I'd agree with that in everything but reference to any information cited that came from a highly disingenuous and questionable certain space agency. Anything they've taught any of us is likely debunkable and generally theoretical, in it's scientific merits of said claims ie distance to the moon etc etc. Lol GOD bless everyone, question everything, especially if it's from a gov't agency built on and by nazi war criminals made hero. 🇺🇸
#vortexnationpodcast suggestion for a podcast is spotting optics and good hunting practice. People using scopes instead of binoculars to spot deer. The last 20 years it’s more and more common in my personal experience to look across a valley (PNW) and see someone scoping me. It’s really upsetting, maybe because I was in the army for a long time but it causes a physical reaction. The last few years I just stand up and walk to them and ask them to stop pointing a loaded rifle at me. Maybe other people are having this experience and it’s not just me? But it’s happened with an increasing frequency. Since you gentlemen have a deep experience in hunting in all kinds of environments that I’ll never come close to, I’d imagine there’s a discussion to be had there. Comment posted here as most the videos I’ve watched ask for feed back and suggestions for topics to cover. And if this topic has been discussed already, my apologies I’ve recently discovered these Vortex podcasts and have a lot of content to catch up on.
Totally agree but also disagree. My wife and I had some hunters last season prepare to take a shot on some deer that were in between us and them, straight line. I jumped up and started waving to deconflict because of the risk. The only reason why I disagree is because this points, to me, to a failure of the hunting education system and instructing fundamental weapons safety (I’m in Montana). Like you, I’m a vet (USAF) and served as a range safety officer during the last year of my time in. This kind of blatant safety issue angers me. Other behavior, such as people just randomly cranking off strings of fire to get animals to move, rather than take the effort to hunt, has ruined hunts for me and my wife. In the fall 2021 season, we had to completely alter our plans and get off a ridge line because I could hear the bullets getting way too close to us.
I'd wager it's as much an issue of cost as it is training/teaching. People think to themselves "I have this scope on my rifle, that's what it's for, why spend more money for something that (probably) doesn't even give me as much magnification power when I already have a scope?" I'm not saying it makes it "right" but I can see the train of thought that would lead someone there. I "glass" a lot with my rifle optic because my rifle tends to already be in my hands, but if I happen to see a person through my scope (very rare for me, but it's happened) I tend to not even stay in that area, I don't want to risk them moving and me not know where they've moved to, or them potentially sending a shot too close to me because they didn't notice I was there. When I hunt whitetails I hunt on my home property in southeast Tennessee and there's no issues with that, but if I travel to hunt something (for instance a mule deer or elk) then I'm out of my "stomping grounds" and I'm much more wary both of the terrain AND any people that may be nearby without my knowledge.
I think a big problem is, the smaller, cheaper and easier to carry binos are generally not made very well…think small bushnell or tasco from Walmart for $20-30…versus even vortex crossfire 8x42 that are like $100-125, but they’re also kind of big/clunky. I know they give you a good bino harness/storage case with them, but I have a pair and rarely use them because they’re awkward to carry in the woods when I already have so much other stuff. What I’ve done is stepped up in quality and down in size. I bought a pair of vortex Diamondback 8x32 and they’re excellent. Small form factor that is easier to take with me hunting and excellent glass so I don’t feel like I need more. I could be wrong but in my personal experience that’s been the difference. I used to rely more on my scope, but not to just look around. I’m in Pennsylvania and we have restrictions on antlers so I used to have to first find a buck, but use my scope to make sure it was legal. Now I can use the small binos to find that buck and assess legality before raising my rifle…those good binos also have allowed me to see more of the woods, so potentially things I might have missed with a narrower field of view with my scope.
On the topic of focal plane. I have seen some manufacturers starting to get very clever with their FFP reticle designs. So that when you are zoomed way in you have all the fancy stuff, and when you zoom out, bolder and thicker lines or markers come into view and you end up with a fast and useful reticle on the lower end power levels in the scope. I think we should keep an eye on these types of reticles as more and more are developed, because I think they could be a game changer. I have a PRimary Arms PLXc 1-8 with the raptor M8-m on a 16" AR and it's like it's 2 different scopes. 1-4 it's fast and bold, and 5-8 you have this super precise and clear image with etched ED glass and it's just awesome in its own right for the DMR type of role. I know this isn't a hunting example and there are different considerations to be made, but the principal still holds true either way.
1:07:50 - no matter how you mount your optic, the projectile arc is only going to meet up with your straight line of sight twice. getting an optic closer to the barrel brings your straight line of sight closer the the starting point of the projectile arc. this makes it so that any point of impact that is closer to you than your optic's set zero will not be as far below your point of aim. likewise, any impact in-between your primary and secondary zero points will not be very far above your point of aim. the higher you mount your optic, the greater the difference between your aim and impact will be in front of and between your zero points. the difference will be exactly equal to the added distance above your barrel. keep in mind that if you were able to aim directly down your barrel, there would only be one zero point. and the flatter your rifle and cartage shoot, the greater the distance between the primary and secondary zero points.
The only way your projectile arc is going to meet up with your straight line of sight twice is if you sight in at a very short distance. Maybe 50 yards? depending on your cartridge. None of the calibers I've ever used, sighted in at 100 yards, will meet up with the line of sight twice.
I am a dealer for another optic company, - Scorpion Optics, out of Canada; I really get a lot out of the Vortex Nation videos. I appreciate that they make a wide range of content, with all things hunting and firearm related. Good job guy's, this is the " Joe Rogan Experience " of hunting.
Really appreciate the kind feedback, Craig! Glad that you enjoy these videos and get some helpful information out of them! Thanks for tuning in and if you ever need anything, please don't hesitate to reach out my friend!
@@VortexNation Thank You so much, recently I have been on a "Vortex Nation" marathon. The 10 minute talk and the long form interviews are perfect educational entertainment, while reloading. Vortex optics and now your TH-cam channel, are true American success stories, similar to Weatherby. I hope one day I will be able to visit your headquarters. Keep up the good work Vortex Nation, you guys rock!
First focal plane vs. Second focal plane: I found that out hunting in Idaho up high. We were scanning long distances looking across canyons, but when we actually found the deer, they were in the dark timber sections. My Diamondback 4X16 FFP reticle almost disappeared in the heavy timber when I dropped the magnification down. I wished I had a second focal plane scope at that point, or at least an illuminated reticle...... Ah, you learn...
That's why I have both ,ffp riton optics series 7 5x 25x 56 ffp for target shooting 6.5 creedmore and the .308 hunting rifle has a Barra optics 3x15x 50 sfp because of that very same problem. It's better to have both and also have some fixed power optics also.
22:41 Best advice here and I learned it from earlier Vortex podcasts. Not only should you follow the recommended torque, set down and step away from the thread locker stuff. It is liquid when you put it on and it will throw the torque off. And if you ever need to change scopes, it will throw torque off when re-tightening. I set the scope and rings to where the front ring is just behind the objective bell. No problems, ever. And also no tracking problems that come from squeezing the tube and hampering the elevators. Also, I use Vortex Match Precision rings. Worth the money, no lapping needed, set and forget.
Why don't mfgs include a clear indication of required ring torque on every ring set and scope? Baffles me that this seems to be so important to the function of the scope and it seems like so few do.
@@nuckyduk15 interesting. I bought a crossfire 2. Didn't have it. Then again I did have the dude at cabelas mount it. Big mistake. Had to redo it myself later. Maybe he just chucked it. Good to know. I've bought some other lpvos that didn't have it either but not from vortex. I dunno. So far everything I've mounted myself I've had to try to find info online.
The biggest question you need to ask yourself (and be honest with yourself) when trying to decide on focal plane is "how much maximum magnification do (or might) I need for the task, and how often will I be at that maximum magnification vs somewhere in the middle?" For two examples (using my preferences, so this isn't a hard rule) my AR has a 1-10 SFP optic with a mil reticle. I have this setup because if a target is far enough that I need to use a hold-over then I'm going to be at maximum magnification because like Mark I like my magnification. On my long range rifle I have a 5-25 FFP optic with an illuminated reticle because I might shoot at something on 8x that I might need to use a hold-over for, AND I might also need to dial up to 18-20 and take a shot at a longer distance (and also need a hold-over) and I can do both without dialing my turrets as long as I know my dope.
Generally I think your reply is solid. I think about it more simply. Carry on min magnification? 3-5x. Ok. Pull up for a quick 0-50yd shot. Yea that works. 6x…no thanks. Mid range game. Crap….grab a fist full of magnification until it looks usable….yea, 8-12x. Holdover…wind, find the spot on the tree. Bang! Long range….take a breath. Crank to max. Put in the elevation. Wind? Ok. Can I see my game after recoil? If no, back down magnification until I can….check wind again, hold wind, squeeze…got ‘em. Those scenarios work with ffp and a good reticle. SFP had me confused.
The MRAD vs MOA discussion was pretty interesting. The only reason I continue to buy MOA scopes is because my other 20 scopes except for 1 are in MOA. Given the chance to do it over I would definitely choose MRAD for the very same points Ryan brought up. Caveman brain prefers small numbers. If Vortex wants to do a 1 to 1 swap I'd be down 🤣.
I haven’t watched that podcast yet but arrived at the same point as you. Even if MRAD is “better”, I already have 4 MOA scopes and want to stick with one system. It’s a lot like inches/feet/miles. That’s how my brain is programmed and I’m 64 now. The worst case is like Australia where how far you drive is kilometers but how much you weigh is stones.
16-18" in 30-06 is a waste / at this Barrel Length a 308 can outperforme a 30.06 cause it is more suited to shorter Barrels / more efficient than 30.06 in shorter Barrel. Run the Calibers trough something like Quickload or Gordons Reloading Tool and you will be suprised. I have loaded 30.06 with 150gn Barnes TTSX for a Friend with Powders that have 100% Burnratio in his 18" Barrel my 308 is faster out of my 18" with the same Bullets and have way better Casefill even when you put more traditionel Powders in the 30.06 you get less Speed and only 75-80% Burnratio so you waste a lot of Powder outside of the Barrel without gaining Speed
I liked Ryan's explanation. MRAD gets you on target quick because the numbers are smaller. But MOA gets you more precise. The adjustments are smaller, mainly. I also agree you don't need the most expensive. That being said, I do believe in using what is comfortable for me. So, my rifles have had Diamnondback Tactical 6-24X50 on them but now they all have Venom 5-25X56. That reticle just suits my eye, regardless. And the eyebox is the most comfortable. I don't always need all the magnification. In fact, I have rarely needed to go past 10, maybe to 16. After that, I can loose resolution on targets that are only intermediate range. Because that scope is comfortable to me regardless of what I am doing, I am willing to endure the 35 oz. That being said, my rifle, loaded, is around 12 lbs. Me strong like bull.
Myth: "MRAD scopes are metric" and/or something like "they are for use when you are measuring distances in meters and drops in, like, centimeters" sometimes plus something like "while MOA scopes are for use when you are measuring distances in yards." Truth: MRAD scopes relate to the decimal system, i.e. base 10 system, no matter what the distance and subtension units of measure (yards, meters, donkey leaps, football throws, etc.), and MOA scopes relate to the base 60 system. One MRAD of angle in a right triangle subtends to 1/1,000ths of the length of the base leg of the right triangle (distance between rifle and target). Example: If you shoot 500 yards (that's the base leg of the right triangle) and your bullet drops 24 inches (that's the subtension of the angle), then the angle of the drop = 24 / (500 x3 x 12) = 0.00133 x 1,000 = 1.33 MRAD.
One topic which I think should be address is what is the durability of an optic. I don’t mean 50 big recoil or air gun recoil, I mean more practical durability. Like attached to a 12lb rifle, how far can I drop it without losing zero on the right, left or top sides? I think hunters consider this very important. We are always having a rifle fall over leaned on a tree, Hunter falling on the rifle or just bumping it and it rolling while on a tripod. A guy named Formidilous is doing testing like this on Rokslide and many makers are struggling. Could be an opportunity to show Vortex’s superior engineering! If you agree as a user, please reply to this comment!
If you mount a scope with tape that is .001" thick around the scope under the rings (total of .002" added diameter) , assuming it can only squish to 50% of it's size you then have a .001" variable that likely changes each shot as the gun vibrates. Assuming you use 2 rings that then becomes a .002" variance, so maybe .1° added to the natural variation in accuracy of the rifle, it could make a rifle that shoots perfect single hole groups at 100 yards suddenly shoot 6 MOA
Interesting reply….not sure I follow, but maybe it is similar to mine. Ordinary, you have aluminum or steel rings clamping an aluminum tube with steel screws. To get the screws to hold their position (torque) and the scope tho hold its position, you need clamp load or deformation in the elastic range to maintain this force. When you add a much weaker material in the joint, the clamp load reduces to almost zero. The ring may loosen up. Then the scope will slide. You will find you get to 15 in lb torque, but in 5 min it drops to 10. Then you torque again and it drops again. The tape cannot hold the clamp load, therefore it deforms plastically until clamp load is reduced. It only helps when the ring or scope surface is so irregular that it is needed to promote surface contact.
My question is why in the world would you want tape inside your rings, there’s no possible reason that this would be better. You’re taking (hopefully) very precisely machined pieces, and reducing the inside diameter of the rings, without reducing the outside diameter of the scope. Try to put a 5/16 bolt in a 1/4 nut for a visual if you don’t see why this is a problem. Then, depending on what kind of tape you use, the adhesive will probably change properties in different temperatures, and over time. The most reliable shooting systems are the ones with less variables.
Photographers have F stop, cinematographers have something similar to describe brightness of the optics. You probably can add this, so that you can objectively compare lenses.
I put a Vortex scope on a air rifle. and it put little black stuff in the lens 3rd or 4th shot. Ryan, sorry I missed your call day before yesterday, sounds like you guys got it figured though. I had an email today saying my scope was sent back to me. appreciate you guys and all your work.
I think the air rifle myth comes from putting budget rimfire scopes on magnum springers. Especially in the 90s and before. I shook several recticles loose with a Diana .22 caliber. But a 300 dollar(back then) springer and put a 40 dollar scope on it.
thank you for this!Monkey is learning things it had forgotten!:) 3-12 56 is a go to around these parts.Black Grouse or Capercallie hunting in winter. snow winter low light. my next im thinking 3-18 by 50 for my next...
4-12x40 simple, crosshairs. Simple solid and affordable is all I need for Hunting between 100 and 300 meters. Most important for me is glass clarity, like you guys mentioned.
Vortex nation , im a leupold guy, but im looking at a vortex viper hs 2.5-10x44 for my tikka 300 wsm elk gun. Would that be a good choice for a lightweight packing gun shooting 20-400 yards max?
I shoot right handed and am blind in my left eye. Therfore I thought a monocular would be better for me than binoculas. But I found that I couldn't hold it steady. Any sugestions?
I have 2nd focal plane 3x9 scopes on all my rifles. I have gotten used to them. I am intrigued by the new 1x8 scopes. I hunt point of aim and restrict myself to this distance for a particular rifle. Should I just stay with what I know? I am no longer young.
(Just my opinion, do what you will with it) On the topic of first and second focal plane for hunting. I don't see where a hunter within the max point blank range of thier given caliber and game species would ever be severed better by a first focal plane scope or a busy retical. I wouldn't think until you get outside that max point blank range number that dialing or holding off on a marked retical would be advantageous to shooting a nice fine duplex second focal plane scope with capped turrets for most calibers that will do you a little more or less than 400 yards depending on your gear and game, just like the old days. Now, if you may take the occasional shot at 400-600, I can really see where dialing turrets with a clean retical is much better. But in my opinion the only place where a first focal plane scope that dials and has a busy retical does me any good over a standard duplex is when I plan on using d.o.p.e (data of previous engagement) aka shooting multiple times at the same target. Which having tools in my optic for using previous shots to get on target better in my mind is range or tactical shooting situations, not hunting. When I'm hunting I want less things to confuse me, I want a simple retical that stays a size that is adequately sized to make a precise shot at any magnification with a busy background or difficult target color.
Common best practice is to Not use loctite on ring screws as it will cause applied torque to be inaccurate and increase risk of over-torquing. Some like to put some blue loctite on the mount base screws but I'm not entirely sure that's necessary.
Something else I wanted to add on binocs. At the time, it was the best deal for me and still is. The Diamondback 12X50. It does everything I need. And I like changing zoom depending depth of the forest. That is, I can look near and then look far. And I do not know how I was hunting before getting them. I can now see, better than a rifle scope, if that whiteness is an antler or a broken twig. Usually latter. Or if that flick was an ear or a leaf. Usually the latter. But it saves time and from what I can determine, most of hunting is glassing with binocs rather than moving a rifle and scope. Though, I can also do that because it does, in fact, limit the FOV to exactly where I am interested.
Welp 1/4 of the way in and I’m suffering from busted myth syndrome! Larger tube yields more light and air gun scopes being the biggest. I know very little about binoculars but smaller objective yields bigger field of view? That doesn’t compute but I believe you. This is very informative.
Really enjoyed this dialog. I see it was a couple of months old but I was just getting around to looking at TH-cam hunting feeds and came across several of Vortex Nation training sessions pod casts. Thanks.
Best all around Hunting Scope i have for my Style of Hunting is sry to say it here in the Vortex Podcast Zeiss V8 1.8-14x50 it has wide enough FOV for driven Hunts (23m or 69ft at 100) and enough Magnification for longer Shots as well yes it is expensive (2 years ago it was way cheaper i have payed 2150 for the actual Price i wouldnt buy it) but it is so versatile I also love the Range of 2-12x50 for Hunting i dont need higher Magnification for Hunting Application but i often need FOV in the Woods
Seems in bad taste to advertise other scope brands here unless Vortex somehow wronged you. We are very fortunate to have the selection we do in brands and models. No matter how you feel about Vortex products, they are providing great information on the podcast and if you’re old enough to remember, they changed the whole optics industry by forcing many of the companies to improve their quality and warranty and pricing to compete. It wasn’t that long ago that you were pretty much on your own if your Zeiss scope had issues. In fact, a friend of mine sent in a pair of older Zeiss binos for some basic repairs. He got them back a couple months later along with a pretty sizable (offensive) repair invoice. Other manufacturers have had to follow suit with Vortex. I just sent in a scope (not Vortex) that was destroyed in a fall which was obviously not the optics companies fault. They immediately replaced it with the updated version. This would have been unheard of before Vortex.
@@HoffnerPrecision i dont offend Vortex here i only wanted to point out that my prefered zoomrange and i think for most European Hunter differ from American Taste and it would be nice if Vortex would think about a Line that is more suitable for European needs (i also think that these Zoomranges would also be suitable for American Needs in more Woodland Ereas) We Europeans prefer Scopes that are useable for Driven Hunts / Stalking and Treestandhunting in the Dawn so we want on the Lowend something like a 1.8 or 2 and on the Highend 12-14 with a Lensdiameter of 50 or 56 cause for most Hunters here in Europe these are the most Versatile and sry but Vortex doesnt offer such scopes when they would i would be the first to test one, i never had a issues with Zeiss Swarowski or Meopta here in Europe Zeiss fixed old Binoculars from my Dad for free after 25 Years (they have 30 Years Warrenty here in Germany....)
for hunting at sensible ranges a fixed mag scope is more than enough scope, on my stalking rifles I use schmidt and Bender 8x56x30mmtube, they are fantastic in low light and easily enough mag out to far enough for deer stalking
I’ve always struggled between magnification and field of view. Midwest whitetail hunter here so straight wall sun 200 yard hunter here. I’ve got a .350 legend w a diamondback 3.5x10x50 and a .44 rem mag w 1.5x5x22. Still not sure what is better😮
Not a myth but one of my annoyances is: "thats too much scope for that gun." I'm slapping a 3-18 on my 5.56 AR. Is 18x pretty high for most distances that 5.56 is viable? Yeah. But I dont have to use it. As the inevitable car analogy goes, your tacometer has a redline but you dont have to use it. Its there if i need it, like if I'm observing something or spotting for someone else, but it doesnt need to sit on 18x all day.
Respec to Air rifles I have some experience you migth find useful: I own a Crossfire, used it in a .223 ag good accuracy. Then changed to a Benjamin nitropiston .22 Air Rifle and loose cero in 5 to 10 shots, then Used it for a wile on an FX PCP without issues. Another point is , air rifles need to be able to parallax/focus at very near distances and manny scopes dont do that.
Love your shoes guys but I beg to differ about scope quality from 40year ago, I have an old 8x56 Schmidt and bender not sure when it was made but that darn thing is sharp and crisp as ever, the details is amazing, my favorite scope by far of all the ones I have.
Good show guys! What scope would you recommend for a 5.56 Ruger American Ranch Rifle shooting within 400 yards. I’m not rich so my budget matters. I’m in New Mexico and most (but not all) of my shooting is desert. As in all hunting, some canyons are wooded and darker than the open desert. What Vortex scope would fit these situations? I’m 67, astigmatism, aging daily. Not sure that a FFP is wise. What say ye?
Hunting in Michigan. Did not need binos unless hunting over open farm field. We just used the scope to get a more precise view. Mainly because you really didn't have time to look over the field, then go to binos, then pull up the rifle and find it in the scope. Usually by the time you did all that it was through your opening and gone. Now that I am older, and the eyes aren't as good anymore, the looking part is done with binos then straight to the scope. Would like to see a 10 min on 6mm Rem.
Love the show Just wondering I run a 9x range finder and a high magnification scope but do not use a bino or spotter what is the disadvantage of this style of loadout
So, bananas request for a recommendation… looking for a LPVO 1-6 maybe 1-8 that I can use on my 5.56 and throw on my 308 bolt gun for pigs/deer maybe elk… a literal 1 scope for everything inside of 500 yards. Preferably 1st focal plane. I realize that it’s a borderline ridiculous concept, but it’s where I’m at right now.
9.3x62, 9.3x57, 9.3x64 Brenneke, 9.3x66 Sako, 9.3x any dam thing you want, but please do an hour+ special on the truly awesome 9.3 calibers. And then do one on African pg and dg cartridges, starting with the big bore black powders and through the Nitro Expresses.
I’ve tried and tried to think of a nice way to say this, but I just can’t. I’ll just be honest and say it’s nice without Jims interruptions. Jim if you see this I like you and you’re a great guy I can tell and I like your presence on the podcast but I think host points get interrupted but your points. And you have good points. But I can see where it would he hard for mark or Ryan to tell you this and I know there’s a chance y’all will never see this comment but I’m just a nobody so I thought I’d thought it out there any way. I’m about 25/30 podcast in roughly and have learned so much from all 3 of you in 2 months then than I have my whole life. Thanks.
Rimfires usually don’t have as good of mounting options as center fires. add that in with a less accurate ammo and the riflescope will seem to “ misbehave” with a wandering zero or groups that don’t make sense. Definitely had it happen where a scope got loose due not torquing it down properly. - good stuff guys!
4-16 with a 1 inch tube gives me my best results for my rifle, I never shoot over 500 yards. I’m not made of money so I find the best optic I can for no more than $800. There’s several different options out there.
We need a video on airguns and the mounting practices that allow for good shooting with airguns. Also waiting for a series on the best Western backcountry hunting calibers. You can even break them down by species
I’ve hunted most everything in the lower 48 and Europe in the last 50 years with scopes from 1.5-5 to 3.5-10. Made 500 plus yard shots with no problems, there is no substitute for good glass. Nuff said.
I have a quick question about FFP reticle. Everyone says that the reticle gets so hard to see on lower magnification but I would like some clarification. Is it the magnification range or lowest magnification number that makes the reticle hard to use. IE) would a 3-15 have the same size reticle on the 3X as say a 3-24X would even though it has a larger magnification range?
That's a good question. I have the PST gen ii 3-15 FFP and I can tell you it's nearly impossible to read the numbers on the reticle at 3x. I can't imagine a ffp 3-24 would have a better 3x reticle.
It's the magnification. Because the reticle is scaled to actually size a 1 MOA aiming point is 1 MOA at any magnification, making it small at lower settings. If you had a 10-15x FFP scope it wouldn't be an issue because seeing 1 MOA at 10x isnt as bad, but scopes dont sit in those ranges.
I read that the problem with air rifles has to do with the spring piston. It sends a jolt forward and backward within a millisecond of each other. Since you guys have lots of scopes maybe you can do some research on that?
It seems obvious to me, that Vortex would create a bench and target comparison photos for all of their optics. Min zoom, max zoom for each optic. High noon and low light could easily be replicated so that you could not only see what your optics show, but also that in your talking points could easily show diagrams and the comparison photographs for exactly this reason. You are an optics manufacturer. Surely you test your products?
As Paul Harrell says those would just be numbers on a page. Everyone's eyes and conditions are different/changing, sometimes by the hour. I don't disagree with you but it's hard to make accurate comparisons without doing your own research.
I like that 9HoleReviews does that. When they have a weapon system that includes an optic they view the range through that optic and go through the magnification if it's variable.
Something that should be asked is should there be a numerical number listed with the scope's because of the kinds of lenses used for magnification. They should use some of this episode for a future spaghetti shoot out.
what a great topic, amazing technology now a days with optics. now imagine in the old days people who took long shots with very little optics to none. but for this guy vortex 1x6 viper 2, on two of my comp rifles and two strike eagles 🦅 1x6 and 1x8. on the others. if i can see it through the scope, ding 🛎️ on them steel targets.
Interesting discussion on where optics components are made or procured from. It's not a quality discussion. It really is a political and national security issue in some cases. It is something to think about as I type this remark on my chinese built phone. We need to think about long term effects of who we give our money to manufacture our products. If corprate profit is the number one goal and getting the consumer the reasonably priced product they want. I would choose to use India, Taiwan or Philippines for cheap labor than China. All of these options we still have to ignore poor working conditions or child labor at the manufacturing plants in these countries. It's something to consider. Myself included.
Hi my son bout one of your high end scope,an another mid grade one . I have some very exspencive scopes an in comparison if I need another one I would buy one of the Vortex brand very high quality for the money
Oh come on guys, I have broke 3 scopes on a break barrel ,1100 fps pellet gun. Good mounts . It's the opposite gun response that breaks the optics. Now I'm having a hard time believing anything you are saying. Sorry I so wanted to listen to what you was putting out.
WRT air rifle making a scope malfunction… I thought it was because of the inertia, and essentially a reverse recoil compared to a centerfire rifle. Centerfire scopes are not designed to withstand recoil in the opposite direction.
Alway remember they work for a scope company that is losing market shares and needs more sales. The cheaper scope market has to much competition so they are going to be pushing higher end scopes. I’m also writing this before watching.
Hey there. Did you experience an issue with a specific optic? We'd love to learn more about your experience and either get you back up and running, or pass your feedback along to our team as we're always working on new products.
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
This is such a valuable and intelligent supplement to your products to offer the public. Cannot thank you guys enough for these talks.
I'd agree with that in everything but reference to any information cited that came from a highly disingenuous and questionable certain space agency. Anything they've taught any of us is likely debunkable and generally theoretical, in it's scientific merits of said claims ie distance to the moon etc etc. Lol GOD bless everyone, question everything, especially if it's from a gov't agency built on and by nazi war criminals made hero. 🇺🇸
You guys represent Vortex well. Great job. Give them a raise.
#vortexnationpodcast suggestion for a podcast is spotting optics and good hunting practice. People using scopes instead of binoculars to spot deer. The last 20 years it’s more and more common in my personal experience to look across a valley (PNW) and see someone scoping me. It’s really upsetting, maybe because I was in the army for a long time but it causes a physical reaction. The last few years I just stand up and walk to them and ask them to stop pointing a loaded rifle at me.
Maybe other people are having this experience and it’s not just me? But it’s happened with an increasing frequency. Since you gentlemen have a deep experience in hunting in all kinds of environments that I’ll never come close to, I’d imagine there’s a discussion to be had there.
Comment posted here as most the videos I’ve watched ask for feed back and suggestions for topics to cover. And if this topic has been discussed already, my apologies I’ve recently discovered these Vortex podcasts and have a lot of content to catch up on.
Totally agree but also disagree. My wife and I had some hunters last season prepare to take a shot on some deer that were in between us and them, straight line. I jumped up and started waving to deconflict because of the risk. The only reason why I disagree is because this points, to me, to a failure of the hunting education system and instructing fundamental weapons safety (I’m in Montana). Like you, I’m a vet (USAF) and served as a range safety officer during the last year of my time in. This kind of blatant safety issue angers me. Other behavior, such as people just randomly cranking off strings of fire to get animals to move, rather than take the effort to hunt, has ruined hunts for me and my wife. In the fall 2021 season, we had to completely alter our plans and get off a ridge line because I could hear the bullets getting way too close to us.
I'd wager it's as much an issue of cost as it is training/teaching.
People think to themselves "I have this scope on my rifle, that's what it's for, why spend more money for something that (probably) doesn't even give me as much magnification power when I already have a scope?"
I'm not saying it makes it "right" but I can see the train of thought that would lead someone there.
I "glass" a lot with my rifle optic because my rifle tends to already be in my hands, but if I happen to see a person through my scope (very rare for me, but it's happened) I tend to not even stay in that area, I don't want to risk them moving and me not know where they've moved to, or them potentially sending a shot too close to me because they didn't notice I was there.
When I hunt whitetails I hunt on my home property in southeast Tennessee and there's no issues with that, but if I travel to hunt something (for instance a mule deer or elk) then I'm out of my "stomping grounds" and I'm much more wary both of the terrain AND any people that may be nearby without my knowledge.
Scopem back
I think a big problem is, the smaller, cheaper and easier to carry binos are generally not made very well…think small bushnell or tasco from Walmart for $20-30…versus even vortex crossfire 8x42 that are like $100-125, but they’re also kind of big/clunky. I know they give you a good bino harness/storage case with them, but I have a pair and rarely use them because they’re awkward to carry in the woods when I already have so much other stuff.
What I’ve done is stepped up in quality and down in size. I bought a pair of vortex Diamondback 8x32 and they’re excellent. Small form factor that is easier to take with me hunting and excellent glass so I don’t feel like I need more.
I could be wrong but in my personal experience that’s been the difference. I used to rely more on my scope, but not to just look around. I’m in Pennsylvania and we have restrictions on antlers so I used to have to first find a buck, but use my scope to make sure it was legal. Now I can use the small binos to find that buck and assess legality before raising my rifle…those good binos also have allowed me to see more of the woods, so potentially things I might have missed with a narrower field of view with my scope.
On the topic of focal plane. I have seen some manufacturers starting to get very clever with their FFP reticle designs. So that when you are zoomed way in you have all the fancy stuff, and when you zoom out, bolder and thicker lines or markers come into view and you end up with a fast and useful reticle on the lower end power levels in the scope. I think we should keep an eye on these types of reticles as more and more are developed, because I think they could be a game changer.
I have a PRimary Arms PLXc 1-8 with the raptor M8-m on a 16" AR and it's like it's 2 different scopes. 1-4 it's fast and bold, and 5-8 you have this super precise and clear image with etched ED glass and it's just awesome in its own right for the DMR type of role. I know this isn't a hunting example and there are different considerations to be made, but the principal still holds true either way.
1:07:50 - no matter how you mount your optic, the projectile arc is only going to meet up with your straight line of sight twice. getting an optic closer to the barrel brings your straight line of sight closer the the starting point of the projectile arc. this makes it so that any point of impact that is closer to you than your optic's set zero will not be as far below your point of aim. likewise, any impact in-between your primary and secondary zero points will not be very far above your point of aim. the higher you mount your optic, the greater the difference between your aim and impact will be in front of and between your zero points. the difference will be exactly equal to the added distance above your barrel. keep in mind that if you were able to aim directly down your barrel, there would only be one zero point. and the flatter your rifle and cartage shoot, the greater the distance between the primary and secondary zero points.
The only way your projectile arc is going to meet up with your straight line of sight twice is if you sight in at a very short distance. Maybe 50 yards? depending on your cartridge. None of the calibers I've ever used, sighted in at 100 yards, will meet up with the line of sight twice.
You think your bullet path is exactly tangential to the scope's line of sight?.
I am a dealer for another optic company, - Scorpion Optics, out of Canada; I really get a lot out of the Vortex Nation videos. I appreciate that they make a wide range of content, with all things hunting and firearm related. Good job guy's, this is the " Joe Rogan Experience " of hunting.
Really appreciate the kind feedback, Craig! Glad that you enjoy these videos and get some helpful information out of them! Thanks for tuning in and if you ever need anything, please don't hesitate to reach out my friend!
@@VortexNation Thank You so much, recently I have been on a "Vortex Nation" marathon. The 10 minute talk and the long form interviews are perfect educational entertainment, while reloading.
Vortex optics and now your TH-cam channel, are true American success stories, similar to Weatherby. I hope one day I will be able to visit your headquarters.
Keep up the good work Vortex Nation, you guys rock!
First focal plane vs. Second focal plane: I found that out hunting in Idaho up high. We were scanning long distances looking across canyons, but when we actually found the deer, they were in the dark timber sections. My Diamondback 4X16 FFP reticle almost disappeared in the heavy timber when I dropped the magnification down. I wished I had a second focal plane scope at that point, or at least an illuminated reticle...... Ah, you learn...
That's why I have both ,ffp riton optics series 7 5x 25x 56 ffp for target shooting 6.5 creedmore and the .308 hunting rifle has a Barra optics 3x15x 50 sfp because of that very same problem. It's better to have both and also have some fixed power optics also.
22:41 Best advice here and I learned it from earlier Vortex podcasts. Not only should you follow the recommended torque, set down and step away from the thread locker stuff. It is liquid when you put it on and it will throw the torque off. And if you ever need to change scopes, it will throw torque off when re-tightening. I set the scope and rings to where the front ring is just behind the objective bell. No problems, ever. And also no tracking problems that come from squeezing the tube and hampering the elevators.
Also, I use Vortex Match Precision rings. Worth the money, no lapping needed, set and forget.
Nice to see Ryan with his own coffee mug...bring on the .35 Rem 10 min. Talk!
Loading up some 35 Rem at the bench currently, great caliber
Great discussion! Miss Jim though! Is he coming back? Got lost on a hunt?
Why don't mfgs include a clear indication of required ring torque on every ring set and scope? Baffles me that this seems to be so important to the function of the scope and it seems like so few do.
Every new Vortex scope I've purchased had a torque spec warning attached to it. Whether it was a cheap Copperhead or a nice HSLR....they all had it.
@@nuckyduk15 interesting. I bought a crossfire 2. Didn't have it. Then again I did have the dude at cabelas mount it. Big mistake. Had to redo it myself later. Maybe he just chucked it. Good to know. I've bought some other lpvos that didn't have it either but not from vortex. I dunno. So far everything I've mounted myself I've had to try to find info online.
@Kenneth Beachy there is a tag rubber banded around that particular optic with the correct spec.
@@benkeachy i bought a diamondback Ii 4-16 and it had them
For the scope rings it’s 16-18 inch lbs. Don’t use lock tite
The biggest question you need to ask yourself (and be honest with yourself) when trying to decide on focal plane is "how much maximum magnification do (or might) I need for the task, and how often will I be at that maximum magnification vs somewhere in the middle?"
For two examples (using my preferences, so this isn't a hard rule) my AR has a 1-10 SFP optic with a mil reticle. I have this setup because if a target is far enough that I need to use a hold-over then I'm going to be at maximum magnification because like Mark I like my magnification.
On my long range rifle I have a 5-25 FFP optic with an illuminated reticle because I might shoot at something on 8x that I might need to use a hold-over for, AND I might also need to dial up to 18-20 and take a shot at a longer distance (and also need a hold-over) and I can do both without dialing my turrets as long as I know my dope.
Generally I think your reply is solid. I think about it more simply. Carry on min magnification? 3-5x. Ok. Pull up for a quick 0-50yd shot. Yea that works. 6x…no thanks.
Mid range game. Crap….grab a fist full of magnification until it looks usable….yea, 8-12x. Holdover…wind, find the spot on the tree. Bang!
Long range….take a breath. Crank to max. Put in the elevation. Wind? Ok. Can I see my game after recoil? If no, back down magnification until I can….check wind again, hold wind, squeeze…got ‘em.
Those scenarios work with ffp and a good reticle. SFP had me confused.
The MRAD vs MOA discussion was pretty interesting. The only reason I continue to buy MOA scopes is because my other 20 scopes except for 1 are in MOA.
Given the chance to do it over I would definitely choose MRAD for the very same points Ryan brought up. Caveman brain prefers small numbers.
If Vortex wants to do a 1 to 1 swap I'd be down 🤣.
I haven’t watched that podcast yet but arrived at the same point as you. Even if MRAD is “better”, I already have 4 MOA scopes and want to stick with one system. It’s a lot like inches/feet/miles. That’s how my brain is programmed and I’m 64 now. The worst case is like Australia where how far you drive is kilometers but how much you weigh is stones.
Thats why im glad I'm starting with MRAD out the gate. Swapping systems is taxing financially and mentally.
You guys should do a podcast on shorter barreled hunting rifles 16-18” in traditional hunting calibers like .30-06 and .270
16-18" in 30-06 is a waste / at this Barrel Length a 308 can outperforme a 30.06 cause it is more suited to shorter Barrels / more efficient than 30.06 in shorter Barrel.
Run the Calibers trough something like Quickload or Gordons Reloading Tool and you will be suprised. I have loaded 30.06 with 150gn Barnes TTSX for a Friend with Powders that have 100% Burnratio in his 18" Barrel my 308 is faster out of my 18" with the same Bullets and have way better Casefill even when you put more traditionel Powders in the 30.06 you get less Speed and only 75-80% Burnratio so you waste a lot of Powder outside of the Barrel without gaining Speed
I liked Ryan's explanation. MRAD gets you on target quick because the numbers are smaller. But MOA gets you more precise. The adjustments are smaller, mainly.
I also agree you don't need the most expensive. That being said, I do believe in using what is comfortable for me. So, my rifles have had Diamnondback Tactical 6-24X50 on them but now they all have Venom 5-25X56. That reticle just suits my eye, regardless. And the eyebox is the most comfortable. I don't always need all the magnification. In fact, I have rarely needed to go past 10, maybe to 16. After that, I can loose resolution on targets that are only intermediate range. Because that scope is comfortable to me regardless of what I am doing, I am willing to endure the 35 oz. That being said, my rifle, loaded, is around 12 lbs. Me strong like bull.
Myth: "MRAD scopes are metric" and/or something like "they are for use when you are measuring distances in meters and drops in, like, centimeters" sometimes plus something like "while MOA scopes are for use when you are measuring distances in yards."
Truth: MRAD scopes relate to the decimal system, i.e. base 10 system, no matter what the distance and subtension units of measure (yards, meters, donkey leaps, football throws, etc.), and MOA scopes relate to the base 60 system. One MRAD of angle in a right triangle subtends to 1/1,000ths of the length of the base leg of the right triangle (distance between rifle and target).
Example: If you shoot 500 yards (that's the base leg of the right triangle) and your bullet drops 24 inches (that's the subtension of the angle), then the angle of the drop = 24 / (500 x3 x 12) = 0.00133 x 1,000 = 1.33 MRAD.
One topic which I think should be address is what is the durability of an optic. I don’t mean 50 big recoil or air gun recoil, I mean more practical durability. Like attached to a 12lb rifle, how far can I drop it without losing zero on the right, left or top sides?
I think hunters consider this very important. We are always having a rifle fall over leaned on a tree, Hunter falling on the rifle or just bumping it and it rolling while on a tripod.
A guy named Formidilous is doing testing like this on Rokslide and many makers are struggling. Could be an opportunity to show Vortex’s superior engineering!
If you agree as a user, please reply to this comment!
That's why i use Nightforce optics. 😉
I wear trifocal glasses. Should I wear them when looking thru a hunting or spotting scope?
You guys mentioned the tape on the inside of the rings being a bad thing, I would love to hear more about this
If you mount a scope with tape that is .001" thick around the scope under the rings (total of .002" added diameter) , assuming it can only squish to 50% of it's size you then have a .001" variable that likely changes each shot as the gun vibrates. Assuming you use 2 rings that then becomes a .002" variance, so maybe .1° added to the natural variation in accuracy of the rifle, it could make a rifle that shoots perfect single hole groups at 100 yards suddenly shoot 6 MOA
Interesting reply….not sure I follow, but maybe it is similar to mine. Ordinary, you have aluminum or steel rings clamping an aluminum tube with steel screws. To get the screws to hold their position (torque) and the scope tho hold its position, you need clamp load or deformation in the elastic range to maintain this force.
When you add a much weaker material in the joint, the clamp load reduces to almost zero. The ring may loosen up. Then the scope will slide. You will find you get to 15 in lb torque, but in 5 min it drops to 10. Then you torque again and it drops again. The tape cannot hold the clamp load, therefore it deforms plastically until clamp load is reduced.
It only helps when the ring or scope surface is so irregular that it is needed to promote surface contact.
My question is why in the world would you want tape inside your rings, there’s no possible reason that this would be better. You’re taking (hopefully) very precisely machined pieces, and reducing the inside diameter of the rings, without reducing the outside diameter of the scope. Try to put a 5/16 bolt in a 1/4 nut for a visual if you don’t see why this is a problem.
Then, depending on what kind of tape you use, the adhesive will probably change properties in different temperatures, and over time. The most reliable shooting systems are the ones with less variables.
Would love to see Steve and Celeb from Brownells and these guys having a meeting of minds, debunking firearm myths.
Photographers have F stop, cinematographers have something similar to describe brightness of the optics. You probably can add this, so that you can objectively compare lenses.
I put a Vortex scope on a air rifle. and it put little black stuff in the lens 3rd or 4th shot. Ryan, sorry I missed your call day before yesterday, sounds like you guys got it figured though. I had an email today saying my scope was sent back to me. appreciate you guys and all your work.
I think the air rifle myth comes from putting budget rimfire scopes on magnum springers. Especially in the 90s and before. I shook several recticles loose with a Diana .22 caliber. But a 300 dollar(back then) springer and put a 40 dollar scope on it.
thank you for this!Monkey is learning things it had forgotten!:) 3-12 56 is a go to around these parts.Black Grouse or Capercallie hunting in winter. snow winter low light. my next im thinking 3-18 by 50 for my next...
4-12x40 simple, crosshairs. Simple solid and affordable is all I need for Hunting between 100 and 300 meters. Most important for me is glass clarity, like you guys mentioned.
Vortex nation , im a leupold guy, but im looking at a vortex viper hs 2.5-10x44 for my tikka 300 wsm elk gun. Would that be a good choice for a lightweight packing gun shooting 20-400 yards max?
It's perfect for elk. Montana born.
I shoot right handed and am blind in my left eye. Therfore I thought a monocular would be better for me than binoculas. But I found that I couldn't hold it steady. Any sugestions?
FABULOUS PODCAST.... LOTS OF GREAT INFO. THANKS👍🏼
I have 2nd focal plane 3x9 scopes on all my rifles. I have gotten used to them. I am intrigued by the new 1x8 scopes. I hunt point of aim and restrict myself to this distance for a particular rifle. Should I just stay with what I know? I am no longer young.
(Just my opinion, do what you will with it) On the topic of first and second focal plane for hunting. I don't see where a hunter within the max point blank range of thier given caliber and game species would ever be severed better by a first focal plane scope or a busy retical. I wouldn't think until you get outside that max point blank range number that dialing or holding off on a marked retical would be advantageous to shooting a nice fine duplex second focal plane scope with capped turrets for most calibers that will do you a little more or less than 400 yards depending on your gear and game, just like the old days. Now, if you may take the occasional shot at 400-600, I can really see where dialing turrets with a clean retical is much better. But in my opinion the only place where a first focal plane scope that dials and has a busy retical does me any good over a standard duplex is when I plan on using d.o.p.e (data of previous engagement) aka shooting multiple times at the same target. Which having tools in my optic for using previous shots to get on target better in my mind is range or tactical shooting situations, not hunting. When I'm hunting I want less things to confuse me, I want a simple retical that stays a size that is adequately sized to make a precise shot at any magnification with a busy background or difficult target color.
Do loctite your scope ring screws? And if so does the lubricant qualities of loctite change these torque specs?
Common best practice is to Not use loctite on ring screws as it will cause applied torque to be inaccurate and increase risk of over-torquing. Some like to put some blue loctite on the mount base screws but I'm not entirely sure that's necessary.
Something else I wanted to add on binocs. At the time, it was the best deal for me and still is. The Diamondback 12X50. It does everything I need. And I like changing zoom depending depth of the forest. That is, I can look near and then look far. And I do not know how I was hunting before getting them. I can now see, better than a rifle scope, if that whiteness is an antler or a broken twig. Usually latter. Or if that flick was an ear or a leaf. Usually the latter.
But it saves time and from what I can determine, most of hunting is glassing with binocs rather than moving a rifle and scope. Though, I can also do that because it does, in fact, limit the FOV to exactly where I am interested.
Welp 1/4 of the way in and I’m suffering from busted myth syndrome! Larger tube yields more light and air gun scopes being the biggest. I know very little about binoculars but smaller objective yields bigger field of view? That doesn’t compute but I believe you.
This is very informative.
Really enjoyed this dialog. I see it was a couple of months old but I was just getting around to looking at TH-cam hunting feeds and came across several of Vortex Nation training sessions pod casts. Thanks.
Best all around Hunting Scope i have for my Style of Hunting is sry to say it here in the Vortex Podcast Zeiss V8 1.8-14x50 it has wide enough FOV for driven Hunts (23m or 69ft at 100) and enough Magnification for longer Shots as well yes it is expensive (2 years ago it was way cheaper i have payed 2150 for the actual Price i wouldnt buy it) but it is so versatile
I also love the Range of 2-12x50 for Hunting i dont need higher Magnification for Hunting Application but i often need FOV in the Woods
Seems in bad taste to advertise other scope brands here unless Vortex somehow wronged you. We are very fortunate to have the selection we do in brands and models. No matter how you feel about Vortex products, they are providing great information on the podcast and if you’re old enough to remember, they changed the whole optics industry by forcing many of the companies to improve their quality and warranty and pricing to compete. It wasn’t that long ago that you were pretty much on your own if your Zeiss scope had issues. In fact, a friend of mine sent in a pair of older Zeiss binos for some basic repairs. He got them back a couple months later along with a pretty sizable (offensive) repair invoice. Other manufacturers have had to follow suit with Vortex. I just sent in a scope (not Vortex) that was destroyed in a fall which was obviously not the optics companies fault. They immediately replaced it with the updated version. This would have been unheard of before Vortex.
@@HoffnerPrecision i dont offend Vortex here i only wanted to point out that my prefered zoomrange and i think for most European Hunter differ from American Taste and it would be nice if Vortex would think about a Line that is more suitable for European needs (i also think that these Zoomranges would also be suitable for American Needs in more Woodland Ereas)
We Europeans prefer Scopes that are useable for Driven Hunts / Stalking and Treestandhunting in the Dawn so we want on the Lowend something like a 1.8 or 2 and on the Highend 12-14 with a Lensdiameter of 50 or 56 cause for most Hunters here in Europe these are the most Versatile and sry but Vortex doesnt offer such scopes when they would i would be the first to test one, i never had a issues with Zeiss Swarowski or Meopta here in Europe Zeiss fixed old Binoculars from my Dad for free after 25 Years (they have 30 Years Warrenty here in Germany....)
for hunting at sensible ranges a fixed mag scope is more than enough scope, on my stalking rifles I use schmidt and Bender 8x56x30mmtube, they are fantastic in low light and easily enough mag out to far enough for deer stalking
I buy good rings and I bought a torque tool for setting up scopes, my results changed.
I’ve always struggled between magnification and field of view. Midwest whitetail hunter here so straight wall sun 200 yard hunter here. I’ve got a .350 legend w a diamondback 3.5x10x50 and a .44 rem mag w 1.5x5x22. Still not sure what is better😮
I've got the same 350L setup. Ive been debating on buying the 3-9X50 Crossfire Straight wall.
@@nuckyduk15 can I ask why? Optic seems to work well. Probably over scoped but no complaints here (yet)
Not a myth but one of my annoyances is: "thats too much scope for that gun."
I'm slapping a 3-18 on my 5.56 AR. Is 18x pretty high for most distances that 5.56 is viable? Yeah. But I dont have to use it. As the inevitable car analogy goes, your tacometer has a redline but you dont have to use it. Its there if i need it, like if I'm observing something or spotting for someone else, but it doesnt need to sit on 18x all day.
So when do auto focusing scopes happen? Auto Parallax?
The cup added so much to the overall visual aspect - can't go wrong with a orange cup....
Respec to Air rifles I have some experience you migth find useful: I own a Crossfire, used it in a .223 ag good accuracy. Then changed to a Benjamin nitropiston .22 Air Rifle and loose cero in 5 to 10 shots, then Used it for a wile on an FX PCP without issues. Another point is , air rifles need to be able to parallax/focus at very near distances and manny scopes dont do that.
Love your shoes guys but I beg to differ about scope quality from 40year ago, I have an old 8x56 Schmidt and bender not sure when it was made but that darn thing is sharp and crisp as ever, the details is amazing, my favorite scope by far of all the ones I have.
Good show guys! What scope would you recommend for a 5.56 Ruger American Ranch Rifle shooting within 400 yards. I’m not rich so my budget matters. I’m in New Mexico and most (but not all) of my shooting is desert. As in all hunting, some canyons are wooded and darker than the open desert. What Vortex scope would fit these situations? I’m 67, astigmatism, aging daily. Not sure that a FFP is wise. What say ye?
Antlers blending in with cut corn is how I had to burn a buck tag on a 1x1 while convinced it was a doe laying down.
I put an air rifle scope on my 17 hmr and there has never been a better scope!! I can focus it at near 10 feet and focus at a squirrel at 130 yards.
Hunting in Michigan. Did not need binos unless hunting over open farm field. We just used the scope to get a more precise view. Mainly because you really didn't have time to look over the field, then go to binos, then pull up the rifle and find it in the scope. Usually by the time you did all that it was through your opening and gone. Now that I am older, and the eyes aren't as good anymore, the looking part is done with binos then straight to the scope.
Would like to see a 10 min on 6mm Rem.
Love the show
Just wondering I run a 9x range finder and a high magnification scope but do not use a bino or spotter what is the disadvantage of this style of loadout
So, bananas request for a recommendation… looking for a LPVO 1-6 maybe 1-8 that I can use on my 5.56 and throw on my 308 bolt gun for pigs/deer maybe elk… a literal 1 scope for everything inside of 500 yards. Preferably 1st focal plane. I realize that it’s a borderline ridiculous concept, but it’s where I’m at right now.
Always learn so much from these thank you !
9.3x62, 9.3x57, 9.3x64 Brenneke, 9.3x66 Sako, 9.3x any dam thing you want, but please do an hour+ special on the truly awesome 9.3 calibers. And then do one on African pg and dg cartridges, starting with the big bore black powders and through the Nitro Expresses.
What’s the limits of damage on a scope, scope scratches etc etc
I’ve tried and tried to think of a nice way to say this, but I just can’t.
I’ll just be honest and say it’s nice without Jims interruptions.
Jim if you see this I like you and you’re a great guy I can tell and I like your presence on the podcast but I think host points get interrupted but your points. And you have good points.
But I can see where it would he hard for mark or Ryan to tell you this and I know there’s a chance y’all will never see this comment but I’m just a nobody so I thought I’d thought it out there any way.
I’m about 25/30 podcast in roughly and have learned so much from all 3 of you in 2 months then than I have my whole life.
Thanks.
Rimfires usually don’t have as good of mounting options as center fires. add that in with a less accurate ammo and the riflescope will seem to “ misbehave” with a wandering zero or groups that don’t make sense. Definitely had it happen where a scope got loose due not torquing it down properly. - good stuff guys!
What I did on a .22 cal I had found. I Jb welded a rail on top to mount a scope and it’s dead on to shoot 100 yards without a problem
4-16 with a 1 inch tube gives me my best results for my rifle, I never shoot over 500 yards. I’m not made of money so I find the best optic I can for no more than $800. There’s several different options out there.
We need a video on airguns and the mounting practices that allow for good shooting with airguns.
Also waiting for a series on the best Western backcountry hunting calibers. You can even break them down by species
Excellent information. Much appreciated. Keep doing these, please.
Ryan is a ton of horsepower!
Very Informative for those new to Magnified Optics
I’ve hunted most everything in the lower 48 and Europe in the last 50 years with scopes from 1.5-5 to 3.5-10. Made 500 plus yard shots with no problems, there is no substitute for good glass. Nuff said.
I have a quick question about FFP reticle. Everyone says that the reticle gets so hard to see on lower magnification but I would like some clarification. Is it the magnification range or lowest magnification number that makes the reticle hard to use. IE) would a 3-15 have the same size reticle on the 3X as say a 3-24X would even though it has a larger magnification range?
That's a good question. I have the PST gen ii 3-15 FFP and I can tell you it's nearly impossible to read the numbers on the reticle at 3x. I can't imagine a ffp 3-24 would have a better 3x reticle.
It's the magnification. Because the reticle is scaled to actually size a 1 MOA aiming point is 1 MOA at any magnification, making it small at lower settings. If you had a 10-15x FFP scope it wouldn't be an issue because seeing 1 MOA at 10x isnt as bad, but scopes dont sit in those ranges.
I read that the problem with air rifles has to do with the spring piston. It sends a jolt forward and backward within a millisecond of each other. Since you guys have lots of scopes maybe you can do some research on that?
All of our riflescopes are rated for air rifles. As long as they are mounted correctly and using the proper torque specs, you should have no issue!
Good chat fella’s!
No let me ask you this, can we PLEASE get a razor MOA grid eyepiece for the 22x48??!!
I wish you guys made the 2-7 with better glass, I’d have 7.
Excellent episode
It seems obvious to me, that Vortex would create a bench and target comparison photos for all of their optics. Min zoom, max zoom for each optic. High noon and low light could easily be replicated so that you could not only see what your optics show, but also that in your talking points could easily show diagrams and the comparison photographs for exactly this reason.
You are an optics manufacturer. Surely you test your products?
As Paul Harrell says those would just be numbers on a page. Everyone's eyes and conditions are different/changing, sometimes by the hour.
I don't disagree with you but it's hard to make accurate comparisons without doing your own research.
I like that 9HoleReviews does that. When they have a weapon system that includes an optic they view the range through that optic and go through the magnification if it's variable.
I always do blue locktite with rings and torque so worth it idc if they say I don’t need it
We would love a talk where you just geek on scope rings... they are so important, but so boring...what makes them tick.
Something that should be asked is should there be a numerical number listed with the scope's because of the kinds of lenses used for magnification.
They should use some of this episode for a future spaghetti shoot out.
a numerical number? like audible audio?
Great info shared.
Thank you!
I’m team mark on binos! 12x50 viper hd for me!
what a great topic, amazing technology now a days with optics. now imagine in the old days people who took long shots with very little optics to none. but for this guy vortex 1x6 viper 2, on two of my comp rifles and two strike eagles 🦅 1x6 and 1x8. on the others. if i can see it through the scope, ding 🛎️ on them steel targets.
My .357 Astra loosend up my scope twice at 18 inch pounds
Bigger tube more chance of looking through the better quality of the centre of the lens
Interesting discussion on where optics components are made or procured from. It's not a quality discussion. It really is a political and national security issue in some cases. It is something to think about as I type this remark on my chinese built phone. We need to think about long term effects of who we give our money to manufacture our products. If corprate profit is the number one goal and getting the consumer the reasonably priced product they want. I would choose to use India, Taiwan or Philippines for cheap labor than China. All of these options we still have to ignore poor working conditions or child labor at the manufacturing plants in these countries. It's something to consider. Myself included.
Thank, guys!
Hi my son bout one of your high end scope,an another mid grade one . I have some very exspencive scopes an in comparison if I need another one I would buy one of the Vortex brand very high quality for the money
Great podcast y'all
I clicked on this video by accident and immediately was wondering why Edward Snowden was talking about optics. Their voices sound very similar.
excellent episode.
Why can you see through the moon when it's up during the day? (not a full moon of course)
We see what you did there 😏
Thank you 😊
That's what she said bigger 😂😂
Muzzleloader scope myths?
I'm good too!
"torque until it starts getting less resistance, then back off a quarter turn!" - (do not follow, the previous is a joke!!!)
Super ED glass..?
Where's the yeti?
The gun’s lament……..I’m with stupid
Oh come on guys, I have broke 3 scopes on a break barrel ,1100 fps pellet gun. Good mounts . It's the opposite gun response that breaks the optics. Now I'm having a hard time believing anything you are saying. Sorry I so wanted to listen to what you was putting out.
WRT air rifle making a scope malfunction… I thought it was because of the inertia, and essentially a reverse recoil compared to a centerfire rifle. Centerfire scopes are not designed to withstand recoil in the opposite direction.
Good morning gentlemen
Alway remember they work for a scope company that is losing market shares and needs more sales. The cheaper scope market has to much competition so they are going to be pushing higher end scopes. I’m also writing this before watching.
Once again Vortex proves that they are industry leading in knowing jack shit about optics, don't waste your time and money and don't buy Vortex.
I mean vortex could really bump up their optical Clarity.... 🎉🎉
Hey there. Did you experience an issue with a specific optic? We'd love to learn more about your experience and either get you back up and running, or pass your feedback along to our team as we're always working on new products.