than the older scopes. Just speculation here, but it'd be hard to hit those weights with thin walls...

The fact that "glass" may all come from the same factory means absolutely nothing.

What they did to that glass while at the factory makes all the difference.

Jordan,

Correct. They ranged from right when they came out to the latest model. It is supposed to be their most bombproof scope. I have also seen tracking errors and zero shift with the higher magnification models as well, though I have also seen some work correctly. Design wise they should be awesome. Unfortunately, that hasn't panned out from what I've seen.

Thank you for the answer, I hadn't considered someone else purchased the scopes. I surely don't send lead downrange in a quantity to do testing, glad someone else spends the $ and keeps track. I just hope my Vipers keep working for me, my next step to replace a scope is probably a VX-3 6.5-20x40 side focus scopes. I have a SWFA and a FFP pst but haven't taken them to the rat fields yet.

Allen

Of the compact scopes I have seen fro Vortex recently, I really like the Diamondback HP 2-8x32. I have been playing with on effort a while and it has survived a lot of rounds on a couple of different rifles without any issues. It seems quite good optically as well, considering the cost.

ILya

Vortex has its market niche, but it's not for me I have not looked through a single vortex riflescope that I liked. I do have a 6X vortex binoc I bought for a couple hundred on a close out that is OK for bowhunting. I bought a $300 SWFA 1-4 and that thing is a smarter buy than any Vortex.

First let me say that my own experience with Vortex is very limited. That said, I talked to a few guys I know who burn A LOT of powder LR shooting who were initially enamored with vortex, but have now gone back to NFs and USOs.

Personally when it comes to less expensive scopes, I would tend to purchase Jap weavers such as the excellent V16. The glass may not be at Schott glasswerks or US OPTICS or Nightforce quality but it is perfectly sufficient for the majority of shooting.

Also, and more importantly to me as a long range shooter and turret twister, they track exceptionally well.

I have an older Weaver V16 that has been on multiple rifles, from a CZ .22 to an R700 .300 Win over the years. Each time I have put it on a rifle I run a box drill to check tracking. The fact of the matter is that the Jap weaver V16s and T series track as well as many substantially more expensive optics.

There is a very good reason why so many benchrest shooters over the years have used T series weavers as alternatives to the higher end glass.

Has anyone done repeated tracking/box exercises with the various levels of vortex scopes?

I'm interested to see some results.

Stating that Swarovski and vortex glass are equals might be more than a bit of a stretch.

From what I have been informed Vortex glass comes from various sources in Japan, the Philippines and china, depending on the line.



The LOW factory(light optical works) in japan produces very good glass and is more than suitable for most applications. The Chinese and Phillipine glass, well, I might put it on a cheap .22, but that's about it.

That said, even LOW glass from Japan takes a distant backseat to Schott glass used in Swarovskis.

Saying Vortex glass is equal to Swarovski is like saying a Norinco 1911 is equal to a Les Baer 1911, in my opinion.

Mackay,


Have tested and used a bunch of Vortex scopes since 2010 or so. I have never personally seen one that worked correctly and consistently for any length of time.

Mackay Sagebrush,

Schott has had a factory in China for several years now.

Doesn't Nikon make some of, if not the best camera lenses in the world? What about Kowa Prominar spotting scopes?

Formidilosus

Can you tell us what scopes you have seen perform them best in the following price ranges.

3-$500
5-$800
9-$1400
1500-2k

I mainly use Vortex, Leupold, and Zeiss Conquests, and all have held up well for me, but I haven't really put the scopes to the test. I would like to know if I should be spending my money on another brand, that will hold up to rigorous demands if needed. It would be nice to hear from someone that has used the various manufactures and put them to the test. Thanks

JMUPT,

What type of shooting/hunting do you do? What do you require of your optics, and in what order do you place-?

"Glass" (clarity, resolution, brightness)
Reliability
Durability
Tracking
Size
Weight

I don't get to play with other folks scopes much. But I do get to occasionally compare optics at the range. So far I have yet to compare any Vortex with glass as good as the glass in my VX-6.

So you are saying Schott went to Schitt..

That sucks.

I have noted that you burn a lot of powder in the LR game, and your observations mirror others in the game or that shoot in a pro capacity elsewhere. Thanks.

Formidilosus
I mainly hunt ranges from 0-500yds woods and fields., but I'm also interested in shooting long range out to a mile.
I guess my order would be

Durability / reliability
Tracking
Glass
Size
Weight

Taking all of these items into consideration, what is the best overall scope in each price range?

Formidilosus,
I am interested in your thoughts on this also. I am most interested in the last two ranges, the $900 to $1400 and up. I am looking to scope a Tikka CTR .30 for some long range work. I would like to spin turrets, might occasionally use it for hunting but that's not its primary purpose. I have been looking at Burris, Steiner, Zeiss, Nightforce, Bushnell LRHS. Thanks

I will throw in that I've used issued Leupolds, and have seen a number of them not track properly, after moderate to heavy use.

I personally own a few that do track great, but I have returned a number of them for repair as well.

Its a crapshoot with Leupold these days.

I do like the low power variables, such as the 1.5-5s, for use on carbines that I am not twisting turrets. They do fine in that role and hold zero very well.




However, on sniper systems like the M24 and M110 SASR, I've not been overly impressed with long term durability/tracking.



Its one of the reasons why some guys will zero at six hundred or so, then use mil holds for closer and more distant engagements, and not touch the elevation turret at all.


These days, if I am sinking big bucks into a precision rifle, I will keep saving until I have enough for a nightforce or USO. I have a few NFs and they each track very precisely. Same with the USO.

Given your criteria...


$300-$500- SWFA fixed powers (6x and 10x)

$500-$800- SWFA 3-9x42mm and 3-15x

$900-&1,400- Nightforce 2.5-10x32mm NXS, SWFA 5-20x50mm and Bushnell 3.5-21x50 DMR and Bushnell 3-12x LRHS.

$1,500-$2,000- 2.5-10x42mm, 3.5-15x and 5.5-22x Nightforce NXS's, Bushnell 3.5-21x50 HDMR.


It gets repetitive, I know. However, those are the companies that have the features of their scopes in the order that you stated.



Almost all of my hunting rifles have either a 2.5-10x Nightforce or a 6x or 3-9x42mm SWFA's on them, the others are mainly fixed 6x Leupold's, though there is a smattering of different ones on play toys. Dedicated long range guns get Nightforce F1's, Beast's, or Bushnell HDMR's.

Thanks, I appreciate the info.

As far as durability/zero retention goes-


Pulled a Nightforce 4-16x F1 ATACR off of one gun to mount on another as the scope it had mounted lost zero (again) from a drop onto soft grass of around 10-12 inches. Bore sighted, fired one round, adjusted and fired the five below-




Then tested zero retention-





The three from the video.




Zeroed and not too long after-

would you do that drop test you had in the video with the NF 2.5-10 x 42 and expect the same results???

Yes. Theoretically it should be more durable due to size/weight. The things I do and have seen done to the 2.5-10x24mm's and 32mm's is obscene.



I'm sure that you know this, however zero retention and fending taking abuse isn't all on the scope. You can have the best scope in the world lose zero if the mounting system gives.

The SWFA SS, Bushnell LRHS, and Nightforce NXS are indeed very good scopes. However, in regards to a hunting scope their reticles leave a lot to be desired IMHO. I don't need nor desire all them bugs on the windshield.

If they came equipped with a standard hunter type reticle (duplex, post & duplex, or a #4) I'd likely have several more.

All three of those scope brands/models are designed to be used passed MPBR. The "bugs" on the windshield help significantly with that and I haven't met a single person who knows what he's doing that would choose a plain duplex anymore for that. In any case, the middle is always the middle and I am unsure why some find it hard to look at the middle.

Jade Helm?




Travis

Great post!

There's the Walmart indoctrination center in the foreground.

If my typical hunting endeavors required shooting further than MPBR in wide open spaces, then I'd see the value of "bugs" on the windshield. Depending on the reticle...

My hunting isn't done in wide open spaces. I hunt in timber and thick brush and quite a bit in low-light. I can tell you from my experience with the SWFA SS mil-quad and the NXS MOAR that the reticles absolutely suck for my application.

They're too thin and the center washes out easily against dark backgrounds. The bracketing heavy posts (especially the mil-quad) are bold, but spaced too far apart. The middle is indeed the middle, but doesn't mean much if it can't be seen.

Even in open spaces I dislike the MOAR as the MOA "bugs" are too small.

Agreed on the MOAR. I nor anyone I know has had an issue with the standard mil dot in lowlight/no light and if you did they're all illuminated. On the SWFA Milquad I use it all the time in low light and night shooting to bracket 8-10 in targets from muzzle to 100 yards or so without issue.


If all my hunting was at 200 yards or less then I would buy every Leupold Mark 4 6x40mm with duplex that I could.

I can't comment on the mil-dot equipped NXS.

Do you by chance have a through the scope picture, or would you take one and post? Also, is the reticle in the 1st or 2nd focal plane?

What Formid always assumes is that the majority of hunters hunt like he shoots in his schools....twisting and turning knobs hundreds, if not thousands of times in a week, which couldn't be further from the truth. The vast, vast majority of hunters are not tactical steel shooters, and do not twist very often, if at all. Bugs, hashes, dots, etc are useless, and suck to me as well, even though I do hunt a whole lot in open country. There is little doubt that Formid knows what he's doing in his tactical world, but since he applies the things known in his world, and makes them "absolutes", attempting to apply them as absolutes to the hunting world, I can't take his hunting recs seriously as it applies to big game hunting. Often times they have little in common with each other.

I have a PST 2-10 MOA that I really like. It is on an AR10 and so far is taking everything in stride. I would put one on a hunting rifle if weight isn't an issue.

How are the LT-104's for abuse? I might buy another NF despite myself.

Will try to get some tomorrow. It is SFP

Do you just make this stuff up? Pretty sure I've never said any of that. Please feel free to show where I've suggested a LR scope for someone needing a short range scope.

They are relatively solid if adjusted correctly. I do not care for vertically split rings, however. Unless QD is a necessity a direct bolt to mount/rings is a better way to go.

If all shots were at 200yds and under with no wind ect. JG would have a point. I much prefer the closer shots, who doesn't? But to say that there can't be a useful tactical capability to hunting is absurd. Case in point. I was hunting coyotes the other day that were killing sheep. A coyote came in, smelled me, and ran off . I sent my dog and the coyote stopped. 510yds. 7mph wind. I dialed up for distance, held .5mils for wind and killed the coyote. Without the long distance capability, and a lot of practice, that coyote would still be eating sheep. Works the same on elk and deer. I prefer a 200yd shot, but can do it farther when needed.

I agree with you atse, to a point. 7mph wind is one thing. Inconsistent 20mph is another, and nobody has any business shooting at big game under those conditions at 250+ yds IMO. I can take a VX3 CDS with duplex reticle and kill 'yotes and stuff out to 650 yards with little wind, as it isn't any big trick. 20mph + is another matter entirely.

You've made so many "brand X" scope suck posts it would be pretty easy to find. "Brand X" may suck for spinning the crap out of turret type shooting, and excel at big game hunting. You never separate the two.

you have a favorite bolt to mount rings you like? I have two LT-104's that are to me pretty good, an Aero Precision that I am not sure about.

Formidilosus,



He might have you mixed up with one of my post. Anything less that a 4-16X is useless and a 4-24X is about right for woods. Mildots seem to work in the woods or in the sage.

The vertical isn't the problem in LR shooting, its the wind, as you stated. Hence the use of horizontal hash marks (preferably in .5mil increments) that you don't much care for. With consistant practice, they really do help you shoot more accurately, at longer distances, in more wind. I hate wind but I make myself practice on those 10 to 15mph days. Its amazing how soon your groups will tighten when shooting under these conditions. It may make you pull your hair out for a while though.

Then find "so many" of them.

Through the scope pics are always of dubious value as the perspective is never correct. Actually looking through the scope the reticle in both black and illuminated was about 3 times more visible at least. I tried playing with the settings and never could get it to come out right. The illuminated picture for instance was so bright that it would've been unusable actually looking through it.

Is this a problem if the illumination is on? I've been considering one, thanks.

You have convinced me to try another NF, if the IR is on it looks like the mildot scope works well.