Cabelas has them on sale for $309.

Who runs one and how you like it?

Last few scopes I've bought have been conquests and meopros. How does it compare to them?

Also, will go on a 7mm-08

Thanks

Dave

Had the exact scope on my tikka 7-08. Well built, held zero, was bulkier and heavier than I desired, and I was not thrilled with clarity especially in terms of low light performance. I sold it and replaced it with a trijicon. Previously had a Zeiss conquest 3-9 mounted on this rifle, and was more pleased with the Zeiss than vortex granted there was a difference in magnification ranges.

I bought a viper after reading rave reviews and promptly sold it because of the clarity. IMO if you have been running zeiss glass you will be disappointed.

Yep, to me the clarity is somewhat like some older leupold
Vari-x III's I have used/owned. Not even close to Zeiss, I would place high end Nikon and Burris over Vortex for brightness and clarity.

I bought a Viper 6.5-20 x 44 last year and have been very disappointed with it. The glass itself is fine, but the V-Plex wide cross-hairs are so thin, they are next to impossible to see on a dark background or in low light. I have another Vortex Crossfire that has the thicker v-plex cross-hairs and I like it much better.

So in your opinion are the older leupolds worse. I own several old ones and they don't seem to be as clear as the new ones..will leupolds replace them?

I have old Leupolds, new ones, Burris, and a new Vortex Viper, and I honestly can't say which is best/brightest. I will say that I was very pleasantly surprised with how bright the Burris was. The new Leupold might be a touch brighter than the older model. That's a maybe. The vortex Viper is awfully nice and bright and I have no complaints at all except that the lowest level of illumination might still be a little too bright, but that's no deal killer.

I hunted all one season with the Burris FFII 4.5-14 and it was great.

But...if you are a turret cranker, the above info is of little value to you.

I own one with the BDC reticle. 309 is a great deal, I would absolutely buy it, I have mine mounted on some DNZ mounts and love the set up. Very clear and with the warranty you can't beat it IMO.

My brother is a Leupold man, but every time he shoots one of my Vortex scopes he says he might need to get one. I own the Viper HS, Viper PST FFP, a Diamond back on a .22, and a set of Diamondback binocs. I guess you could say I'm a fan!

I've got mostly Vortex Diamondbacks...great scopes...just ordered a new Vortex 4-16x42mm Diamondback HP Waterproof Scope....

I've got the Viper 4-16x44 HS LR and love it. I don't have any complaints on clarity, but to be fair, I haven't used it in low light so I can't give feedback on that.

I was checking out the POI on several rifles this morning. Scopes involved were Leupold VX3 and VariX III, Burris FFII, and the new Viper PST 4-16 x50 FFP. To my eyes, the least sharp scope was the Vortex Viper. I played with the focus and the side parallax, but it just isn't as sharp. It was the inexpensive Burris that impressed me the most.

This wasn't low light testing, but was just shooting at 100 yards in morning sun, with the sun at my back. The Vortex was on 16 power, the Leupold and Burris were at 14 power. The VariX III is a 30 mm tube 6.5-20x50.

I'm going to leave the Vortex on my 260 for now, but may sell it after hunting season and get something else. It isn't bad but it isn't as good as I had expected.

You should have compared on similar powers, the higher magnification the worse performance in low light.

I had my viper HS LR 4-16 hunting low light the first time last weekend. Sitting in a tripod watching a really nice young 8pt I could have shot him for what I would think is well after legal shooting light. At 6;25pm I could have still easily placed a shot at about 90 yards (on 8x... not 16)

Note that it was not in low light. It was bright morning light. The Vortex just didn't seem as sharp. I may be wrong, and the purpose of the shooting wasn't to compare the optics. Both Leupolds (old and new) were sharp at max power, as was the Burris. The last rifle I shot had the Vortex, and I noticed right off that it wasn't as sharp. I fiddled with parallax and the focus, and it just never did get as good as the others. I spent hefty money on that scope, so I am a bit disappointed. I'll do more shooting and comparisons to see if there really is a difference.

I see. Sitting one of our other stands I scoped some deer looking due east into the rising sun. I also had issues with the lighting. Not sure if it was the scope or what, but I couldn't even get a site picture with the sun glaring in like that. Guess ill see what the old Leupold does if I break it out later this year.

I have found that similarly priced optics are generally the same class and there is a lot of personal preference and application in choosing. therefore to say why one is better than the other is it better for you? - that being said vortex offers a lot of options with scopes Turrets Reticle Parallax Magnification for less cost than say Leupold add at least a hundred for a each option Reticle Turrets AO

Shown below is a new setup in 223 wsssm winchester70 with a viper HS 4-16 x 44.

I've played with a Vortex HS a while back and I was fairly impressed. The glass was decent, not as good as the Bushnell Elite that was next to it. Parallax adjustment was extremely tight and this model had their dead hold bdc which I kinda liked as it had some windage marks as well.

About froze my tailfeathers off, but I just got back from my shooting bench. I had to have one more look through all of my scopes to see if there really is one better one or a worse one. To say again, they are Leupold 4.5-14x40, Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x42? or 44, Leupold 6.5-20x50 with 30mm tube, and Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50 FFP with 30mm tube. One Leupold 4.5-14 is over 25 years old and one is less than 6 months old. The Leupold 6.5-20 has to be about 25 years old also. Burris is about 2 years old and the Vortex is about a year old.

I had them all on 14 power. There really wasn't much difference that I could tell between all of them as I examined small objects at 100 yards. For instance, I could not see an obvious diff between the two Leupold 4.5-14's, even given the age difference. The old 6.5-20 is, was, and remains marvelous. The Burris is just as sharp as the Leupold 4.5-14's. The Vortex Viper still seems a bit less clear. Hard to tell much difference, but I do think it's there. The Leupolds are sharp all the way to the edges. The Vortex seems a bit fuzzier at the edges. Again...there just isn't much difference (that I can tell). Certainly not enough difference to take the Vortex off the 260.

I'll probably check them in dim light pretty soon. Maybe there'll be a noticeable diff under those conditions.

I suppose that if it made all THAT much difference to me, I'd go to an upper level Zeiss or Swaro, but it's dark or nearly so when I quit hunting now, and none of the above scopes cause me to be unhappy in dim conditions.

I notice the 4-16 pst is not as clear as the 6-24 pst. For the price difference I think the 6-24 is the one to buy. I'm not the only one that thinks the 6-24 is better. We had 5 or 6 guys shooting up to 850 yds and we all though the 6-24 had better glass. We were only comparing two scopes so other 4-16's may be better..

I think for your money it is a good deal. Do you have a firm budget?

I have never been a Vortex fan till I bought their 10X42 talon bino's this year and THEY ROCK!!!