Re: Viper prs scopes
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rksimple</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rksimple</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On these scopes that had the problems, I didn't check to see if the elevation or windage was maxed to one extreme, perhaps causing the problem. Thats my fault.</div></div>
Then you really didn't check the scope out much did you?
Look, you are entitled to your opinions, but it is a little irresponsible to come in here and talk a bunch of trash about a product that is this highly anticipated... and then not even bother to give the scope even the most basic run through?
Perhaps you should leave the optic testing to those qualified to do it before posting half cocked negative comments. I read your comments, and took them to heart... and thought to myself "well crap, I'm sure vortex will make sure production models are good, but I wonder if this will set their timeline back at all?" All the while thinking that if you were making the comments, you must be qualified. (mistake on my part)
In the future, when you pick up a new optic and want to see what its capable of at first glance... here is some things you can do so you don't sound like a fool:
Run the turrets completely out, and completely in. Look for any loose or tight spots when doing so. Look through the scope to see what the image looks like when you are at both ends of the spectrum compared to mechanical center. Check both the high and low power ranges at all settings in the process. Check the parallax too. Do so while looking at various objects with various lighting at various distances. This doesn't take very long and will give you a decent idea of the real world capabilities of the optic. Look around on the internet... there are a lot more involved tests out there as well.
Now look, don't go getting all pissy and take this the wrong way. I'm trying to help you. You just should be a little more responsible for the things you say. You can't expect people to take you seriously when you talk about a scope... when all you did was pick it up and look through it a couple times. Do your diligence, and THEN talk about it. </div></div>
Lol. Looked through it a couple times? Get real. I spent the better part of an hour looking through them all. There's only so much optical evaluation that can be done in a 100 yard convention center, under one set of conditions, without a steady platform. Various objects, various lighting...really? Did you see the venue? Use your head a little. Are you suggesting its OK for a scope to do that even at one extreme of adjustment? You have no idea my background, how many high end scopes I've gone through, broken, tried, borrowed, etc. Before I usually decide what scopes to keep I usually have them on a match rifle for about 6 months, shoot a couple thousand rounds behind them in a variety of LR and tac matches. There is a lot of evaluation I'd like to do on the PST line. They'd be great on a backup rifle or for someone with limited funds. I posted my objective findings. Despite not running the elevation/windage to the extreme on that one scope (I did on others, and the ones with faint clicks had faint clicks through the entire range), those optical issues aren't supposed to be there. Click mushiness and consistency is something that can be fixed, and I'm sure they'll do that.
I didn't post much of what I thought subjectively. Even though something may not feel robust, doesn't mean it can't be. </div></div>
After knowing a little about RK's past experience with some high end scopes I'd trust his opinions more than most peoples opinions for sure!
Steve
