Anybody run one of these? I'm thinking about trying one on a 20" 6.5 Grendel upper I have on order. I will use the gun for hunting but also some recreational target work. I have the pst 1-4, and like it. Feedback will be appreciated.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Vortex viper pst 2.5-10x44
- Thread starter Anton Chigurh
- Start date
After some research and thought, I'm going to pass on the viper. I'll put a leupold 3-9 on it for now, which will get me hunting and shooting up to midrange. I have been curious for sometime about the SWFA SS scopes, so I may try one of those later for longer range target work on this gun and another. The SS are too heavy for a hunting rig, but I could switch out with the leupold as needed.
Thanks for the replies. I have a PST 1-4 on an AR, and I like it. So when setting up a .308, I bought the HS-T 4-16x50. It looked milky, or fuzzy, or something starting at about 12 power and up. It sounds like this one may have some issues as well.
But there are a lot of these scopes out there, so I know guys like them. You get many feature at a great price with vortex, which I why I keep coming back around to looking at them. I may have to order one and see for myself.
But there are a lot of these scopes out there, so I know guys like them. You get many feature at a great price with vortex, which I why I keep coming back around to looking at them. I may have to order one and see for myself.
Last edited:
Have you noticed any milkyness or blur at 10 power? This potential issue concerns me the most on this scope because it's SFP, and if 10 power isn't clear then it kinda negatively effects the reticle cause I presume all ranging/holdover needs to be done at max power.
Well, I've thought about it enough the last couple days to make my head hurt. So I went ahead and ordered the PST. If it's not up to par optically, I'll return.
I've got one and haven't had any of the "milky" look @ 10X on it at all, no complaints here. Tracks true, does everything I need. Very happy over all with it.
One thing to be very cognizant of when mounting any of the PST's, no matter the mount you use, use a dab of blue loctite and do not torque to more than 15 in/lbs. There's a lot of issues that I've read about (and had one) that are all due to over torquing the rings.
I'm not saying this has anything to do with the milkiness seen on some, but it's possible. Alignment can be tweaked by over torque, even on great rings.
One thing to be very cognizant of when mounting any of the PST's, no matter the mount you use, use a dab of blue loctite and do not torque to more than 15 in/lbs. There's a lot of issues that I've read about (and had one) that are all due to over torquing the rings.
I'm not saying this has anything to do with the milkiness seen on some, but it's possible. Alignment can be tweaked by over torque, even on great rings.
The scope came in a few days ago. The glass looks pretty dang nice to me. No milk at 10 power noticed so far. I really like the looks and feel of this scope. I think I'm gonna keep it, but I will look thru it a good bit more before mounting. My Grendel upper won't be in for a month anyway.
This has me wondering about the 4-16 PST. Any thoughts from those that have used this model? FFP worth the xtra coin for general target and some hunting work?
This has me wondering about the 4-16 PST. Any thoughts from those that have used this model? FFP worth the xtra coin for general target and some hunting work?
I do not know for sure but it is my understanding that the milkiness issue has been resolved and that there was a run of bad scopes that made it out on the market. But like i said that is just my understanding i could be all wrong. I also would like to know about a 4-16 on an ar15 i am thinking about buying one but am afraid it will be a bit bulky. I look forward to hearing some input.
I didn't really notice how bad it was on 10x until I looked through another scope. It was very apparent then.
I had a 4-16 on a AR15 before. Didn't like it, was very bulky and large. It being 2014 I'm of the thought that things should be getting smaller, lighter and more refined. To that end, if you have the cash, in near the same power range the 3-18x Mark 6 is very compact.
I had a 4-16 on a AR15 before. Didn't like it, was very bulky and large. It being 2014 I'm of the thought that things should be getting smaller, lighter and more refined. To that end, if you have the cash, in near the same power range the 3-18x Mark 6 is very compact.
