Hey SH - Long-time lurker, short-time poster. This is one of those annoying newbie threads asking general questions that are next to impossible to answer, but I've been spinning my wheels on which scope to get for my new build for literally months now; have read so many reviews, message boards, and "optics buying guides" I think I've probably reached the end of the Internet; and there's no better spot than the Hide to try to get some help.
A little background. I've been hunting since I can remember and have been shooting 3-gun competitions for about a year or so, so I'm very familiar with shooting out to 300-400 but have had little to no experience shooting beyond that range. I'm familiar with good hunting glass, but have never owned a scope that had exposed turrets or anything more complicated than a duplex or basic BDC reticle. My buddy and I are looking to learn the art of long-range shooting. Since neither of us have rifles for that, we're building rigs for PRS-style competition at local matches and just banging steel and varmints at home. I'd like the rifle to be fully capable out to 1000-1200 yards. The builds will both be PT&G blueprinted Remington actions, Bartlein barrels, and MPA chassis.
I've done a ton of online research (including a helluva lot of lurking here) on everything out there between $1000 and $3000 and think I've narrowed my choices down to the Viper PST Gen II as the "good" option and the Razor AMG as the "great" option. The main reasons I picked those over the other options out there are (1) weight and (2) good holdover reticles. I've had a Viper PST Gen II 5-25x FFP mRad on order for quite some time, but about a week ago I stumbled across a brand new Razor AMG mRad for $2500 shipped. Being the impulsive guy that I am and thinking I could likely sell it at without losing money pretty easily, I bought it on the spot. Being the second-guesser that I am, I'm now wondering if that was a mistake. I have a finite budget for this hobby, so while I can afford the AMG, it means I'll have to hold off on, for example, buying the Thunderbeast suppressor I want on this build for a few months.
I know the AMG is going to have better glass, I know it has some improved features like L-Tec turrets and extra elevation travel, and I know that the mechanical accuracy is going to be spot-on (or Vortex will make it so). And ultimately I'm a believer in buy once, cry once. So I guess what I really want to know is how limiting having a PST Gen II is going to be vs an AMG, understanding there are very few 5-25x FFP PST Gen IIs out in the wild right now:
- Would the extra features mean all that much to me now as a beginner? If so, which features and why? If not, would they if I eventually become competitive at the local level?
- Would the better glass on the AMG ever have a meaningful impact on my ability to spot/identify targets, make hits on steel, resolve holes in paper at reasonable distances, or amount of eye fatigue?
- Am I screwing up by getting the AMG instead of [insert your favorite optic with holdover reticle that isn't over 40oz or so]?
I know the value of better glass and better features are different to everyone based on their budget and how much they shoot, I'm just trying to get a better feel for what the extra $1500 is really getting me in my particular circumstance. I'm having a hard time justifying the extra cost, but the AMG is so damn nice and it's already in my closet...
Thanks in advance, and apologies for the quintessentially newbie post.
A little background. I've been hunting since I can remember and have been shooting 3-gun competitions for about a year or so, so I'm very familiar with shooting out to 300-400 but have had little to no experience shooting beyond that range. I'm familiar with good hunting glass, but have never owned a scope that had exposed turrets or anything more complicated than a duplex or basic BDC reticle. My buddy and I are looking to learn the art of long-range shooting. Since neither of us have rifles for that, we're building rigs for PRS-style competition at local matches and just banging steel and varmints at home. I'd like the rifle to be fully capable out to 1000-1200 yards. The builds will both be PT&G blueprinted Remington actions, Bartlein barrels, and MPA chassis.
I've done a ton of online research (including a helluva lot of lurking here) on everything out there between $1000 and $3000 and think I've narrowed my choices down to the Viper PST Gen II as the "good" option and the Razor AMG as the "great" option. The main reasons I picked those over the other options out there are (1) weight and (2) good holdover reticles. I've had a Viper PST Gen II 5-25x FFP mRad on order for quite some time, but about a week ago I stumbled across a brand new Razor AMG mRad for $2500 shipped. Being the impulsive guy that I am and thinking I could likely sell it at without losing money pretty easily, I bought it on the spot. Being the second-guesser that I am, I'm now wondering if that was a mistake. I have a finite budget for this hobby, so while I can afford the AMG, it means I'll have to hold off on, for example, buying the Thunderbeast suppressor I want on this build for a few months.
I know the AMG is going to have better glass, I know it has some improved features like L-Tec turrets and extra elevation travel, and I know that the mechanical accuracy is going to be spot-on (or Vortex will make it so). And ultimately I'm a believer in buy once, cry once. So I guess what I really want to know is how limiting having a PST Gen II is going to be vs an AMG, understanding there are very few 5-25x FFP PST Gen IIs out in the wild right now:
- Would the extra features mean all that much to me now as a beginner? If so, which features and why? If not, would they if I eventually become competitive at the local level?
- Would the better glass on the AMG ever have a meaningful impact on my ability to spot/identify targets, make hits on steel, resolve holes in paper at reasonable distances, or amount of eye fatigue?
- Am I screwing up by getting the AMG instead of [insert your favorite optic with holdover reticle that isn't over 40oz or so]?
I know the value of better glass and better features are different to everyone based on their budget and how much they shoot, I'm just trying to get a better feel for what the extra $1500 is really getting me in my particular circumstance. I'm having a hard time justifying the extra cost, but the AMG is so damn nice and it's already in my closet...
Thanks in advance, and apologies for the quintessentially newbie post.