Range trip report / My thoughts on the Vortex Viper PST 1-4x24 [Archive]

View Full Version : Range trip report / My thoughts on the Vortex Viper PST 1-4x24

Eurodriver

07-01-11, 15:27

I went to the range today with two of my black rifles. They are:

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/4122/recside.jpg

Top Rifle:
BCM 16” BFH Midlength with Larue 12” Rail
Vortex 1-4x24 on a Larue SPR mount
Surplus Arms Lower w/ DD LPK
Troy BUIS Front and Rear
MIAD Grip
UBR Stock
H Buffer
And for this test I used a cheap harris bipod knockoff I had lieing around on a YHM mount.

Bottom Rifle:
BCM 14.5” Midlength with Larue 9” Rail
RCO M4 ACOG
Spikes Lower w/ DD LPK
AAC Brakeout
CTR Stock
MIAD Grip
H2 Buffer

Ammo used was Federal XM855 and PMC Bronze 55gr .223

I will be separating this into 2 parts, the Vortex optic and the BCM Uppers with regards to accuracy.

All tests were done in the conditions present in the pictures, namely some sort of front rest or bipod, with no rear support from a concrete bench. Distance fired was 100 yards. This was my first time shooting the 16” and only my 2nd time shooting the 14.5”. Needless to say, they both needed to be zero’d.

It should also be noted that I am not affiliated with any manufacturer, distributor, or retailer in any way, shape, or form. No one gave me anything to T&E, this is all on my own and I am only wanting to help others.

First, the Vortex:

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/566/recbipod.jpg

This is a great optic. I paid $499 delivered for it from Liberty Optics. Scott is a great guy and it got all the way from Montana to Florida in 2 days (Ordered and Shipped Monday, received Wednesday). He responded timely to all my emails, even on a Saturday and threw in free Butler Creek Caps. When I opened the box the first thing I noticed was the huge 30mm tube. It looks very strong and beefy on such a short optic. The glass is made in Japan and the rest of the scope is made in the Phillipines.

The turrets had very firm crisp clicks and the adjustments were very easy to read. I ordered the mil version which has a matching reticle and turrets and adjusts in .2 MRADs. This has a SFP reticle and the adjustment dial tells you which magnification power you are on and what to multiply the reticle by to get the correct mil adjustment. So if you are on 1x it will tell you that you need to multiply the mils on the reticle by 4x to get the correct mil reading. It has this for 1x, 1.3x, 2x, 3x and 4x. 4x is when the mils are 1:1 with the magnification.

The scope is completely clear and very bright, the illumination is great too and visible in daylight. This scope can easily be used at 1x with the heavy outer circle for quick acquisition or 4x for long range precision work. The illumination knob has an off position between each brightness setting. This lets you “preset” your desired brightness.

If there was one thing I didn’t like It would be the small reticle. Its definitely doable as is, and as a CQB optic it would be ideal but I am using this to reach out a bit further and would appreciate being able to read the reticle easier. Don’t mistake me, it is definitely readable and you can make precise adjustments. I fired a 3 round group and using the reticle dialed a perfect zero on the first try, it would just be nice to be a touch bigger.

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/1893/reticle.jpg

Adjusting the caps to show “0” on your true zero was very easy. 3 hex head screws keep each cap on, after removing the screws rotate the cap to show “0” and reinstall the screws.
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4372/step3d.jpg
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/4886/step4e.jpg

While doing this for the elevation knob you can also install the provided shims to have a zero stop, enabling you to dial down without passing your zero.

FWIW, I do not participate in 3 gun. If you do, I’m not sure how the turrets would hold zero with all of the slinging around and sliding and running bumping into gear. I read on TOS that Sam from Vortex had said that they have noticed this and have at least considered making a capped or low profile turret version for 3gunners. I don’t know if this will ever develop, I’m not really interested as I have no need but that’s just a heads up for those of you that are curious.

To summarize, I love this optic. It is very comparable to the Leupold 1.5-5 for hundreds less. It is equally clear and bright, Vortex also has one of the best warranties, however warranties don’t mean squat on a two way range. Time will tell if it holds up as well and as long as the other tried and true optics at its price point.

As far as the rifles go:

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/9114/rectierrange.jpg

The 16” was what I shot first. I only had 60 rounds of M855 and since that’s what I wanted to zero both rifles with, I had to be conservative. I fired a three round group and it was 6 inches left, after adjusting per the reticle I was dead on with the very next group. I would have done a 10rd group if I wasn’t conserving ammo.

Again, this is with M855 at 100 yards
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4561/recm855.jpg

I have no doubt that this rifle would be capable of sub-moa groups with match ammo and a rear rest.

Here is a 10rd group with 55gr PMC Bronze. It’s a common excuse for poor shooting, but I was going too fast and should have slowed down for a better group. It easily could have done better.

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/9098/rdstenrecce.jpg

I just finished this rifle last night, and I already love it. I removed the bipod later on in the day and shot drills with it. It doesn’t handle as well as the 14.5” obviously but its not awkward at all.

The 14.5” was comparable, but less precise.
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/7678/tier1shoot.jpg

My sub-par shooting position may have contributed its fair share, but it was still not entirely bad for M855 from a rack grade carbine at 100 yards. Here is my 10rd group.

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1779/tier1m855.jpg

Total round count for the day was about 150 rounds through the 16” and 200 rounds through the 14.5” Middy. It goes without saying that there were zero issues of any kind.

Some observations

- The AAC Brakeout is no where near as loud as I thought it would be. It had less concussion that both the FSC556 and Battle Comp 1.5. This may be due to the design and there may have been muzzle blast off to the sides, but I definitely felt concussion as the shooter with the BC 1.5 and FSC556 but there is zero with the Brakeout. Recoil is mitigated pretty well too. I’m very pleased with this because I chose this over the blackout but worried it may be too loud unsuppressed. I can easily shoot both ways now with no issues.

-PMC Bronze in the 14.5” Middy with H2 buffer was noticeably weaker than the M855. I could feel the BCG cycling in the stock. However, there were still no failures of any kind and the zero at 100 yards was relatively the same compared to the M855.

-I will be getting a 6-9” swivel base, notched leg bipod for the 16”. 9-13” is too tall.

- I have a tendency to use the 16” less like a Recce and more like a light machine gun…Its just what happens to me when I attach a bipod to an autoloading rifle…

Eurodriver

07-02-11, 20:55

Hmm...well...I thought it was interesting. :suicide2:

morbidbattlecry

07-02-11, 21:39

Its a good review:smile: but i have a question about the Vortex retical, how hard is it to see? I've really been looking into this optic but i'm afraid with my bad eyes its going to blur out from being too small.

pumbaajk

07-03-11, 12:48

shootist~

07-03-11, 13:05

i also have been considering this optic. a guy at the gun shop was telling me the only complaint was how small the reticle was. currently, the only way i have found to get my hands on one is to order one so i dont want to shuck out the dinero for an optic i am not going to like. i read the instruction manual on vortex's website and for a reticle so small, how the heck do you expect to range with the reticle? Do you think the optic is worthy of a 600 yard .308 gun?

I consider my PST 1-4 a very good CQB to moderate range optic that works for longer ranges in a pinch. It's not what I would consider a "precision" type optic and 600 Yds with smalish targets would be asking a lot for something in this price range, IMO. It works good *for me* on 10" steel plates at 300 meters (330 Yds) if that is any help. (I bang an 18" gong at 500 meters with it as well, but that's a big target.)

The hash marks are too fine for my 62 year old eyes for ranging purposes.

mattj

07-03-11, 13:13

i read the instruction manual on vortex's website and for a reticle so small, how the heck do you expect to range with the reticle?

You understand how reticle ranging actually works, right? 12 mils of reticle (what the mrad version here) is more than enough to range with -- a "bigger" reticle isn't going to help you any. Real things at any significant difference are "small" in the scope -- 30 mils of reticle markings aren't going to help you with ranging (unless you're trying to range entire buildings or stuff at 25 yards).

Now lots of reticle markings can be useful for hold-offs. The mrad version gives you 6 mils of "up" in the reticle, which is good for 700+ yards or so with a 100-yard zeroed .308... that's without dialing.

Now more magnification than 4x may certainly be helpful for precise ranging, etc -- but a mil in the reticle is still a mil in the reticle.

pumbaajk

07-03-11, 19:03

You understand how reticle ranging actually works, right? 12 mils of reticle (what the mrad version here) is more than enough to range with -- a "bigger" reticle isn't going to help you any. Real things at any significant difference are "small" in the scope -- 30 mils of reticle markings aren't going to help you with ranging (unless you're trying to range entire buildings or stuff at 25 yards).

Now lots of reticle markings can be useful for hold-offs. The mrad version gives you 6 mils of "up" in the reticle, which is good for 700+ yards or so with a 100-yard zeroed .308... that's without dialing.

Now more magnification than 4x may certainly be helpful for precise ranging, etc -- but a mil in the reticle is still a mil in the reticle.

I was more worried about the clarity of the reticle with it being so small is what I meant. I am new to long distance shooting so any advice is greatly appreciated.

Failure2Stop

07-03-11, 20:47

I think that Vortex could turn out some really good optics, but the ones I am somewhat interested in all have some critical fault (for my use) that bounces them out of the running.

mattj

07-03-11, 23:34

I was more worried about the clarity of the reticle with it being so small is what I meant. I am new to long distance shooting so any advice is greatly appreciated.

It sounds like the question you need to ask yourself is with a 1-4x is appropriate for the type of shooting you want to do.

Keep in mind that 1 mil on a 1-4x PST will be the same size as 1 mil on any other optic at 4x (assuming it is calibrated to subtend at that power, or is FFP).

If you really plan on doing lots of work at 300-600 yards, something more along the lines of the PST 2.5-10 might be more appropriate -- but that of course means you you're giving up 1x for close-and-fast.

There's a couple 1-8x optics out there that split the difference (S&B Short Dot), but not that I can think of in the PST price range.

pumbaajk

07-04-11, 10:14

It sounds like the question you need to ask yourself is with a 1-4x is appropriate for the type of shooting you want to do.

Keep in mind that 1 mil on a 1-4x PST will be the same size as 1 mil on any other optic at 4x (assuming it is calibrated to subtend at that power, or is FFP).

If you really plan on doing lots of work at 300-600 yards, something more along the lines of the PST 2.5-10 might be more appropriate -- but that of course means you you're giving up 1x for close-and-fast.

There's a couple 1-8x optics out there that split the difference (S&B Short Dot), but not that I can think of in the PST price range.

Most of my shooting will be 100-400 yards or so. I am using it as a hog gun and to be honest, the woods of east Texas don't allow for 500+ yard shots unless you find a unique place to do so. I was just wanting the option to hit something if I need to.

ra2bach

07-04-11, 11:25

I think that Vortex could turn out some really good optics, but the ones I am somewhat interested in all have some critical fault (for my use) that bounces them out of the running.

care to elaborate where it comes up short?

ra2bach

07-04-11, 11:28

Eurodriver - the reticle you have is the miliradian version. have you seen or compared the MOA version? it appears to me to be larger...

Singlestack Wonder

07-04-11, 12:25

Eurodriver - the reticle you have is the miliradian version. have you seen or compared the MOA version? it appears to me to be larger...

The I.D. of the circle in the mil version is slightly smaller.

ra2bach

07-05-11, 00:18

The I.D. of the circle in the mil version is slightly smaller.

that's what I thought...

Failure2Stop

07-05-11, 09:14

care to elaborate where it comes up short?

Sorry for the delayed response, I wrote a reply yesterday, only to have my iPhone decide it would be funnier if it refreshed and lost it, so I decided to begin a day of heavy drinking.

Anyway, first off;
My opinion is based off of my application of a low powered variable optic mounted on a long-gun for practical purposes. I consider "practical purposes" to be rapid precision from 3 meters to 600 meters, but primarily only out to 350 or so (unless stepping up in caliber), with the requirement to hit 6-8" targets at high speed out to 200 meters, deliberately out to 300 meters, 3-4" targets out to 100 at high speed, and torso targets quickly out to 300 and deliberately past 300 meters; while wearing gear, being bumped, dumped, dragged, and fragged. So, if your uses don't match mine, don't be suprised if you disagree with me, and even if it does, personal preferences always sway vocalized opinion.

I find small/thin reticles without extremely bright illumination to be easily lost in background and on unconventinally lit/colored targets. A thick crosshair outside the center helps rapidly center the reticle on target.

Uncovered, finger-adjustable turrets are prone to inadvertant zero change. Large turrets are great for target/bullseye/long range use, but a top end of 4x is insufficient for such application. Since speed of engagement is a priority, most elevation and deflection requiremens will be solved by hold-over. For ranges past that which can be effectively held off, rapidly adjustable turrets are good. For adjusting zero and for long-range use, 0.1 mil adjustements offer optimal balance between rapid adjustment and precision when used in conjunction with a mil-based reticle.

The Viper has an attractive price-point, but $500 is outside my impulse buy budget, and other optics give me what I want for a few hundred bucks more. I would like to have an optic at the Viper's price-point and quality with a reticle design conducive to my use and adjustments I prefer.

SA80Dan

07-05-11, 09:36

FWIW, I do not participate in 3 gun. If you do, I’m not sure how the turrets would hold zero with all of the slinging around and sliding and running bumping into gear. I read on TOS that Sam from Vortex had said that they have noticed this and have at least considered making a capped or low profile turret version for 3gunners. I don’t know if this will ever develop, I’m not really interested as I have no need but that’s just a heads up for those of you that are curious.

I use mine for 3 gun - have shot 5 matches with it now, and have not had any issues with the turrets inadvertently rotating. Not to say it couldn't happen however....and on that note, the capped turret version (HS) you mention has finally just been released:

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=835442&cm_mmc=Froogle-_-Optics%20-%20Scopes%20-%2012X%20and%20Greater-_-PriceCompListing-_-835442

- if this one had been out when I bought my PST, without question I'd have gotten it instead.

BTW Eurodriver- see you were at Manatee Gun Club...great place for long range shooting - I'm a regular down there, might bump into you some day :)

SA80Dan

07-05-11, 09:46

S

I find small/thin reticles without extremely bright illumination to be easily lost in background and on unconventinally lit/colored targets. A thick crosshair outside the center helps rapidly center the reticle on target.

Completely agree with this - I find that with the PST's 1 MOA center dot if you are precision shooting small dark targets over 200 yards away, the black 1MOA center dot has a tendency to "blend" into the target. While the illum on this scope does offset that if you have cloud cover or otherwise dull conditions, its not quite good enough in bright sunshine, IMO.

Close up and fast I don't find it an issue as the outer quartered circle on this reticle does a very good job of drawing the eye; similarly bigger and/or light colored distant targets I don't find it to be an issue....in fact in those circumstances, the small precise dot then becomes an asset. Always some degree of compromise in every reticle.

v3n0m

07-05-11, 11:39

very nice, thnx for the report!

ra2bach

07-05-11, 13:48

Sorry for the delayed response, I wrote a reply yesterday, only to have my iPhone decide it would be funnier if it refreshed and lost it, so I decided to begin a day of heavy drinking.

Anyway, first off;
My opinion is based off of my application of a low powered variable optic mounted on a long-gun for practical purposes. I consider "practical purposes" to be rapid precision from 3 meters to 600 meters, but primarily only out to 350 or so (unless stepping up in caliber), with the requirement to hit 6-8" targets at high speed out to 200 meters, deliberately out to 300 meters, 3-4" targets out to 100 at high speed, and torso targets quickly out to 300 and deliberately past 300 meters; while wearing gear, being bumped, dumped, dragged, and fragged. So, if your uses don't match mine, don't be suprised if you disagree with me, and even if it does, personal preferences always sway vocalized opinion.

I find small/thin reticles without extremely bright illumination to be easily lost in background and on unconventinally lit/colored targets. A thick crosshair outside the center helps rapidly center the reticle on target.

Uncovered, finger-adjustable turrets are prone to inadvertant zero change. Large turrets are great for target/bullseye/long range use, but a top end of 4x is insufficient for such application. Since speed of engagement is a priority, most elevation and deflection requiremens will be solved by hold-over. For ranges past that which can be effectively held off, rapidly adjustable turrets are good. For adjusting zero and for long-range use, 0.1 mil adjustements offer optimal balance between rapid adjustment and precision when used in conjunction with a mil-based reticle.

The Viper has an attractive price-point, but $500 is outside my impulse buy budget, and other optics give me what I want for a few hundred bucks more. I would like to have an optic at the Viper's price-point and quality with a reticle design conducive to my use and adjustments I prefer.

makes sense to me. this is why I asked about the MOA reticle - it seems to be bigger than the MRAD.

it has 60 min of vertical and horizontal stadia which, without holding it in my hands makes me think that 60 inches (5ft.) of reticle coverage at 100 yards might be enough.

anyone have the HS yet, or the PST in MOA and can give an opinion here?

shootist~

07-05-11, 17:56

Pics of reticles tend to be misleading. I think the OPs pics make the reticle appear considerably smaller than it is. The ones below (at 1x and 4x at 135 Yds) make the reticle appear larger than the actual view. I had to use some camera zoom to get things to work.

In real life the overall size is about right - at 1x the circle is about the same width as an IPSC A zone at 12 -15 Yds. It's outside your usable view at 4x - at distance - and you use either the dot (or the cross-hairs if on a distant and dark target). Whether the hash marks are on the thin side could depend on the use. For me they are on the thin side, but it would take larger (2.5 or 3 MOA instead of 2.0) hash mark separation to make room for heavier lines.

This is the MOA version.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y141/shootist87122/AR15/PST1-4at4x135Yds.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y141/shootist87122/AR15/PST1-4at1x135Yds.jpg

pumbaajk

07-06-11, 07:33

i guess its just going to be that i have to get ahold of one of these things and take a look before i order it.

SA80Dan

07-06-11, 08:11

ra2bach

07-06-11, 13:24

Yep...to echo shootists comments, the pic in the original post is seriously misrepresentative of what you actually see when you look through the scope. Looking through mine, the reticle actually appears about 3 times the size of that....shootists reticle shots are more representative of what you actually see. I tried to take a pic myself, but it looked more like the one in the OP so its not worth posting. And while the MRAD reticle might be a tiny bit smaller, it wouldn't be to the extent that you'd notice in my opinion.

I have the MOA version and have never had any problem with the lines being too thin. 90% of the time I don't use them anyway - its usually either the outer circle or the dot....and because of that I actually prefer the lines to be less prominent. The times where I am using the lines for holdover are invariably when I am shooting at relatively long range (above 200m) where it takes time and concentration to build a shot anyway, and given those circumstances I have no trouble picking the lines up when I need them.

based on the pics, I'm satisfied the reticle size is not going to be a problem, though I do agree with F2S that extended, thicker stadia would be a tremendous help.

my concern is with the illumination. without good illum. in bright circumstances, the reticle design becomes more of an issue. it's an either/or in this case and it's puzzling why they just didn't go ahead and make the reticle with larger/thicker stadia that extend out past the current lit portion.

obviously, if they did this, AND had illum that was truly daylight visible on all backgrounds, this would make it a class leader. as is, well, I'm just going to have see one for myself...

ra2bach

07-06-11, 13:26

shootist~

07-06-11, 14:49

thanks. you don't perchance happen to have a similar pic with the illum on, do you??? :cool:

I think I tried an outside daylight pic with the Illum on max (and visible to the eye), but the camera did not pic it up. In bright sun it's not going to help you, even against a dark target.

Cloudy or rainy day, low light, or under any inside artificial light it works very well. I'm not a pig hunter, but I can see where some of the lower settings will work in near complete darkness - after your eyes are adjusted to the dark.

ra2bach

07-07-11, 09:30

I think I tried an outside daylight pic with the Illum on max (and visible to the eye), but the camera did not pic it up. In bright sun it's not going to help you, even against a dark target.

Cloudy or rainy day, low light, or under any inside artificial light it works very well. I'm not a pig hunter, but I can see where some of the lower settings will work in near complete darkness - after your eyes are adjusted to the dark.

that, er, sucks... from your pics, the darkened reticle is very visible against the light colored building but at the edges, where it overlaps the darkened foliage, it becomes almost invisible.

this is the area where I was hoping a lit reticle, even dimly, would help...

SA80Dan

07-07-11, 09:49

that, er, sucks... from your pics, the darkened reticle is very visible against the light colored building but at the edges, where it overlaps the darkened foliage, it becomes almost invisible.

this is the area where I was hoping a lit reticle, even dimly, would help...

In real life it is not as bad as it looks there....there is usually a contrast between the very sharply defined black of the reticle and whatever you are looking at. But for sure, bright daytime illumination lets this scope down somewhat. In my experience if you do try to turn the illumination on when sighting distant dark targets in bright sunny conditions, more often than not by doing so it makes it worse as you then lose that sharp black contrast. In anything less than bright sunlight however, that does work well.

At the end of the day, if your priority is bright daytime visible illumination, this scope is not for you. Better options would be a Meopta K dot, S&B Short dot, Trijicon TR24, or if on a budget, the Burris TAC-30. All of these have some sort of compromise, however, be it some kind of limitation or price. Seems the "perfect" low power variable scope is still yet to be invented.