Rifle Scopes Vortex Viper PST clarity

[Danco411]

I run a 6-24 PST on my XLR 260. It's MOA/MOA in FFP. I like it for the reticle and zero stop. With an FFP scope there is no reason not to have the higher magnification since the reticle is correct at any mag level. When doing load testing or doing dot drills at 100 yards I like to have it dialled all the way up on 24 to see hits. Shooting steel out to 1000 yards I usually have it dialled back to 16-20 to reduce mirage and limit movement. I just don't see the issue between 4-16 and 6-24 unless you really have a need to dial down to 4 power (and 6 would be too much). Buy an FFP scope and dial to whatever magnification you need. You can never have too much when the need is there.

 

[Notso]

I run a 6-24 PST on my XLR 260. It's MOA/MOA in FFP. I like it for the reticle and zero stop. With an FFP scope there is no reason not to have the higher magnification since the reticle is correct at any mag level. When doing load testing or doing dot drills at 100 yards I like to have it dialled all the way up on 24 to see hits. Shooting steel out to 1000 yards I usually have it dialled back to 16-20 to reduce mirage and limit movement. I just don't see the issue between 4-16 and 6-24 unless you really have a need to dial down to 4 power (and 6 would be too much). Buy an FFP scope and dial to whatever magnification you need. You can never have too much when the need is there.

I agree with you about FFP and having more magnification even if you don't use it all the time. Also agree on mirage to a point.

However, I hear this a lot that people dial down when shooting at long range "to limit movement". Huh? Just because you don't "see" the crosshair moving doesn't mean its not moving with your breathing or whatever. Personally, I would rather see the reticle moving so I can better learn how to control it. That way when I pull a shot, I'm more likely to be able to correctly assess that it was shooter error and not just an unexplained flyer. YMMV

 

[Matno]

Great. Now I have more options to consider... Wasn't really planning on this being a mil vs MOA discussion, but now that it is, I think I may actually be changing my mind. I was planning to stick with MOA since that's what I'm used to, but in reality, the only thing I've used MOA for is theorizing about my accuracy ("sub MOA" ). However, if using the reticle to range distance (which is certainly a possibility), I can see how mils might be slightly simpler. Even though the calculations are the same with regard to meters and yards, most people leave out the fact that converting inches to yards is quite a bit more complicated math than centimeters to meters. The only ranging reticle I currently have is an ACOG, which I don't particularly like since it doesn't match my loads anyway. Since I've lived in Europe and use metric measurements for my work, I'm pretty comfortable with that system. So, from originally wanting a 4-16x MOA, I'm now thinking 6-24x MRAD! What a great forum!

 

[Matno]

I agree with you about FFP and having more magnification even if you don't use it all the time. Also agree on mirage to a point.

However, I hear this a lot that people dial down when shooting at long range "to limit movement".

I think there may be some reality to the idea that being aware of shake can actually accentuate it. I know that the harder I try, the less steady i get! Or maybe that's just related to how much caffeine I've had...

 

[ddavis]

I have a 6-24 PST and I'm happy with it. I never shoot on anything higher than 18x, even at 1,000 for several reasons. HOWEVER, it is still nice to be able to go up to 24x to see my hits or to spot for others, etc.

 

[Notso]

Great. Now I have more options to consider... Wasn't really planning on this being a mil vs MOA discussion, but now that it is, I think I may actually be changing my mind. I was planning to stick with MOA since that's what I'm used to, but in reality, the only thing I've used MOA for is theorizing about my accuracy ("sub MOA" ). However, if using the reticle to range distance (which is certainly a possibility), I can see how mils might be slightly simpler. Even though the calculations are the same with regard to meters and yards, most people leave out the fact that converting inches to yards is quite a bit more complicated math than centimeters to meters. The only ranging reticle I currently have is an ACOG, which I don't particularly like since it doesn't match my loads anyway. Since I've lived in Europe and use metric measurements for my work, I'm pretty comfortable with that system. So, from originally wanting a 4-16x MOA, I'm now thinking 6-24x MRAD! What a great forum!

I don't claim to be an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination. But I think the whole "ranging with the reticle" thing is WAY over-stated. The reality is you will likely rarely ever do it unless you are hunting at long ranges or shooting in TAC matches with a lot of UKD and they don't allow Laser range finders. Even with perfectly known target sizes and iPhone apps that do all the math for you - its still takes a lot of practice and proficiency to get it correct enough to get a 1st shot hit on a UKD target. It gets REALLY freaking hard when you have to also guessimate your target size as well. Sure its a nice feature to be able to range with it, but I think you will use it maybe 1% of your shooting time.... if that. So I would not get hung up about it as a reason to go MOA or MIL. I think the more compelling reason to go mil is because it is pretty much the world standard now. And because it is more the norm, when you talk to other shooters you are talking a common language. You can share dope, spot for each other, etc. And you will find more scopes in MRAD/Mil where the turrets and the reticle match.

I think you're making the correct decision to go with the 6-24x MRAD scope. But I would say the ranging aspect is likely the least of the drivers for the decision. It took me a while to train myself to stop thinking in terms of actual inches or cm or whatever in terms of miss distance when you're looking at your bullet impact relative to your point of aim. It doesn't matter that you were 4 inches left and 2" low. All that really matters is you were X units left and low based on whatever reticle unit of measurement in the scope.

If you really want to shoot UKD targets, get a cheapo LRF and save your brain cells.

I dunno.... am I out to lunch here? How many of you guys use your reticle to range things on a routine basis?

 

[Matno]

I think of it the same way I think of BUISs. Only necessary if things go wrong (e.g. range finder dies in the field). However, practicing it, and knowing how seems like a fun, if not super useful, thing to do...

 

[Notso]

I think there may be some reality to the idea that being aware of shake can actually accentuate it. I know that the harder I try, the less steady i get! Or maybe that's just related to how much caffeine I've had...

Whatever works for you, go for it. I'm just saying that if you can actually see the shake, or breath or jerkey trigger pull or whatever - you can learn from it and learn how to fix it. If you can't see it, then you can't fix it. And if you can't fix it, then you will never improve and you'll never know why you plateaued in skill.

What's the old saying???? Aim small, shoot small? I shoot at 100 yds on 25x because I want to aim at a specific pixel on the printed target rather than just somewhere in the circle. Same with a steel target at 1000 yds.... I want to be able to shoot at a specific spot on the steel that I can see rather than just somewhere center mass that the reticle is probably mostly covering up anyway.

Now there are probably very good tactical reasons to shoot in lower magnification if people are shooting back at you. I don't know, you would have to ask some of the real snipers here. But if its not on a 2-way shooting range, I can't see the drawbacks of shooting on the highest magnification you can stand, aside from mirage. And even then, I haven't found it to be much of a consideration - even in the 100+ desert heat.

Again, take this with a grain of salt from a relative novice. It works for me, it may not work for everybody.

 

[Notso]

I think of it the same way I think of BUISs. Only necessary if things go wrong (e.g. range finder dies in the field). However, practicing it, and knowing how seems like a fun, if not super useful, thing to do...

I absolutely don't disagree with that at all. I do it on occasion just to remind myself how it works. And it is fun to try to see how close you can get to the real number. But practicality wise - I wouldn't say its the main "reason" to get a MIL dot scope.