Vortex scopes - opinions

Daver_II said:
Thank you. I hope for the best too.


Perhaps people should compare their optics at price point vs features.

A $1000 optic can't stand up to a $3000 optic... The same way a kia can get transport you with power windows... And so can an Audi..
Click to expand...

The problem with vortex is their retail prices are not inline with the quality of the product. Their sub $1000 optics are junk and the above $1000 optics are about $400 over priced. There are better brands for $1000. What I do like about vortex are some of the features they incorporate like the fibre optic power ring indicator. Nice features that are well thought out.

I'm a fan of good gear, but s&b is over priced, they bank on their name. Plenty of equal quality glass for a good $1000 plus less than your average s&b.

Tdc
 
Thought I would add this in here:

I stripped the threads of the mount for my Spitfire 3x. My fault, not the product's. I emailed customer support about 11:00 today, got this reply an hour later. I had already offered to pay for the spare part


Thank you for contacting Vortex Optics regarding your Spitfire. I can get a replacement mount out to you; I will also send a prepaid bubble envelope for you to send your mount back to us. If you could supply me with your mailing address, I will get that out to you right away! Thank you, and please let me know if you have any other questions.


So, while they may not be in the NF/Zeiss/Swaro class, they do the job for me, and I am very impressed that they got back to me so fast in the week between Xmas and new years.

Fat
 
I have good luck with my two mid range Vortex scopes as well, (1-4 and 6-24 PSTs), but happened to sell them with the guns they were mounted on. No problems with them at all. Also own a Razor 5-20 HD, which is a fantastic scope and no problems with it either.
I also own a Nightforce Atacr and a S&B scope for comparison, and it is close to them, but not better. Two years ago I got exposed to Sightron scopes, and imho, they are much better glass and quality for the same money as the mid priced Vortex stuff. Although I did have a reticle issue with one of my 4 Sightrons, was looked after quick and easy thru Hirch Precision.
Like my Vortex HD so much, I ordered a 4.5-27.
I've looked thru Leupolds and seemed ok, and had a Bushnell Elite 6500 series 4.5-30, and thought it was crap, sold after three range sessions. Really wanted to like it as well, but glad it sold quick.
 
I have had a Vortex Crossfire 2 for 2 years on a 30-06 with no problems. Installed Diamondback on same rifle with about 150 rounds, so far so good.
 
redrams9 said:
I have good luck with my two mid range Vortex scopes as well, (1-4 and 6-24 PSTs), but happened to sell them with the guns they were mounted on. No problems with them at all. Also own a Razor 5-20 HD, which is a fantastic scope and no problems with it either.
I also own a Nightforce Atacr and a S&B scope for comparison, and it is close to them, but not better. Two years ago I got exposed to Sightron scopes, and imho, they are much better glass and quality for the same money as the mid priced Vortex stuff. Although I did have a reticle issue with one of my 4 Sightrons, was looked after quick and easy thru Hirch Precision.
Like my Vortex HD so much, I ordered a 4.5-27.
I've looked thru Leupolds and seemed ok, and had a Bushnell Elite 6500 series 4.5-30, and thought it was crap, sold after three range sessions. Really wanted to like it as well, but glad it sold quick.
Click to expand...


The image quality/clarity is but one small factor when looking at quality optics. True tracking is far more important than a slight difference in colour, same goes for total elevation and windage adjustments as well as their values. Don't forget reticle design and options, as some reticles are sub optimal for certain disciplines. The usual aspects also play in like wire or etched reticles, purged/filled tubes, main tube diameter, weight, full multi coated lenses, FFP/SFP, exit pupil, fixed or adjustable objective, illuminated or not, target turrets or capped and of course overall quality of construction. Looking through a scope and admiring the image does not equate to a well thought out quality product. Just saying...

TDC
 
I checked the tracking on my HST 4-16x44 at least 3 times and it is spot on. The scope (and gun) is more precise than I am accurate.
 
TDC said:
The image quality/clarity is but one small factor when looking at quality optics. True tracking is far more important than a slight difference in colour, same goes for total elevation and windage adjustments as well as their values. Don't forget reticle design and options, as some reticles are sub optimal for certain disciplines. The usual aspects also play in like wire or etched reticles, purged/filled tubes, main tube diameter, weight, full multi coated lenses, FFP/SFP, exit pupil, fixed or adjustable objective, illuminated or not, target turrets or capped and of course overall quality of construction. Looking through a scope and admiring the image does not equate to a well thought out quality product. Just saying...

TDC
Click to expand...

Bravo!

Finally, an optics post that actually mentions all the components of a good product, not just a personal opinion on what the image looked like....
 
lone-wolf said:
What good are all those things if you can't tell if the deer has spikes or not?
Click to expand...

If your image quality is that poor, you shouldn't be using that optic to shoot anything. The same can be said if your image is ultra clear but your reticle doesn't track for sh*t. A miss is a miss regardless of what caused it, and a slightly yellow image or a marginally dimmer image is far less likely to be the issue when compared to an optic that has blown the seal and become fogged over, or a reticle that isn't holding zero, or an element that has fallen out of place due to poor construction, or one of the most common issues with target turrets on a hunting rig(really poor choice) is the turrets being bumped/spun by unknown sources. Image quality is not the first second or even third most important quality to look for when selecting an optic.

TDC
 
TDC, I've disagreed with a lot of your posts in the past, and probably will do so again, but I think you have hit the nail on the head with this one. It's laughable how many people seem to think of their rifle scopes the same way that birders think of their binoculars. Riflescopes are aiming devices, not observation instruments. Or course you need sufficient image clarity to see your target clearly, but most scopes provide that. All the other aspects of quality construction and precision adjustments are what separate a reliable, durable and dependable hunting or competition optic from a wannabe.

We have a poster crowing about 2000 rounds through mutiple scopes? Big deal...what does that tell anyone? You have a couple of scopes that each see maybe a few hundred rounds. The fact that they survived isn't worth mentioning. Did they withstand significant recoil from large calibers? Were they zeroed once and then not touched? Were they subjected to harsh extremes of weather? If not, then their survival proves nothing. If they survived any or all of these challenges, then that doesn't make them great...it merely means they might be acceptable.

Oh, and to the fellow checking the antlers on deer through his riflescope: That's what binoculars, i.e. an observation instrument, are meant for. A rifle scope is not intended to be used for scoring deer, watching birds or scanning for game...it is an aiming instrument.
 
I have a first focal plane battery operated 6X24 -50 Vortex and it puts every one of my 6 Leupold to shame. Optics better, larger rear eye box, cross hairs move where and when U move em and U can trust the adjustment in the field, not so with many of my Leupold scopes and I do not a a Leupold scope under $1000. Vortex for me from now on.
 
bearkilr said:
Tracking is immaterial unless you have turrets. Believe it or not, many of us actually hunt with a scope that once set doesn't get re-adjusted.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that. Nowhere did I say or indicate that hunters or shooters exlcusively use optics with target turrets. The tracking characteristics of an optic are related to both its movement when dialing adjustments as well as its ability to hold zero. An optic that has a wandering zero is the result of a poor erector system which equals poor tracking.

Tdc
 
TDC said:
An optic that has a wandering zero is the result of a poor erector system which equals poor tracking.

Tdc
Click to expand...

That can be one culprit, but a wandering zero isn't limited to a faulty scope. Loose bases or a scope moving in the rings under recoil will shift POI and likely ruin most scopes. I've personally seen several poor quality mounts ruin top of the line scopes, where the hunter would then lay the blame on the scope's quality.
 
Last edited:
jjohnwm said:
TDC, I've disagreed with a lot of your posts in the past, and probably will do so again, but I think you have hit the nail on the head with this one. It's laughable how many people seem to think of their rifle scopes the same way that birders think of their binoculars. Riflescopes are aiming devices, not observation instruments. Or course you need sufficient image clarity to see your target clearly, but most scopes provide that. All the other aspects of quality construction and precision adjustments are what separate a reliable, durable and dependable hunting or competition optic from a wannabe.

We have a poster crowing about 2000 rounds through mutiple scopes? Big deal...what does that tell anyone? You have a couple of scopes that each see maybe a few hundred rounds. The fact that they survived isn't worth mentioning. Did they withstand significant recoil from large calibers? Were they zeroed once and then not touched? Were they subjected to harsh extremes of weather? If not, then their survival proves nothing. If they survived any or all of these challenges, then that doesn't make them great...it merely means they might be acceptable.

Oh, and to the fellow checking the antlers on deer through his riflescope: That's what binoculars, i.e. an observation instrument, are meant for. A rifle scope is not intended to be used for scoring deer, watching birds or scanning for game...it is an aiming instrument.
Click to expand...


Zeroed once, tracked and adjusted many times and back to zero. 2000 rounds of .308 though one scope. Still sub MOA... And I shoot all year, +30 to -15. This yeah I will likely be shooting colder since last year I didn't have the opportunity.

I am not counting my other scopes right now since this thread is not about them.

And I am not saying that it is impressive or noteworthy, only that my experience is going fine.
I expect this scope to continue to serve me indefinitely. And if its current performance is any indication, it will do so admirably.
 
Last edited:
bearkilr said:
That can be one culprit, but a wandering zero isn't limited to a faulty scope. Loose bases or a scope moving in the rings under recoil will shift POI and likely ruin most scopes. I've personally seen several poor quality mounts ruin top of the line scopes, where the hunter would then lay the blame on the scope's quality.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm aware of that. We are discussing optics not mounting systems. A wandering zero when you eliminate a poorly mounted optic, a SH!tty shooter, windn, ammo, etc etc is the result of poor tracking of the optic.

Tdc
 
Daver_II said:
Zeroed once, tracked and adjusted many times and back to zero. 2000 rounds of .308 though one scope. Still sub MOA... And I shoot all year, +30 to -15. This yeah I will likely be shooting colder since last year I didn't have the opportunity.

I am not counting my other scopes right now since this thread is not about them.

And I am not saying that it is impressive or noteworthy, only that my experience is going fine.
I expect this scope to continue to serve me indefinitely. And if its current performance is any indication, it will do so admirably.
Click to expand...

No offense but its often users of lower quality products that feel the need to boast about how their item is holding up, as if it were a surprise. When I buy a product I don't pay much attention to round count or age as I expect and am confident that what I buy will work without issue.

Tdc
 
jjohnwm said:
Oh, and to the fellow checking the antlers on deer through his riflescope: That's what binoculars, i.e. an observation instrument, are meant for. A rifle scope is not intended to be used for scoring deer, watching birds or scanning for game...it is an aiming instrument.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see a hunter in the woods with a pair of binos, but you don't get many long range shots in the maritimes either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom