I am confused how you'd put your season on a new gun and bundled scope that only been fired four times, ever.

Who does that?

Even with the best gun, optics, and ammo that money can buy, I would not use it to hunt anything without getting a good zero and confirming zero.

Compared to the price of gas to get there, what is a box of ammo to zero and confirm zero? And your time and money invested in other things, a lease, etc. not to mention the ethics of hunting with a weapon you haven't tried to prove out in the smallest kind of way.

Unless of course, you did fire a group to confirm, and it was a little off, and you don't want to share that too?

Does that sound self-righteous of me? I am just saying what everyone else participating in this thread is probably thinking.

I threw a Vortex Crossfire 3-9 x 40 on my truck gun. I have more expensive glass on hunting rifles, but this gun is for varmints, hogs, etc. only. And also did one-shot zero (actually 4 shots) just as DH described. No problems yet - I have shot many more rounds threw the gun and it has stayed on so far - about a year.

Not trying to enter fray on methods or the benefit of high quality equipment, just adding my experience to original question.

I’m going to ignore your negativity. Other than that statement.

I also decided years ago that I do not like a heavy recoiling rifle. Over the years I’ve hunted with and spent range time behind rifles up to my 375 H&H. I once put 30 down range in one setting from the H&H. What I decided was that I was stupid. I will no longer shoot a heavy recoiling rifle without a muzzle brake. For the most part I have started using milder rounds for hunting. 7/08, 6.5x55, etc. if the recoil is uncomfortable in any way I put a brake on it.

What I will not do is own a rifle I can’t take to the range and shoot 30-100 rounds in a session.

As to the crossfire the one I played with was ok until it came to low light. Then it was poor at best. Keep shooting and enjoy the sport. That’s why we’re all here.

Dalroo, you have confirmed what is possible if you are confident of your abilities as a rifleman. There are dozens of theory's on why and how to zero a rifle, just as there are many theory's on how many fired rounds are necessary to be ABSOLUTELY sure that a rifle is truly zeroed.
You only have to read thru this thread to see how different individuals think on the subject..
Since the subject of this blog is OPTICS, my post/s were directed at the performance of a specific scope. My results are there for all to see.
There are plenty of Vortex haters on this website, read thru this thread and you can see some of the names.
It is my personal belief that there are an increasing number of 'Optics Elitists" who firmly believe that good optics can only be attained by spending a bundle of cash. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Optics elitist is the dang truth. I am one myself. When a friend insist that he will not spend the money I yield and tell them to buy a Burris FF or a Nikon Prostaff. Never a Vortex. All the same money but the Prostaff and the Fullfield will get the job done for 98% of hunters. Yes I believe that number to be true. 98%. Call the rest of us glass snobs or what you want. The truth is the cheaper optics have no place at all in the 2% world. They can not touch what half of the 2% do. The problem is neither side is willing to understand the other. If we separated forums the 2% would still need to tell the 98% how they’re doing it wrong. Don’t forget I have became a 2% guy. But I get it.

Will my post count go down, if I stop posting?

I guess i shouldnt make it personal. I know it's hard to consider anything from a guy that has only shot one deer. I would bet I've put as many rounds downrange as the most avid shooters on this forum. In my experience even the most durable gear will sometimes fail, right out of the box. That is why I can't see using a brand new gun on four shots.

Would you stake your life on that weapon, after just four shots and not one single group fired? I bet not.

I guess i shouldnt make it personal. I know it's hard to consider anything from a guy that has only shot one deer. I would bet I've put as many rounds downrange as the most avid shooters on this forum. In my experience even the most durable gear will sometimes fail, right out of the box. That is why I can't see using a brand new gun on four shots.

Would you stake your life on that weapon, after just four shots and not one single group fired? I bet not.

Optics elitist is the dang truth. I am one myself. When a friend insist that he will not spend the money I yield and tell them to buy a Burris FF or a Nikon Prostaff. Never a Vortex. All the same money but the Prostaff and the Fullfield will get the job done for 98% of hunters. Yes I believe that number to be true. 98%. Call the rest of us glass snobs or what you want. The truth is the cheaper optics have no place at all in the 2% world. They can not touch what half of the 2% do. The problem is neither side is willing to understand the other. If we separated forums the 2% would still need to tell the 98% how they’re doing it wrong. Don’t forget I have became a 2% guy. But I get it.

Are there better scopes than the vortex? Absolutely. Are there worse? Absolutely. My only experience is with the viper gen 1. I have been hunting with it for the past 5 or 6 years and haven't had to turn down a shot or have a fault I can blame on the scope yet. Will I buy another one? Maybe a gen 2, but not another of what I have or lesser of their line. I find it hard to take facts from online scope suggestions because it always seems one mans trash is anothers treasure and "to my eyes" etc. I don't believe in the my eyes, one is better or worse there is no such thing as seeing better when looking through an inferior piece of glass. I think much like anything else (guns, trucks, etc.) it is viewed with personal preference/bias and name recognition/loyalty. Sure would be nice if there was a tool that would take all the human opinion out of it and shine through all the scopes and it would rank from best to worst on clarity and brightness. Tracking and holding zero can be easily enough tested. Yet you can take 2 scopes and set them side by side on the same day same range same target and shooter 1 says scope A is better and Shooter 2 says scope b is better.

I guess i shouldnt make it personal. I know it's hard to consider anything from a guy that has only shot one deer. I would bet I've put as many rounds downrange as the most avid shooters on this forum. In my experience even the most durable gear will sometimes fail, right out of the box. That is why I can't see using a brand new gun on four shots.

Would you stake your life on that weapon, after just four shots and not one single group fired? I bet not.

Tagging out every year on a 100 acre tract doesn't make you an expert either. Donkey