How long does it take to wear out the *clicks* in a turret?

P

proxemus

Member
Rating - 90%
9   1   0
Location
Winnipeg
Kind of a vague question but I was curious on how long does it take for your scopes internal clicks take to wear out? I find my self doing a lot of clicking on my Schmidt and bender when I'm doing range shooting. I usually just use hold offs as a reference on how many clicks I have to go till its dead center. :)
 
It's a Schmidt, you won't wear them out. If it was a Bushnell or a Vortex I would say one long day of spinning and they'd be getting mushy. It really depends on the quality of the optic and you have nothing to worry about. As for you holding off, I agree with your method unless there's a significant wind. In which case I would dial in the distance so I can use the windage values of the reticle without holding in no mans land. If you run a Horus reticle then disregard and continue holding off.:wave:
 
Bartok5 said:
What level of Vortex scope was it that the turrets failed after just 4 months? DIamondback? PST? Razor HD2?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't matter. Either a company produces quality products or they don't. Vortex likes to offer a lot of garbage and a few high dollar average choices.
 
I am increasingly convinced that the only Vortex scopes worth owning are the Gen 2 Razor HD FFP family and possibly the new PST II line. In other words, only the ones manufactured in Japan, as opposed to the a Phillipines or (worse) China. I know that plenty of folks run the PST line without issues, however I have to wonder how many of those are "heavy diallers" prone to using their turrets as opposed to someone who zeros and then shoots POA (or POA with hold-overs and unders). Tracking and repeatability are essential to any long-range, precision optic. Perhaps that is Vortex's biggest failing with their lower-priced scope lines....
 
Bartok5 said:
I am increasingly convinced that the only Vortex scopes worth owning are the Gen 2 Razor HD FFP family and possibly the new PST II line. In other words, only the ones manufactured in Japan, as opposed to the a Phillipines or (worse) China. I know that plenty of folks run the PST line without issues, however I have to wonder how many of those are "heavy diallers" prone to using their turrets as opposed to someone who zeros and then shoots POA (or POA with hold-overs and unders). Tracking and repeatability are essential to any long-range, precision optic. Perhaps that is Vortex's biggest failing with their lower-priced scope lines....
Click to expand...

Most users of mid range "Tactical" optics are hobbyists, same as someone installing their own lift kit in the driveway. Tools don't get used that much, so "wear" is minimal. I include myself in this category. Putting more than 5-600rnds a year through scoped centerfire, especially off a KD range is time consuming and expensive. I think many shooters are not honest about how much actual use their "go faster" gear gets. That's why a $1200 optic with similar features outsells a $2500-$6000 one so often. A loaded Lexus or King Ranch is fun, a Dodge Caravan does the job most of us need.
 
Kidd X said:
Shouldn't matter. Either a company produces quality products or they don't. Vortex likes to offer a lot of garbage and a few high dollar average choices.
Click to expand...

I agree that Vortex's lower-end scopes such as the DIamondback line are less than ideal, but are actually no worse than the competition at that same price point. That said, I must heartily disagree with your assessment that the Razor HD2 line is "average". They are arguably at the lower end of the Premium Scope class when compared to Tangent Theta or or Schmidt & Bender, however they are unquestionably stiĺl premium scopes, built in the very best of the Japanese factories. Their predominant use among the top finishers on the US Precision Rifle circuit speaks volumes, and it's not just the result of Vortex sponsorship. Top shooter's use what works best for them, and most still choose to use the Vortex Razor HD2 4.5-27x. The only thing "average" about that scope is the fact that on average, it is the most used scope among championship PRS competitors in the USA.
 
Bartok5 said:
I agree that Vortex's lower-end scopes such as the DIamondback line are less than ideal, but are actually no worse than the competition at that same price point. That said, I must heartily disagree with your assessment that the Razor HD2 line is "average". They are arguably at the lower end of the Premium Scope class when compared to Tangent Theta or or Schmidt & Bender, however they are unquestionably stiĺl premium scopes, built in the very best of the Japanese factories. Their predominant use among the top finishers on the US Precision Rifle circuit speaks volumes, and it's not just the result of Vortex sponsorship. Top shooter's use what works best for them, and most still choose to use the Vortex Razor HD2 4.5-27x. The only thing "average" about that scope is the fact that on average, it is the most used scope among championship PRS competitors in the USA.
Click to expand...

I never apologized for the similar quality(or lack thereof) coming from the competition. Bushnell, Tasco, Simmons, are all guilty of peddling low end garbage as well.

The Top end Vortex optics are average for what they command in price. A similarly priced Nightforce is ten times the optic, same goes for a Zeiss or Kahles or Swaro. Again, what the competitors use isn't really here nor there. The Vortex scopes offer a lot of features at the bottom end of cost. The logic being more bang for the buck. The old Razor HD line is not worth the dollars but many championed that they were great. Below is a Razor HD failing a tracking test. Not something you'd be happy with after spending $1700 USD as of today. Now yes that isn't the Razor II line but it still shows the lack of QC by Vortex.

I'm not inclined to give money to a company that sells garbage to those with limited funds while charging a mint for an average level optic at the top.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_xJ-3NH8JM&t=31s
 
A simple question about a S&B turns into a mud match about the quality of Vortex's various lines. Welcome to the internet.

To answer the OP, your turrets will be fine. You've invested in a very high quality scope that you'll get to enjoy for a long time, as will your grandchildren.

Regarding Vortex, some people hate the brand, other love them. The fact is their Diamondback and PST lines are as good as any other brand at the same price point. Not significantly better; not significantly worse. The bargain I see in their line up is the Razor GenII. They're very popular in PRS circles and have been winning over guys who've used more expensive (and maybe slightly better) scopes before these. Exhibit A:
https://rifletalk.org/2016/08/26/review-vortex-razor-hd-ii-4-5-27x56/

Not everyone can afford to only buy $3,000 scope for their rifles. I don't fault Vortex for helping fill the low-priced scope market. The fact that they stand behind their less-than-great products is better than most manufacturers will do. If you want a scope that will most likely not fail (because all can), shell out the big bucks.
 
Kane519 said:
A simple question about a S&B turns into a mud match about the quality of Vortex's various lines. Welcome to the internet.

To answer the OP, your turrets will be fine. You've invested in a very high quality scope that you'll get to enjoy for a long time, as will your grandchildren.

Regarding Vortex, some people hate the brand, other love them. The fact is their Diamondback and PST lines are as good as any other brand at the same price point. Not significantly better; not significantly worse. The bargain I see in their line up is the Razor GenII. They're very popular in PRS circles and have been winning over guys who've used more expensive (and maybe slightly better) scopes before these. Exhibit A:
https://rifletalk.org/2016/08/26/review-vortex-razor-hd-ii-4-5-27x56/

Not everyone can afford to only buy $3,000 scope for their rifles. I don't fault Vortex for helping fill the low-priced scope market. The fact that they stand behind their less-than-great products is better than most manufacturers will do. If you want a scope that will most likely not fail (because all can), shell out the big bucks.
Click to expand...

Excellent points Kane, we all buy within what we can afford. To the OP you'll get a long life out of the Schmidt & Bender, enjoy!
 
I'm pretty young, and I pretty much bought the scope so I don't have to buy anymore. I want this thing to outlive all the guns I put it on. and hopefully it happens :) thanks a lot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom