Jaywmustang
.308 Win
All but one of hunting scopes are sfp. My current hunting setup is with a ffp and I don’t mind it, hard to see my reticle with magnifation on low. Closer shots u can just turn on the illumination and it acts like a red dot.
Vortex Optics Opinions
- Thread starter STS556
- Start date
STS556
.223 Rem
I have no real budget. This scope is going on an DPMS LR 308 that I use for hunting and target shooting. I hunt in the Catskills so there is no chance of a long range shot because of the density of the trees. If you have a 60 yard line of sight in the Catskills, then you are lucky. The range is at Blue Mountain so you have either 100 or 200 yards. The gun doesn't warrant a $2000 Nightforce. The Vortex is the closest to the Nikon FX 1000. At this point I have enough feedback to go with the Vortex Viper.
Vapor
.308 Win
For 200 yards or less a 1-4, 1-6, or 1-8 would serve you well.
Jaywmustang
.308 Win
I had a vortex viper gen 1 pst on my dpms lr308. That was before the boating accident. Haven’t looked through a gen 2 yet. Runnings carry vortex viper gen 2 if u wanted to look through one.
STS556
.223 Rem
Screw NY. I have not had a boating accident yet but I may have to if it gets any worse here in NY.
If you haven't a hard budget perhaps consider stepping up to a Razor, they are world class optics that run about half what the high end European brands do.
Jaywmustang
.308 Win
I have a vortex razor gen 2 4.5-27, awesome optic but it is heavy. I think they r going for around $1800ish these days. The 1-6 wouldn’t be too bad on a hunting rig
Vapor
.308 Win
I can vouch for Japanese scopes in general. I have several weavers including tactical and Japanese swfa scopes. Some of my leupolds compare in glass, and some of the burris I have in build quality, but the Japanese scopes have both build quality and excellent glass.
The Razor HD Gen 3 1x10 might just be perfect for your needs, other than price.. its pretty light at under 2 lbs.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Of course there is nothing wrong with second focal plane scopes and they have their role. they are easier to make, can be cheaper and not needed to shoot at the average distances people shoot.
But from there to saying that 2nd focal plain scopes might be superior is quite a stretch. In fact, when you get to a certain level of optics is when some of the most popular 1st focal plane options start to show up not just for the quality of the options but also because of the mechanical features and as of lately to offer stadia designs to make more accurate and faster corrections. Normally these are in standard units of measure between mechanical and optical correction by reference. Anything from a simple Army mil dot to the latest chrismas tree stadia designs.
Another misconception is that the 2nd focal plane are easier to illuminate. yes and no, because a 1st focal might not choose to illuminate the entire stadia but only the optical center (dot) or the central plex that are in line with vertical or horizontal axis.
Once again, one can make 2nd focal plane and even those drop comp proprietary designs but in the end and specially if one doesn't have a quality mechanical system, is going to have a much harder time converting any correction to whatever the corresponding correction is in the given magnification and/or reference in the bdc design. On top one will have to practice so much just to make sure one understands the errors one is going to face inherented by the design.
So in theory yes they can work for long range but if fast and accurate corrections are needed (so we exclude BR/ fix distance target shooting) they do not work that well.
And the proof of that most long range shooters whether they are hunters, competition or military they use quality 1st focal glass across the board.
If 2nd plane were better (by design) in any shape or form professionals will use those, but they don't. This is a fact.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I have 4 of the large gen1-gen2 razors and they are very serious scopes. the larger ones are heavy scopes like anything that is high magnification geared for serious work. Viper PST are good but nothing like the Razor even both are japanase camera grade lenses and nice mechanical systems.
I would buy a PST from vortex but not sure I would buy it over a weaver tactical (that might have been discontinued after covid) or lets say a Signtron S-tac.
I learned bout Sightron from Nathan Forster (writer and hunter) who has probably taken more heads of game long range that all the people in ny forums combined. In some exchange of emails we compared features and since then I had the opportunity to use one although I have not been building anything new and still have some spare glass. But sightron would be high in my list along with VX3 leupolds (US Glass and construction) ...for a budget one I mean.
Vapor
.308 Win
Weaver that we know is no more. The name is being used by bushnell to sell re badged banners. The Light Optical Works Japanese line is history.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
RIP. I glad I got a few of the tactical line over the years. The 3-15 tactical wtih the army dot was the best value online for a while and 400 less than the Viper PST.
If you have a 1-6 power scope a first focal plane reticle is irrelevant, you'll be at either 1x or 6x 99% of the time, at any distance where a lower magnification is desirable then I'm supposing that you wouldn't be holding over..
My point is the overall package needs to be considered before worrying about focal planes. I looked at so many scopes before settling on what I got, including some high end first focal plane optics, I actually had the 1-8 NX8 pegged is the one to buy but after seeing how tight the eye box and field of view was combined with how chunky the reticle was at high magnification I excluded it from consideration. In the end the three that made it to the final, serious consideration were all second focal plane optics and I very, very nearly opted for the 1-6 Razor HD-E but ultimately I went with the lighter Kahles 1-6. At the range I find myself exclusively at 6x, even when shooting offhand @ 25 yards while in training I find myself mostly at 1x.
It's a fact huh?
Didn't know the Army Special forces were now not considered professionals
This is a gentlemanly discussion, no need to get snarky.
When it comes to military use its hard to say what config is better when it comes to LPVOs since up till very recently use of such scopes has been on an Ad-hoc basis so what has been used is more reflective of personal preference than that of policy.
However the Marines I think just adopted the Vortex Razor 1-10 which I belive is first focal, the Army seems set to adopt that SIG monstrosity and I'd guess that is also first focal plane as well. Certainly first focal plane is better IF the reticle and illumination is done properly. Nightforce in my opinion fumbled the former with the NX8 and the otherwise very good EoTech VUDU falls short in the latter.
The second focal plane Vortex Razor 1-6 however has been a mainstay in competition and also has seen substantial service in those units that allow soldiers to use LPVOs. Kahles, Trijicon and Luepold have also seen such service.
When it comes to military use its hard to say what config is better when it comes to LPVOs since up till very recently use of such scopes has been on an Ad-hoc basis so what has been used is more reflective of personal preference than that of policy.
However the Marines I think just adopted the Vortex Razor 1-10 which I belive is first focal, the Army seems set to adopt that SIG monstrosity and I'd guess that is also first focal plane as well. Certainly first focal plane is better IF the reticle and illumination is done properly. Nightforce in my opinion fumbled the former with the NX8 and the otherwise very good EoTech VUDU falls short in the latter.
The second focal plane Vortex Razor 1-6 however has been a mainstay in competition and also has seen substantial service in those units that allow soldiers to use LPVOs. Kahles, Trijicon and Luepold have also seen such service.
Marines did not adopt the 1-10 vortex.
Marines went with the 1-8 Trijocon VCOG
The Army has adopted the Sig Tango6T 1-6x
Army standard issue is going to be the FFP
Army special forces went with SFP
Well, as a friend, I notice you tend to get a bit salty when someone posts something you don't agree with. That said yes, @meketrefe is incorrect in his assertion that professionals don't use second focal plane optics. They definitely do, however in my previous post I meant to point out that military use of LPVOs has been on and individual or small unit basis and has not as yet been a doctrinal thing so we can't draw to many conclusions from the military use of LVPOs just yet.
The crux of my argument is that there are many fine second focal plane scopes and there are good first focal planes optics also. There are also sub par examples in each category. Therefore tge focal plane of a given optic should not be the only thing or the main thing to be considering in a purchase but rather a single datum among several that must be collectively looked at.
Is there any wonder as to why I wembled for two years before actually buying a scope for my Recce Rifle?
I think the Razor is better. That Trijicon is super chunky @ 28oz and the reticle is too fat for my taste too. Vortex does great reticles I must say. To be honest the only reason I went with the Kahles is due to its low weight and also its best in class FOV. The Razor HDs compare very well still though.
I did also like the Trijicon Accupoint 1-6 also. The battery free illumination setup on those are great.
Not salty about anything, it's the internet, tone doesn't come across as intended, and I'm not going to change my personality because people are soft skinned.
And no I also won't sit by and let factually incorrect/outdated info be spread.. because people allow fudd shit to go unchecked you still have people believing modern defensive handgun calibers have "stopping power" and other dumb shit like that (not saying that pertained to this comment but as a general statement)
I'd take the razor all day being its 1-10 vs a 1-6 or maybe a 1-8 especially with the fov offered by the Razor
And me personally I wanted to get the Gen 3 1-10 its just so slightly out of my price point (once factor In mount, offset red dot, red dot mount)
So I've settled on going with the Gen ii HD E 1-6 for now (well eventually) SFP
So I've settled on going with the Gen ii HD E 1-6 for now (well eventually) SFP
Keep in mind the 1-6 Razor is said to have shaper glass than the 1-10.
I have 2 Vortex scopes....from pretty low cost to not so low cost.
On my Mossberg Patriot it came with a Vortex Crossfire 2 9x40 which is very decent quality for the $120 price range......especially when it came "free" on a $500 rifle.....most combos come with cheap ass $40 Nikons.
The Crossfire is bright, clear and crisp. It also has held zero for 3 years now...I just had to fine tune it slightly over the years. Of course I have it sighted in at 100 yards but its accurate up to the 300 yards ive used it at. Also, it is very easy to use. To tell the truth, its the first scope ive owned.
Also ive got a Vortex Viper PST 5-25x50 with an illuminated EBR-4 reticle and 10 brightness settings......I just looked at the box. Its on my 338 Lapua......its in the $800 price range. It is also very nice and as far as im concerned has no issues... It does everything I ask of it.
On my Mossberg Patriot it came with a Vortex Crossfire 2 9x40 which is very decent quality for the $120 price range......especially when it came "free" on a $500 rifle.....most combos come with cheap ass $40 Nikons.
The Crossfire is bright, clear and crisp. It also has held zero for 3 years now...I just had to fine tune it slightly over the years. Of course I have it sighted in at 100 yards but its accurate up to the 300 yards ive used it at. Also, it is very easy to use. To tell the truth, its the first scope ive owned.
Also ive got a Vortex Viper PST 5-25x50 with an illuminated EBR-4 reticle and 10 brightness settings......I just looked at the box.
Its on my 338 Lapua......its in the $800 price range. It is also very nice and as far as im concerned has no issues... It does everything I ask of it.
Yeah and that's why I'm actually alright with the loss of magnification, especially for the build I plan on doing and the fake role I plan on it to fill
Carlos Hathcock
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50 EBR-1 Riflescope PST-624F1-M
Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50 FFP Rifle Scope EBR-1 MRAD PST-624F1-M PST-624F1-M
Vapor
.308 Win
I personally think people are magnification crazy. Unless it's specifically off of a bipod or rest, I shoot better at lower magnification anyway. I noticed throwing a scope on 9x and trying to shoot off hand at 100, every little mistake is magnified. I tend to focus more on being steady and controlling the rifle on say, 5x.
I think anything over 10x on a fighting rifle is kinda asinine.
My 1-3 weight 11oz. I have a burris 1-4 that weighs 13 oz. Much over 17 oz on something I will shoot off hand is kinda a no for me.
On a hunting rifle, a 2-7, 3-9, or 4-12 zeroed at 200 yards will easily take you out to 400. What sort of ethic shots are any of taking on big games beyond that? Honeslty, a good 2-7 is a fantastic scope magnification range if you don't plan on being a top teir 1 operator.
But I'm trying to ring steel at 800 meters in the prone, then yes, slide me that 3-15, 6-20, 5-25, etc.
I think anything over 10x on a fighting rifle is kinda asinine.
My 1-3 weight 11oz. I have a burris 1-4 that weighs 13 oz. Much over 17 oz on something I will shoot off hand is kinda a no for me.
On a hunting rifle, a 2-7, 3-9, or 4-12 zeroed at 200 yards will easily take you out to 400. What sort of ethic shots are any of taking on big games beyond that? Honeslty, a good 2-7 is a fantastic scope magnification range if you don't plan on being a top teir 1 operator.
But I'm trying to ring steel at 800 meters in the prone, then yes, slide me that 3-15, 6-20, 5-25, etc.
I agree, on an AR15 I think 6x magnification is all that is necessary given the 1x for every 100 yards/meters rule of thumb and 600 being about as far as most AR15s are usable for anything more than paper punching in ideal conditions. I also think people are 1x crazy. That 1x low end is only needed if you want your scope to function as an ersatz red dot for up close shooting. For hunting, target or plinking its not really needed and something like a compact 2.5-10 might be better suited. I really like the Nightforce 2.5-10x42 compact scope for something that isn't needed for such close I'm shooting yet also for something that is still fairly light and compact.
I too have Nikons, 3 of 'em. 2 Prostaff 4x12x40, 1 Buckmasters 3x9x40. I decently picked up a little Vortex 2X7x32 for my old Ruger 10/22. The Vortex clarity/crispness, blows all 3 Nikons away. It's Vortex from here on out, unrivaled value, models for all budgets. Hope this helps.