Ethan83
Ultimate Member
My Kidd 10/22 has been wearing a Leupold VX2 (6-18x 40mm fine duplex) and I've been thinking about moving to a Vortex Viper PST Gen 2 5-25x FFP with the EBR-2C MOA reticle. I'm already getting <=MOA groups out to 100 yards pretty easily, so I want to start pushing it out to 200yd and beyond. The primary motivation for the Vortex is the reticle w MOA subtensions, but the extra zoom doesn't hurt either for tiny targets at that range.
I've heard mixed reviews of Vortex as a brand - it seems there are the fanboys that think it's just the bees knees; there are the snobs that seem to be turned off to Vortex entirely by the fanboys; and the 'general consensus' as best I can tell is that they're a fairly good value and competitive with other scopes in their equivalent price ranges.
I have very little experience with optics; I know the VX2 is a fairly modest scope, but it sure looks damn bright and sharp to me (I always use it cranked up to 18x) - makes me wonder how much better nicer scopes could possibly look? I don't doubt for a second that they do, I guess it's just something I can't really wrap my head around without actually looking through a high-end scope. Perhaps that's because I'm only looking through my VX2 out to 100 yards? Also, I've only ever really used it during the day; my understanding is that low-light conditions is what separates the men from the boys with optics. I've certainly used the VX2 when it was very overcast, and approaching dusk, and the image didn't seem to suffer at all to me, but I can't say I've ever really used it any conditions I would call particularly dark. Is the low-light performance of a scope compounded by the range one is using it at - i.e. I would be noticing more of a difference in the VX2's quality (or lack thereof) if I was looking at 600 yards instead of just 100?
I'm very much a "buy once cry once" kind of person, but considering it's going on a .22, I'm never going to be shooting beyond maybe 250-300 yards at the ABSOLUTE max, and realistically only very rarely beyond 200. I've read in many places that the Razor HD line is unquestionably superior to the Viper PST line, but it's a jump from $1.1k to $2.5k for the 5-25x FFP models. Is it possible that the extra quality of glass is completely wasted inside 200 yards?
Is the increased low-light performance only of marginal utility for about 30 min at sunrise and sunset, before it's too dark to use a scope entirely? Or does a high enough quality scope mean the difference between usable by moonlight and not? I have well over $2k into the rifle already (probably closer to 3k), so I don't mind spending the money if it's worth it, but it's not clear to me that there's anything to be gained by jumping to the Razor HD for this application.
The Viper PST line of scopes seem to be around double the price for their equivalent in the VX2 line, so is it safe to assume that the optics are just as good or better than the VX2s? Or is all that extra cost just going into the bells and whistles like the reticles and illumination?
I appreciate any thoughts or insight anybody can share. Thanks!!
I've heard mixed reviews of Vortex as a brand - it seems there are the fanboys that think it's just the bees knees; there are the snobs that seem to be turned off to Vortex entirely by the fanboys; and the 'general consensus' as best I can tell is that they're a fairly good value and competitive with other scopes in their equivalent price ranges.
I have very little experience with optics; I know the VX2 is a fairly modest scope, but it sure looks damn bright and sharp to me (I always use it cranked up to 18x) - makes me wonder how much better nicer scopes could possibly look? I don't doubt for a second that they do, I guess it's just something I can't really wrap my head around without actually looking through a high-end scope. Perhaps that's because I'm only looking through my VX2 out to 100 yards? Also, I've only ever really used it during the day; my understanding is that low-light conditions is what separates the men from the boys with optics. I've certainly used the VX2 when it was very overcast, and approaching dusk, and the image didn't seem to suffer at all to me, but I can't say I've ever really used it any conditions I would call particularly dark. Is the low-light performance of a scope compounded by the range one is using it at - i.e. I would be noticing more of a difference in the VX2's quality (or lack thereof) if I was looking at 600 yards instead of just 100?
I'm very much a "buy once cry once" kind of person, but considering it's going on a .22, I'm never going to be shooting beyond maybe 250-300 yards at the ABSOLUTE max, and realistically only very rarely beyond 200. I've read in many places that the Razor HD line is unquestionably superior to the Viper PST line, but it's a jump from $1.1k to $2.5k for the 5-25x FFP models. Is it possible that the extra quality of glass is completely wasted inside 200 yards?
Is the increased low-light performance only of marginal utility for about 30 min at sunrise and sunset, before it's too dark to use a scope entirely? Or does a high enough quality scope mean the difference between usable by moonlight and not? I have well over $2k into the rifle already (probably closer to 3k), so I don't mind spending the money if it's worth it, but it's not clear to me that there's anything to be gained by jumping to the Razor HD for this application.
The Viper PST line of scopes seem to be around double the price for their equivalent in the VX2 line, so is it safe to assume that the optics are just as good or better than the VX2s? Or is all that extra cost just going into the bells and whistles like the reticles and illumination?
I appreciate any thoughts or insight anybody can share. Thanks!!