I’m doing another build. 18” HBar Fluted. Rifle length gas. Doing a more SPR type on this one.
I’m looking at optics and the Viper seems to check all the boxes for the price. All the reviews seem to be very positive, especially at the price point.

What say the riflemen? I like the simple MOA reticle. Better for an amateur like myself. The exposed turrets seem to be dead on 1/4 MOA clicks from the online reviews.

MOA reticle might be more intuitive to zero, but imho mils are easier for dialing longer range.


The 3-15 is only slightly heavier and comes with the much better ebr2c reticle in either MOA or mrad.

I saw that reticle. It’s a bit busy for me. I won’t be doing any ranging with it. Just zeroing and holdover.

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
I like the simple MOA reticle. Better for an amateur like myself. The exposed turrets seem to be dead on 1/4 MOA clicks from the online reviews.

There aren't very many 2-10x (-ish) scopes out there. Vortex Viper, Burris XTR, Nightforce Compact, US Optics -- from what I know.

The Viper PST II 2-10x is a decent scope. Evidently the first generation PST had some issues, so look at the Gen II. The Viper has clear glass. Its turret clicks are good, but not quite up to the distinct feel of those from Nightforce. Parallax adjustment is good.

Elevation tracking is good within the limits that you will be using with a 223 AR-15. Dialing up or down 25-35 MOA tracks well for me. The challenge with the Viper is a shifting zero stop when I dial up all the way, bump up against the scopes limits, then dial back down to the set zero stop. IIRC this is something like 60-62 MOA on my setup, as I believe my NF mount has 20 MOA of cant built it. Anyway, coming back to the zero stop, the elevation of the zero will change by a couple of MOA. Meaning I have to reset the zero stop if I bump up against the top of the elevation setting.

This is of course a weakness in the system. I've never had this occur with any of my NF scopes. However, I will let it slide on this scope, given its moderate cost and my use. I have the Viper on a 16" barrel 223 AR-15. IIRC one full 25 MOA revolution on the turret gets me to 700-750 yards, depending on ammo. Realistically, this is the limits of this rifle. However, should I want to lob bullets to 1,000 yards, I believe I still wouldn't go beyond 35 MOA of elevation. So I'm good as long as I don't try to dial up 60+ MOA of elevation.

The Viper's glass is clear and bright. BTW, the Burris model seems pretty similar, but I've only played with unmounted versions presented at matches by the Burris rep. I haven't shot a gun with the Burris on it. I haven't even seen the USO model, so I can't comment there. I also own the Nightforce 2.5-10x. Nightforce's glass has a bit of a blue cast to it, but the NF actually has better resolution. The NF scope is second focal plane -- the Vortex, Burris, and USO are first focal plane.

I don't understand your comment on the "simple MOA reticle is better for an amateur like me". The Viper's MOA and mil scope reticles are incredibly similar. In reality I don't think I've seen a manufacturer with more similar MOA/mil reticles. Both are relatively simple. I find both a bit busy -- IMO my NF reticle is cleaner. Both MOA and mils are angular measurements. When you start thinking about elevation and windage in angular values, it really doesn't matter which system is used.

I wish Vortex would have placed major reticle MOA marks at 5, 10, 15, and 20 MOA. Their use of 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 MOA reticle subtentions adds numbers and lines that aren't necessary. It's interesting that Burris did the same on their 2-10x scope.

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
I saw that reticle. It’s a bit busy for me. I won’t be doing any ranging with it. Just zeroing and holdover.

I suspect the "busy" portion of the 3-15x reticle is the Christmas-tree-style holdover/windage dots. With the exception of Tangent Theta's reticle, I'm not a fan of these.

The holdover/windage dots aren't for ranging -- they're for shooting at longer distances, using the reticle to calculate elevation and windage, without dialing turrets. Once a shooter becomes familiar with such Christmas-tree-style reticles, they can actually be much better for holding over than reticles with the additional dots.

All of the Viper's FFP reticles are capable of ranging at any magnification. Viper scopes with SFP reticles can also perform ranging, but only at one magnification setting.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
I saw that reticle. It’s a bit busy for me. I won’t be doing any ranging with it. Just zeroing and holdover.

I suspect the "busy" portion of the 3-15x reticle is the Christmas-tree-style holdover/windage dots. With the exception of Tangent Theta's reticle, I'm not a fan of these.

The holdover/windage dots aren't for ranging -- they're for shooting at longer distances, using the reticle to calculate elevation and windage, without dialing turrets. Once a shooter becomes familiar with such Christmas-tree-style reticles, they can actually be much better for holding over than reticles with the additional dots.

All of the Viper's FFP reticles are capable of ranging at any magnification. Viper scopes with SFP reticles can also perform ranging, but only at one magnification setting.

I have been debating in my head about FFP vs SFP. I think I'll go with familiarity for now.

As far as MOA vs MIL, I know what milliradians are, and it may be better, but my head is just used to MOA. 1"@ 100, 2"@ 200 etc. I know past 500 you have to start taking in to account the slight difference but that's about my range limits for now.

Thanks for the info. My distance shooting has been limited to hunting. I'm just starting to learn about real deal distance calculations.

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
I have been debating in my head about FFP vs SFP. I think I'll go with familiarity for now.

When I see such statements, I generally assume the shooter is familiar with SFP reticles, but not FFP reticles. Do you realize the Viper is only available in FFP?

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
As far as MOA vs MIL, I know what milliradians are, and it may be better, but my head is just used to MOA. 1"@ 100, 2"@ 200 etc. I know past 500 you have to start taking in to account the slight difference but that's about my range limits for now.

IMO mils isn't better or worse than MOA, just different. They both measure angles -- nothing more, nothing less. Mils use a different scale, which better lends itself to angular values being listed in decimal form, generally with a lower number of digits to list the angular value. That's really the difference. Mils are more commonly used by LEO/military/agencies/tactical shooters. MOA is more commonly used in USA shooting sports that aren't tactical-type competitions (i.e F-class and benchrest).

To become successful in long distance shooting, IMO the shooter must stop thinking about target sizes in inches or centimeters. Measurement should be done via reticle values and/or turret click values. MOA is not an exact 1" to 100 yards ratio -- it's off by 4.7%. That 4.7% error is the same percentage at 10 yards, 100 yards, and 10,000 yards. Few shooters and rifles/ammo are capable of differentiating 4.7% at any distance. The 4.7% error is irrelevant to distance, as long as the shooter deals with targets in angular values.

The difference between MOA and IPHY (inches per hundred yards) is .235" at 500 yards. Maybe a handful of people can differentiate less than 1/4" at 500 yards. I know I'm not one of them.

Only feedback I've seen on the PST FFP 2.5-10 was the reticle design made it a bit small at 2.5x.

Both my 2.5-10x are NF and therefor SFP.

There is a NF for sale here locally (used). I may go look at it.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Only feedback I've seen on the PST FFP 2.5-10 was the reticle design made it a bit small at 2.5x.

I have this scope on my SCAR. It's true, the reticle is smallish at x2.5 for reading the numbers, but the crosshairs & hashes are clear enough for me. Also, it's better when illuminated, even on a low setting.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Only feedback I've seen on the PST FFP 2.5-10 was the reticle design made it a bit small at 2.5x.

You've hit on the challenge of almost all LPV (low powered variable) scopes on the market. At magnifications less than 4x or 5x, the reticle subtentions on both mil and MOA scopes become really compressed. Drop down to 1x or 2x, any reticle subtentions closer than maybe 3 or 4 MOA (1-ish mils) become hard to use. IMO this is why most LPV scopes are SFP.

Nightforce did a pretty good job with its FFP reticles on their new 1-8x scopes. I suspect that in the future, their concept of smaller inner subtentions and larger outer subtentions will become more common.

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
There is a NF for sale here locally (used). I may go look at it.

It's worth a look. NF scopes are built really well. Understand that the glass may look a bit blue and it may not appear as bright as newer scopes (Viper & Burris), but the quality of the glass is there. NF turrets and elevators are also built like tanks.

NF produced at least two different 2.5-10x scopes. The original is listed as 2.5-10x32 -- it does not have parallax adjustment, meaning parallax is fixed at 125 (-ish) yards. The newer version is 2.5-10x42 and does have parallax adjustment.

You will be much more pleased with the 2.5-10x42 version. This version is brighter and can produce a clearer image, due to the parallax adjustment.

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
I saw that reticle. It’s a bit busy for me. I won’t be doing any ranging with it. Just zeroing and holdover.

Not for ranging, for wind holds at long range.

Once you get out beyond 500 yards, you are really out in space with a standard reticle if you aren't dialing for wind. If you plan to always dial for wind, you won't need the additional wind holds.

I dont think anyone really ranges using their reticle anymore. Range finders are just so much more accurate, and offer inclination or declination now.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: IndianaBoy,

Go NF if you can afford it, I have grown away from Vortex...........

The “Christmas tree” concept in reticles is interesting. The first Horus reticles I was familiar with like the H59 were more grid like, but although they could be used for the same wind and elevation holds, they seemed to obscure more of the field of view at first glance. The tree type dots are less obtrusive and evidently don’t bother people as much.

Regardless of which type is used, they make aiming much more precise if the shooter will be holding over for both wind and elevation. If the elevation is always dialed, then the horizontal crosshair can be used for the wind (assuming, of course, that it is calibrated) and the “tree” isn’t necessary. If, however, the elevation is held, then moving the point of aim left or right for the wind will have the target just hanging out in a blank area of the field of view. Precision aiming is difficult to impossible for many shooters then.

The scopesights used by military snipers early in our current wars had calibrated crosshairs only (e.g., mildots), and there are accounts of things like “I had to hold 8 feet up and 6 feet over for my second shot.” Being able to achieve hits like that clearly involved great skill, great luck, and probably both.

In my experience, being able to ignore the elements of a “busy” reticle is just a matter of becoming accustomed to them with practice concentrating on what’s necessary for a shot.