Better glass or more features? Vortex Strike Eagle 5-25x56 ffl or vortex pst viper ii ffp 5-25x50

[citoriguy]

Having a Steiner on my AR-.308, I will agree it’d be hard to go down to a budget scope. I’ve been looking at Zeiss, Swarovski, and Nightforce lately, but those are way out of my budget, at least for now. My old Leupold was ”made” in the Philippines. I think a lot of scopes are made there, though they are likely made with some Chinese parts.

 

[Duxprep]

Japan, Philippines?

If they were made in Japan they would say so as Japan makes some of the best glass in the world. My guess is the reason they refuse to explicitly say where is because it's China

 

[Larry Gentile]

As I am someone who just bought a Leupold MarK 5HD 7-35x56 Buy the best glass you can afford. At the time I wanted a nice scope my price range was about $1100. I made the decision to save up for another several months and get the MK5. I'm glad i did!

Also if you are LEO/Military/Vet Leupold has an amazing super secret discount. I picked up the MK 5HD at a price I could not pass up.

As far as I am aware, all glass is made overseas High end glass are usually sourced from Japan or Germany and lower priced items are usually sourced from other areas in Asia including China. Some China glass is good quality though. Take a look at reviews of the Athlon Aries ETR's.

 

[frenchman]

I said this before: glass is just one part of the equation. The turrets are where the money goes. Nightforce, for an example, tumbles their (made in house) leaf springs for two weeks (that's right kids, that's 14 days) before mounting them. Their tubes are 15-20% thicker than the competition's. Their glass is made in Japan, which provides some of the best glass available. I have a Viper 1-6 gen II on one of my rifles, and I will, in due time, retire it for an NX8 1-8 FFP, no doubt. S&B, Swarowski and Zeiss as well as Steiner and Docter use Schott glass. That's pretty much the top of the mountain when it comes to glass quality. There's no glass manufacturer for sporting goods lenses in the USA, so it's made in Germany>made in Japan>made in Philipines>made in China. Period, end of fairy tale. You buy a shit tier Crossfire/strike eagle/diamondback scope, you'll get a shit tier optic. When people talk about Vortex, they first speak about the amazing warranty, and how they stand behind their product. That's because A LOT of people had to use it. The chances to get a scope out of the box that functions without flaws grows exponentially when you go for an actually GOOD scope instead of settling for GOOD ENOUGH.

 

[richc]

I have both. I've used the Strike Eagle on my target AR-15 for years. For my purposes an amazing scope.

Recently we acquired an M1A Loaded rifle. My son wanted to put a great piece of glass on it. He checked with Vortex and because he is military he got an amazing discount. We got the VIPER® PST™ GEN II 5-25X50 FFP.

Is there a difference? Yes. Does it really make a difference to me? Not really. With either scope I can hit what I'm aiming at.

 

[dcmdon]

Glass itself has reached a point where its really a commodity. There are criteria used to judge optical glass and a piece of glass with certain ratings from country X is the same as another piece of glass from country y with the same ratings.

You guys are over stating the vlue of the "glass".

Where it gets interesting is in the glass coatings. This is done in house at places like Leupols, Nighthawk, Sightron, and Vortex. All companies that don't make their own glass, but make well regarded optics.

The magic is in the coatings and in the mechanical design of the scope.
What you perceive as "good glass", could in fact be good coatings and mechanical design.

 

[groundscrapers]

I've held and used both so I can offser some insight. I was highly impressed with the new strike eagle. Turrets feel much closer to my razor hd gen II than the PST gen II do and really what it came down to was the glass quality. You get more light transmission on the strike eagle but sacrifice a bit with the glass quality. If you are out there shooting mid day you will be plenty happy with the strike eagle.

 

[308rifleman]

Strike Eagle has all the bells and whistles with marginally worse glass than the pst II. which would you guys choose?

The highest magnification scope that I own is a Nikon 4x-12x. It is mounted on my Savage bolt action .223 rifle. I cannot see the point of anything of higher magnification, considering the ballistics of the 5.56/.223 round. My bolt action .308 Savage wears a 3x-9x Leupold as its eyeball. Again, plenty of magnification. No need to overdo it and spend $$$ unnecessarily. Spend the cash saved on quality ammo for practice.

 

[dcmdon]

The highest magnification scope that I own is a Nikon 4x-12x. It is mounted on my Savage bolt action .223 rifle. I cannot see the point of anything of higher magnification, considering the ballistics of the 5.56/.223 round. My bolt action .308 Savage wears a 3x-9x Leupold as its eyeball. Again, plenty of magnification. No need to overdo it and spend $$$ unnecessarily. Spend the cash saved on quality ammo for practice.

How far is the farthest you've ever shot?

I never used anything more than a 9x scope set in the 4-6x range until I took the precision scoped rifle class at Sig. We started at 100 and over the course of 4 days ended at 1000 yards. I borrowed a 6-24x50mm scope. From 600 yards on I was pretty much at 18X all the time. I didn't go beyond that because with a 50 mm objective, the exit pupil got too small for me to manage above 18x. I also couldn't see my hits above 18x because the rifle would move enough in recoil so the target was out of frame.

I was shooting a .308.

Guys who were shooting lower recoiling calibers like 6.5 Creedmoor could zoom in more and spot their own targets. Guys who were shooting scopes with larger 56 mm objectives were able to zoom in and still have a similar sized exit pupil.


And of course guys who were more skilled were better able to line their bodies up to absorb recoil in a way that didn't disturb their sight picture AND manage a narrow exit pupil even with a .308 and a 50mm objective lens. ha.

 

[308rifleman]

How far is the farthest you've ever shot?

I never used anything more than a 9x scope set in the 4-6x range until I took the precision scoped rifle class at Sig. We started at 100 and over the course of 4 days ended at 1000 yards. I borrowed a 6-24x50mm scope. From 600 yards on I was pretty much at 18X all the time. I didn't go beyond that because with a 50 mm objective, the exit pupil got too small for me to manage above 18x. I also couldn't see my hits above 18x because the rifle would move enough in recoil so the target was out of frame.

I was shooting a .308.

Guys who were shooting lower recoiling calibers like 6.5 Creedmoor could zoom in more and spot their own targets. Guys who were shooting scopes with larger 56 mm objectives were able to zoom in and still have a similar sized exit pupil.


And of course guys who were more skilled were better able to line their bodies up to absorb recoil in a way that didn't disturb their sight picture AND manage a narrow exit pupil even with a .308 and a 50mm objective lens. ha.

At PI, I qualified Expert with the iron-sighted M16A4 and M855 ball. The rounds ripped up cardboard targets at that distance. Against living targets? I would not go beyond 300 yards or so with a .223. Just my opinion.

 

[dcmdon]

308. But at what distance. I'm not questioning your skill in any way.

My point is that 10 years ago I'd have agreed with you. 12X is more than you will ever want to buy.

But people are shooting much longer distances now, mostly for fun. So a 24X scope makes sense if you are going to engage targets out to 1000 yards. After I took the sig class I went out and bought an 18X and am happy with it.

For all other uses, I don't need a more than a 3-9 Realistically. I can hunt deer at any distance with that scope that I'm confident I can ethically harvest that deer.

Though very very highly unlikely, If the shit hits the fan and I ever need to engage humans, 9x is enough to get you to the practical limits of the .223. Shoot, its not hard to ring the 12" gong at 200 yards with an Aimpoint. As an aside, I consider an Aimpoint to be inferior to good iron sights at distance. I can hold tighter groups at 200 and 300 yards with my CMP AR with open national match sights than I can with an aimpoint.

The other aspect is the desire to not just get a hit. But get a hit in the X. People are using 35x scopes to shoot F class. Which makes sense. In a controlled environment with solid support a higher magnification (If you have done everything else right and your fundamentals are solid) can help.

 

[dcmdon]

In general though, I agree with you. Most people use more magnification than they need.

 

[Rockrivr1]

I guess it all depends on the accuracy you're looking for. I had a 3-9x scope on my Rock River LAR8 (AR-10 Variant) and at 300 yards I was not getting anywhere close to the precision I wanted. There just wasn't enough magnification for pinpoint shooting. I swapped that scope out for a 6-24x and achieved much better results. Pretty close to MOA at that point. It really all depends on the shooting you're doing.

 

[CoastieRon]

No love for SWFA?

 

[Cuz]

In general though, I agree with you. Most people use more magnification than they need.

You can usually make up for a lack of skill with added magnification. It can shorten your endgame a little bit.

 

[dcmdon]

No love for SWFA?

I saw 2 guys with their fixed 10x scope at the precision rifle class I took at Sig. They did fine.

 

[308rifleman]

308. But at what distance. I'm not questioning your skill in any way.

My point is that 10 years ago I'd have agreed with you. 12X is more than you will ever want to buy.

But people are shooting much longer distances now, mostly for fun. So a 24X scope makes sense if you are going to engage targets out to 1000 yards. After I took the sig class I went out and bought an 18X and am happy with it.

For all other uses, I don't need a more than a 3-9 Realistically. I can hunt deer at any distance with that scope that I'm confident I can ethically harvest that deer.

Though very very highly unlikely, If the shit hits the fan and I ever need to engage humans, 9x is enough to get you to the practical limits of the .223. Shoot, its not hard to ring the 12" gong at 200 yards with an Aimpoint. As an aside, I consider an Aimpoint to be inferior to good iron sights at distance. I can hold tighter groups at 200 and 300 yards with my CMP AR with open national match sights than I can with an aimpoint.

The other aspect is the desire to not just get a hit. But get a hit in the X. People are using 35x scopes to shoot F class. Which makes sense. In a controlled environment with solid support a higher magnification (If you have done everything else right and your fundamentals are solid) can help.

No, you are asking a very valid question. I use the .308 (Savage Axis .308, Stainless) as a hunting rifle. I hunt the forests of NH and Maine. I used to hunt in my native Alabama and my wife, Jill's, native Louisiana. Rare is a shot over 100 yards. Most are well under that, in woods, swamp or bayou. I trust the .308 on large game out to 300 yards. My Savage .308's eyeball is a 3X-9X Leupold. Plenty of magnification. Anything more than that, for my purposes, would be a sad waste of $$$.