Not long ago, through a friend, I got a scope from a brand unknown to me. After looking at it carefully, tinkering with it, and fiddling with it a bit, it made a good impression on me.

As my friend was very satisfied with his and recommended it to me very enthusiastically, as a person with extensive knowledge of the world of weapons and scopes, he made me take his comments seriously.

Coincidentally I had to mount a scope on a bolt-action rifle that my son had and he recently returned home, I didn't like the one I had mounted for the use I intended to give it, so I thought that maybe the new scope could work well for shooting in hunting mainly and also in some occasional waiting.

I looked on the Web and there were not many references of the brand in our country, however I was looking for information on US pages where I discovered that this brand had very good reviews and opinions, even among great experts.

So I made up my mind and looked for one of the model recommended by my friend. Once in the store and after some quick tests, I quite liked the scope and bought it in 2-12x50.

Once at home and already mounted on its new recipient, a bolt-action Remington 700, I decided to carry out some more complete tests with other scopes that I have at home mounted on other weapons that I use regularly.

I want to make it clear that I have no interest in this brand of scopes, unknown to me until now, nor with this specific model. In the comparison I have tried to be as objective as possible.

As all the viewers used in the test are my property (including the Vector) and I don't care at all how each of them ranks in the comparison, I think this may be enough objectivity.

The objective of the comparison in the first place has been to see how far this viewer can go, which a priori gave very good impressions, in relation to others that I have well tested and contrasted and secondly, if the effort made can be useful to a colleague who is looking for something similar and can serve as an orientation, objectives fulfilled.

I want to emphasize that my assessments are still subjective and that other people carrying out the same tests may have a different opinion, since not all of us have the same visual perception.

COMPARISON OF VIEWFINDERS: The viewfinders used for the test have been the following:

- Nikon Prostaff 5 3.5-14x50 PVP: 600 Euros Weight 565 grs. 10 years warranty. Range X4 magnification.

- Delta Titanium HD 2.5-15x56 RRP: 939 Euros. Weight 780 grams. 10 year warranty. Magnification range X6.

- Khales HELIA CSX 2.5-10X50 IL RRP: 2,073 Euros. Weight 520 grams. 10 year warranty. Magnification range X4.

-Zeiss Victory Diavari 6-24x56 PVP: 2,500 Euros. Weight 861 grams 10 years warranty. Magnification range X4.

-Zeiss Victory V8 2.8-20x56 RRP: 3,200 Euros. Weight 830 grams 10 years warranty. Magnification range X8.

- Vector Continental 2-12x50 PVP: 408 Euros. Weight 605 grams, lifetime warranty. Range of magnification X6.

Precision and correction controls:

Without reaching the level of smoothness and travel of the best in the comparison such as both Zeiss or the Khales, the Vector Continental riflescope controls are generally pleasant to the touch and easy to use, they are more precise and much smoother for example than those of the Delta and the Nikon.

Due to their magnification range, the Vector and the Khales are the only ones that do not have parallax control, in the two Zeiss the parallax correction is very soft and they have a lot of travel, in the Delta the wheel is very hard and has a very long travel. scarce where it is easy to go wrong with the distance, the Nikon would be somewhere in the middle in this section.

The Vector's eyepiece diopter control and focus wheel has a similar range and range of correction to the rest, it's lined with rubber to prevent injuries to the eyebrow, the operation is pleasant similar to the best and again more pleasant than in the Delta in which it costs more effort, this correction is also harder in the Nikon.

The Vector's power boost wheel has a good feel and is very smooth to handle, it doesn't reach the level of liking that of the V8, but it does that of the Khales, and it handles better than that of the Zeiss Victory, in turn all of them softer and with better touch than the Nikon one and much better than the Delta one, which is more unpleasant to the touch, not very ergonomic and very hard.

Reticle illumination:

Regarding the illuminated reticle, the Vector lighting control wheel has 6 positions with intermediate switch-off points, on the contrary, the Delta has eleven positions that also have intermediate switch-off points, so it offers more possibilities. The Nikon only has five, although it offers the possibility of lighting red or green.

On the Vector the lighting control is handled well and is similar to that of the Nikon, both again much smoother than on the Delta.

The two Zeiss and the Khales are on another rung in this regard. All three have potentiometers corresponding to their level, these offer many more possibilities, highlighting the very fine central point that the Zeiss V8 has and the central section of the reticle that lights up in the Victory Diavari.

However, negatively, I must emphasize that in the Khales during the day with a lot of light, the illumination of the central point is not appreciated very well, something disappointing given its level.

The change of the battery is similar in all of them.

Turrets: 

Regarding the Vector's turrets, they have a good touch and turn clearly, each click being well appreciated, they also have zero blocking, being similar to those of the Delta that correct very well and somewhat better in handling touch than those of the Khales where appreciates something worse the step of the cliks. 

More deficient are those of the Nikon in which the clicks that are not at all clear and the corrections have sometimes complicated my life somewhat. 

The turrets of the two Zeiss, in addition to being very accurate and correct very well, the corrected clicks can be clearly seen in them, they also have zero locks and these two scopes have full-fledged ballistic turrets.

Optics: 

To assess this important aspect in a viewfinder, tests have been carried out with all of them both during the day in good light and at night. During the day, they have tried to read a sign with large, medium and very small letters at a distance of approximately 100 meters, in addition to observing other objects at a distance of about 200 meters. The test, as is logical, has been carried out on all of them with the same number of increases. 

The night test was carried out at a distance of about 75 meters, reading license plates of vehicles located in a very dark area of a car park without lighting, making it very difficult to read at that distance. 

Day test: apparent sharpness at 4x magnification and ease of reading of different font sizes at 6x magnification each, 8x, 10x, and 12x have been tested. 

The conclusion for color fidelity, Sharpness, clarity, edge definition and readability has been a triple tie for the podium, with Zeiss perhaps the best with the V8 slightly ahead and the Khales and Victory tied. But it was only oneVector Optics continental scope 2-12x50 2584711340Pyrrhic, since behind at a very short distance (the difference is really scarce and even difficult to appreciate), the Delta Titanium and the Vector would be paired and a little further back the Nikon, although it also has good optics. 

Night test: in the same way, the luminosity, sharpness and ease of reading the vehicle license plate have been verified with each of the viewers. The test has been carried out at 6, 8, 10 and 12 magnifications. Subsequently, those with a 50mm bell were tested at 7x magnification to obtain the maximum theoretical pupil or maximum light entry and for the same reason those with 56mm at 8x magnification. 

By apparent luminosity, the first would be the two Zeiss and the Delta very close (too much), something logical since all three have a 56mm lens against the 50 of Khales and Vector, which gives them a little more light than these two last. Between these two the Khales is slightly brighter than the Vector, but only slightly. The last of the comparison, despite its 56 mm lens, would be the Nikon, which, thanks to this advantage, defends itself with dignity. 

The surprise comes when trying to read the license plates of a vehicle located in an area of total darkness, that is where the Khales demonstrates its quality and despite its less light input, it allows you to appreciate the letters as well as with both Zeiss, which are also excellent. Next, and a very short distance from the three, the Delta and the Vector would be tied, both with very good resolution, clarity and sharpness. The Vector is slightly penalized by the slight brightness difference for its 50 target, but it somewhat makes up for it and is pretty much on par with the Delta.

Finally, the Nikon would be the loser, although it is not too far behind these two.

Ease of facing, “Eyebox” and Tunnel Effect.

Another parameter considered has been the ease of facing and speed of capturing the image or "Eyebox" as the Yankees call it, in short, it is the ease of quickly acquiring the target or in another way, the possibility of placing the head in different positions always clearly perceiving the vision transmitted by the eyepiece. 

In that section there is also surprise since the first would be both Zeiss followed by the Vector, Khales and Delta would be a little further behind, the Nikon being quite off the hook in this aspect. 

Regarding the "tunnel effect" they would be in the following order: First the two Zeiss with zero effect and then Vector practically without tunnel effect, the Delta also comes out well in this aspect and surprisingly the Khales is relegated to fourth place with a slight Appreciable tunnel effect, although not unpleasant or bothersome. 

Quite a distance from these behind is the Nikon in which a pronounced tunnel effect is clearly perceived, being perhaps the worst defect of this viewfinder.

Field of view. 

Another aspect evaluated has been the field of vision of all of them, checked at 6x magnification so that there would be equality, resulting in the first place being the Zeiss V8, behind it the Vector, and in third place the Zeiss Victory with practically the same field of vision. that Delta and Khales and more off the hook of them the Nikon Prostaff.

Size and weight.

Finally, if we consider the weight and size of these scopes in relation to their features and capabilities, it can be said that the Vector is a short and light scope, since with its 33.5 cm and 605 grams, it is practically on par of the Khales 2.5-10x50, although with a greater range of increases than this.

Shooting Range Test: 

All the benefits observed would have been of no use without a test in a real shooting situation in a gallery, demonstrating its strength, the benefits of the turrets and the accuracy of its correction with enough shots. 

The rest of the viewfinders in the comparison have already been more than tested in this aspect and except for the Nikon with which I had problems when buying it since it did not correct well, as it was under warranty I took it to Nikon, and without further ado they gave me a new one that it works perfectly. I have to admit that this is a guarantee. 

I mounted the scope on a Remington BDL caliber 35 Whelen. Once in the shooting gallery, I disassembled the bolt and I managed to align the center of the bore with the target at 100 meters and, without moving the weapon, correct the turrets so that the reticle was also at the center of the target.

Thanks to this rough approximation, the first shot at 100 meters fortunately entered inside the cardboard of the target. Taking this as a reference, I made the appropriate corrections and the second fell in the area of ten, touching the line of 9. I corrected slightly and on the third shot the rifle was centered.

Afterwards I consumed a few more cartridges to check once again what the Remington 700 action is capable of with surprising groupings for a stock weapon with a standard trigger. Although I already knew that the 35 Whelen is a very precise caliber.

Once the turrets were locked to zero and a small test was carried out by moving them several times and returning to zero again to check again that the rifle was still putting the shots where they should be.

Since lately we haven't been running low on ammunition, I couldn't extend the test much longer than I would have liked. So knowing that the scope corrected perfectly and that each click corresponds to a ¼ MOA that is what appears on the turret, I concluded the test.

Last conclusions:

Taking into account the features that this riflescope has and above all the most important parameter that its sale price, I can affirm that the Vector Continental 2-12x50 riflescope has competed with dignity with riflescopes priced up to eight times higher, maintaining the type at all times. , without ever being clearly off the hook in any of the aspects evaluated. 

Analyzing its characteristics as a whole, the Continental model Vector riflescope offers a lot of quality at a very low price, being able to compete directly and without complexes with riflescopes that double and triple the retail price, and that is saying a lot. 

In my opinion, the Vector Continental 2-12x50 model is a very versatile riflescope, very balanced and, ultimately, a highly recommended hunting riflescope, with an excellent price/quality ratio that is difficult to match. 

Undoubtedly, given its price, it cannot be at the same level as the best scopes in the comparison. As long as he is not required to do exactly the same as these, he will be able to play a much more than worthy role alongside any of them and more than meet our expectations. 

For less than 500 Euros it is highly recommended for anyone who wants a good quality scope at a reduced price. 

I hope that this comparison can be useful to a colleague, since it is one of the purposes that have moved me to carry it out.