Rifle Scopes new gun, new scope, new problems

[grassynoel]

I ended up with a lot of .223 sitting around and thought a fun way to get rid of it would be doing some prairie dog shooting or something similar. So I got one of the Mossberg MVP with a 24 inch barrel and one of the Vortex Viper 6-24 x 50 scopes that SWFA had on closeout. Until now my only experience with shooting past 300 or so yards has been with my M1a with a fixed 10x Unertl scope. So far I'm under impressed with the Vortex scope but I'm not sure if its mounted improperly, or possibly if I got a bad one.

At 100 yards the setup seems fine. It zeroed easily and there is little difficulty in putting holes in the center of the target. When I moved out to 250 yards I could still hit on the paper without any trouble but when I turned up the magnification the image went to crap. At around 12x the image got fairly blurry. When I turned the magnification up to 24 to try to see where my bullets were hitting, the eye relief had changed completely. I had to move my head closer to the scope to bring the reticle into view and even then it seemed there was always a half moon type artifact. I could tell at least some of the image distortion was coming from mirage off the ground even though it wasn't that hot out. I thought maybe there wasn't enough ambient light for that high of power so I removed the sunshade which didn't seem to help any. It seemed like anything above 12x and the image was unstable and almost useless. I adjusted the crosshair focus without any result, and I attempted to adjust the side focus, starting with the focus changed to 250 yards and then adjusting from there, which didn't seem to help either.

I realize this isn't going to be a 1000yard gun, and I know there are better scopes out there than Vortex but inside of 300 yards I was expecting much more clarity from the scope. So any ideas on stuff I've done wrong or should I call Vortex?

 

[Hoodlum]

The eye relief on my vortex, as well as all other scopes I have ever owned changes with increased magnification. The image also becomes somewhat distorted, and the eye position as far as being aligned with the scope, also becomes more sensitive. As far as being blurry, I haven't really had that problem. It does appear a bit more foggy looking, but not blurry. I can see 30cal holes in paper out past 300 with it...
Hoodlum

 

[the once-ler]

On those lower end scopes when you zoom in you are actually zooming into any imperfections in the glass and it's design. This is what you are paying for when drop cash on higher and higher end optics. You are paying for the superior lens materials, the more complicated design and the tighter tolerances in the objective lens sets. Now take a March and zoom it up to some of the higher mags they boast and you will see what your big $$ have actually bought you.

That being said you may have got what I call a "factory freak" which can be a really good example or really bad example of that particular model.

 

[42769vette]

Mount the scope with it on max zoom. That is where the eyebox is the smallest.

 

[delixe]

Early reports on the new Burris XTR II scopes are very favorable.
When you add one to the shopping cart at Liberty Optics you'll see the discount you get over the very reasonable MAP.
They have a lot of features for the $$$ and one Hide member rates them a step above the Viper PSTs.

 

[the once-ler]

I had a Viper and wasn't at all impressed. If you are looking for a "fair clarity" lower end optic SWFA SS and Bushnell ET are pretty hard to beat. And like the above ^^^ I have heard good about the Burris offerings. Magnification is useless without resolution. So any "lower end" optic above 14x is almost wasted

 

[the once-ler]

Where in the world did the term "eye box" come from? It's called an exit pupil. Come back about 2 feet from the ocular and raise and lower the magnification you can actually see the exit pupil grow and shrink as a circle of image surrounded by black.

 

[grassynoel]

I think Hoodlum's description of foggy is pretty accurate. I may try putting some more rounds through it in different lighting and see if I can live with it.

 

[MaxLoad]

The eye relief on my vortex, as well as all other scopes I have ever owned changes with increased magnification. The image also becomes somewhat distorted, and the eye position as far as being aligned with the scope, also becomes more sensitive. As far as being blurry, I haven't really had that problem. It does appear a bit more foggy looking, but not blurry. I can see 30cal holes in paper out past 300 with it...
Hoodlum

My experiences are about the same as yours.

I have the 6-24x and in the 12x to 16x range is very clear and crisp... once you start moving to the 20-24x area it does get foggier, but its still completely usable.

 

[delixe]

Where in the world did the term "eye box" come from? It's called an exit pupil. Come back about 2 feet from the ocular and raise and lower the magnification you can actually see the exit pupil grow and shrink as a circle of image surrounded by black.

Eye box is a very commonly used term around here.
It refers to the area within which the shooter's eye must be positioned to allow an unobstructed view through the scope.
March 3-24x42s have a notoriously small eye box at high magnification, while the Steiner 5-25x56 is reputed to have a large eye box relative to its competition like the S&B 5-25x56. Some would say it is "easy to get behind" the Steiner.
The size of a scope's exit pupil is a factor in the size of the resulting eye box, but it's not the only one, as 2 scopes with the same objective size and magnification have the same exit pupil yet may have vastly different eye boxes.

 

[the once-ler]

How can two scopes with the same exit pupil have massively diff eye-box? your side to side + up and down degree of positioning are both going to be the same, once your eye's pupil meets the ocular EP your view stops there. Unless the front to rear of the eyebox positioning is playing a huge factor.

 

[delixe]

How can two scopes with the same exit pupil have massively diff eye-box? your side to side + up and down degree of positioning are both going to be the same, once your eye's pupil meets the ocular EP your view stops there. Unless the front to rear of the eyebox positioning is playing a huge factor.

It's not just the size of the exit pupil, it's the design of the ocular that dictates the size of the eye box.
"Vastly" was the wrong adverb to use; noticeably would have been more accurate.

 

[AED146]

Buy a SB scope no regrets


AMF

 

[MarkCO]

I bought a Viper on special too, gone in less than a week. Went to the PST, dealt with the same issues you are having for a few months, took it off the rifle after one hunt. Past 500 or 15X it was not up to the task. That rifle is now wearing an XTRII which is so much better.

 

[42769vette]

Where in the world did the term "eye box" come from? It's called an exit pupil. Come back about 2 feet from the ocular and raise and lower the magnification you can actually see the exit pupil grow and shrink as a circle of image surrounded by black.

No its not called exit pupil. The exist pupil is something else.

You use the exit pupil as a factory in determining eyebox, but its not the only thing you figure in.

Google is your friend sir.

 

[billyburl2]

How can two scopes with the same exit pupil have massively diff eye-box? your side to side + up and down degree of positioning are both going to be the same, once your eye's pupil meets the ocular EP your view stops there. Unless the front to rear of the eyebox positioning is playing a huge factor.

I guess you have never looked through a Hensoldt?

 

[the once-ler]

Oh yes Billy I own one. A Henny ZF 4-16 FF. Great eyebox as everyone knows I do wish it had the NH1 reticle tho as the MD is too heavy at hi mag.

 

[Rattler56]

My Vortex 6-24x50 was touchy as to the ring torque, it was fuzzy like you are referring to at 15 in pounds, backed it off
to 12 and problem solved.
Rings weren't lapped, that would probley have fixed it also.

 

[the once-ler]

Uh that ring tightness business really doesn't sound right there Rattler

 

[Rattler56]

Uh that ring tightness business really doesn't sound right there Rattler

I called Vortex and thats what they suggested, I might have not torqued it right the first time however it worked.