Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressio
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CSTactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But let’s say the reticle is SO canted it looks like an X <span style="text-decoration: underline">as long as you use the turrets that are level</span> the reticle will move on the X & Y access of the turrets and the <span style="text-decoration: underline">impact of the round will be in the center of the reticle</span>. You will not have to use the wind-age knob to correct for an error. </div></div>
While that is technically correct, I don't agree it's a desirable condition. To me, a fundamental part of marksmenship is trying not to cant the rifle--especially when shooting at long range. The reticle is your first tool with which to do so. Yes, there are environments where this is difficult and one should resort to referring to an external bubble level of some sort.
But it's not difficult in many environments. From targets to target frames to window frames to door frames to buildings to pine trees to animals the world is full of vertical references. Having to hold your scope crooked with the world in order to make it track correctly is not the optimum setup in my opinion.
I do realize at least one manufacturer says reticles canted up to 3 degrees are just fine. I disagree. Here is a reticle canted 3 degrees with the world:
If people don't mind holding their scope that crooked and using an external bubble level in situations where it shouldn't be needed in order to get the scope to operate correctly, it's their money. That's fine with me.
However, I will choose to spend my money on scopes with straight reticles.
Again, this scope wasn't nearly that bad as I stated above at only around 1 degree--it was just barely out enough to bother me. If that isn't enough to bother some people, that's fine. People were wanting to know the accuracy of the adjustments so that's what I reported.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know you always want a scope to be spot on but to be honest I do not feel 3% is that big of a deal. </div></div>
You're right, it's really not. For Ballistic Geeks like me I can compensate pretty easily. The thing is as this thread demonstrates very few people measure their clicks. If it says .1 Mil they expect it to be and so when they can't make first round hits even after doing everything else correctly because of an error in the scope, that makes the scope a poorer tool than a scope that is dead on.
And while there is much software out there now that allows you to compensate, this was not always the case. Some of the most popular software for a very long time was unable to compensate for out of spec clicks.
And when you're swapping a Mil scope for another Mil scope on a rifle having to use different dope for the same rifle, same load, etc, is rather annoying.
So while I agree more sophisticated users can compensate, that doesn't make it right. When $400 scopes can have accurate clicks, in my opinion there really isn't an excuse for more expensive tactical scopes to be very far out of spec.
Again, some manufacturers may disagree, but Vortex isn't one of them. They agree the scopes should be in spec and are working hard to make sure that they will be.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CSTactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But let’s say the reticle is SO canted it looks like an X <span style="text-decoration: underline">as long as you use the turrets that are level</span> the reticle will move on the X & Y access of the turrets and the <span style="text-decoration: underline">impact of the round will be in the center of the reticle</span>. You will not have to use the wind-age knob to correct for an error. </div></div>
While that is technically correct, I don't agree it's a desirable condition. To me, a fundamental part of marksmenship is trying not to cant the rifle--especially when shooting at long range. The reticle is your first tool with which to do so. Yes, there are environments where this is difficult and one should resort to referring to an external bubble level of some sort.
But it's not difficult in many environments. From targets to target frames to window frames to door frames to buildings to pine trees to animals the world is full of vertical references. Having to hold your scope crooked with the world in order to make it track correctly is not the optimum setup in my opinion.
I do realize at least one manufacturer says reticles canted up to 3 degrees are just fine. I disagree. Here is a reticle canted 3 degrees with the world:
If people don't mind holding their scope that crooked and using an external bubble level in situations where it shouldn't be needed in order to get the scope to operate correctly, it's their money. That's fine with me.
However, I will choose to spend my money on scopes with straight reticles.
Again, this scope wasn't nearly that bad as I stated above at only around 1 degree--it was just barely out enough to bother me. If that isn't enough to bother some people, that's fine. People were wanting to know the accuracy of the adjustments so that's what I reported.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know you always want a scope to be spot on but to be honest I do not feel 3% is that big of a deal. </div></div>
You're right, it's really not. For Ballistic Geeks like me I can compensate pretty easily. The thing is as this thread demonstrates very few people measure their clicks. If it says .1 Mil they expect it to be and so when they can't make first round hits even after doing everything else correctly because of an error in the scope, that makes the scope a poorer tool than a scope that is dead on.
And while there is much software out there now that allows you to compensate, this was not always the case. Some of the most popular software for a very long time was unable to compensate for out of spec clicks.
And when you're swapping a Mil scope for another Mil scope on a rifle having to use different dope for the same rifle, same load, etc, is rather annoying.
So while I agree more sophisticated users can compensate, that doesn't make it right. When $400 scopes can have accurate clicks, in my opinion there really isn't an excuse for more expensive tactical scopes to be very far out of spec.
Again, some manufacturers may disagree, but Vortex isn't one of them. They agree the scopes should be in spec and are working hard to make sure that they will be.
