Rifle Scopes Looked throug a Vortex viper today, um, no thanks

[hunter223]

Re: Looked throug a Vortex viper today, um, no thanks

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gasitman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well I called Scott at Vortex, and I am going to try the viper out. Worst that can happen is I have to send it back. I just ordered one of the discontinued ones from cs tactical for a temporary fix. I really want the PST when it comes out. I would rather not spend the $799 on a Zeiss and kick myself later when the PST does finally show itself. I will assume I can unload the scope for $200 later down the road and only loose $50-$100 on it.

Scott assured me that scope must of had some issues. I can only hope for the best. </div></div>

Good call should be happy with your scope. Good optics for the price points

 

[AUJohn]

Re: Looked throug a Vortex viper today, um, no thanks

OP, the "issue" was that your opinion and test was seen to produce a result many of us know not to be accurate. Then there is a question of why. Something in your method of testing gave you results which are not right.
So you got comments about it

You still have not supplied any information about how you "tested" them.

Vortex have support due to value for money and quality of service. Looks like you found this to be the case as well.
I would be shocked to find after using one you were not happy with it. OTOH, if you want to check it against scopes several times the price you will see differences.
Once you have used it please report back.

 

[McKinneyMike]

Re: Looked throug a Vortex viper today, um, no thanks

Do not expect the Vortex or any other scopes in the sub $1000.00 range to equal a Zeiss in terms of absolute clarity. I love Vortex and own three Viper's, but they are not in the same class, in terms of glass, with the Zeiss.

There are others factors that I have to consider when I make any scope purchase. If money were no object, I would own a Hensoldt, but alas I do not.....

 

[RobG]

Re: Looked throug a Vortex viper today, um, no thanks

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fdkay</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Geez, you didn't know?
Vortex is a sacred cow here, it is one of the ten commandments.
"Thou shalt not denigrate Vortex"

Vortex is a stand up company and are attempting to bring to market a feature rich FFP scope that will satisfy the majority of tactical shooters.

However, if Leupold would have orchestrated the same type of fiasco with the release of scope model, the pile on would have been of epic proportions, there certainly would not be people rushing to defend them with a release being pushed back 6 or more months.

And no, I do not even own a Leupold and I do not own a Vortex.
I had considered the PST as they feature just about everything I wanted, but I needed a scope this year not sometime in the future. I went with the IOR 3-18. </div></div>

The difference is Vortex came here and owned their problems and are making good on fixing them. Scott is in here frequently helping out customers and giving what info he can on the PST. I have never seen Leupold in here doing the same when someone has a problem.

 

[poonjab]

Re: Looked throug a Vortex viper today, um, no thanks

To the OP
Don't sweat this thread. People take their equipment too personal on just about all the firearms forums. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I for one don't see the harm in you post. The reason I don't see the harm is because I, like everyone else, can post my comments to your thread.

I have used a Vortex Viper 6.5-20X44 on a .308 tactical rifle for a year and have put 200-300 rounds 400-600 yards down range with it. I am very pleased with mine. I am new to long range shooting and can not speak to its abilities past 600 yards or to shoot moving targets. I also can not compare my scope to other brands because its the only scope I have that costs more than $120. I can say that my shooting abilities have not exceeded the abilities of my scope. In my opinion my Vortex scope is very clear, even in low light. The adjustments are very repeatable and it has always held its zero.

 

[rifleman1981]

Re: Looked throug a Vortex viper today, um, no thanks

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WOOD CHUCK</div><div class="ubbcode-body">YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR LOL!! the japanese are makeing the best glass nowadays fyi</div></div>
did I miss something here or are zeiss, hensoldt, schmidt and bender, leica, and swarovski now using japanese glass becuase the glass that built there reputations sucked ass???

 

[DaveV]

Re: Looked throug a Vortex viper today, um, no thanks

Yeah, stay away from that crappy German glass. Go Jap and don't look back

 

[jrob300]

Re: Looked throug a Vortex viper today, um, no thanks

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rifleman1981</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WOOD CHUCK</div><div class="ubbcode-body">YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR LOL!! the japanese are makeing the best glass nowadays fyi</div></div>
did I miss something here or are zeiss, hensoldt, schmidt and bender, leica, and swarovski now using japanese glass becuase the glass that built there reputations sucked ass??? </div></div>

This will always be a pissing contest between fans (not fanboy Jrose!)for either.

Serious photographers from the 50's and 60's know that at one point Japanese glass was equal to or superior to German glass. This was fairly well accepted at one point and now seems to be lost like a lot of history.

http://old.photodo.com/art/When3.shtml

I can remember looking through old Nikkor primes and being amazed at how sharp and bright they were, especially wide open where most lenses do not perform well. Especially at the edges. Current Nikon or Canon glass really does not impress me by comparison.

It is my opinion that Japanese performance, when measured against the rest of the world, has slipped. I for one do not underestimate the Japanese and their capability. I believe they are still *capable* of making the finest glass in the world. The issue is motivation and profit. They sell the majority of the world's cameras already. What's to be gained at this point? So they ride the same mediocre-product-for-reasonable-profit train that helped make us uncompetitive in the world market.

John

 

[diriel]

Re: Looked throug a Vortex viper today, um, no thanks

Perhaps somebody should explain Exit Pupil to the OP, and it's effects on an optic. In a nut shell: As power magnification increases, exit pupil will decrease. When exit pupil drops below approximately 3.5mm *MOST* folks will begin to say "this scope is _Dark_", or "The clarity above power X is not good". There are differing reasons for this, but one reason that no scope in the world can escape ( laws of physics ) is that too small an exit pupil will not allow enough light to *Flood* the human eye, thereby making things seem too dark to really SEE.

There are folk here who can explain this far better then I. I spent months here reading and learning. This place is great for that. The Nikon and the Vortex were 20x power scopes, the Zeiss and Leupy were 14X. The exit pupil @ max power on the 14x scopes was much larger at max than the 20x scopes. Physical Glass Spec's aside, that alone is enough to seriously skew your results.

I don't care how good the glass used in a scope is, when the exit pupil drops too low, the "glass goes dark", and you "loose clarity"... take those terms with a huge grain of salt, but the end result is simple: not enough exit pupil = cant see what you need to see for what ever technical terminology is correct

Good shooting.
P.S. How about some one Post a real post on Exit Pupil Vs. Power Mag and how that all works? I know there are a few of you who could write books on all things optics.

 

[Gasitman]

Re: Looked throug a Vortex viper today, um, no thanks

Someone told me that back in the late 60's when the Japanese cars were coming to America, Americans said they were cheap junk, now a days, their quality is far superior to most American cars, and hold a better resale value. Then in the 80's the Koreans brought cars here that were mostly junk, but now they have some of the best warranties and also reviews. Will we say this in 15 years on the Chinese stuff that is made? I know glass is not all the same, but I am sure some stuff is far superior than others. I bet when those guys in the 50's looked at that Jap glass, they thought, no way is this going to be good.