<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Introduction:</span></span>
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past year, you know that the release of the Viper PST has been somewhat akin to the introduction of the home computer. Greatly hyped, highly anticipated and potentially at least, a serious gamechanger. All the features most tactical shooters are looking for in a package priced under $1000.
(Fast forward past PST release drama). Just as the PST's are starting to ship in limited quantities, a new player arrives with similar features and pricepoint. Enter the Weaver 3-15 Tactical.
Several reviews have been written up on each of the above, but the question was raised; "How do they compare side-by-side?"
I am not an optics expert and I don't do scope reviews for a living. But I am a photographer and a shooter and an ex-engineer, so I figured since the opportunity of these scopes being in the same place at the same time presented itself, I would give my best shot of communicating to the rest of you, as objectively as possible, my impressions as I used and looked through these scopes side-by-side. This is not meant to be an exhaustive review of each scope, but rather what I described: our impressions from using them side-by-side in one sitting.
For this evaluation, we used four different scopes. I have a Vortex Razor HD 5-20 on my 300WM. Fair or not, I used it as the optical baseline. I know it very well. I just recently received my PST 6-24 FFP mil/mil for my .260 build. A friend has a PST 4-16 SFP Mil/Mil and Paul Stafford just put a Weaver 3-15 FFP Mil/Mil Tac on his spanking new Stiller-actioned 300WM (since a PST was months off at the time). We got together to break in his barrel, sight in and do some chrono'ing. So while Paul was scrubbing copper, I was looking through scopes. Hopefully Paul will chime in with his opinions also, but most of his time was taken attending to his new baby.
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Testing:</span></span>
When most people think of scope performance, they think optics. I don't. For the most part, if I can see through it, I can use it if it does its mechanical job the way it should.
Tracking and adjustment accuracy, reticle design, mechanical robustness and industrial design are far more important to me than optical performance (with a few exceptions... as I've said many times... if you're hunting in low light or identifying threats in a darkened window or doorway at distance, you have special needs. Most of us do not fall in this category.)
<span style="font-weight: bold">Tracking and Adjustment Accuracy</span>
After verifying that the scopes were indeed level in the rings on each rifle, we set the rifles in a vise at 100 +-.5 yds from a 10 mil x 5 mil grid that is plumb and level. The crosshairs are centered on the "zero" intersection. The scope is run up 10 mils, down 10 mils and left/right 5 mils. Then the same grid is used to determine the accuracy of the reticle as well as whether the reticle is plumb and level in the scope tube.
Results:
Viper PST 6-24 - perfect
Weaver 3-15 - vertical and horizontal adjustments off by <1% (10 mil required right between 10 and 10.1 mil of adjustment - insignificant error to me), reticle perfect
Viper PST 4-16 - not evaluated due to weather, will follow up and post, but these have been analyzed to death now and have been found to be excellent
<span style="font-weight: bold">Reticle Design.</span>
This is a very subjective topic. In this case all the reticles were very useable and unobtrusive. All of them would allow a shooter to engage targets and hold for wind or elevation without confusion.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Mechanical Robustness.</span>
Again, very subjective at this point (due to the lack of history) but the 4 scopes have a very different "feel" to them. The Weaver reminds me quite a bit of the Razor. Stout. They both have this overwhelming sense of strength. Perhaps it's the heft.
The PST's on the other hand, feel almost fragile by comparison. I certainly hope that time proves them just as reliable and robust, but they just don't give me that sense of solidity like the Razor and the Weaver.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Industrial Design.</span>
By ID, I am addressing the user controls and layout. Does the scope have a layout and controls that help or hinder a shooter.
The major standout here were illumination knobs. The Weaver knob is in an odd location for me. Every time I went to adjust parallax, I turned on the illumination. That would take some getting used to. I'm not a big fan of illumination controls on the occular, but Weaver has not found a suitable solution for my tastes either.
The Weaver also lacks the very nifty "off" setting between brightness levels that the PST's have. The PST's however are not without issues. The illumination brightness control is quite vague and it is possible for it to "hang" in-between.
A word here about the PST turrets. Because I often shoot at ELR distances, I end up dialing a LOT of elevation. As such, I'm a little sensitive to turret design. The PST turrets must have been designed by a sadist. The knurls on the endof the turret caps are quite sharp to the touch. They literally hurt my hands after just a few knob rotations. The Razor has very similar looking knurls on the top of its turrets too. But they are subtly different (perhaps the sharp edges are relieved a bit?)and not painful to turn at all. Not sure why Vortex changed a good thing here.
Additionally, all 4 PST turrets (2 elevation, 2 windage on 2 different scopes) gave noticeably different feedback, audibly and mechanically. I like the windage turret on the PST 6-24 the best, but was surprised at how differently they all felt. A quick test showed that the sleeve of my sweatshirt could rotate the elevation knob of both PST's, but it took considerable effort. This test failed to move the Razor knobs and the Weaver's lock, so it was not an issue.
Despite my misgivings about a lack of similar feel, all the controls on the PST's worked well and gave good feedback. The Weaver knobs by comparison (when unlocked), are a bit "weak" in feedback and resistance for my taste. They did, however, prove quite difficult to turn while locked.
Other than that, all controls worked as required and did not bring significant notice to themselves.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Optical Performance. </span>
Caveat: Books have been written on measuring optical performance. It is a can of worms no matter how you look at it. But we wanted to give *some* kind of objective optical evaluation. So.. with much fear and trepidation... Drum roll please...
For this segment of the evaluation, we placed a couple optic charts at 100 yds. (the intent was to also do some low light evaluation of these charts, but we ran out of time. Perhaps more can be added later)
<span style="font-weight: bold">Charts</span>
What we looked for on the top chart was the smallest set of 3 bars that the scope could resolve as well as general attributes such as edge sharpness, overall brightness and contrast chromatic aberration and edge to edge sharpness.
The bottom chart we looked at the converging lines as a confirmation of the 3 bar test.
All the scopes were set at 15-16x and were 100 yds. from the target.
Razor - could resolve down to the "5" in the "-2" row (dead center of chart) and "3" on the converging lines. Good brightness and contrast. Good line sharpness. Overall sharpness and focus begins to fall off about 60% of the way between the aiming point and edge of FOV. Significant Chromatic aberration that moves quickly from red on one edge to blue on the other if the eye is moved even slightly behind the occular. This scope is very hard to get a sight picture with on 20x. (Vortex is fully aware of this issue and has redesigned the ocular as a free upgrade. When this scope is retrofitted, I will post an update)
Vortex PST 6-24 - This was by far the biggest surprise of the test. The PST 6-24 was nearly impossible to tell from the Razor. After quite a bit of side-by-side evaluation, the edge was given to the Razor in terms of resolution, with the PST only able to see down to the "4" in the "-2" row and 3 on the converging lines. But line sharpness, brightness , contrast and edge to edge sharpness were either equal to, or superior to the Razor. At 20x the PST actually out-resolves the Razor! In addition, there is almost a complete absence of CA. One annoying feature of the 6-24 is that eye relief changes as magnification is changed and it is unforgiving enough to require a head reposition.
Weaver 3-15 - Resolved down to the "4" in the "-2" row and "2" on the converging lines. The Weaver has very good glass also and was *barely* inferior to the Razor and PST 6-24. Overall a very good optic, it does nothing poorly and everything well enough that it does not draw attention to itself... it just does its job. If this scope was evaluated on a different day that the PST 6-24 or the Razor, I'd be hard pressed to say they were different, but looking at them nearly one after the other, I'd have to give a very slight edge to the 2 Vortex's.
Vortex PST 4-16 - This was the 2nd biggest surprise of the test. Optically speaking, there is no evidence whatsoever that this scope is even remotely related to it's brother the 6-24 PST or it's cousin the Razor. The glass on this scope was flat and unimpressive. It could only resolve down to "2" on the "-2" row, could resolve none of the converging lines and lacked brightness and contrast and exhibited significant red CA. This scope was clearly out of its league, optically speaking, in this evaluation. The glass is poor enough that, even though I personally do not put a high priority on optical performance, I would not pay the asking price for this scope if this particular model is indicative of its optical performance. I'd expect a lot more for my dollar. I really wish we'd been able to do some low light evaluation. My suspicion is that the 4-16 optical performance would fall off a lot faster than the Weaver and the 6-24 PST.
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Conclusion</span></span>
All four of these scopes would be suitable for shooting daytime tactical matches. The BIG question is: for how long? The Razor, of course, is a semi-proven quantity. In addition to the abuse that Frank subjected his to, there are thousands of hours of field use, by hundreds of owners to attest. But in this evaluation, the Razor was simply a baseline. The Weaver and the PST's are big question marks in this regard. It's become a bit of a cliche' here, but truly, only time will tell.
With the exception of the glass quality on the PST 4-16 (and even that does NOT keep it from doing its job), I would highly recommend all three of these scopes. The question comes down to what features and qualities are more important to you, as they are three very different scopes with very different personalities and featuresets.
I hope this is useful. I now have a greater appreciation of what guys like Ilya must go through (on a MUCH bigger scale).
My apologies to Scott and Sam about the 4-16 comments. I know you guys have busted your butts now for well over a year now to make these things work well. You guys know I love your stuff, and truly believe in Vortex as a company, but I "calls 'em as I sees 'em". It *is* possible that this particular example is not representative.
My thanks to Paul Stafford for the use of his Weaver and to KimberLPT308 for the use of his PST 4-16.
John
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past year, you know that the release of the Viper PST has been somewhat akin to the introduction of the home computer. Greatly hyped, highly anticipated and potentially at least, a serious gamechanger. All the features most tactical shooters are looking for in a package priced under $1000.
(Fast forward past PST release drama). Just as the PST's are starting to ship in limited quantities, a new player arrives with similar features and pricepoint. Enter the Weaver 3-15 Tactical.
Several reviews have been written up on each of the above, but the question was raised; "How do they compare side-by-side?"
I am not an optics expert and I don't do scope reviews for a living. But I am a photographer and a shooter and an ex-engineer, so I figured since the opportunity of these scopes being in the same place at the same time presented itself, I would give my best shot of communicating to the rest of you, as objectively as possible, my impressions as I used and looked through these scopes side-by-side. This is not meant to be an exhaustive review of each scope, but rather what I described: our impressions from using them side-by-side in one sitting.
For this evaluation, we used four different scopes. I have a Vortex Razor HD 5-20 on my 300WM. Fair or not, I used it as the optical baseline. I know it very well. I just recently received my PST 6-24 FFP mil/mil for my .260 build. A friend has a PST 4-16 SFP Mil/Mil and Paul Stafford just put a Weaver 3-15 FFP Mil/Mil Tac on his spanking new Stiller-actioned 300WM (since a PST was months off at the time). We got together to break in his barrel, sight in and do some chrono'ing. So while Paul was scrubbing copper, I was looking through scopes. Hopefully Paul will chime in with his opinions also, but most of his time was taken attending to his new baby.
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Testing:</span></span>
When most people think of scope performance, they think optics. I don't. For the most part, if I can see through it, I can use it if it does its mechanical job the way it should.
Tracking and adjustment accuracy, reticle design, mechanical robustness and industrial design are far more important to me than optical performance (with a few exceptions... as I've said many times... if you're hunting in low light or identifying threats in a darkened window or doorway at distance, you have special needs. Most of us do not fall in this category.)
<span style="font-weight: bold">Tracking and Adjustment Accuracy</span>
After verifying that the scopes were indeed level in the rings on each rifle, we set the rifles in a vise at 100 +-.5 yds from a 10 mil x 5 mil grid that is plumb and level. The crosshairs are centered on the "zero" intersection. The scope is run up 10 mils, down 10 mils and left/right 5 mils. Then the same grid is used to determine the accuracy of the reticle as well as whether the reticle is plumb and level in the scope tube.
Results:
Viper PST 6-24 - perfect
Weaver 3-15 - vertical and horizontal adjustments off by <1% (10 mil required right between 10 and 10.1 mil of adjustment - insignificant error to me), reticle perfect
Viper PST 4-16 - not evaluated due to weather, will follow up and post, but these have been analyzed to death now and have been found to be excellent
<span style="font-weight: bold">Reticle Design.</span>
This is a very subjective topic. In this case all the reticles were very useable and unobtrusive. All of them would allow a shooter to engage targets and hold for wind or elevation without confusion.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Mechanical Robustness.</span>
Again, very subjective at this point (due to the lack of history) but the 4 scopes have a very different "feel" to them. The Weaver reminds me quite a bit of the Razor. Stout. They both have this overwhelming sense of strength. Perhaps it's the heft.
The PST's on the other hand, feel almost fragile by comparison. I certainly hope that time proves them just as reliable and robust, but they just don't give me that sense of solidity like the Razor and the Weaver.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Industrial Design.</span>
By ID, I am addressing the user controls and layout. Does the scope have a layout and controls that help or hinder a shooter.
The major standout here were illumination knobs. The Weaver knob is in an odd location for me. Every time I went to adjust parallax, I turned on the illumination. That would take some getting used to. I'm not a big fan of illumination controls on the occular, but Weaver has not found a suitable solution for my tastes either.
The Weaver also lacks the very nifty "off" setting between brightness levels that the PST's have. The PST's however are not without issues. The illumination brightness control is quite vague and it is possible for it to "hang" in-between.
A word here about the PST turrets. Because I often shoot at ELR distances, I end up dialing a LOT of elevation. As such, I'm a little sensitive to turret design. The PST turrets must have been designed by a sadist. The knurls on the endof the turret caps are quite sharp to the touch. They literally hurt my hands after just a few knob rotations. The Razor has very similar looking knurls on the top of its turrets too. But they are subtly different (perhaps the sharp edges are relieved a bit?)and not painful to turn at all. Not sure why Vortex changed a good thing here.
Additionally, all 4 PST turrets (2 elevation, 2 windage on 2 different scopes) gave noticeably different feedback, audibly and mechanically. I like the windage turret on the PST 6-24 the best, but was surprised at how differently they all felt. A quick test showed that the sleeve of my sweatshirt could rotate the elevation knob of both PST's, but it took considerable effort. This test failed to move the Razor knobs and the Weaver's lock, so it was not an issue.
Despite my misgivings about a lack of similar feel, all the controls on the PST's worked well and gave good feedback. The Weaver knobs by comparison (when unlocked), are a bit "weak" in feedback and resistance for my taste. They did, however, prove quite difficult to turn while locked.
Other than that, all controls worked as required and did not bring significant notice to themselves.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Optical Performance. </span>
Caveat: Books have been written on measuring optical performance. It is a can of worms no matter how you look at it. But we wanted to give *some* kind of objective optical evaluation. So.. with much fear and trepidation... Drum roll please...
For this segment of the evaluation, we placed a couple optic charts at 100 yds. (the intent was to also do some low light evaluation of these charts, but we ran out of time. Perhaps more can be added later)
<span style="font-weight: bold">Charts</span>
What we looked for on the top chart was the smallest set of 3 bars that the scope could resolve as well as general attributes such as edge sharpness, overall brightness and contrast chromatic aberration and edge to edge sharpness.
The bottom chart we looked at the converging lines as a confirmation of the 3 bar test.
All the scopes were set at 15-16x and were 100 yds. from the target.
Razor - could resolve down to the "5" in the "-2" row (dead center of chart) and "3" on the converging lines. Good brightness and contrast. Good line sharpness. Overall sharpness and focus begins to fall off about 60% of the way between the aiming point and edge of FOV. Significant Chromatic aberration that moves quickly from red on one edge to blue on the other if the eye is moved even slightly behind the occular. This scope is very hard to get a sight picture with on 20x. (Vortex is fully aware of this issue and has redesigned the ocular as a free upgrade. When this scope is retrofitted, I will post an update)
Vortex PST 6-24 - This was by far the biggest surprise of the test. The PST 6-24 was nearly impossible to tell from the Razor. After quite a bit of side-by-side evaluation, the edge was given to the Razor in terms of resolution, with the PST only able to see down to the "4" in the "-2" row and 3 on the converging lines. But line sharpness, brightness , contrast and edge to edge sharpness were either equal to, or superior to the Razor. At 20x the PST actually out-resolves the Razor! In addition, there is almost a complete absence of CA. One annoying feature of the 6-24 is that eye relief changes as magnification is changed and it is unforgiving enough to require a head reposition.
Weaver 3-15 - Resolved down to the "4" in the "-2" row and "2" on the converging lines. The Weaver has very good glass also and was *barely* inferior to the Razor and PST 6-24. Overall a very good optic, it does nothing poorly and everything well enough that it does not draw attention to itself... it just does its job. If this scope was evaluated on a different day that the PST 6-24 or the Razor, I'd be hard pressed to say they were different, but looking at them nearly one after the other, I'd have to give a very slight edge to the 2 Vortex's.
Vortex PST 4-16 - This was the 2nd biggest surprise of the test. Optically speaking, there is no evidence whatsoever that this scope is even remotely related to it's brother the 6-24 PST or it's cousin the Razor. The glass on this scope was flat and unimpressive. It could only resolve down to "2" on the "-2" row, could resolve none of the converging lines and lacked brightness and contrast and exhibited significant red CA. This scope was clearly out of its league, optically speaking, in this evaluation. The glass is poor enough that, even though I personally do not put a high priority on optical performance, I would not pay the asking price for this scope if this particular model is indicative of its optical performance. I'd expect a lot more for my dollar. I really wish we'd been able to do some low light evaluation. My suspicion is that the 4-16 optical performance would fall off a lot faster than the Weaver and the 6-24 PST.
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Conclusion</span></span>
All four of these scopes would be suitable for shooting daytime tactical matches. The BIG question is: for how long? The Razor, of course, is a semi-proven quantity. In addition to the abuse that Frank subjected his to, there are thousands of hours of field use, by hundreds of owners to attest. But in this evaluation, the Razor was simply a baseline. The Weaver and the PST's are big question marks in this regard. It's become a bit of a cliche' here, but truly, only time will tell.
With the exception of the glass quality on the PST 4-16 (and even that does NOT keep it from doing its job), I would highly recommend all three of these scopes. The question comes down to what features and qualities are more important to you, as they are three very different scopes with very different personalities and featuresets.
I hope this is useful. I now have a greater appreciation of what guys like Ilya must go through (on a MUCH bigger scale).
My apologies to Scott and Sam about the 4-16 comments. I know you guys have busted your butts now for well over a year now to make these things work well. You guys know I love your stuff, and truly believe in Vortex as a company, but I "calls 'em as I sees 'em". It *is* possible that this particular example is not representative.
My thanks to Paul Stafford for the use of his Weaver and to KimberLPT308 for the use of his PST 4-16.
John
