Vortex PST 6-24 X50 Reviews?

ValleyGunNut

Regular
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Location
Almonte
Thinking of purchasing one of these scopes, Ive heard a lot of good things about vortex optics.... Just looking for some reviews on either this scope or other vortex scopes. I like the idea of having a lifetime warranty and being Canadian built!

Also looking for some suggestions on good places to buy from? I know Gourly's in Renfrew carries them although Ive never been into that store... What do you guys think?
 
Vortex scopes are not built in Canada. The Viper line of scopes is made in the Philippines and I beleive the Razor line is made in Japan. I have 2 Vipers one is Viper HS 6-24 X50 FFP XLR reticle and the other is a Viper PST 6-24 X50. Nice scopes for the money.
 
Thinking of purchasing one of these scopes, Ive heard a lot of good things about vortex optics.... Just looking for some reviews on either this scope or other vortex scopes. I like the idea of having a lifetime warranty and being Canadian built!

Also looking for some suggestions on good places to buy from? I know Gourly's in Renfrew carries them although Ive never been into that store... What do you guys think?

I have 2 PST's and a Razor on everything from a .223 up to a .338 LM. I'm very impressed with them and as you stated, the warranty is good to have... Great value for the dollar if you can find one.
 
Sry my mistake! Was just told by the guy at work there made here in Canada, I stand corrected!.... So where would be the best place to track one of these scopes down? Any site sponsors that carry them?
 
Sry my mistake! Was just told by the guy at work there made here in Canada, I stand corrected!.... So where would be the best place to track one of these scopes down? Any site sponsors that carry them?

Sold out across the board
Keep an eye on new shipment and private deals
Took me 30 days to get mine after i settled on it

They are the most popular Vortex model right now, and the USA situation doesn't help supply.
But they do trickle in.

Note SFRC brought in some Vortex last week and it was sold in 30 minutes, so you gotta be on the trigger finger when they do show up
 
So if you were to choose say between one of the vortex scopes like I mentioned or say a Bushnell elite 6500 or an elite tactical what would you guys do? I would think the bushnells are a little easier to get a hold of but I could be wrong.
 
Bushnell Elite series is a good optic, but not in the same arena as the Vortex PST in my opinion. I would say the bushnell is in the upper tier of the low end range, whereas the Vortex is in the middle tier with Sightron, etc....then of course the Vortex Razor, Nightforce, S&B, LP etc are in the Top tier
 
I have the PST 6-24 MOA and find it a very well built scope. It tracks great and the zero stop is nice for quick adjustment. I also have the Bushnell tactical in the same power and I find the PST to be a nicer scope in options and glass quality...I don't think you can go wrong for the money.I have also had the Sightron SIII MOA and the glass is better than the Vortex IMO, the Vortex is hard to get it seems these days so the Sightron might be an option, however it is a few bucks more.
 
Just my opinion here but I am a big fan of the sights on SIII line of scopes. They don't have FFP but if your a skilled shooter or not lazy then that's not a issue for me. I looked through the PST and found it it be very milky and the clarity was poor to say the least. The sightrons are not "tacticool" like the vortex PST. But each to their own. I found that the sightrons tracking, price and clarity to be a lot better than the PST and for the money you pay for the two of them, there is a clear winner in my eyes.
 
I looked through the PST and found it it be very milky and the clarity was poor to say the least.

??? That has to of been a defective scope. I have several vortex and they range in price from a few hundred dollars to a coupl of thousand and you could never describe them as "milky"
 
I like mine, I also shot the SIII and it was only ok , but for the price point the pst in FFP can't be beat, just my 2 cents.

it really depends on the type of shooting you're doing, with ffp there is no range math in regards to scope magnification conversions, if you are shooting at various ranges in the field and not on a square range I highly recommend FFP over SFP any day.
 
I don't have a vortex (so I can't comment on them) but i do have a sightron SIII 8-32x56 LRMOA and a bushnell 4200 6-24x50 tactical mil-dot....the sightron without a doubt does have better glass that is most apparant at higher magnification but there is nothing wrong with the bushnell and would not hestitate to buy another bushnell. I use range finding binoculars that gives me bullet drop compensation in MOA so I don't see any need for the ranging advantage or extra cost of a FFP scope.
The Bushnell, PST and Sightron are all priced within 150 bucks of each other so price really isn't a determining factor...I guess a guy would have to try them side by side to really evaluate the difference between them.
 
I like mine, I also shot the SIII and it was only ok , but for the price point the pst in FFP can't be beat, just my 2 cents.

it really depends on the type of shooting you're doing, with ffp there is no range math in regards to scope magnification conversions, if you are shooting at various ranges in the field and not on a square range I highly recommend FFP over SFP any day.

What math do you have to do? 10 or 20 or what ever MOA you want to dial in is the same no matter what magification the scope is set at.
 
What math do you have to do? 10 or 20 or what ever MOA you want to dial in is the same no matter what magification the scope is set at.

in SFP your reticule (for use with hold overs and leads) is calibrated for use usually on the max power setting, if you are not on this setting there is math involved to converting the measurements of the reticule moa or mil hash marks in order to know what hold to use, in quick shot type scenarios this a pain in the ass and leaves much room for error.
 
in SFP your reticule (for use with hold overs and leads) is calibrated for use usually on the max power setting, if you are not on this setting there is math involved to converting the measurements of the reticule moa or mil hash marks in order to know what hold to use, in quick shot type scenarios this a pain in the ass and leaves much room for error.


Yes, I understand this...but when I dial in say 42.5 MOA on the turrets its 42.5 MOA no matter what power setting the scope is on so there is no math to do...I would even try to guess 42.5 mOA using hash marks.
Also using MOA turrets I don't have to try to figure out Mils or Mrads or anything, just dial the MOA you need and squeeze the trigger. What could be simpler?
 
Most LR shooters don't use the reticle for elevation correction. They typically dial for elevation, and use the reticle for:

- Wind correction. The wind is so variable and constantly changing, so dialing in wind correction can be very impractical
- Judging correction needed after a miss. When you can spot your misses through your scope and use your reticle to estimate the needed correction, it makes it a simple matter to dial that extra correction into the scope, or to hold a little more or less windage
- Target size estimation. It's often handy to use the reticle to determine how big your target is, if that info is not previously known
- The reticle appears big and bold on low magnification, and fine and precise on high magnification. In low light on low mag, you can be at minimum mag and you see the big bold posts, which is handy at dusk or dawn. In good light for long shots, you crank up the mag and the fine center crosshair is magnified and you can see the little precise markings on the reticle that aren't very apparent when the scope is on low mag
- For extreme range shooting, when your erector travel is maxed out, you can dial your elevation turret until it tops out, and use the reticle for additional elevation correction

FFP makes all this simpler by removing the guesswork regarding reticle subtensions vs. magnification. Anybody who says that FFP is useless either shoots at nothing but known targets at known distances, uses only 1 or 2 magnification settings on their scope, or else they don't use their reticle to its potential.
 
I do a lot of shooting and understand the claimed advantages of FFP but for me I strongly prefer the SFP. I do 90% of my shooting at KD but even were I to be shooting at UKD I'm sure the irritation I feel with the reticle changing size wouldn't go away. YMMV of course :)
 
Back
Top Bottom