• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!

    Create a channel Learn more
  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Rifle Scopes Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

I think people were expecting that a company would want to put out a quality product they are proud of. Wait a minute! That stopped several decades ago , what was I thinking!
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 4thSeal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i am curious how you measured your reticle cant though... </div></div>

Yeah if the reticle is canted but the scope is level wouldn't the center of the crosshair still stay on your target (like if you have a rope and a plumbob having from a tree) as you adjust it up and down?
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It all depends on who is looking through it. He might just be picky. I expected them to have glass about like a leupold VX3 or maybe a Nikon Monarch,</div></div>
You are 100% on. I am picky when it comes to glass. I have been spoiled by IOR, S&B, Premier, etc, so even "good glass" looks ho-hum to me. I haven't compared this side by side with a VX3 yet but based upon prior experience I'd say the PST glass would be about on par with it. I'd have to compare side by side to declare a winner but but the VX3 glass certainly wouldn't win by much, if at all.

Again folks, please try and keep perspective. I really wasn't expecting these to have IOR or S&B quality glass at their price point, I was just hoping it might be a bit closer. As I said before, my expectations may have been a bit unrealistic.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GIC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll go with a Leupold before I go with one of these, never had any problems like this with my Leupolds. </div></div>
It's unfortunate some feel this way. The worry people would is one reason I almost felt like I shouldn't post at all and it really isn't fair to Vortex.

I guarantee you, if you sent me all your Leupolds I would find canted reticles and click values in error. You just probably haven't noticed them if they're small enough and you don't measure as carefully as I do. 99.9% of shooters do not measure the tracking of their optics as meticulously as I do--even though I tell them they should. I don't care what brand it is, until you measure it yourself you just don't know.

Vortex just sort of drew the short end of the stick having one of the first ones that happened to have a couple issues come to me. This exact scope could have gone to 1000 other people and nobody would have noticed.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">honestly i can't believe all these comments. really what did you guys expect? it is ffp, matching knobs/reticle, illuminated w/zero stops all for under $900. something has to give to get all those features in that price range.</div></div>
You are obviously correct, but it sounds like tracking accuracy, quality control, and overall glass quality are what 'gave'. BIG deal breakers for MOST people looking to spend nearly $1k on a scope.
Everyone is all giddy about them being FFP scopes for under $1k(myself included), but if they don't track properly and the glass is only so-so, the FFP is only a novelty item.
All the hype made these out to be impressive scopes for a doubly impressive price. The reality doesn't seem to be meeting the hype.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bodywerks</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A little more money</div></div>

I really like the nightforce 5.5-22 but to say that it's only a "little more money" is a bit of a stretch. There's one at my local store for 1632, 5.5-22 with matching MOA reticle and knobs but still SFP.



</div></div>
It is a bit of a stretch, but it's a proven scope with the kind of glass I was looking for. I will be doing a lot of mid-long range shooting with it, so glass and tracking accuracy are a big deal to me. The Nightforce will probably be the last scope I need for a good while. And if I ever feel I want an FFP scope, the NF line hold their value pretty well so I can upgrade with very little loss.
I think the PST will still be a good value-priced scope when it finally gets the bugs worked out. I'd just rather spend the toward better glass and a proven scope right now. FFP ain't worth it to me if the glass and tracking accuracy aren't up to par.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jon A</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It all depends on who is looking through it. He might just be picky. I expected them to have glass about like a leupold VX3 or maybe a Nikon Monarch,</div></div>
You are 100% on. I am picky when it comes to glass. I have been spoiled by IOR, S&B, Premier, etc, so even "good glass" looks ho-hum to me. I haven't compared this side by side with a VX3 yet but based upon prior experience I'd say the PST glass would be about on par with it. I'd have to compare side by side to declare a winner but but the VX3 glass certainly wouldn't win by much, if at all.

Again folks, please try and keep perspective. I really wasn't expecting these to have IOR or S&B quality glass at their price point, I was just hoping it might be a bit closer. As I said before, my expectations may have been a bit unrealistic.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GIC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll go with a Leupold before I go with one of these, never had any problems like this with my Leupolds. </div></div>
It's unfortunate some feel this way. The worry people would is one reason I almost felt like I shouldn't post at all and it really isn't fair to Vortex.

I guarantee you, if you sent me all your Leupolds I would find canted reticles and click values in error. You just probably haven't noticed them if they're small enough and you don't measure as carefully as I do. 99.9% of shooters do not measure the tracking of their optics as meticulously as I do--even though I tell them they should. I don't care what brand it is, until you measure it yourself you just don't know.

Vortex just sort of drew the short end of the stick having one of the first ones that happened to have a couple issues come to me. This exact scope could have gone to 1000 other people and nobody would have noticed. </div></div>

Whoa whoa whoa, hold on there chief. I never said the canted glass was the only reason I wont be buying one. I think they have issues with QC among other things. I didn't say they are a bad company only that there are better ones out there. Seems that others have had issues as well.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1892361&gonew=1#UNREAD
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GIC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Whoa whoa whoa, hold on there chief. I never said the canted glass was the only reason I wont be buying one. I think they have issues with QC among other things. I didn't say they are a bad company only that there are better ones out there. Seems that others have had issues as well.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1892361&gonew=1#UNREAD </div></div>

Eh, funny how 1 busted one and 1 with problems that most shooters would never notice is a nail in the coffin of an entire product line.

Leupold? Heh I own several, and every single one has been back to the factory. The funny part is I'm easy with them and hard on my IORs and SS10x42, yet they have held up fine.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bodywerks</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It is a bit of a stretch, but it's a proven scope with the kind of glass I was looking for. </div></div>

Same, NF has glass comparable to my IORs with the features I want. If more of these PST threads keep popping up I may just get a NF instead.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Come on folks! If Vortex has proven nothing else they make great products and they stand behind them better than any company that I have ever seen in my 53 years on this planet. We have seen two scopes that have had issues so far and the sky is falling on your heads. Scott from Vortex was on here Johnny on the spot to address the issues and let those folks know that these issues were not acceptable and they would be addressed by him personally! My God almighty, what other company have you seen that out front and caring about their customers?

I have zero doubt that once the rush is over that the Viper PST's will have proven to be a great product. What has Vortex done yet that would suggest otherwise? The Razor is obviously a complete and utter failure right? The standard Viper series are worthless? Give me a break please.

Vortex has listened to all of the input that people were looking for in a new scope design and they are working feverishly to bring it to market. I have to wonder about how serious people really are when they say that they are dropping their orders and changing their minds based upon two defective units. I really think that some of these posts are just BS myself. People love to yell fire in theaters it seems sometimes.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GIC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First you say that 2 problems shouldn't be a nail in the coffin, now your going to get a NF instead? Talking out of both sides of your mouth. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">If</span> more of these PST threads keep popping up I <span style="font-weight: bold">may</span> just get a NF instead.</div></div>

You know, I figured a two sentence post would be pretty clear. I guess I was wrong.

And McKinney is correct - Vortex guy was on here right away and said that they would take care of these scopes. That says a lot.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

I think I over reacted after reading the initial post. The OP is obviously quite anal about this stuff and he says he could find the same stuff wrong with other scopes.

If you just calm down and read what is really being said it sounds like it is still a pretty good scope.
The OP still has another one on order and he isn't canceling. He is also saying his expectations may have been unrealistically high and is himself calling for keeping things in perspective. You think maybe some folks on here aren't?

I've been reading about these same complaints for years with other tactical scopes. Bang it on a phone book, 100 clicks equals 97, etc.
As the OP says himself, this anti hype with the PST has likely as much to do with bad timing with a tough reviewer as anything else.

I can save $1200 a half pound because I <span style="text-decoration: underline">may</span> have to dial a couple more clicks at 1000 yards? Really?
And the high dollar scope still might have the same problems if it were tested the same way?
That's easy money man. Doing what I like too.
One things for sure, you pay that much money you better hit that freaking target! You want to follow that PST that just hit it? Ha!

All I'm saying is time will tell with these and by that time there will probably be more good offerings out too so we may as well just relax. Besides, durability is going to be a biggie anyways.
If other new scopes get Jon A straight out of the gate well that's just tough!
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Jon, if you have any, I'd love to read some of your other optic reviews. If you don't mind sending me a link or at least pointing me the right way I'd much appreciate it.

Thank you for the thorough review. I feel confident that I made the right choice of my first scopes (I pre-ordered 2x of the 4x16 SFP mil/mil models and 1x 1x4 mil/mil models) for my 6.5Grendel, 6.8SPC, and 5.56, based on your review. Thank you again.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the OP did an awesome review. I really liked reading it & it told me a lot. </div></div>

This.

I appreciate the time that went into the review, and will still be purchasing my PST. Knowing what to look for is nice though.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

You guys are being way to harsh. This is there first batch, there were bound to be problems small or large just like when premier had to swap out the clickers on there scopes. The OP was just letting you all know his personal feelings on the scope and what he tested. There was nothing major nor something Vortex will not handle very professionally.

From what I hear Vortex has great CS. I would be disappointed, not worried.

GG
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Same here. My decision to purchase a NF instead was on my mind before these reviews started coming out. The PST will be a great scope in it's price range.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Great review and pictures Jon, thank you very much!! I appreciate the time you put into this for us, even with the negatives!

I was wondering if you might wander over to a thread I started here and perhaps share some info on your testing methods? I would appreciate any input you might have to share that could help the rest of us out for when we get our's!
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

While I agree with that in terms of glass quality, that there's no way we are going to see $3000 scope glass quality on a $900 scope and expecting that is just silly. That the things like the knobs turning too easy, reticule cant, and the clicks not being accurate are big issues to a lot of long range shooters.

It's unfair to judge them all on this single review, the other 1000 scopes might be perfect. However it's still important feedback that may show a quality control problem that needs to be addressed, so it's not useless information either. Time will tell as more reviews and real world users get some use on them and can report back.

I'm sure people hoped the glass quality would be very high, and the vortex viper line has good glass, but nothing special so for more than double the price I'm sure users hoped it would have improved glass as well. If all it compares with is the VX3 line in glass quality that's not saying much. That said I and I think most shooters would be happy to make some concessions on the glass quality but knobs that turn too easy, canted reticule, and clicks not being the correct value I can't forgive.

We'll all find out more as time goes on, vortex has a great customer service rep so lets give them some time to address the issues and see if other scopes suffer from the same problems.

You have to expect that if you beta test a new product that there are bound to be more issues with the first couple batches. Ask all those people with the new Iphone's that drop calls when you hold them the wrong way
smile.gif
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

My gosh the sky is falling with this thread.

First Jon, nice write up, very thorough! You show you understand how to actually test a scope. I’ll go out on a limb on this one but I doubt a lot (most) of the folks who are running scared and screaming the sky is falling wouldn’t know how to actually test a scope for a canted reticle and the actual reticle tracking, let alone the optics quality.

Most scopes I test for myself and for friends fail for canted reticle to some degree but more fail for inaccurate tracking. You cannot perform a box test by shooting your rifle and accurately check to see just how accurate your turrets track. When I ask most knowledgeable shooters this is how they do it if at all. Then you ask how they check for a canted reticle and they look at you as if you had three eyes. You’re asking why we can’t do it this way. No one factors in the accuracy of the actual rifle as a huge variable and no way of a truly repeatable set up and test shot after shot.

We’re anal retentive when it comes to scope testing. I have a full size cinder block with a set of Burris signature rings (the ones with the plastic ring inserts so we don’t mar the scope). The mounts and rings have been mounted so they are perfectly level to the cinder block. We make sure the cinder block is perfectly level on the shooting bench. We set up a ruler marked target at exactly 100 yards. We use a weighted string to align the vertical ruler line on the target.

Next we mount the scope so that the vertical cross hair is absolutely in line with the vertical ruler mark on the target. This hallows us check for a canted reticle in regards to the erector movement. Some of the best scopes are off by less than .5 to 1 degrees. It also allows us to check the accuracy of the mil spacing on the reticle as this varies from scope brands to a degree. If not using a front focal plane reticle it also allows us to mark the zoom ring on the scope at the exact point where range estimation using mil/mildots is correct.

Next we check the tracking accuracy under completely controlled circumstances. By dialing in x amount of clicks and following the tracking on the ruler grid we can very accurately measure the tracking. Is the scope truly .25 moa or some other variable. Some scopes have passed on the vertical tracking adjustment and failed on the windage adjustment or vise versa. You would be surprised just how many scopes don’t track as advertised. Lastly we run a box test to check for repeatability. Most scopes pass this test; it’s the two previous tests where they fail.

BTW, my current 6.5-24X44mm Vortex Viper did superb when tested and I expect my new PST I ordered to do the same but it will be tested thoroughly and correctly.

IMHO, most of you are wasting your money on a front focal plane reticle and following the masses. I saved quite a bit of money on my new PST by not purchasing the FFP reticle. How many of you are actually using MRAD or MOA reticle for range estimation…come on be honest? I have a laser range finder to do that for me, but I also don’t compete in tactical competitions any longer.

Take a deep breath and relax before you start screaming the sky is falling and basing your decision on one test, which by the way was done very well from what I can tell. Look at the whole picture/package before making your determination or change. Also note some of the scopes you want to change to might not perform exactly as advertised if tested properly and thoroughly. I’ve had a $99.00 Tasco pass these tests with flying colors and a $2500.00 scope not do as well. No I’m not talking optic quality.

Just my $0.02 on the matter.

PS: If I offended you on this it was not my intent, as with Jon’s write up we’re just trying to educate and offer insight.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Jeff - While I really appreciate your well written opinion, please stop. You are ruining my chances of getting one of the Exchange at a discount
smile.gif
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Hmmm... thats funny I scrolled through again and still havent found anyone saying the sky is falling. Maybe if I do it again. Please show me who is freaking out, and stop bashing people for deciding against a scope that is relatively new and MAY (read it again I said MAY) need to have some kinks worked out. Dont get your panties in a bunch ladies.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

I have also been considering Nightforce, not so much due to quality, but because I could have had it months ago.
I decided to hold out and wait for the 6-24 FFP PST because of what I would have had to pay for a Nightforce with a lesser magnification range, zero stops, and FFP.
A Nightforce NXS F1 3.5-15 matching ret/adj,FFP is going to be in the neighborhood of $2300. Thats almost 3 times the price of the PST!
I'm keeping mine on order. I've waited this long, so I might as well wait a little longer and see what I get.
If anyone who has had a PST on order for a long time wants to cancel, I'd be happy to take their place in line.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressio

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Semour Gunz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have also been considering Nightforce, not so much due to quality, but because I could have had it months ago.
I decided to hold out and wait for the 6-24 FFP PST because of what I would have had to pay for a Nightforce with a lesser magnification range, zero stops, and FFP.
A Nightforce NXS F1 3.5-15 matching ret/adj,FFP is going to be in the neighborhood of $2300. Thats almost 3 times the price of the PST!
I'm keeping mine on order. I've waited this long, so I might as well wait a little longer and see what I get.
If anyone who has had a PST on order for a long time wants to cancel, I'd be happy to take their place in line. </div></div>

That's how I feel about the situation. I was ready to shell out the extra cash about two months ago so I could go shoot my rifle. I am confident that vortex will make it right if it is not perfect.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressio

<span style="font-size: 14pt">Looks like my 4-16 FFP 1/10mil will be here with in the next 5 days. I will advise back what I find and if it shares any of the same concerns.</span>

But my pictures wont be as good...
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressio

Wow. The reaction to this new scope line is pretty amazing. I agree that the customer should get what they pay for, but folks, this is a first-run scope that's being reviewed here! Shoot, even CARS get recalls sometimes, and they cost well into the thousands!

I'm glad I didn't sign up for a first batch run of these scopes, as I've never been one to get a first run of anything. BUT, it's been my experience that once a product is introduced and the teething problems are worked out, the item generally turns out to be amazing. I have no doubt that this will be the case with the PST line. It just may take a short while for them to REALLY shake the bugs out, which is to be expected.

To sum things up: If I can't afford the USO that's I've been wanting for a LONG time by the time I feel these are truely market ready, I'll be picking one up for my .308 and using the heck out of it until I can afford the USO. I think these scopes have real potential, but like anything else, there WILL be initial production issues. Stay calm, let Vortex help if need be, and everything will be alright. Sheesh!
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Diggler44 this is what I expected, otherwise by a Falcon!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bodywerks</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, but I think a lot of the money is spent of the FFP aspect of the scope. I don't need FFP that bad - I value EXCELLENT glass and PRECISE tracking, and PROVEN performance far more than the convenience of a First Focal Plane reticle...
With that in mind, it sounds like there is some teething that these scopes need to go through, so it looks like there will be one more 6-24FFP MOA scope available as I just ordered a Nightforce NXS 5.5-22 with the NP-R1 reticle. A little more money, but I know what it's capable of and it's a proven scope. Nothing against Vortex, and i am sure this will be an excellent scope line, but I've been the guinea pig too many times before. </div></div>
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff in TX</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How many of you are actually using MRAD or MOA reticle for range estimation…come on be honest?
</div></div>
OK! I admit it! I don't use FFP reticules for range finding.
There I said it.

I do use them to zero for my 2nd shot if I miss my first at any range and any power setting without doing any math though.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff in TX</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most scopes I test for myself and for friends fail for canted reticle to some degree but more fail for inaccurate tracking.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff in TX</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I’ve had a $99.00 Tasco pass these tests with flying colors and a $2500.00 scope not do as well. No I’m not talking optic quality. </div></div>
I think these are interesting points that seem to be overlooked or ignored here.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

I just wanted to chime in on this doom and gloom thread. I'm the "other guy" with the broken PST. I called Scott at Vortex this morning and he was very apologetic and they sent me a replacement out today and I should have it in a few days. When I get the replacement, it'll have a return label for the defective scope. How many companies will send you a replacement scope before receiving the old one back?

Also, I ordered two of these scopes and got the second one today. It is blob free and looks to be in perfect condition. So far I've only mounted and bore sighted it, but I'm hoping to get it out tomorrow and zero it and do some tracking drills.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

I have two of these (6-24x50) on order and been desperately waiting on a review. Listening to this review and the one posted by CsTactical (available on YOUTUBE) I must say that I still feel I made a good decision. I am sure the turrets are nowhere near as soft as half of you are imagining they are and if the glass on these are comparable to a vari x3 then having owned a Leupold Mark 4 (which has vari x3 glass and sells for much more)then I can tell tell you that no one outside of a competition shooter here will be dissappointed. I must admit that the cant in the reticle did scare me a bit, however, later hearing that this is fairly common has opened my eyes to realize that I have probably shot and possibly own other scopes with these issues and never noticed a problem. For those of us who purchased these thinking we were getting a bargain I think we were not that far off . Maybe we went to far when we thought we could compete with the "BIG BOYS" i.e. NF,IOR,USO etc. for $900 but when you compare the features that this scope has and the warranty backing it up then I think we can all agree that we are getting more than our money's worth
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: daveog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just wanted to chime in on this doom and gloom thread. I'm the "other guy" with the broken PST. I called Scott at Vortex this morning and he was very apologetic and they sent me a replacement out today and I should have it in a few days. When I get the replacement, it'll have a return label for the defective scope. How many companies will send you a replacement scope before receiving the old one back?

Also, I ordered two of these scopes and got the second one today. It is blob free and looks to be in perfect condition. So far I've only mounted and bore sighted it, but I'm hoping to get it out tomorrow and zero it and do some tracking drills.</div></div>

Best of luck, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and opinions on your new scopes. Mine should be here soon, and I too think I made a good choice with Vortex. This being the first ever batch of scopes they've shipped out (of the PSTs of course), it's understandable that there might be some blips here and there.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Good words, Jeff. And good tips on measuring scopes. Thanks.

For others asking, I'll try and give a little primer.

First of all, check out Lindy's http://www.arcanamavens.com/LBSFiles/Shooting/Downloads/ScopeChecking/ for some excellent information some of which I'll duplicate below.

It's not rocket science guys, you don't need to be an Engineer or even be particularly smart. You just need to be smart enough to realize it's an important thing to do if you shoot long range much.

About the easiest method in "the real world" is with a yardstick because everybody has one and they work out nicely being exactly 10 Mils at 100 yds:

MilCalibrationVerify.jpg


Naturally it's easier to be more accurate with a higher powered scope:

ReticleCalCheck.jpg


Easy way to verify the calibration of your reticle. 10 mils, 36". Bam, done.

Next you want to verify click value and/or reticle perpendicularity with respect to the turret movement. For this you need to hold the rifle very steady. It's very difficult to do by yourself by hand; if you do it a bunch of times and sort of take an average you can get an idea if there's a big error but you won't be exact. Having buddies hold the rifle and click the scope while you look increases accuracy somewhat. But by far the best is having a gunsmith vice of some type so you can solidly lock down the rifle.

I've seen people mention using calibrated paper. That's fine too as long as it's big enough (measuring 10" or so at 100 yds just isn't enough accuracy; I feel 10 mils or more is the minimum), it's far enough (the closer the paper or object is the smaller the errors will be that you're trying to measure) and it needs to be far enough you can eliminate parallax <span style="font-weight: bold">completely.</span>

You don't even need any measuring device to get some good data. With a good tactical reticle, you can get a relative measurement between the reticle and the turrets by pointing at anything. Typical Mil reticles are very easy as the top and bottom posts are usually 10 Mils apart. Simply line the top of the bottom post on an aiming point in the distance exactly and crank in 10 mils. If the top post's edge is now exactly where the bottom post's edge was, your reticle matches your clicks.

Relatively speaking they're dead on with one another. You should still check them with a yardstick, barber pole, etc, to make sure they're absolutely correct, but in my experience reticles are more consistent than click values so your odds look good.

The same goes for reticle cant with respect to the turrets. All you need is a straight edge at which to aim. It can be a yardstick, post, corner of a building, etc. But it needs to be perfectly straight.

Lock down the rifle with the reticle on the edge--exactly lined up on the edge and crank in 10 mils or so. If the reticle stays on the edge, you're good. If it moves laterally with your vertical turret input, you have a reticle that's not square with the turrets. Clicking windage to see how many clicks it takes to put the reticle back on the edge will allow you to calculate the angle.

Another tool one can use to check these things is a collimator. Some quality boresighters with a good grid qualify so we aren't talking about some super expensive lab equipment here. If you do things correctly, you will get exactly the same answers using one of these and doing stuff "in the real world." I've done it enough times both ways to feel very confident accurate results can be had using one of these--actually I feel this method provides better accuracy since rifle movement is taken out of the equation, mirage is taken out of the equation, parallax is taken out of the equation, etc.

Here's a visual on how that works:

DSC00455.JPG


First, line stuff up and check the reticle against the grid. This grid is in IPHY. As you can see, the 2 mil mark above the horizontal stadia and the 8 mil mark show 10 mils equal 36" on the grid--within a fraction of a line width or so which I figure is "close enough."

DSC00440.JPG


Then you line stuff up; I used a line to the right of the main one as it made the pics look less cluttered. For checking reticle cant you must line up the vertical line with the reticle as well as humanly possible.

DSC00444.JPG


Crank in 10 Mils. Here are your results. As you can see with this scope, the first thing you've noticed is the reticle is no longer on the line. It has not just shifted a tiny fraction laterally but you can actually see daylight between the line and reticle. This shows the reticle cant with respect to the turrets (the tool and the reticle are lined up making the turrets canted with respect to them).

Measure it numerous times, line the thing up over and over and you get an average of roughly 1.5-2 clicks required to put it back on the line. That translates into a degree or a bit more. Just enough I can't say "good enough."

Next notice the reticle has moved a bit more than 37" where it should have only moved 36". We checked the grid against the reticle so even if the grid was off, that would mean the reticle was also off as the reticle and the turrets don't agree. Either way, you have a problem.

Now while you don't need to calibrate a yardstick, you should calibrate (or at least check the calibration of) your grid in the collimator. The easiest way of doing this is checking it against scopes with known good reticles--that you've carefully checked in the real world and verified. I've done that with this one with numerous high end scopes (including the IORs pictured above but didn't happen to take a pic of them) so I know it's within a fraction of 1% true.

But for peace of mind it's always good to have a control, a standard, a sanity check. For this I threw on a Premier 3-15X50:

DSC00460.JPG


10 Mils on the reticle measures 36" within a fraction of a line width ("good enough").

DSC00470.JPG


Line things up the same way.

DSC00467.JPG


Crank in 10 mils. As you can see, the reticle is still on the line. It may have shifted a small fraction of the line's width amounting to a small fraction of 1 degree, but it's such a tiny amount likely challenging my ability to line them up correctly--definitely falling in the "good enough" category.

Also notice it moved 36", within a fraction of a line width. Notice the 10 Mil mark on the upper vertical stadia is exactly on the zero line indicating the reticle and turrets match exactly.

In other words, it passes as the deviations are so tiny the accuracy of the tool and my methods may be responsible for some or all of the deviations.

Hopefully if anything good comes of this thread it'll be people get educated a bit and measure their optics. I didn't start doing this when I bought the PST and it certainly isn't the first scope to have less than perfect results. The nasty truth is most people who are thinking their scopes are perfect only think that because they have not measured them.

People mention lack of QC.... I'll remind them once again Leupold says +/- 3 full degrees of reticle cant is within spec and will pass the best QC in the world because it's within spec! I measured this one at only around 1 degree.

There are manufacturers selling scopes a shitload more expensive than this one where +/- 2% is within spec for click value. This scope is just a hair outside that mark.

Most people would never notice these deviations. Many people would notice similar deviations on their own favorite scopes of whatever brand if they actually measured them.

So again I'll ask people keep the proper perspective. I get paid to be anal. I make my living worrying about tiny little numbers. It's hard for me to do things any other way--especially when I enjoy being able to make first round hits at crazy ranges with new equipment and new loads, etc.

When you worry about the little things, the big things take care of themselves. So you don't have to blame being way off on the first round on "ballistic programs aren't accurate, they just give you a rough idea," or "the BC of this bullet out of <span style="font-style: italic">my rifle</span> is really 1.5!!!" or "it must be a bunch of spin drift...yeah, that's it!" etc.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Very informative post, thanks Jon A!

Jon A, if you don’t mind me asking, what brand of collimator do you have? I’ve kicked the idea around for years about getting one but all I have seen are cheap non height adjustable imports.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jon A</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good words, Jeff. And good tips on measuring scopes. Thanks.

For others asking, I'll try and give a little primer.

First of all, check out Lindy's http://www.arcanamavens.com/LBSFiles/Shooting/Downloads/ScopeChecking/ for some excellent information some of which I'll duplicate below.

It's not rocket science guys, you don't need to be an Engineer or even be particularly smart. You just need to be smart enough to realize it's an important thing to do if you shoot long range much.

About the easiest method in "the real world" is with a yardstick because everybody has one and they work out nicely being exactly 10 Mils at 100 yds:</div></div>

Jon,

Again very nice work and detail. You hit the nail on the head with “it's not rocket science”. As you could tell from my setup I use a cinder block with some cheap Burris Signature mounts & rings. It’s a redneck setup that works extremely well and was cheap and easy to build. I like my setup as I can do it in the front yard and put the target 100 yards down the street. Since there's no gun involved my neighbors have no idea what I’m doing, nor do they care and it only takes 15 minutes to setup, test and take down. BTW I mount the target on back of a fence across the street using thumb tacks…simple. My 100 yard range is already measured and ready to use anytime I want.

Folks my post was not to beat folks up but help educate on simple easy testing methods. I’m sure a lot of readers had quite a few “ah ha” moments between Jon and mines posts and that’s a good thing. Like Jon I’m an engineer and I worry about the little numbers and details. It’s how and what makes my brain tick. Although my wife used to tell me on occasions I was dumb as a fence post and had the common sense of a nat! :)

I learned a long time ago “accurate” long range shooting comes down to the little details. I had a lot of issues with my Leupold MK 4’s and that’s when I found the canting issues and went 15 miserable rounds with Leupold over the issues. Hence it’s why I thoroughly test all scopes and I don’t and won’t recommend and will never own another Leupold scope of any kind again.

My first 6.5-24X44mm Vortex Viper blew me away with the options and quality and for less than $500.00. At almost 50 years old my eyes are what they are but they can see the subtle differences between high end and standard glass used in sub $1K scopes. They can see the differences in glass quality between my US Optics SSDS and Vortex Viper, but my eyes are aging. My optic needs are simple, a bright crisp clear image, great clarity from the center to the outer edges of the optics with outstanding light transmission. I fully expect my new Vortex PST to have the same quality as my older Vortex with good glass and functionality. If I have any issues I know Scott at Liberty Optics will address them and take care of them quickly.

I’m lucky I’m not in a hurry for my scope as I’m waiting for the suppressor for the new SASS Armalite AR-10 to arrive which won’t be till the end of the summer.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Thanks and good point on parallax as i use 10m distance and would have a problem on a scope that has min. par. adj. more than that...
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Jon, great writeup on the measurement method... being new to long range shooting and currently building a rifle, your method will give me a great head start!

Sorry if this is a noob question but where can I get a IPHY grid similar to the one that you used? Maybe its just me but it seems using a grid would be easier than a yard stick to check for reticle cant.

I've also read up a bit on collimators and it seems to be the faster and 'better' way to go for getting on paper. Any particular brand, model, or type that you would recommend and would work with a 50mm bell (i.e. tall enough)?

Thanks!
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Jon A,

did you try tilting the scope to one side a little to see if the center of the reticle would stay on the line? That's not a whole lot of cant, I have seen way more than that in a couple leupolds I have. Also it could be my eyes but it looks to me like the horizontal crosshair says pretty level, so the reticle itself is probably fine just engraved/drawn whatever a little cockeyed.

As you say if someone else would've gotten it odds are they never would've noticed.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Jon and Jeff - great stuff and I definitely had an "ah ha" moment. I could conceptualize the reticle cant issue, but seeing pics is worth a 1000 words.

Dumb question: does using a collimator replace the need for a box test? Someone mentioned that box tests are potentially flawed due to innaccuracy of the rifle and shooter. So if I do this grid test, do I still need to do a box test?
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: leonoe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry if this is a noob question but where can I get a IPHY grid similar to the one that you used? </div></div>
Sorry, I should have mentioned this in the first place--it's the Leupold Zero Point boresighter. It's not the best boresighter in the world but it's great for stuff like this as it works on anything. There are plenty of other brands that can do the same thing; I think US Optics makes a really good one.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">did you try tilting the scope to one side a little to see if the center of the reticle would stay on the line? That's not a whole lot of cant, I have seen way more than that in a couple leupolds I have. Also it could be my eyes but it looks to me like the horizontal crosshair says pretty level, so the reticle itself is probably fine just engraved/drawn whatever a little cockeyed.</div></div>
Yes, when tilted such that the reticle is a bit crooked on the grid the center of the reticle will stay on the line with elevation travel. Basically by doing that you're aligning the grid with the turrets instead of the reticle as I did above. If the reticle is aligned with the turrets, the grid will be aligned with both simultaneously. Obviously, that's what you want.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ReaperDriver</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dumb question: does using a collimator replace the need for a box test? Someone mentioned that box tests are potentially flawed due to innaccuracy of the rifle and shooter. So if I do this grid test, do I still need to do a box test? </div></div>
You always need to do actual firing to be sure of a scope. One of the scope's job is to keep the reticle where it is supposed to be during recoil which it doesn't have to do on the collimator.

However, you can get much of the same information you'd want to get from a box test with the collimator, and arguably more accurately (it eliminates the shooter changing hold, canting the rifle, the rifle's accuracy, wind, mirage, and all sorts of other things that can interfere with a live test) so it's the first thing I do with a scope. One thing is for certain, if the scope isn't tracking correctly on the collimator, hoping it will in real life is a way to waste ammo and nothing more.

Unfortunately, most of the box tests I see done (especially on hunting boards) aren't good enough to tell much about a scope other than a complete failure in tracking. They're done over too small a distance, the group sizes are too large and often if the group is even remotely in the right vicinity they're declared a success.

If a scope tracks perfectly on the collimator that does answer most of the questions people shoot box tests to answer, so in a sense the answer is a qualified yes. I do let the collimator testing answer those questions (click value, reticle straightness, looking for erratic reticle movement or sticking, etc).

But of course, real shooting needs to be done. If recoil is causing erratic reticle movement, that'll usually show up in group sizes as well. And while I don't do specific box tests much, I do make a point of dialing way up for a far target, down to a close target, back up to a far target, etc, so much that any problems with elevation tracking will show up quickly.

But yeah, if you measure meticulously on a collimator, the rifle shoots tiny groups with the scope, it's really unlikely you're going to have any surprises tracking-wise unless you actually break something.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

Folks, I had a great conversation with Scott this morning. He was very nice and is obviously an enthusiastic shooter just like the rest of us.

As expected, they're going to make things right the best way they possibly can. They really are handling this the way you'd expect a top notch company to handle it.

For right now they're putting a hold on sending out the PST's until they get these issues figured out all the way back to the factory. They are very concerned and are going to get to the bottom of it before shipping any more so no more out of spec scopes go out.

So while they want to hold off on sending me a new one until they're darn sure they are perfect, they offered a full refund on the spot while allowing me to keep this one for the time being. It's hard to ask for more than that.

So I'll use this one until the new and improved units are ready. While the issues above wouldn't make me happy long term, the scope is perfectly usable. I just need to do a bit of extra math for a while, that's all.

Now we can move to phase II of testing--seeing how it holds up to the recoil of my light 300 RUM.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jon A</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Unfortunately, most of the box tests I see done (especially on hunting boards) aren't good enough to tell much about a scope other than a complete failure in tracking. They're done over too small a distance, the group sizes are too large and often if the group is even remotely in the right vicinity they're declared a success.</div></div>

Are you talking shooting distance here? Shooting at short distance to do box tests is actually a good thing. If you do a box test at 25 yards it takes wind out of the equation as well as much of the shooter error. Plus you are actually moving the scope 4 times as much (to move it the same distance) which put the scope internals itself through a better test. If all your rounds are not absolutely perfect (knowing of course your rifle is very accurate and the shooter made a perfect trigger press) then you know something could be wrong with the scope. Doing it over several times all the shots should hit the exact same holes.

At least that is a good way that I have been taught and found great success in.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressio

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: yoterunner</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesn't sound good for us that are waiting for the next shipment... </div></div>
Well would you rather have a scope with a tilted reticle and blue blobs on the lenses asap or wait a few weeks to get what you paid for. id wait but thats just my opinion...
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressio

Great thread.

Jon A, looking forward to the next installment of your review.

Your follow up on the customer service support of Vortex has me considering their products as it is a HUGE factor for me.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressio

Does any of the dealers here know a rough time frame for this additional delay from Vortex? I'm not complaining, just trying to get a feel for how long they are anticipating getting the next wave out.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressio

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ReaperDriver</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does any of the dealers here know a rough time frame for this additional delay from Vortex? I'm not complaining, just trying to get a feel for how long they are anticipating getting the next wave out. </div></div>

I was told late July to early August.

Mike @ CST
 
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"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ReaperDriver</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does any of the dealers here know a rough time frame for this additional delay from Vortex? I'm not complaining, just trying to get a feel for how long they are anticipating getting the next wave out. </div></div>

I was told late July to early August.

Mike @ CST </div></div>

Thanks Mike, but I heard that same time frame BEFORE the newest delay. Hopefully it won't be more than a week or two extra above that for Vortex to look at the issue before resuming shipments.
 
Re: Vortex Viper PST 4-16X50 FFP Initial Impressio

Again very nice review Jon I really like how you have it all laid out.

I’m going to just speak from my shooting experience and the knowledge I have of rifle scopes.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jon A</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Problem #1: The reticle is canted by roughly 1.2 degrees with respect to erector movement. It's not enough to be obvious to the eye, but it's enough to cause problems. This means for every 10 mils you click up, you need to click to the right two clicks in order to keep from dialing windage you didn't want. This may not be an issue for some who don't shoot long range or who will primarily use the reticle for holdover but it's not acceptable to me on a tactical scope. I know it's well within specs of some manufacturers (such as Leupold) but I expect more from Vortex. My cheaper 6.5-20 Viper has no measurable cant to the reticle. Hopefully this particular scope is an aberration and not representative of the other PST's out there. </div></div>

I’m not sure how 1.2 degrees is anything to worry about especially if your turrets are level and you are dialing everything. Most manufactures have an acceptance of 2 to 3 degrees. 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. Where canted reticles can be an issue is when you use it for holdover shots. If the reticle is out to much you will need to use your wind-age knob.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jon A</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Problem #2: The click value is about 3% off. 97 clicks moves 10 Mils, even by measure of its own reticle--which seems to be sized accurately (within 1%)--as well as the collimator. I know historically many scopes have perpetually been even farther off than that, and I know that even some pretty expensive tactical scopes still have a +/- 2% tolerance, but it's hard for me to be happy with a scope that is that far off. With the good ballistic programs we have these days it's easy to compensate for, but having to do so by such a large amount does not make me happy with a scope. Again, the cheaper 6.5-20 Viper measures within 1% so a PST with this large an error just isn't right.
</div></div>

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. We are talking about an error of 0.03 of a Centimeter or 0.0118 of an Inch at 100yds. I know it gets compounded the farther out we go. When dialing 10mils I will have an error 3/10 of a Mil. The temperature affects my 308 more than that at 1k. On the same range, with same rifle, and same ammo I will range from 11.4mils (Really cold day) to 10.2mils (Really hot day) to reach 1k.

Thanks for your time,

Mike @ CST