Elite 6500 vs Viper vs Weaver super slam

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by DHBWA, Sep 22, 2012.

  1. DHBWA

    DHBWA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    88
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    What the thinking on the 2.5-16x44 6500 at $550 vs Viper HS 4-16x44 BDC at $425 vs Weaver SS 3-15x42 at $450??
    Throw in Leupold 4.5-14x40 1" (non AO non SF) at $400
    Clarity and eye relief most important..

    Thanks in advance!!
     
  2. highridge1

    highridge1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    906
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    I'd pick the Vortex Viper
     

  3. DHBWA

    DHBWA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    88
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Highridge-
    Why? Just wondering.....
     
  4. chemist1

    chemist1 Member

    Messages:
    10
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    I have a viper 6.5-20x44 pa and 2.5-10x44 pst. A budy of mine has a nitrex tr2 3-15X42 which is the same as the weaver ss. The glass in the SS is better than the viper pa at the same magnification. The glass in the pst is slighly better (IMHO) than the nitrex but only slightly. My biggest complaint (and the reason I don't own one) with the nitrex is that it has 58 moa of internal adjustment vs 68 in the pa and ~90 in the pst. If I were in your position and 4X is not too high on the low end I would get the HS over the weaver due to customer service. I can't offer any info on the Bushnell.
     
  5. DHBWA

    DHBWA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    88
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    I just today received a 4-16 HS. Have a way under rated Simmons 4-12 SF 44mag and Leupold 4.5-14 VXIII to compare.
     
  6. Scot E

    Scot E Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,312
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    For clarity my guess is your list would go as follows, at least it does with my eyes.

    1. 6500
    2. Weaver
    3. Vortex HS
    4. Leupold

    Scot E.
     
  7. SidecarFlip

    SidecarFlip Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,113
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    For adjustment, the Leupy dead last. A 1" tube equates to less elevation adjustment than a 30mm. Thats why the 30mm has become the defacto standatd and they are getting bigger....

    Problem is, the bigger (diameter) the tube, the less rigid it becomes so at some point, rigidity (and repeatability) will become more important than elevation adjustment.
     
  8. Sennaspeed

    Sennaspeed Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    69
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    A larger diameter tube is MORE rigid when wall thickness remains constant.

    You can bend an aluminum arrow shaft with your hands but increase the diameter to 1" and, even with the same wall thickness, you can't bend it.
     
  9. SidecarFlip

    SidecarFlip Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,113
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    I agree, however, if the tube thickness is constant from the smaller diameter to the larger is entirely a crapshoot because no manufacturer states that and never will.

    To maintain a thicker wall increases scope weight, an undesireable trait.

    I always look at the optic weight as it relates to the whole package. I don't want to lug around a tank unless it's on horseback and it in a scabbard,

    Notwithstanding, bigger tube more elevation travel. I know that well, I have an older Mark3 with a 1" tube and it's easy to run out of adjustment without a cant rail.

    Newer scopes are going to a one piece tube/erector compartment assembly, I presume welded as one piece. It would be very hard to draw the tube ends and erector compartment in one piece.

    One piece makes the entire (weldment) more rigid with a thinner wall.

    Like I stated, the biggest drawback is limited elevation travel.