Rifle Scopes Super Sniper 3-15 vs Vortex Viper PST 4-16

[TimK]

The intended use is a precision AR. We shoot out to 750 or so, though the primary purpose is a local match with roughly 1 MOA targets from 200 to 600.

Both seem to offer a similar set of features if you assume FFP on the Viper. The only significant difference in features I see is the illuminated reticle on the Viper. I like that feature, but it's not essential. The SS is rads only,and I prefer MOA. Again, not a show stopper, but a clear preference.

I've looked through both, but both times were very cursory examinations. I've been reading about the clarity issues with the Viper at max magnification, and it has me nervous. If not for that, I'd probably opt for the Vortex and not give it a second thought.

The cost difference is irrelevant to me. If you have significant experience with either or both, I'd love to hear your take. If you have a recommendation for something else in the same power range that is < $1K, I'm listening.

As a point of reference, I own scopes both cheap and expensive. Millet, Nightforce, and USO scopes can all be found on various rifles.

 

[Hook Creek]

I had the viper pst 4-16 ffp, and I didn't have any issue with the glass. The illumination worked great, and it tracked perfectly. Never had any problems, it was a great scope. I'm mostly using the swfa 5-20 now, and the glass is slightly better, and the eye relief is more forgiving than the pst. The only thing I liked better on the pst, was the reticle. That being said I would go with a used swfa ss 5-20 before I got a brand new viper. I think I got mine used for $1000.00. The only other swfa scope I had was a ss 10x non hd version. Glass wasn't up to par with the viper pst, but it tracked perfectly and will take whatever abuse is thrown at it. don't know anything about the 3-15, but swfa makes some solid shit. hope this helped

 

[TimK]

Thanks for the response. I don't really want or need more than 15x or 16x, though I'm open to the idea of the SS 5-20.

If I could convince myself that the Vortex will be clear at max magnification, I'd be done. Maybe I'll call them today.

 

[mdmorrow]

I had the 6-24 PST for a while. I honestly wasn't overly impressed with the glass. I just got a new 3-15 SS for a 7mm-08 build I'm waiting on. It seems to be built like a tank and is very clear. If illumination isn't a must, I'd got for the SWFA. You might also look at the comparable bushnell's as well as the weaver tactical.

 

[ScottNC]

I have had a SS 3-15 for about 2 months, I think for the $$, or for that matter hundreds more it would be hard to beat. It's super clear, I like the reticule and the MRad. I don't have any need for illumination so that one isn't a factor for me. It's a scope I'll not be selling, it's a keeper!
Scott

 

[Monmouth]

I have the SWFA 10x and very happy with the construction/reticle/etc... (as per my limited experience). The Hide likes the SS 3-15 model, just as a good value as the 10x?

 

[Crosshair]

There is considerable more elevation travel in the SS 3-15x, and depending on the distances you plan on shooting and what velocity/BC, it may be useful to have the 125ish moa of elevation the SS offers vs about 75 moa for the PST. The PST is still capable of reaching Way out there, especially with a 20 moa mount like the ADM 30mm version option. Both are great scopes with their own little pros and cons.

 

[CSTactical]

The would go with the Vortex PST. The SS is a good scope also. If we can be of help in getting you a scope feel free to let me know.

Here is a video we did on the Vortex 4-16x50mm.
Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50 FFP - YouTube


Mike @ CSTACTICAL

 

[Sweetyzfd]

Go to the vendor sales. I got my PST FFP with griffin rings for 899 to the door. Was a great deal

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Let me ask you this, how often do you hear of a SS failing and how much longer have they been around than the PST?

That would be my decision maker.

 

[Sweetyzfd]

Not sure about SWFA/ warranty but Vortex is no questions asked lifetime transferable

 

[precision308]

I've had scopes by swfa and vortex fail. Both times their customer service was great from each manufacterer. I don't have the pst or the swfa u are referring to but the pst does have zero stops which is a plus in my book.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

The PST doesn't have a zero stop, it has some shims you drop in it. You can easily make them for any other scope. That certainly shouldn't be a selling point because it comes with $.05 worth of plastic discs.

 

[TallShot]

I like the reticle of the PST..... But, I like the view a bit better with the SS line. The good tracking of the SS doesn't hurt either.

 

[TimK]

Let me ask you this, how often do you hear of a SS failing ...

I had a SS that failed, a fixed 10X. They are 0 for 1 with me. The fixed it promptly, so I can't complain, but the break just like any other brand.

 

[TimK]

The PST doesn't have a zero stop, it has some shims you drop in it. You can easily make them for any other scope. That certainly shouldn't be a selling point because it comes with $.05 worth of plastic discs.

Agreed, it's not a true zero stop like other brands, but it does come with the shims which saves me from making them.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

That's interesting. I have one that's a tasco from when tasco first came out with them that has seen a lot of use, a couple more from after the SWFA takeover and two new mil/mil models and they have all been solid. I know tons of other people have have them and I've heard of one reported failure from somebody I know personally. I've seen a others posted online maybe 2-3 times a year.

Comparing that to my personal track record with vortex where every one of them has failed and the fact that once a month you get a post or two of somebody who's PST took a shit then you have people coming out of the woodwork saying the same thing. It has been proven to me over and over that the Phillipines doesn't produce optics that are on the same level of Japanese optics and there are many that agree.

 

[CSTactical]

The shims is not the best way to do a 0-Stop but it will do the job. I love the PST reticle, the feel of the turrets and to over all feel of the scope. I have seen the PST put through a few seasons of competition shooting and they are still going strong.


Mike @ CSTACTICAL

 

[pc3]

The shims is not the best way to do a 0-Stop but it will do the job. I love the PST reticle, the feel of the turrets and to over all feel of the scope. I have seen the PST put through a few seasons of competition shooting and they are still going strong.


Mike @ CSTACTICAL

It would be the best way of doing the zero stop it and keeping at the price point.....had a friend getting into shooting recently, and he has purchased the PST 4-16 FFP, I wish they had been around when I got into shooting as now he gets to experience the "smarts" of a FFP MIL/MIL ZS system without dropping 2.5-3k. Then we he decides he really does like the sport then he can up grade and put the PST on a .22 lr trainer, but he gets the system that make sense from the outset.

 

[Hook Creek]

The shims is not the best way to do a 0-Stop but it will do the job. I love the PST reticle, the feel of the turrets and to over all feel of the scope. I have seen the PST put through a few seasons of competition shooting and they are still going strong.


Mike @ CSTACTICAL

I agree, the pst is a good optic. The feel of the turrets was among the best I've felt

 

[peterh]

The intended use is a precision AR. We shoot out to 750 or so, though the primary purpose is a local match with roughly 1 MOA targets from 200 to 600.

Both seem to offer a similar set of features if you assume FFP on the Viper. The only significant difference in features I see is the illuminated reticle on the Viper. I like that feature, but it's not essential. The SS is rads only,and I prefer MOA. Again, not a show stopper, but a clear preference.

I've looked through both, but both times were very cursory examinations. I've been reading about the clarity issues with the Viper at max magnification, and it has me nervous. If not for that, I'd probably opt for the Vortex and not give it a second thought.

The cost difference is irrelevant to me. If you have significant experience with either or both, I'd love to hear your take. If you have a recommendation for something else in the same power range that is < $1K, I'm listening.

As a point of reference, I own scopes both cheap and expensive. Millet, Nightforce, and USO scopes can all be found on various rifles.

I have three things to say!! 1) I have owned and used SWFA scopes and Vortex scopes, they are good and function very well and are reasonably priced. They will work for you, and if you don't need or want to spend high dollars on top tier scopes then that's all you need.

2) Why do all or most everybody want to compare every scope with say SB, well the reason is because SB is known for using the best glass in world in their scopes. They have been around for a long time and very important they pump a lot of money into marketing all over the world. SB is also being used by militaries including now the USMC.

3) If you want the same glass as SB for tons less money then you have to check out MEOPTA, this little known company from the Czech Republic makes this scope. If you check one out I guarantee you will be impressed, they are like SWFA's SS line of scopes "built like a tank" rugged well made and the optics are fantastic. Their Meostar 4-16X44 R1 mildot is a great scope, what ever short comings they may have on features they certainly make it up on their glass......

 

[E. Bryant]

I currently own a 3-15x42mm SWFA, and I have owned the 4-16x50mm FFP Viper PST in the past. I think they are both very good scopes for the money. I like the reticle in the PST slightly better, and of course the PST has the CRS shims and reticle illumination. If you can live without those features, though, you can save a couple hundred bucks and get the more-compact SWFA - its slimmer profile may be a bit more at home on an AR, and it is one hell of a fine value.

Shorter version of the above - slight nod to the SWFA.

 

[TimK]

I currently own a 3-15x42mm SWFA, and I have owned the 4-16x50mm FFP Viper PST in the past. I think they are both very good scopes for the money. I like the reticle in the PST slightly better, and of course the PST has the CRS shims and reticle illumination. If you can live without those features, though, you can save a couple hundred bucks and get the more-compact SWFA - its slimmer profile may be a bit more at home on an AR, and it is one hell of a fine value.

Shorter version of the above - slight nod to the SWFA.

You had no problems with the vortex glass at high power?

 

[E. Bryant]

You had no problems with the vortex glass at high power?

No, I did not - but I'm not someone who gets super-picky about "glass" (primarily because I wear eyeglasses, and the position of the lens relative to my eye has far greater influence on the image than the scope optical performance). Was there a difference between the Viper PST and my SB 5-25 or Nightforce F1? Um, most certainly. Was it going to make the difference between a hit or a miss? Highly unlikely.

 

[DropinLead]

Was there a difference between the Viper PST and my SB 5-25 or Nightforce F1? Um, most certainly. Was it going to make the difference between a hit or a miss? Highly unlikely.

It assumes one pays for nothing more than just glass quality. There is more to it than that. A scope is not just glass.

I am interested in how you feel the quality if the turrets, and the repeatability of going back to zero and overall ergonomics and operation of the two scopes in question was? Glass is comparable, and one has some features other don't, which is great data points but where they both have the same features like elevation/windage and parallax controls, how did those compare in your opinion? How was the balance point between parallax free and clarity between them for example? Which one "felt' better from a qualitative perspective in your opinion?

 

[E. Bryant]

It assumes one pays for nothing more than just glass quality. There is more to it than that. A scope is not just glass.

... which I understand fully, and which is why I stated that any difference in optical quality between the scopes mentioned was unlikely to be the cause of a performance shortfall.

I am interested in how you feel the quality if the turrets, and the repeatability of going back to zero and overall ergonomics and operation of the two scopes in question was? Glass is comparable, and one has some features other don't, which is great data points but where they both have the same features like elevation/windage and parallax controls, how did those compare in your opinion? How was the balance point between parallax free and clarity between them for example? Which one "felt' better from a qualitative perspective in your opinion?

Turret feel is subjective, but I'd give the nod to the Vortex as the clicks were a bit more crisp. No complaints about either one, though; if I'm being perfectly honest with myself, they both feel better than the MTC turrets on my SB 5-25. Both tracked properly, but no surprise there. The SWFA SS probably gets the nod in terms of parallax adjustment, mainly based upon its ability to focus down to 6m. I have not noticed any significant issue with either scope in terms of being able to find an acceptable balance between parallax and focus, but also consider that someone who has a -7.0 diopter correction in his shooting eye is not the one consult on that particular topic.

I'd give the SWFA a slight edge in build quality, probably because it's slightly smaller but heavier (yielding a "denser" feel).

 

[TimK]

I think I've ruled out the SWFA for its lack of features. I use my zero stops very frequently, and I hate the one scope I own that does not have one.

I've now got myself wondering if I should be considering the 6-24 as well as the 4-16. I like the smaller size of the 4-16 on an AR, but it's not that much shorter. I was considering that I have a hole in the 4-16 power range in my scope collection, but maybe it's stupid to buy the 4-16 just because I already have a 5.5-22 NF.

 

[pc3]

I think I've ruled out the SWFA for its lack of features. I use my zero stops very frequently, and I hate the one scope I own that does not have one.

I've now got myself wondering if I should be considering the 6-24 as well as the 4-16. I like the smaller size of the 4-16 on an AR, but it's not that much shorter. I was considering that I have a hole in the 4-16 power range in my scope collection, but maybe it's stupid to buy the 4-16 just because I already have a 5.5-22 NF.

I can say the zero stop on the 4-16 PST despite being simplistic works as advertised and the clicks are very positive for a scope in this price range. I'd like to look through the 6-24 PST.