which and why? i cannot decide. this optic will live its life on two different guns. my SPR AR15 (16", 5.56) and my Rem 700 .270. it will do everything from target shooting all the way up to elk hunting and all varmints inbetween.
Rifle Scopes vortex 2.5-10x32 FFP or 4-16x50 FFP
- Thread starter Rockhopper
- Start date
You can never have enough power, so what needs to be determined is if 4x isn't too much for your close-range shooting.
So try to use some scopes at 4x, and see how that works out at the closest range you will realistically be shooting.
If you don't feel any need to go lower than 4x, get the 4-16.
So try to use some scopes at 4x, and see how that works out at the closest range you will realistically be shooting.
If you don't feel any need to go lower than 4x, get the 4-16.
I agree with Defusion,... if 4x is just too much to handle,... doubtful,... you can go with the lower magnification range scope. I have the 4-16x you're looking at and it's a great little scope. I've swapped it around several rifles of various calibers: everything from .223 - .308. It's become my "rover" scope as it's light enough to be fairly handy and no matter the cartridge, it's magnification range allows me to zoom in on longer range targets or dial down to engage the close ones. Right now it's been living life on a 6.5 Grendel AR-15 that I've found it's been perfectly suited to. I'd go with the 4-16x,... but that's just my opinion.
Ry
I have both these scopes. The 4-16 on a Sako Quad and the 2.5-10x32 on a tikka hunter 7mm-08. I have not shot the 2.5-10x32 scope as it has just arrived. I do not know if it is my scope, but the 4-16 when over 12X it loses its picture quality. Up to 12X I think it is great, over not so much. The 2.5-10x32 looks impressive, it is fine through the entire range. This is my opinion however, and others may not experience this.
Cheers
Cheers
i will be shooting anywhere from probably 25 yards to 1000 yards depending on the situation. coyotes can sneak in close sometimes.
Magnification is good and more is always better, as mentioned before, for things other than shooting like target id, etc. Personally I was in the same boat about a year ago. I never did make the purchase for either scope because my needs changed. I went with a higher mag for my long range rifle and turned my SPR into a lightweight 3 gun machine for now. I do the scope swap when needed to make it an SPR. For the AR I originally wanted a 2.5-10 FFP but Vortex didn't have one at the time. I didn't want the 4-16 because I had a 3-18 I could use. Now that's gone and I have a 6-24 which is soon being replaced with a 4.5-30. I needed the extra power for tac comps. I realized I had too little power for target ID and milling. I take my shots around 15x but I def need the 24x or 30x for other stuff.
I know its probably out of your price range but March has a few sweet scopes like the 2.5-25 and the 3-24. If you have a spotting scope to use and can get away with lesser power on your rifle then low profile is a nice thing. If you are going to be doing more stuff at 600+ then go for the 4-16...or maybe a used HDMR.
Another thought would be to get some offset irons for up close or a red dot. Its hard to decide on scope purchases. I have been through 4 different scopes in the last year or so. Each getting me a little closer to my goal. YMMV
I know its probably out of your price range but March has a few sweet scopes like the 2.5-25 and the 3-24. If you have a spotting scope to use and can get away with lesser power on your rifle then low profile is a nice thing. If you are going to be doing more stuff at 600+ then go for the 4-16...or maybe a used HDMR.
Another thought would be to get some offset irons for up close or a red dot. Its hard to decide on scope purchases. I have been through 4 different scopes in the last year or so. Each getting me a little closer to my goal. YMMV
+1
This is a great idea, 3gunners do it, military does it, but I suppose great for hunters as well. Probably cheaper than getting a scope with an insane magnification range (like that 2.5-25 you mentioned).
I have a 2.5-10x32pst on order. I have a 4-16x50pst. The 4-16 gets hazy above 12x. Out hunting, I don't think i've ever had it above 10x shooting out to 700 yards on a t3 lite in .30-06. sure you can use up to the 16x but depending on the conditions, mirage plus the haziness up near the top end it may not be much to your benefit. FWIW, I will be replacing the 4-16 with the 2-10 on my tikka t3 for hunting.
My hunting rifle currently wears a fixed 10x. I had a red dot mounted at an offset mount 45 degrees off of the scope tube. It was awkward as there was more of a chin-weld than a cheek weld, but I could shoot it a whole lot better at ranges less than 50 yards than I could with the 10x. Last season I spined a deer at 400 yards and when I got to her she had her head up looking at me. I missed from 10 feet with the red dot. Not compensating for the extreme height over bore is bad training on my part, but I took the dot off after that. It works great on an AR, but mounting one to a bolt action and getting a good cheek-weld without your turrets in the way is difficult.
I have the 2.5-10 FFP. the reticle is nice at 10x but not really useful at 2.5x as a close in scope, even if lit.
if I could do it over I would not choose a FFP for a variable less than 6 or 8x. I do all my ranging at max magnification so there is no need for FFP. this may not be the case with a bigger top end but I feel the 2.5-10 would have been better as a SFP
if I could do it over I would not choose a FFP for a variable less than 6 or 8x. I do all my ranging at max magnification so there is no need for FFP. this may not be the case with a bigger top end but I feel the 2.5-10 would have been better as a SFP
The blame lies with the reticle design. Not with FFP. I am frustrated right now because of the new FFP scopes that are coming out with pathetic reticles that are basically useless at low power.
If the scope had heavy duplex lines that were visible when the scope was on 2.5x mag, then it would be useful on 2.5x
The duplex lines would be mostly out of view on high power.
And if they made the lines heavier folks would be complaining that the lines are to thick on 10x. You cant make everyone happy.
Was just staring at the vortex website earlier today, and noticed that the heavier outer crosshairs are almost twice as thick on the MOA model as on the MRAD model. 5 MOA thick on the MOA version, vs. 0.5 mil (which equals about 1.7 MOA) on the MRAD version.
Vortex Optics - Viper PST 2.5-10x32 FFP EBR-1 MRAD
Does anyone who has the MOA version think the outer crosshairs are too thin?
