Range trip report / My thoughts on the Vortex Viper PST 1-4x24

i guess its just going to be that i have to get ahold of one of these things and take a look before i order it.

Yep...to echo shootists comments, the pic in the original post is seriously misrepresentative of what you actually see when you look through the scope. Looking through mine, the reticle actually appears about 3 times the size of that....shootists reticle shots are more representative of what you actually see. I tried to take a pic myself, but it looked more like the one in the OP so its not worth posting. And while the MRAD reticle might be a tiny bit smaller, it wouldn't be to the extent that you'd notice in my opinion.

I have the MOA version and have never had any problem with the lines being too thin. 90% of the time I don't use them anyway - its usually either the outer circle or the dot....and because of that I actually prefer the lines to be less prominent. The times where I am using the lines for holdover are invariably when I am shooting at relatively long range (above 200m) where it takes time and concentration to build a shot anyway, and given those circumstances I have no trouble picking the lines up when I need them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA80Dan

Yep...to echo shootists comments, the pic in the original post is seriously misrepresentative of what you actually see when you look through the scope. Looking through mine, the reticle actually appears about 3 times the size of that....shootists reticle shots are more representative of what you actually see. I tried to take a pic myself, but it looked more like the one in the OP so its not worth posting. And while the MRAD reticle might be a tiny bit smaller, it wouldn't be to the extent that you'd notice in my opinion.

I have the MOA version and have never had any problem with the lines being too thin. 90% of the time I don't use them anyway - its usually either the outer circle or the dot....and because of that I actually prefer the lines to be less prominent. The times where I am using the lines for holdover are invariably when I am shooting at relatively long range (above 200m) where it takes time and concentration to build a shot anyway, and given those circumstances I have no trouble picking the lines up when I need them.

---

based on the pics, I'm satisfied the reticle size is not going to be a problem, though I do agree with F2S that extended, thicker stadia would be a tremendous help.

my concern is with the illumination. without good illum. in bright circumstances, the reticle design becomes more of an issue. it's an either/or in this case and it's puzzling why they just didn't go ahead and make the reticle with larger/thicker stadia that extend out past the current lit portion.

obviously, if they did this, AND had illum that was truly daylight visible on all backgrounds, this would make it a class leader. as is, well, I'm just going to have see one for myself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shootist~

Pics of reticles tend to be misleading. I think the OPs pics make the reticle appear considerably smaller than it is. The ones below (at 1x and 4x at 135 Yds) make the reticle appear larger than the actual view. I had to use some camera zoom to get things to work.

In real life the overall size is about right - at 1x the circle is about the same width as an IPSC A zone at 12 -15 Yds. It's outside your usable view at 4x - at distance - and you use either the dot (or the cross-hairs if on a distant and dark target). Whether the hash marks are on the thin side could depend on the use. For me they are on the thin side, but it would take larger (2.5 or 3 MOA instead of 2.0) hash mark separation to make room for heavier lines.

This is the MOA version.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...at4x135Yds.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...at1x135Yds.jpg

---

thanks. you don't perchance happen to have a similar pic with the illum on, do you??? :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ra2bach

thanks. you don't perchance happen to have a similar pic with the illum on, do you??? :cool:

---

I think I tried an outside daylight pic with the Illum on max (and visible to the eye), but the camera did not pic it up. In bright sun it's not going to help you, even against a dark target.

Cloudy or rainy day, low light, or under any inside artificial light it works very well. I'm not a pig hunter, but I can see where some of the lower settings will work in near complete darkness - after your eyes are adjusted to the dark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shootist~

I think I tried an outside daylight pic with the Illum on max (and visible to the eye), but the camera did not pic it up. In bright sun it's not going to help you, even against a dark target.

Cloudy or rainy day, low light, or under any inside artificial light it works very well. I'm not a pig hunter, but I can see where some of the lower settings will work in near complete darkness - after your eyes are adjusted to the dark.

---

that, er, sucks... from your pics, the darkened reticle is very visible against the light colored building but at the edges, where it overlaps the darkened foliage, it becomes almost invisible.

this is the area where I was hoping a lit reticle, even dimly, would help...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ra2bach

that, er, sucks... from your pics, the darkened reticle is very visible against the light colored building but at the edges, where it overlaps the darkened foliage, it becomes almost invisible.

this is the area where I was hoping a lit reticle, even dimly, would help...

---

In real life it is not as bad as it looks there....there is usually a contrast between the very sharply defined black of the reticle and whatever you are looking at. But for sure, bright daytime illumination lets this scope down somewhat. In my experience if you do try to turn the illumination on when sighting distant dark targets in bright sunny conditions, more often than not by doing so it makes it worse as you then lose that sharp black contrast. In anything less than bright sunlight however, that does work well.

At the end of the day, if your priority is bright daytime visible illumination, this scope is not for you. Better options would be a Meopta K dot, S&B Short dot, Trijicon TR24, or if on a budget, the Burris TAC-30. All of these have some sort of compromise, however, be it some kind of limitation or price. Seems the "perfect" low power variable scope is still yet to be invented.