Rifle Scopes Lets pretend.... (Bushnell and PST)

[DP425]

That the Bushnell Elite Tactical 6-24x50 FFP and the Viper PST 6-24x50 FFP are the same price...

Using actual, factual reasons, which would you go with? (in other words, I don't want overly-subjective crap like "I have three PST's and they are great, so I'd get another one!"). If you feel the adjustments are better on one, one has better tracking, or the construction feels more sturdy on one, or the glass isn't very good... tell me THAT sort of thing.

I'm usually a USO and NF fan-boy (have one of each, will own more in the future), but I do have two factory stock 700P's to put scopes on, and I'm not going to spend $2000+ for a scope to put on a rifle I spent $700 or less on!

One of these rifles is a .308 LTR, that one I'm not looking to touch on right now (have not decided what direction I want to go with this rifle yet). Right now I'm focusing on the 700P in .300WM, and it will end up with one of these optics on it.

 

[glock24]

Re: Lets pretend.... (Bushnell and PST)

I have experience with both scopes. They are very close in not only price, but glass quality and tracking performance. I wouldn't worry about either one of them failing you.

For me, it would come down to personal preference on the individual features. For example, I'm done buying scopes with the standard Mil-Dot reticle in light of the fact that there are so many better reticles out there.

That said, the PST beats the Bushnell, and for that alone I'd buy the PST instead. Frankly, comparing the other features between the two scopes is simply too close to call.

 

[CleanMoostang]

Re: Lets pretend.... (Bushnell and PST)

My Bushy has served me well time and time again, if it aint broke dont fix it. Stick with what has worked in the past.

 

[jonaddis84]

Re: Lets pretend.... (Bushnell and PST)

Agree with glock, the reticle alone pushes the PST to the top of that short list. Also the clicks are crisper and all around better feeling on the PST than any Bush Ive felt. Bush is also severely lacking in elevation adjustment, 13 mils if memory serves me compared to 19 in the 6-24pst and 21 or something in the 4-16pst.

then of course theres the warranty, Bush may have a decent one, but I guarantee no wheres close to the VIP

 

[OPtactical2]

Re: Lets pretend.... (Bushnell and PST)

Glass is very close, but I am another that prefers the feel of the clicks on the PST.

Vortex is great with warranty issues, should any arise.

Mark H.

 

[Kiba]

Re: Lets pretend.... (Bushnell and PST)

While not the 6-24 models I recently and briefly had a 4-16 FFP mrad PST and I own a pair of 3-12 x 44 Bushnell FFPs. Since the reticles & knobs are the same between both those scopes and the 6-24 PST & Bushnell I can offer some experience...

The PST easily beats the Bushnell in terms of reticle usefulness and knob feel & function. No second thoughts in either of those two departments. While the tried and true mildot of the bushnell gets the job done the PST reticle is far more versatile when it comes to ranging and the added amount of drop subtensions are useful if a quick holdover at long range is needed.

The knobs on the Bushnell aren't bad at all with easily felt clicks but the PST knobs are much more positive in feel and the knob design makes it easier to read-- not to mention the optional zero stops. The 6-24 PST also has far more elevation travel than the 6-24 Bushnell (19 vs 13 mils.)

Exterior finish & quality was pretty even IMO, both scopes looked quite good with no obvious flaws, machine marks, or uneven finish.

I've checked the pair of 3-12 FFPs I have and I also tested the 4-16 PST for reticle subtensions/cant & knob tracking; all were right on.

Glass clarity on the other hand went to the Bushnell by a fairly wide margin. The PST was perfectly usable but was really lacking in terms of clarity & ability to discern fine details at a distance compared to the Bushnell. Granted, several members here who own or have looked through both the 4-16 and 6-24 PST have stated they find the 6-24 PST to have superior glass compared to the 4-16. I'm not sure if I had a bad example or I was seeing what other users have noticed about the 4-16PST but I wasn't that impressed with the glass in my particular PST. I didn't have false expectations about the PST, but for the price of the PST I was hoping it would have glass on par with the 3-12 FFP or the Bushnell 4200 series in general. Unfortunately my 4-16 PST was easily a couple notches down from that. Even the older Bushnell 6-24 x 40 SF on my .17 had better glass clarity than the 4-16 PST.

Having only looked through one 4-16 PST I can't say if the clarity issue with the 4-16 is on a per-scope basis or it affects all of them-- but it certainly was an issue with my example, at least to my eyes. A good friend thought it looked great. I'm in no way drawing a conclusion about the entire product line but only my particular example. Did I get a bad one? Possibly, but I didn't send it back to Vortex to find out-- the scope went to a new owner as I changed plans and no longer needed the PST.

Given that the 6-24 PST has a good reputation for glass that's at least on par with the Bushnell 4200 series from several trustworthy individuals here along with the better knobs & reticle I'd say it's the logical choice over the Bushnell.

 

[DP425]

Re: Lets pretend.... (Bushnell and PST)

Well guys, you hit on some really key points- the difference in available elevation and the reticle. It looks like I'm going to go with the PST for my .300WM.

I may end up with the bushy 3-12 on the LTR though. Even if only temporary. Still have some consideration to do in that area.

Thanks guys!