New Vortex PST Gen II 1-6x24

>heavy as fuck

Im sure that bench can take .01 extra pounds even if you numales can't

I assume street price will be the usual half of what Vortex lists as MSRP?

>>32268341

Oh you. I use the Razor and off hand practice starts to suck after a while, especially when you're trying not to shake for shooting out to 25yards.

I understand why people like the more expensive German optics that weigh less, even if I don't want to cough up the cash.

>>32268291
>http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-viper-pst-gen-2-1-6x24-riflescope-with-vmr-2-moa-reticle/reticle
>1-6
It's about time they released a 1-6 in between the entry level Strike Eagle and the Razor. I have a 1-4 PST and I'm happy with it, though I might have to replace it with this and move the 1-4 onto a different gun.

>>32268291
>exposed turrets
those look like capped turrets

>>32268514
Specs lists them as capped while features says they're exposed...

>>32268361
>Rifle
>6x scope
>Offhand
>25 yards
Proof money=/=skill

>>32268291
Serious question, why does this cost 3 times as much as a strike eagle? Is the glass itself just better? Only serious difference I can tell from the specs is the reticle.

Also, were you implying exposed turrets were better? Why wouldn't you want caps?

>>32268687
Go have a look through a razor and a look through a strike eagle. The difference is pretty clear. The viper will fall somewhere in between.

>>32268687
Higher quality glass and not made in China so higher QC standards probably. Not that it really matters since you can just send it back to vortex and they'll fix it no questions asked.

>>32268464
but not at 999$ MSRP

>>32268814
>>32268879
I figured it the glass. I haven't shot anything but irons.

One of these days I'll get some decent glass.

>>32269052
I've used a bunch of different scopes and honestly the cheap PA and vortex scopes have good enough glass for under 500 yards. It's when you start getting into long range precision shooting that you really need that crystal clear glass.

>>32268291
second focal plane MOA reticle at $1k? fucking garbage.

turrets sure look capped but why would you want exposed turrets for x6 or lower anyway?

>>32268648

Did you seriously read that as using the high end for off hand at 25m? Is English your 2nd language?

>>32269540

FFP in anything under 6x is a waste, in my opinion. You can't even make out hash marks until you hit the full magnification.

Also, Vortex lusts their products about 40% over vendor price on their website for some reason. I assume this will be about $600.

>>32269822
Is there any point in getting a MIL or MOA reticle over a BDC when it comes to 1-4 or 1-6?

>>32269887
easier to range with

>>32269788
Not the same anon but your previous post sure makes you sound like a weak bitch.

>>32269788
Because you seriously complained about standing shots at 25 meters with a 6x scope hurting your bitch arms, which means you shoot your scoped AR at 25 yards. Making you both a bitch and a shit shot.

>>32272288
>he's never done any kind of long gun training

Every ounce matters when you go through a day of unsupported shooting. With a decent mount you're going to be adding close to 2lbs to your rifle if using this scope. There's a reason lightweight builds are becoming so popular

>>32272288

> He's interested in 1-6x optics
> But he'll never use the minimum magnification because optics are only for long range shooting

Why are you even in a thread talking about low power variable optics if you never plan to use one for it's intended purpose?

>$1000 chink shit
just get an accupoint