• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes Weaver Tactical 3-15x50 VS Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50 (non FFP)

Sebastian777

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Oct 25, 2013
35
0
KY
I know this has been debated quite a lot on this forum as well as others. The problem with almost everyone of those threads is that people are talking about different uses for these scopes and it's difficult to get a clear answer. I'm hoping to restrict the scope of this thread so that I can get clear answers. (no "scope" pun intended) Not to sound like a dick, but for the purposes of this thread, I'm not interested in what is good for hunting or shooting steel targets with. I'm solely talking about shooting paper at up to 600 yards with the intention of accuracy and minimizing group size. Here is the breakdown of the features between the two.
........................Viper...........Weaver
Magnification.......6-24x..........3-15x
Reticle................EBR.............mil-dot
Focal Plane..........SFP.............FFP
Illumination..........Yes..............No
Weight...............22.4 oz........27.5oz

The features that I'm most interested in comparing between the scopes is the reticle, focal plane, magnification, glass, and turrets as I believe these are the only specs that will effect the type of shooting I'm wanting to do. (If I'm missing something please let me know.) Stuff like illumination and weight would simply be a tie-breaker for me.

I THINK the comparison really comes down to the Weaver's plane mil-dot FFP reticle and (possibly) slightly clearer glass vs the Viper's sfp EBR reticle and higher magnification. Am I correct in thinking this way? Which scope would better suit a new shooter who is primarily interested shooting paper up to 600 yards with the best accuracy and precision?

Additonal notes:
I've read the Viper PST 4-16x has some clarity issues that the 6-24x doesn't. So I'm really only interested in hearing about the 6-24x model's glass.
I'm aware that Vortex has an excellent transferable warranty. That really isn't a factor I want considered here though as I don't plan on ever selling it if I get one.
If it somehow makes a difference, the scope will be sitting on a Savage 10P-SR (18" heavy barrel) in .308.
Please don't cloud the thread with other recommendations. The only two choices I have are the Weaver Tactical 3-15x50 mil-dot and the Viper PST 6-24x50 (non ffp). Without wasting everyone's time going into details, just trust me that these are the only two I have to pick from. Also I don't want price difference to be factored in either.
The biggest thing that has me second guessing the Weaver, is that I'm not sure if 15x is enough for 600 yard shooting where I'm wanting to be sub-MOA. (Eventually getting to 1/2 MOA would be awesome.) That being said, I've read a little about mirage and question how useful having a higher power is.

Thanks in advance for all useful input.
 
Both have great Japanese glass but I cannot talk about the SFP model because I do not use any SFPs.
But one think I can tell you is the Weaver 3-15 or 4-20 are good scopes for that kind of money. I just got my son another one for a beater rifle.
Light transmission is very good. Tracks well and with precise clicks.
No chromatic aberration or asperity that I could appreciate.
The mil dot reticle is classic army dots plain but always reliable.

I don't even consider a 2FP when alternating targets at various ranges, fast corrections and ranging are in the menu.
Consistent units and FFP is the way IMO.

just my 2 cents.
 
Punching paper st 600yds without a doubt the extra 9x will come in handy. You msy have difficulties with mirage at 24x though from time to time and will have to drop down to 12x and adjust your turrets/holds accordingly. Ive owned two 4-16 PSTs and theyve been fine clarity wisr. Not top shelf but what I'd expect at this price point. A 4-16 moa ffp for 700 is/was in the PX, not a bad option as well. For your intended use I'd go with the 6-24 but wait for a used ffp so if you run into mirage you dont have to mess with adjusting your turrets and holds, just back down til mirage clears and let her fly.
 
For known distance paper punching the extra magnification will help, and the SFP is OK because you will probably be dialing your holds anyway. If you do holdovers exclusively then FFP is worthwhile. 15x is adequate at 600 yards, but I would certainly want more if I had the option, and didn't have a compelling need for the FFP. Based on your specific uses it sounds like the PST 6-24x50 is a better choice.
 
You msy have difficulties with mirage at 24x though from time to time and will have to drop down to 12x and adjust your turrets/holds accordingly. *** I'd go with the 6-24 but wait for a used ffp so if you run into mirage you dont have to mess with adjusting your turrets and holds, just back down til mirage clears and let her fly.

If your turret adjustments were correct at one magnification they will still be correct at other magnifications. The SFP/FFP reticle does not affect dialing the turrets. The only time SFP would be an issue, with a dead center (crosshair intersection) hold, would be if the reticle is off center.
 
If your turret adjustments were correct at one magnification they will still be correct at other magnifications. The SFP/FFP reticle does not affect dialing the turrets. The only time SFP would be an issue, with a dead center (crosshair intersection) hold, would be if the reticle is off center.

Yeah youre wrong, the subtensions on a SFP reticle are "calibrated" for a given magnification range. When you change to a different magnification that changes the value of the subtensions. Generally people back off to half powrr since it makes for easier math but if your scope has the detents in the power ring for other magnification values(like thr PSTs) then you can do the msth and back off to other powers than half. This video explains it a little better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhhckOLuiQQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Your holdovers most definitely change when using a sfp thats not set at the power the reticle was calibrated for.
 
Yeah youre wrong, the subtensions on a SFP reticle are "calibrated" for a given magnification range. When you change to a different magnification that changes the value of the subtensions. Generally people back off to half powrr since it makes for easier math but if your scope has the detents in the power ring for other magnification values(like thr PSTs) then you can do the msth and back off to other powers than half. This video explains it a little better
Your holdovers most definitely change when using a sfp thats not set at the power the reticle was calibrated for.

Go back and re-read my post that you claim is wrong. I am not talking about holdovers and reticle subtensions - I am well aware they are only calibrated at one power with a SFP scope. I was talking about dialing the turrets for your required adjustments, and using the dead center of the crosshairs as your aiming point. And I am correct.
 
Go back and re-read my post that you claim is wrong. I am not talking about holdovers and reticle subtensions - I am well aware they are only calibrated at one power with a SFP scope. I was talking about dialing the turrets for your required adjustments, and using the dead center of the crosshairs as your aiming point. And I am correct.

Who dials for wind though? I can count on one hand how many times I've had a steady wind that was worth dialing for. Every shooter I know dials elevation and calls wind then uses the reticle for wind correction. Why you'd even make a post that muddys the water for someone who is obviously new to long range shooting doesnt make sense unless youre just here to show how smart you are. At any other powrr than 24 the adjustments made to the turrets will have a different value than what you see on the reticle and can be confusing for new shooters. Unless youve got a spotter who has a mil reticle to help you adjust your shots being able to watch your hits in the reticle and adjust accordingly is very helpful without having to do a bunch of mental gumnastics to get there.
 
Who dials for wind though? I can count on one hand how many times I've had a steady wind that was worth dialing for. Every shooter I know dials elevation and calls wind then uses the reticle for wind correction. Why you'd even make a post that muddys the water for someone who is obviously new to long range shooting doesnt make sense unless youre just here to show how smart you are. At any other powrr than 24 the adjustments made to the turrets will have a different value than what you see on the reticle and can be confusing for new shooters. Unless youve got a spotter who has a mil reticle to help you adjust your shots being able to watch your hits in the reticle and adjust accordingly is very helpful without having to do a bunch of mental gumnastics to get there.

OP is asking specifically about paper punching at a known distance. Not asking about hunting or tactical use or whatever. When I shoot known distance at 600 yards (F/TR, 600 is the longest range within about 100 miles) I often dial wind, as well as elevation. Given the large number of competition scopes that are SFP and have simple crosshair or dot reticles (no mildot or hash or any other ranging or holdover design), I suspect there are a lot of other shooters who dial wind. I think you are looking at things from a narrow perspective of a different type of use. I am trying to respond to the OP's clearly and rather emphatically stated use.
 
Im not a competition guy (just dont have time unfortunately) but the guys I shoot with as well as myself hold for wind. Stacking adjustments is a recipe for failure imo. What happens when the wind slows down below what youve got your turret set for? Might as well hold it all on the reticle to leave out math error. I think you will find most that shoot long distance with any regularity have subtension reticles in one form or another. I dont know of anyone who uses a duplex variant reticle anymore these days. At any rate both scopes the OP mention are subtensioned reticles and he needs to decide how he wants to shoot. Dialing for wind just adds more chance for error and heartache imo. My next scope will be a razor 5-20, swfa 5-20 or a bushnell 3.5-21, all of which are ffp so if I need to back off mag for mirage I dont have to break out the mathematics. Calling wind is difficult enough why make the rest of the process more difficult.
 
I did not read through the whole thread, just a note, the Weaver tac 3-15x50 EDMR is illuminated.

I owned the Weaver and a Vortex HS,

Weaver, subjectively clearer and more contrast, less aberration. Objectively I was able to recognize smaller line pairs using the old USAF chart. Not gonna debate if it is a valid tool or not.

Vortex, has the zero stops and significantly lighter than the Weaver.

Weaver has less mag, but it is useful through the whole mag range. I kept my Vortex at x8 or x9 at most because anything beyond that was not of optimum optical quality.


Sold them both and now have a NF


Just my 2cents.
 
Well I just ordered a Viper PST 6-24x50 FFP. Got a great deal on it from Camera Land, one of the vendors listed on this site. If you are interested in this scope I highly recommend you call them and ask about deals going on.
 
Last edited:
In short, with enough practice you can be just as effective with either. To me, I find wind calls easier with the mildot system.

Ranging is great if you know the actual size of the target in inches or yards, most times I just use my LRF.

Hopefully this thread does not get derailed with the old MOA/MIL debate.
 
I would recommenced going with the Vortex. I have used the Weaver they are OK but for the price they Vortex is a lot nicer. The Vortex has better reticles and the turrets feel better.

Mike @ CSTACTICAL
 
Hopefully this thread does not get derailed with the old MOA/MIL debate.

Yeah I took that part of my post out, so as to not introduce another topic into what I wanted to be a very focused thread.
 
Last edited: