Blotty,
In addition to Westcott and Hort dabbling in spiritism while they were doing their "bible corrections", Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the few manucripts based on them are rejected by many scholars for many good reasons.
There have always been two streams of manuscripts. One group (about 90%) enjoy a 99% agreement between each other. The other group is characterized as descending from Alexandrian origin, which was a hotbed of heresy from early on. They only represent about 10% of extant manuscripts.
It is estimated that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with each other at least 7000 times. These disagreements are not minor but involve major omissions and doctrinal conflicts of scripture. Just in the gospels alone there are the following number of disagreements between these two:
Matthew 656
Mark 567
Luke 791
John 1022
Total Gospel Disagreements Between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus 3036 +
Hundreds of overwrites, scratch-outs and multiple writers over many centuries, makes these two manuscripts (and those based on them) unreliabel as well. So, it is not surprising that critical text adherents disagree with each other.
Majority Text Bibles Available Today Include:
1. King James Version - KJV
2. King James Version ER (Easy Reader) - KJV - ER
3. New King James Version - NKJV
4. Modern English Version - MEV
5. Green's Literal Translation - GLT
6. Third Millennium Bible - TMB
7. New Cambridge Paragraph Bible - 2005 edition of the KJV (paragraph format with modernized spelling)
8. 21st Century King James Bible
I have little hesitancy using critical text modern versions for reference purposes. I know where most of the problem deletions and interpolations are. But, when it comes to distilling sound doctrine, I recommend a textus receptus (TR) based bible.