I am going to be doing my first bolt action build--a 20-23 inch .308 on a FN SPr action--while I am home on mid-tour and want to get a low-ish powered variable to mount on it. The concept is for a "utility rifle," a general-purpose .308 that is handy and accurate enough for targets out to 500 yards or so.
I had considered a fixed 10x SS HD, but the 3-9x42 has gotten such good reviews that if I go SS, that will be it. The advantage of being able to drop down to 3x beats a minor advantage in top-end magnification, and the 3-9 is said to have significantly better glass than the basic SS series.
The other contender is the Vortex PST 2.5-10x44, which is roughly the same size as the SS. It has a hashed reticle which I prefer to the SS mil-dot and is still mil/mil adjustable. I have read that the SS will have better glass, but the PST is illuminated, which is a plus. I am also aware that the PST is SFP, but in any circumstance where ranging or wind-hold are an issue, I can't see that I would be shooting at less than 10x anyhow.
I have not had a chance to handle either of these scopes, so I can't compare adjustments, etc., directly, but they seem to be pretty evenly matched. The PST has an edge in the reticle and in range of magnification, while the SS has the advantage in glass quality and being FFP, though, as I said, I am not certain FFP is a major advantage at low magnification, and my even be a disadvantage if the reticle gets too fine at the bottom of the magnification range.
So which way do you think this breaks? I am really stuck on this one. I doubt I will be unhappy either way, but I would like to get it as right as possible.
I had considered a fixed 10x SS HD, but the 3-9x42 has gotten such good reviews that if I go SS, that will be it. The advantage of being able to drop down to 3x beats a minor advantage in top-end magnification, and the 3-9 is said to have significantly better glass than the basic SS series.
The other contender is the Vortex PST 2.5-10x44, which is roughly the same size as the SS. It has a hashed reticle which I prefer to the SS mil-dot and is still mil/mil adjustable. I have read that the SS will have better glass, but the PST is illuminated, which is a plus. I am also aware that the PST is SFP, but in any circumstance where ranging or wind-hold are an issue, I can't see that I would be shooting at less than 10x anyhow.
I have not had a chance to handle either of these scopes, so I can't compare adjustments, etc., directly, but they seem to be pretty evenly matched. The PST has an edge in the reticle and in range of magnification, while the SS has the advantage in glass quality and being FFP, though, as I said, I am not certain FFP is a major advantage at low magnification, and my even be a disadvantage if the reticle gets too fine at the bottom of the magnification range.
So which way do you think this breaks? I am really stuck on this one. I doubt I will be unhappy either way, but I would like to get it as right as possible.
