Rifle Scopes New to Long-Range Shooting - Talk me into/out of my Razor AMG

[atxhorn4425]

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.

 

[Citius7]

Though I've not gone down the vortex line like you have. I tend not to comment on a scope I've not shot through extensively, your story is similar to mine. Just with different glass. I will say this. You will ruin whatever chance you would have given yourself with the PST once you spend time with the AMG. I say that because that $1500 isn't just a markup of the same glass. It is better as you know. And once you have time on better glass. You really really won't want to shoot anything else. It is what it is. If you are the buy once cry one guy. This is where it hurts. In your shoes, keep the better glass. The FOV should be better than your PST so you should be able to acquire your target quicker which in that alone would be worth it. My first PRS event was a bit of a struggle because I wasn't used to transitioning quickly from seeing one steel in a sea of steel and going to scope and finding it and shooting it quickly. You want the best advantage. The AMG would be that advantage. It's like racing a car that corners a little better and a little faster during a race. Yes the slower car can run the race. But if you've got the better car in the garage, why use something that's slower. BOTH with finish the race. BOTH scopes will do the job the AMG will do it better. $1500 better? I leave that to the folks that have had the time on both to tell u that. Good luck. But once u shoot ur AMG... I doubt you will want to shoot something inferior. I know I don't.

 

[atxhorn4425]

Though I've not gone down the vortex line like you have. I tend not to comment on a scope I've not shot through extensively, your story is similar to mine. Just with different glass. I will say this. You will ruin whatever chance you would have given yourself with the PST once you spend time with the AMG. I say that because that $1500 isn't just a markup of the same glass. It is better as you know. And once you have time on better glass. You really really won't want to shoot anything else. It is what it is. If you are the buy once cry one guy. This is where it hurts. In your shoes, keep the better glass. The FOV should be better than your PST so you should be able to acquire your target quicker which in that alone would be worth it. My first PRS event was a bit of a struggle because I wasn't used to transitioning quickly from seeing one steel in a sea of steel and going to scope and finding it and shooting it quickly. You want the best advantage. The AMG would be that advantage. It's like racing a car that corners a little better and a little faster during a race. Yes the slower car can run the race. But if you've got the better car in the garage, why use something that's slower. BOTH with finish the race. BOTH scopes will do the job the AMG will do it better. $1500 better? I leave that to the folks that have had the time on both to tell u that. Good luck. But once u shoot ur AMG... I doubt you will want to shoot something inferior. I know I don't.

I appreciate that, and I suspect you're right. I have left the AMG in my closet (which has been hard) with the idea that I would look through the PST Gen II for a while once I got it and see if it worked well for me, then decide if I should look at the AMG or not knowing that it would likely ruin the PST Gen II for me.

Ultimately I probably won't be able to resist comparing them and then it'll be game over but I'm hoping the PST Gen II is just really great out of the box.

 

[Rerun7]

I would ask this. Because of your finite budget, will keeping the AMG cause you to shoot less?

I say that because more range time as a new long range shooter will make you better than any piece of equipment you can buy.

If you'll put the same amount of rounds down range then go ahead and keep the AMG. Just keep in mind that when you get to that level of optics it takes a lot of money to get incremental changes. It's a better scope for sure but you aren't going to be handicapped by any of the big name manufacturers in the $1,500 price range. It starts getting into preferences and incremental changes after that. YMMV

 

[dannySH]

I have both (AMG and a PST GII 3-15x44 FFP) and had the possibility to compare them. Without doubt the AMG is a better scope than the PST GII, better glass, better reticle, better turrets. Now, I couldn't tell you if it is $1400 better. The PST GII is a heck of improvement over the PST GI, FOV is better, turrets and Zero stop are better and the glass is better too. I've shooting with both (AMG and PST GII) in the same day and I've enjoyed shooting with both. I haven't had the necessity of letting the PST GII behind to shoot with the AMG but I've had the necessity to change it when shooting at the same time with another PST GI I have. In fact I'm going to replace the first gen as soon as the second generation 5-25x50 will be available.

 

[atxhorn4425]

I would ask this. Because of your finite budget, will keeping the AMG cause you to shoot less?

I say that because more range time as a new long range shooter will make you better than any piece of equipment you can buy.

If you'll put the same amount of rounds down range then go ahead and keep the AMG. Just keep in mind that when you get to that level of optics it takes a lot of money to get incremental changes. It's a better scope for sure but you aren't going to be handicapped by any of the big name manufacturers in the $1,500 price range. It starts getting into preferences and incremental changes after that. YMMV

Good question, and fortunately the answer is no. I don't lump my "gear" budget and my ammunition/shooting budget together. If anything, the more I invest in my gear the more I feel obligated to use it!

 

[atxhorn4425]

I have both (AMG and a PST GII 3-15x44 FFP) and had the possibility to compare them. Without doubt the AMG is a better scope than the PST GII, better glass, better reticle, better turrets. Now, I couldn't tell you if it is $1400 better. The PST GII is a heck of improvement over the PST GI, FOV is better, turrets and Zero stop are better and the glass is better too. I've shooting with both (AMG and PST GII) in the same day and I've enjoyed shooting with both. I haven't had the necessity of letting the PST GII behind to shoot with the AMG but I've had the necessity to change it when shooting at the same time with another PST GI I have.

Thanks, that's really helpful. What do you prefer about the AMG's reticle and turrets? I understand the turrets are an upgrade in a few ways, but what specifically did you prefer. And the reticles seem very similar to me, with the main difference being the central aiming point.

Out of curiosity, what's the furthest you've shot with the PST Gen II and did you feel like the quality of glass was limiting you or slowing you down at all?

 

[dannySH]

Thanks, that's really helpful. What do you prefer about the AMG's reticle and turrets? I understand the turrets are an upgrade in a few ways, but what specifically did you prefer. And the reticles seem very similar to me, with the main difference being the central aiming point.

Out of curiosity, what's the furthest you've shot with the PST Gen II and did you feel like the quality of glass was limiting you or slowing you down at all?

The EBR-7 on the AMG has a floating crosshair on the center which let you see the target better at higher magnification. The turrets have a locking mechanism with L-Tec Zero stop that let you go bellow zero if you need it for close range shooting. I've shoot thru 500 yards with the PST GII 3-15x44 which is the range I will be using it on my .308 Tikka T3 hunter and the quality of the glass for that range distance is perfect for my needs.