Any one know much about the Vortex pst 2.5-10x44mm?

[chairforce26]

I looked through one liked the redicle, glass looked great. You seem to get a lot for $600 with this scope. Does it come with the sunshade? I plan to put it on my SPR AR15 with its 18 inch intermediate barrel, will likely end up shooting coyotes with it.

[ack495]

I have one. Yes it does come with a sunshade. I don't have experience with any other variable scopes as I only own red dots and acogs, but it does pack a lot of features for the money. Plus great customer service and warranty. I like that it's SFP as it easy to read the hashmarks at any magnification. But ymmv. The illumination is nice if that's important for you. I would like an adjustable parallax knob but I can overcome that. Plan on using it on my DMR ish .308 16" MATEN.

Only problem I have with it for me is that the reticle blurs when looking at it for a while, especially when illuminated. I have to look away, blink few times then look at it again. Not sure if it's my eyes, but that's a logical reason. And I've read it happens to others as well with some scopes. However, not with other scopes, so that leaves doubt in my mind if it's me or the scope.

Overall I'm happy with it.

[SomeOtherGuy]

I owned one for a couple months. I actually thought the glass was poor, with poor clarity, a picky eye position and seemingly no good focus at any distance. I may be jaded, or may have had a bad example. Apart from that (a big deal to me) it seemed good. I liked the turrets, magnification range, and illumination. It does come with a sunshade.

[chairforce26]

Well, compared to my Primary Arms 3-9x that I've got now, the Vortex was crystal clear. Originally I was wanting the Trijicon TR22 2.5-10x, because I thought the tritium illumination was cool, but it's almost $1000, and really the illumination didn't seem that great unless it's the triangle post, which personally I hated that reticule, and really wasn't a fan of the mil-dot or the duplex. I honestly don't know why the accupoints cost as much as they do. So would you guys agree the Vortex is a better value than the Trijicon?

[SomeOtherGuy]

People vary in how they assess scopes' clarity, and scopes also vary from one to another within the same model. I'm not saying it was awful, just not to the standards I expect of a $600 scope with moderately low magnification. The also-$600 SWFA SS 3-9x42mm has much better glass and a first focal plane reticle, but does not have illumination or as much zoom range. Also, Vortex just introduced a totally different 2.5-10x32mm PST with a first focal plane reticle, and early reviews are excellent. It lists for $799 with a street price closer to $700 if you call one of the dealers like Liberty Optics. I haven't seen one and think the exit pupil would be small for my taste, but many people like them (there's another thread going here in this forum) and it would probably be worth a look.

For purely daytime use, I've found the Burris MTAC 3.5-10x42 mildot to have incredible clarity relative to its $400ish street price. It also has a good reticle and mil turrets. No illumination though. That would be my choice for a daylight use gun on a budget.

[ack495]

Well, compared to my Primary Arms 3-9x that I've got now, the Vortex was crystal clear. Originally I was wanting the Trijicon TR22 2.5-10x, because I thought the tritium illumination was cool, but it's almost $1000, and really the illumination didn't seem that great unless it's the triangle post, which personally I hated that reticule, and really wasn't a fan of the mil-dot or the duplex. I honestly don't know why the accupoints cost as much as they do. So would you guys agree the Vortex is a better value than the Trijicon?

I picked up my vortex for $520 on gunbroker with shipping. So in my opinion that was a good deal. I think the glass is good for that price. I don't find it as good as the 4x and 3.5x acogs I've had but still very good. I find it pretty nice especially at 2.5, 3.3x, and 5x. Starts to lose a bit at 10x but still fine. The eyebox is not so forgiving at 10x and I've read it's worse on the new FFP model, despite the good reviews.

Whether it's a better value than a Trijicon Accupoint I think only you can answer that. What features are important to you? Better glass, yes? But almost double the cost better...especially if you're on a budget, then no. But it's two totally different reticles as well. I much prefer the vortex reticle in mils for my uses. I personally think the vortex is a great value, but it's what I have so I'm biased. I am very curious about the new FFP model though. To see what the FFP craze is all about and I really like the look of a scope with a smaller objective bell. The x32 would look better on my rifle.

[chairforce26]

The FFP 2.5-10x32 seems cool, but two things turn me off to it.

It's $200 more.

And the reticle doesn't look like its useful on low power being too thin.

[bp7178]

Anymore I question the utility of variable scopes with large magnification ranges in the FFP flavor. If it was combined with some dual focal plane reticle it would be more useful IMO, but that technology seems like its in its infancy.

On the PST 2.5-10x44, I had one and the glass wasn't that great. Good features otherwise, solid clicks, seemed to track well etc.

I sold it and went to a 2.5-8x32 Mark 4 TS30-A2, and it was a huge leap. The image was much more sharp and the colors seemed to have more definition. Eyebox was better and I seemed to shoot better with it. This could be due to the TMR reticle, I love the open center, or the fact that everything was just more sharp.

[ra2bach]

The FFP 2.5-10x32 seems cool, but two things turn me off to it.

It's $200 more.

And the reticle doesn't look like its useful on low power being too thin.

if you look, for $200 more, you not only get FFP, you get better glass and parallax adjustment - a solid value.

but I am also one of the ones who is not wholly on board with the FFP being useful on a scope where the lowest power makes the reticle unusable...