2nd Thoughts -- Vortex Viper PST?

[BergerBoy]

I will upset MANY people with this comment but I have had 2 PST gen 1s and both were GARBAGE!!! The PSTs are now the HSTs. IMO the gen2 is a MUCH better scope and I would sell that gen1 and get the gen2. My tracking was bad. My zero was always moving-if I dialed up for like a 800 yard shot when i dialed back to zero it was not even close (8 inches off at 100 meters). I also had the gen2 Razor 4.5-27 for a couple of years. Good scope but if I spent that much why not spend a little more and buy NF, USO, or other top PROVEN brand? I sold it and bought another NF. Vortex has some great reticles and some of the greatest CS and nice people IMO but there is something to be said about setting behind a scope that is unquestionably going to preform. JMO

 

[Danehunter]

If I wanted a high magnification scope I'd get the Bushnell XRS 4.5 - 30 X 50. ED glass and excellent turrets.

For lower magnification theVortex scopes are nice but so are the other Bushnell Elite scopes and some European scopes.

Eric B.

 

[pcmacd]

I had an early Springfield ~4.5-15 with a large objective. Probably their first scope.

Terrible parallax @100 yards. This was my first scoped rifle and it took me a while to figure.

Called Springfield.... it's parallax free at 110 yards? My range was 100?

I badgered them until they sent me an adjustable focus model.

 

[Csafisher]

My hst tracks great. Glass sucks but it tracks well and it is reliable

 

[floyd kittrell]

Euro-Optics has a bunch of Nightforce demos deeply discounted right now , good deal .

 

[MudRunner2005]

"Most folks here openly admit our biases, in order to give the most honest and helpful opinions to others"

Do you even internet?!?

And the 6.5 Creedmoor is the greatest thing since sliced toast.
Just duct tape a Cap'n Crunch telescope to it and it will kill anything within a mile. Be careful shooting uphill because if you do somehow miss you might accidentally take out a satellite.

Seriously though, learned a lot here. Vast majority of guys express their opinions as opinions. Very rare.

No, I don't "internet". I don't use anti-social media, or any of that crap. Just a couple of forums based on subjects i'm interested in, like guns and cars.

 

[Tensilon]

Hello all,

I'm just about to purchase a Bergara B14 Hunter in 7mm rem mag. I purchased a 1st generation Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50 FFP that has yet to be used. Needless to say, I'm questioning a few things about it.

Most notably, I am worried about how well it tracks, considering it is a "lower" end scope. Should I just run with it or should I sell and buy another optic? How can I test the tracking capabilities of it to ensure its accuracy?

Thanks in advance.

Hey, I recently got an FFP vortex scope. Haven't had a chance to work it over yet. I set up and work over my own rifles for long range shooting...mainly used on paper but ready to go for hunting. I reload my own ammo for precision and when I say I work the rifles over I mean that I bed them, pillar them, float them, lap the barrels and often the rings, bed the ring mounts, and square up the recoil lugs. Most generally anything that can be done to increase consistent behavior from the rifle. Same thing goes for the ammo. I have quite a few calibers that I have done this for and a couple more that I am working on now including 300 WM, 6.5 mm Creedmoor, 7 mm Rem Mag, 270 Win, 243 Win, and a 25-06. I have quite a few Bushnell Elite tactical scopes...at least 2 that are 4.5 x 30 x50 SFP. I go through each scope that I put on using the tall ladder test and the box test to see if they return if to POA. What I have found is that while a scope may indeed track very well there can be considerable variation as to the distance that each scope moves with each click. I prefer 1/4 moa clicks for my scopes. When they say 1/4 moa clicks I find that often they do not measure in at exactly 0.250 moa per click and if I assume that 0.250 is what the click is without checking it on the ladder test and figuring out exactly what the measurement is then I find that using my ballistics programs will give me dope that is off especially at distance. For example, for one of my Elites the click value is consistent at 0.263 per click. This works out to 1.052 inches for 4 clicks at 100 yards. Well, we all know that 1 moa is 1.047 inches at 100 yards. It may seem like splitting hairs but at range this little bit of difference adds up therefore I always use the correction element in the ballistics programs to correct the click value to exactly what I determined it to be, to the best of my ability, the actual click value for each scope. I have had good luck with this. I have also found that if you find a 1/4 click moa scope that actually measures exactly 0.250 inches per click then that is somewhat of a rarity. So, shoot the box for sure but then shoot the ladder to determine what the actual click value is for each of your particular scopes and for each particular rifle setup that you are going to use it on. Like I said, this seems to work for me pretty well either that or I have just been pretty lucky through the years. The equipment available now has gotten so much better than it used to be years ago. I guess you kinda have to like to fiddle around quite a bit to do these things, but isn't that kind of what we all rather enjoy doing with our rifle setups anyway The older I get the more I find I guess I agree with the old Townsend Whelen axiom that says "Only accurate rifles are interesting".
FWIW
Tens