Rifle Scopes Question for Vortex Viper PST Owners

[Bloodstriker]

I had a chance to look through the 6-25x50 the other day. I found that the glass was great until around 15-16x and higher. At the higher mags, the glass wasn't very clear.

Is this normal or was something wrong with the scope?

 

[afate45]

I own a 6-24 PST and the glass is excellent at 24. Is it a Nightforce or S&B? Absolutely not, but the glass is respectable at the $950 price point. When you say not very clear, can you describe your definition of "not very clear"?

 

[Bloodstriker]

I was comparing the PST to a Zeiss Conquest HD5 5-25x50. Both were set at max zoom. I was looking at a few things at varying distances.

At about 50m away, I could not make out the smaller lettering on a license plate with the PST. I'm in Canada, but the letters would be equivalent to the part that has the State name.

At about 100m away, I looked at some shingles on a roof. With the Zeiss, I could see the textures of each shingle. The PST could not.

At 200m away, I tried to read a street sign. Again the PST could not resolve this while the Zeiss could.

I'm almost leaning towards the reason being that the shop had a faulty demo unit. It just seemed like I could not get a good focus at any zoom setting higher than around 15.

The clarity at max zoom was so blurry that it reminded me of a $50 airsoft optic.

At lower mag the image was bright, clear, crisp and had good contrast. Zoomed in it was blurry, dim and milky.

EDIT:

I also compared the glass at max zoom to a Trijicon and Meopta and it did not come close.

I checked the lenses on the PST to make sure that there wasn't a big fingerprint. Nope. All clean.

 

[SquidHC]

I have a 6-24 PST and can see very well at said ranges. I can EASILY make out .22 hits on normal paper at 100 yards. Did you only use the ocular focus, or did you adjust the parallax as well? May not be the best glass ever, but works damn well for me.

 

[coWSMasher]

I love my 6-24 pst. I did a similar side by side test with everything scheels had including leupold swarovski ziess and nightforce and i found that the pst was clearer than everything except the nightforce and honestly wasnt much worse than the nightforce. So I am thinking there was something on the glass that you weren't seeing or something. Was the paralax maxed out one way or the other and wasn't able to get to a focus?

 

[Bloodstriker]

I love my 6-24 pst. I did a similar side by side test with everything scheels had including leupold swarovski ziess and nightforce and i found that the pst was clearer than everything except the nightforce and honestly wasnt much worse than the nightforce. So I am thinking there was something on the glass that you weren't seeing or something. Was the paralax maxed out one way or the other and wasn't able to get to a focus?

I was adjusting the focus to get a clear picture of the reticle and adjusting the side focus.

 

[Bloodstriker]

I love my 6-24 pst. I did a similar side by side test with everything scheels had including leupold swarovski ziess and nightforce and i found that the pst was clearer than everything except the nightforce and honestly wasnt much worse than the nightforce. So I am thinking there was something on the glass that you weren't seeing or something. Was the paralax maxed out one way or the other and wasn't able to get to a focus?

That's an eye opener. At the lower zooms I have to agree that the image was fantastic. I decided to go with Zeiss as the store only had that one PST unit and it didn't work out for me.

 

[dondick]

I have the 6-24x50 pst and it is clear at all settings. Maybe it was dirty ?

 

[Bloodstriker]

Nope. I checked both lenses and they were clean.

 

[mahbin]

My 6-24-50 PST is also clear at all magnifications!

 

[Bloodstriker]

Hmm. It's too bad the store had that one as a demo. I really like everything about the scope sans the glass.

 

[bravo47]

I also have this scope and it is clear at these ranges for me as long as the parallax is adjusted. If it is not it can seem a little cloudy

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

 

[coWSMasher]

yeah that sucks i really think the vortex would have been a better use of your money. there must have been something wrong with that one.

 

[dm1779]

Thankfully if there is a problem with the scope, I've heard that Vortex's customer service and warranty work is top notch. With regard to the quality, I've got a 6-24 on my F-class gun I've used out to 1000 yards and did great.

 

[OptedOut]

I tried out 3 PST scopes late last year, did not keep any of them. For a moderate priced scope you pretty much get moderate quality, well that's my opinion. Of course what you've used before and purpose will always be your deciding factor.

 

[Gilly]

Mine is a 4-16 model but anything over 10 power it becomes very hazy regardless of the distance, call it a clarity or resolution issue ( i am not an optics guru) but I have cleaned lenses, adjusted ocular focus, parallax as well, only when I dial power down to 8 or below does it clear up. Is it something that is an occasional flaw on pst that only affects a few of us? Maybe, but I do know that once I can afford an upgrade this puppy will be finding a home elsewhere or on a rifle that I do not need 8+ mag, but does it make sense to pay for a 16 or 24 X scope and only be able to use 50 or 60% of that total magnification? No.

To those that compared PST to Swarovski, zeiss, NF, and other brands and thought that PST held up to that standard of glass, I question the standard of the comparison, I have a conquest and the pst is not even close in the top half of the mag range, maybe at 8X it might be close, maybe if there is dust on conquest lens, probably not though. I have owned a couple nxs scopes and even though I was disappointed (might be too strong of a word) in the clarity at 22X it still blew the pst at max magnification of the water.

The PST is a very well built reliable optic that serves it purpose of dialing all day long and coming back to zero without question, but it lacks the optical quality IMHO that other brands it was compared to in this thread, but hey if it has zeiss, trijicon, or atacr glass it would be a 2K optic (it's called a Razor HD) there is no free lunch on that one. I do like the Vortex no bs customer service and the razor line glass is awesome so for that reason I will be sticking with them when I upgrade just not a PST.

I understand that everyone's eyes are different and good glass to one person may be sub par to another and great for his buddy. This is for various reasons I will not claim to be an expert on but most of the time it is probably a representation of the quality of optics that person is accustomed to. The comments above are my experience and opinions, so PST lovers don't get huffy with me as I feel I gave it all the credit it is due and for what I paid it has been a relatively good optic.

 

[Rinky]

Mine is a 4-16 model but anything over 10 power it becomes very hazy regardless of the distance, call it a clarity or resolution issue ( i am not an optics guru) but I have cleaned lenses, adjusted ocular focus, parallax as well, only when I dial power down to 8 or below does it clear up. Is it something that is an occasional flaw on pst that only affects a few of us? Maybe, but I do know that once I can afford an upgrade this puppy will be finding a home elsewhere or on a rifle that I do not need 8+ mag, but does it make sense to pay for a 16 or 24 X scope and only be able to use 50 or 60% of that total magnification? No.

To those that compared PST to Swarovski, zeiss, NF, and other brands and thought that PST held up to that standard of glass, I question the standard of the comparison, I have a conquest and the pst is not even close in the top half of the mag range, maybe at 8X it might be close, maybe if there is dust on conquest lens, probably not though. I have owned a couple nxs scopes and even though I was disappointed (might be too strong of a word) in the clarity at 22X it still blew the pst at max magnification of the water.

The PST is a very well built reliable optic that serves it purpose of dialing all day long and coming back to zero without question, but it lacks the optical quality IMHO that other brands it was compared to in this thread, but hey if it has zeiss, trijicon, or atacr glass it would be a 2K optic (it's called a Razor HD) there is no free lunch on that one. I do like the Vortex no bs customer service and the razor line glass is awesome so for that reason I will be sticking with them when I upgrade just not a PST.

I understand that everyone's eyes are different and good glass to one person may be sub par to another and great for his buddy. This is for various reasons I will not claim to be an expert on but most of the time it is probably a representation of the quality of optics that person is accustomed to. The comments above are my experience and opinions, so PST lovers don't get huffy with me as I feel I gave it all the credit it is due and for what I paid it has been a relatively good optic.

The 4-16 PST is known for having fuzzy glass, from what ive heard Vortex even claims its a known issue. Unfortunately they havent done anything about it either which is disappointing since they have exceptional CS. I have heard that is THEE only PST that has such issues.

My 6-24x50 PST is supposed to be here thursday... I can not friggen wait.

 

[Bloodstriker]

The 4-16 PST is known for having fuzzy glass, from what ive heard Vortex even claims its a known issue. Unfortunately they havent done anything about it either which is disappointing since they have exceptional CS. I have heard that is THEE only PST that has such issues.

My 6-24x50 PST is supposed to be here thursday... I can not friggen wait.

Please let us know how the clarity is. I'm kinda kicking myself for not getting it.

 

[Rinky]

Please let us know how the clarity is. I'm kinda kicking myself for not getting it.

I will be sure to. Im hoping the weather clears up so I can get a good look through it without getting buried in more snow. Three feet high and risin'...

 

[scudzuki]

I love my 6-24 pst. I did a similar side by side test with everything scheels had including leupold swarovski ziess and nightforce and i found that the pst was clearer than everything except the nightforce and honestly wasnt much worse than the nightforce. So I am thinking there was something on the glass that you weren't seeing or something. Was the paralax maxed out one way or the other and wasn't able to get to a focus?

That is really odd since Nightforce is known for their bulletproof construction and not their glass. NF glass is average, that is, until they released the ATACR and hopefully the BEAST, as they have really stepped up their game. Only in an alternate universe is NF glass better than Swaro and Zeiss.

That said, I had an opportunity to test out a PST 6-24x50 and the glass was quite good for the money. It easily revealed detail like the texture on roofing shingles at 100 yards and beyond.
I suggest to the OP that the particular unit he examined was not representative of typical PST performance.
Some examples of the 4-16 were sub par as well but the 6-24 always represents well.

Joe

 

[coWSMasher]

Mine is a 4-16 model but anything over 10 power it becomes very hazy regardless of the distance, call it a clarity or resolution issue ( i am not an optics guru) but I have cleaned lenses, adjusted ocular focus, parallax as well, only when I dial power down to 8 or below does it clear up. Is it something that is an occasional flaw on pst that only affects a few of us? Maybe, but I do know that once I can afford an upgrade this puppy will be finding a home elsewhere or on a rifle that I do not need 8+ mag, but does it make sense to pay for a 16 or 24 X scope and only be able to use 50 or 60% of that total magnification? No.

To those that compared PST to Swarovski, zeiss, NF, and other brands and thought that PST held up to that standard of glass, I question the standard of the comparison, I have a conquest and the pst is not even close in the top half of the mag range, maybe at 8X it might be close, maybe if there is dust on conquest lens, probably not though. I have owned a couple nxs scopes and even though I was disappointed (might be too strong of a word) in the clarity at 22X it still blew the pst at max magnification of the water.

The PST is a very well built reliable optic that serves it purpose of dialing all day long and coming back to zero without question, but it lacks the optical quality IMHO that other brands it was compared to in this thread, but hey if it has zeiss, trijicon, or atacr glass it would be a 2K optic (it's called a Razor HD) there is no free lunch on that one. I do like the Vortex no bs customer service and the razor line glass is awesome so for that reason I will be sticking with them when I upgrade just not a PST.

I understand that everyone's eyes are different and good glass to one person may be sub par to another and great for his buddy. This is for various reasons I will not claim to be an expert on but most of the time it is probably a representation of the quality of optics that person is accustomed to. The comments above are my experience and opinions, so PST lovers don't get huffy with me as I feel I gave it all the credit it is due and for what I paid it has been a relatively good optic.

I do agree that different people have different experiences with the same glass, but for me the glass was on par or above anything else I could get my hands on except for the nightforce. I may well have gotten a particularly good one but those are the results i found with mine.

 

[jeffersonv]

The 4-16 PST is known for having fuzzy glass, from what ive heard Vortex even claims its a known issue.

Is this internet b.s. or is this really true? I hope Vortex can chime in?

 

[Gilly]

Is this internet b.s. or is this really true? I hope Vortex can chime in?

I too would like to hear from vortex on this. There were some early reviews that the 2.5-10x44 had less than stellar glass, and with my experience on 4-16 model combined with all of them having the same glass or as far as I can tell from specs comparison on vortex site I will not be spending $900 to find out on a 6-24 even though it is 1k cheaper than Razor. However, the new 2.5-10x32 FFP PST seems to be getting great reviews so maybe there is different glass on each model.

I think the biggest problem with glass comparisons especially at a store, and I've done it myself luckily only on lower $ optics purchases ) is that you look at 100 maybe 200 yards inside the store or through a window (stupid) to try and get extended ranges. Well that is not a good way to separate great glass from good glass as even top shelf will be brought down to sub par levels in those conditions, in my opinion making cheaper glass look closer in comparison than it actually is. Now take these bad boys to the range and run them out to 6 or 800 + yards in good lighting and practical useage and then as it gets dark see how long each scope will let you make out a target to a level that you are comfortable shooting at any given distance side by side and then the zeiss, Swarovski, night force, and trijicon will show up and the PST, Nikon, Burris will be put to bed at least in my experience.

Again I don't want to make the PST sound like a bad piece of glass, but trying to save someone from buying one thinking he is getting nightforce, zeiss, Swarovski, or trijicon glass because if he ever looks through one of those he will be disappointed to find out they are not on the same level.

There is about 15-20 minutes of shooting light difference morning or evening with my 4.5-14x44zeiss compared to my 4-16x50 PST which is why the zeiss is my go to setup for coyote calling and once the sun is up I switch to my PST so if I need to dial a shot I can do it. Same experience at the range with a friend who was shooting a trijicon ( not really apple to apples as that was a 3-9x40 model ) but his scope was able to spot hits at 100 when my PST could no longer clearly make out target. This seems to be counter intuitive at least to me, the 50 mm objective should have been bringing more light in long after that 40 mm, yes the 3-9 is Lower magnification so that goes back to the whole apples and oranges thing. Maybe I am missing something on the 6-24 model and will be throwing money away by going to a razor but I somehow doubt it.

 

[Mbardin]

My Viper PST FFP 6-24 was a little bit of a pain to get all set for me. But I got it mounted on my gun, played with it a little and its money through all magnifications. It was all about how I got the gun set up with the scope on it my diaopter dialed in for me. Hope you love the Ziess brother, cause thats what really matters, I couldnt be happier with my Vortex.

 

[1quik70]

My 6-24x50 PST is very clear at all magnifications. I have not compared it next to the NF or S&B but I can see hits without a problem on regular paper. Maybe you just happened to get a lemon?

 

[mws2000]

I had a Vortex Viper PST 4x16 and my experience with it mirrored Gilly's.

 

[RobG]

I had 2 6-24's and one 4-16. Side by side, the 4-16 was not as bright or clear and could not resolve 30 cal holes that the 6-24 could at the same magnification. The 6-24 was very good until going beyond 20x where it became a bit dark and eye relief became tight. Grabbing an optic off a store shelf and playing with it for a few minutes isn't a valuable evaluation or comparison.

 

[Bloodstriker]

My Viper PST FFP 6-24 was a little bit of a pain to get all set for me. But I got it mounted on my gun, played with it a little and its money through all magnifications. It was all about how I got the gun set up with the scope on it my diaopter dialed in for me. Hope you love the Ziess brother, cause thats what really matters, I couldnt be happier with my Vortex.

What sort of problems did you have setting it up?

I was probably messing with the scope for about an hour the first day and 2 hours the second day.

 

[cb_tikka]

I had 2 6-24's and one 4-16. Side by side, the 4-16 was not as bright or clear and could not resolve 30 cal holes that the 6-24 could at the same magnification. The 6-24 was very good until going beyond 20x where it became a bit dark and eye relief became tight. Grabbing an optic off a store shelf and playing with it for a few minutes isn't a valuable evaluation or comparison.

Had the same experience. I like the Razor a lot but that's the only Vortex I would use.

 

[Mbardin]

What sort of problems did you have setting it up?

I was probably messing with the scope for about an hour the first day and 2 hours the second day.

Nothing major, just the normal "i just mounted this scope stuff." It took a while to get my eye relief set, at lower mag it was very forgiving but got tight out at 24x, had to adjust for that. but otherwise i love this scope. Its fairly inexpensive and gets the job done, my buddy has a NF and ive looked through that plenty but i dont care to hold em up next to each other.

 

[03cobra]

I just saw this thread when researching the same issue with my Viper PST 4-16 it becomes very cloudy at 10-16 power so much so that I had to dial it back to 8 to make a shot so that I could get a clear picture of my target when hunting. This is very disappointing I have scopes that cost half this ones price that do not do this that are the same magnification range. So I called Vortexx customer service and explained the issue. Yes this is a know problem for them but they said to keep the scope in the price range its in they had to use a lower quality glass that causes this issue. They did say that this should only be noticeable at 16 power. I explained to them that in there description it does not make the customer aware that the clarity of the scope drops dramatically when using the high power witch is something that is unheard of for a scope in its price range from my experiences with the same price range and power nikon, leupold, and ziess scopes. They said I could send it back to them so they could take a look but I explained that it being cloudy like your looking through a thick fog would not be acceptable.

 

[rchman]

I've owned the 2.5-10x44 (SFP), the 2.5-10x32 (FFP), the 4-16x (SFP) and the 6-24x (SFP). Frankly, I thought all of them except the new x32 FFP were crap in the glass category. They did not compare favorably to my Nikon Monarch and were about on par with a Nikon Buckmaster. This isn't nitpicking either like looking for CA or edge to edge clarity, they actually felt "foggy". I was very disappointed with each of the ones that I got.

Now, the x32 FFP model, on the other hand, was very impressive. It resolved holes as well as my USO and an IOR 3-18x. If nitpicking, it was slightly saturated compared to the USO but more neutral than the IOR (which had a yellowish cast). Other than that, it came down to things you have to focus very hard on to identify (field of view, etc...).

 

[bodywerks]

My 4-16 had crap glass in general. I did get the cloudiness at the higher ranges also. 6-24 owners are not reporting the same problem.
I sold the 4-16 within a month. I'm giving vortex another shot for my hunting rifle. I'm a nightforce/leupold guy for the most part, but i don't like the idea of banging $1600-2400 scopes around so I'm giving the 2.5-10x32 pst a try based on its reviews...

PCR/XLR/TAC338 http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz53/bodywerks/IMG_20130816_111453_255_zps1b498f0d.jpg http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz53/bodywerks/IMG_20130816_111325_951_zps290ebdd0.jpg

 

[longrangefool]

Is this internet b.s. or is this really true? I hope Vortex can chime in?

True. When the PST line came out I got one of the first 4-16x ffp. Called to ask about the fuzzy glass and they said they were aware of it and offered to let me trade up to the 6-24x ffp because it was known to be clearer (for 100 bucks). I took the offer and the 6-24x is solid. This was direct from Vortex customer service.

 

[apf383]

Just ordered my Vortex PST 6-24 x 50 ffp the other day. Until his thread, I had read mostly positive reviews, now Im a little concerned.

 

[Aimsmall55]

Mine broke 4 times ()6x24x50 pst). I gave it away. Absolutely disgusted by the equipment failure. Loved the customer service.

 

[brado16]

I have had Vipers, PST and Razor. To be honest, the only one of the three I still own is the Viper- Dont know If I got a really good Viper and bad glass on the PST and Razor but the glass on the Viper is more crisp than the other two "higher end" scopes.

 

[smax]

I just got the 4-16x44 HST and it is supposed to have the same glass as the PST models and the clarity and brightness is the same from 4x all the way through 16x. I know they are a little different models, but maybe if there was a problem they got it resolved.

 

[CSTactical]

I have been very happy with the glass quality for the price of the scope it is hard to beat.



Mike @ CSTACTICAL

 

[bhunter]

bumping back up....anyone having issues still? I noticed that past 20X on my PST it is a bit fuzzy....I called Vortex and they were very nice about things and told me that I can send it in and they will take a look. I think this is inherent to this price range, I am going to checkout another Vortex and see if it is any different, if not Im selling and getting a NF.

 

[MoBoost]

I have sold all my Vortex scopes (HS, PST and Razor) due to poor quality glass: headache inducing fuzz is just unacceptable for F-Class type shooting. They might be OK for tactical/hunting style shooting - lower magnifications and not having to stare at tiny rings for 20 minutes at a time.

At the same price point Sightron is much better buy: absolutely best tracking (measurable fact, not an opinion) and superb glass (the only scopes with better glass that I looked through were March and S&B - personal opinion).

 

[bhunter]

I have sold all my Vortex scopes (HS, PST and Razor) due to poor quality glass: headache inducing fuzz is just unacceptable for F-Class type shooting. They might be OK for tactical/hunting style shooting - lower magnifications and not having to stare at tiny rings for 20 minutes at a time.

At the same price point Sightron is much better buy: absolutely best tracking (measurable fact, not an opinion) and superb glass (the only scopes with better glass that I looked through were March and S&B - personal opinion).

which model sightron do you like?

 

[samnev]

I have 2 Vortex Viper PST FFP 4-16X50 scopes and have no problems with resolution or fuzziness at any power setting. I can clearly see 22 caliber holes at 100 yards and 30 caliber holes at 200 yards. I haven't had a chance to test them out at longer distance yet. But at 16X I can clearly see the texture in a nearby neighbors roof at 325 yards (distance determined by my Nikon 1200 range finder). Maybe I got lucky with the 2 I have.