Vortex Golden Eagle 15-60x52 Thoughts

[Singo85]

Hi All,

Looking at getting a new scope and am interested in the vortex golden eagle.

Noting it is relatively new would like some feed back from current users both positive and negative.

Thanks
Michael

[DaveMc]

Hi Michael,
We have recently been lucky enough to get a Golden Eagle and Burris XTRII to test alongside our other scopes (NF, March etc) and have done similarly with S&B and Leupold 7-42, and Sighton etc in the past. We are agents for all and have no gain in recommending one over the other but will try and give the best advice we can.

I will give a very brief summary without detail - It will take too long to go into.

First comment I would like to say is I can find a situation in which I would consider nearly every one of these scopes depending on budget and needs but there are clear winners in different departments.

I put these scopes through the ringer on the collimator and recoil simulator/impact tester. Both our test samples (Burris and Vortex) performed very well with no discernible movement with impacts, shift through focus or shift through zoom. Precise movements to scale and scales were very good. We then proceeded to look at the optics. There are many categories on which to judge optics (including low light, chromatic aberations, spherical aberations, resolution etc) and we have colour and resolution charts to look at some of this. Whilst the differences are discernible on these charts we found the real test of all was on the range and most of the people we asked to have a look came back with the same comments.

The NF comp units we have clearly had the best optics and resolution - this resulted in seeing mirage earlier in very light mirage conditions and also seeing lines on the target more clearly in heavy mirage conditions. I believe strongly this will result in more points for a lot of people. For me the reticles are too fine though and I struggle to acquire my POA as well, thus negating the positives slightly. Better eyes would help. With a better MOA reticle these would be the clear choice for me.
The March has the best choice of reticles and I still shoot March because it suits my aiming style. The optics (in my 5-50 at least) are very good, second on the list for our purposes behind the NF comp.
Vortex - Performed surprisingly well. Mechanically look very sound. Optically noticably behind the NF but in the mix with the rest. Being priced below the others are a worthwhile option. Again I would like another reticle in the line up.
Burris XTRII - FFP 8-40 similar to the FFP MArch. In some ways I really like this scope - With a decent MOA reticle that is MOA at all power. It was very precise in our mechanical tests but the optics are noticably behind. Better price point than all the above.
NFBR - Still a great reliable performer at decent price - the one we recommend in this price point.
Sightron - Solid reliable performer, optically also behind but at a better price point and quite worthwhile
Leupold 7-42 - only had one to test early on and it had some issues so went back to the factory.
S&B Great optics but short eye relief and need to get 1/8 in correct direction.

Dave

[willow]

Well Michael, you have had a look through mine and I did offer you the chance to shoot my second stage in yesterday's heat! I'm more than happy with both of mine. I looked closely at the NF Comp and the Kahles K1050 but I find the Vortex easier to get behind, and I don't find the glass on the NF better than the Vortex, at least not to my eyes. I've gotten behind a couple of NF Comps and they're nice, but I just find the Vortex more comfortable to use. The Kahles was shocking. I guess the big thing to weigh up is how well does the scope track? If it tracks as advertised and you can hit the target then that's half the battle won.

If there is any practice available after next weekend's club match shoot, you're welcome to fire a few shots behind the Vortex if you like?

[Singo85]

Thanks Mate, just trying to get as much info as possible. Gonna call the guys tomorrow and discuss the scope with them.

Might take you up on that on Saturday, hopefully cold and overcast......by i doubt it.

[ShaneG]

Michael
You may not realize that Dave has given you the most unbiased experienced advice available in the country for F Class use.
You should also consider that once someone has made a purchase they have taken a position which most always they find necessary to justify?
Shane

[DaveMc]

I think the main thing to do when comparing scopes is to ensure you get them out in a range of conditions. Also ideally take the opinion of more than one user. Severe mirage days and very light mirage days - Line up several people and ask for comments (without influencing each other!! - ideally blind and written) - In good conditions and normal sighting you will see very little difference and nearly all scopes will perform similarly in these conditions - BUT when the going gets hard, quality shines.

Several points:
1) Very few people have done any serious side by side comparisons with a large range of scopes, proper optical charts and input from several shooters. We have done this on several occasions and found the comments to be very consistent from all participants so there is no bias there.
2) I agree Mechanically sound is the first requirement
3) BUT points can be gained in other areas too such as (but not limited to);
i/being able to pick up slight traces of mirage (Just ask anyone who has shot in rain with wet flags and looking for "any" indication of wind strength and direction.)
ii/ seeing rings in very heavy mirage (You may not notice this until you go to a range that experiences bad mirage - not a nice place to learn when you travel several thousand kilometres to compete somewhere new and are not competitive - e.g. National Championships in Lower Light!!!)
iii/ reticle choice - there are many aiming styles here but a reticle that allows you to shoot quickly and precisely in all conditions when you can see rings and can't.

Each individual scope will vary within each brand so there might be slight differences out there.

[AlanF]

I'd like to emphasise the importance of having a reticule that suits your individual style of shooting. You mentioned Dave the exceptionally thin cross-hairs in the NF Comp. That actually suits my style because I use scopes at relatively low magnification - thicker cross-hairs would be more likely to obscure the lines on the target. My Sightron also has v. thin cross-hairs.

[Frank Green]

I sold my March 10-60x a short time after I got my Golden Eagle. I was able to compare it the NF (one of the guys in the shop has one) and the March at the range looking thru them in the same conditions. I couldn't say hands down one was really better then the other visually. My March had a 1/16 moa dot where as the Vortex has a slightly bigger dot 3/32 but doesn't seem to bother me. In fact in tough light conditions it will probably help me a little more.

I've had my Golden Eagle now for about 9 months or so. Used it in the U.S. F Class Champs here in October. The scope has tracked with no issues at all and holds zero. Todd here in the shop has one on his gun as well and again no complaints and we are getting a 3rd one in today. Will be ordering a 4th one from them here pretty quick as Mark wants one on his F-Class gun he is building.

My biggest recommendation is if you can get all of them on the line at the same time and look thru them/play with them. Pick the one that fits you the best but I don't think you can go wrong with either one.

Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels

[DSM13]

Just reading a few of the replies ,notice they are a few years old just wondering where people stand today regarding the Golden Eagle
Cheers in advance

[willow]

Just reading a few of the replies ,notice they are a few years old just wondering where people stand today regarding the Golden Eagle
Cheers in advance

I still own two of them, nil issues with either and it's a very easy scope to get comfortable behind with great eye relief. Both scopes track well. I also have a March HM 10-60x56 - glass resolves better than the Vortex but at the end of the day on an F-class target, the difference is minimal IMO. Prices have risen a little since it's introduction but not as much as NF which have gone up considerably if budget is an issue.

[Gyro]

A SFP scope set at its higher magnifications with very fine reticle lines is a handicap in tough conditions ! Been there done that, wouldn't touch one again.

Think about it : how many of us have a gun so accurate that we will gain from the extra aiming precision we can have by using a reticle that obscures less of an F Class target ? Farkall of us I suggest, if any of us. So we delude ourselves into thinking we will have greater precision with a very fine cross hair ? Seems to me it's just more market driven nonsense. Pardon my being so candid but I have tried these scopes in hard conditions and it absolutely was a handicap. And in good/normal conditions I gained nothing. I just don't get it !

[pjifl]

In my experience very few experienced long range shooters like extra fine X hairs in a riflescope. And most shooters preferences change with age.

The market seems to be driven by feedback from shorter distance or inexperienced shooters who seldom see the range of worst sighting conditions that may occur. So scope makers give shooters what these people clamor for. They ultimately must stay in business.

Your personal aiming style definitely is a factor but you should always have a fallback position for when no lines are visible on the target.

Ultra thin lines do not necessarily increase precision. Depending on age and target they may decrease precision. And they usually increase aiming time. And eye fatigue.

Why do experienced Pistol shooters choose wide blocky sights ? Similarly, why do most experienced TR shooters seldom use a small front ring the way a newcomer expects. Raves on Scope web sites by inexperienced people don't help.

Centralizing a line on a target has more to do with balancing and equalizing the areas on each side of it than anything else and the ability to do this falls off if too few cones in the tiny central part of the retina are involved. Certainly the eye becomes fatigued more quickly if too few cones are involved. TR shooters know more about this but Scope shooters are not immune.

Peter Smith.

[saum2]

I agree with the comments above but my take on the scopes I have. I have 3 NF scopes with fine cross hair reticles, 1 x BR and 2 x Comp's, all are great scopes but in very heavy mirage centralising the aiming mark is difficult, so a little guessing is required. In fine conditions they are great to hammer the X ring.
My Sightron has a great reticle (thicker cross hair)that is easier to manage in difficult mirage and i like the slightly larger centre dot.
I've just bought a second hand BR scope with a NP-R2 reticle which i previously didn't like but, in heavy mirage I found the cross lines can be used to centralise the aiming mark with great effect. Where i shoot we cannot see the white lines on most days during summer. Each to their own, so reticle choice is very important.
Geoff

[pjifl]

When you cannot see target lines or in very poor conditions a Graticule which allows one to box or ring the aiming mark is the best. Unfortunately, scope manufacturers do not specifically cater for this. But some common graticules do partially allow it IF there are tick marks equidistant both horizontally and vertically. This works far better in a second focal plane configuration because one can zoom the size of the 'box' to just fit around the aiming mark.

It is possible to have a Graticule which caters for

1/ Centralized aiming via a cross (or dot although I believe a simple cross is more useful).

2/ 'Centralizing by 'boxing' the aiming mark in a circle or less efficient in a box.

3/ Centralizing by aligning target rings with a dashed circle in the Graticule. Thus the gaps in the Graticule circle do not cover the aiming circle. This is to me one of the most powerful styles of aiming. Again, a second focal plane allows zooming to match circle sizes.

4/ Aiming off on tick marks.

Unfortunately, scope makers are not interested.

Peter Smith.

[oldman1967]

Just reading a few of the replies ,notice they are a few years old just wondering where people stand today regarding the Golden Eagle
Cheers in advance

I've had a Golden Eagle for a few years now and I can honestly say that it has performed flawlessly. It holds zero and tracks perfectly. It's had a fairly good workout. It sat on a Rem 700 in 300 Win Mag for over 1000 rounds in SSAA long range precision comps and then on my F Class 284 for another 3000 rounds.
I have two Nightforce Competitions and an NXS on other rifles to compare it with. On a day when mirage is really bad, the Nightforce comps are slightly better. But not much ! On an overcast day they are equal.
It seems to be a lot easier to look through and find the correct eye relief than the NF Comps.
I have the ECR-1 MOA reticle and I think it's one of the best F.Class reticle's available. I like it far better than the NF Comp FCR-1 and DDR-2 reticle's that I have in my competitions. It's like a blend of the two.
They are made in Japan with ED class and have a lifetime warranty which is good because mine just found a new home on top of a custom 50 BMG target rifle. I hope it's as strong as I think it is.

Two things that let the scope down are :-
1) The turret clicks are slightly softer than the NF and this has caused some issue's when shooting in teams event's where the wind coach has fat fingers and is used to playing with NF Comp turrets.
2) It doesn't have a zero stop !

About $1300 cheaper than a NF comp with DDR-2 reticle.

Cheers,

Owen