I've been considering upgrading the optic on my SPR for a while. It is currently running a SWFA 1-6. I wanted a little more magnification, but I liked everything else about the SWFA. Finally I got to use the 2.5-10X32 PST. Compared to the PST on 6X, the SWFA was brighter and had better colors, however the PST had much better resolution. Most likely due to the focus on the SWFA being set to a different distance than what I was looking at. In any case, I was impressed with the glass on the PST so I'm giving it another try.

My experience with the PST line has been poor to say the least. I had a 2.5-10X44 that had just plain horrible glass. My BSA on my .22 beat it out, and I got rid of that scope after one range trip. A friend had a 4-16 with equally bad glass and traded it for a 6-24 who's reticle came loose and rotated.

However I've heard great things about the 2.5-10X32 and that it was the outlier in the PST line, therefore I'm giving them a last shot. If the glass is close to the one I used recently, I'll be happy. However my concern is reliability. I'm relatively rough on my optics so this is a concern for me. I know Vortex has a great warranty, but it would really piss me off if the optic failed on a hunt or competition.

Has anyone had this particular model PST fail on them? Vortex claims they made this as durable as a Leupold Mark 4, but I've broken one of those before too.

good luck . let us know how it turns out .

I actually had a considerably higher budget of $1500, but nothing else in that range had the featureset I was looking for. The NF 2.5-10X32 did not have an adjustable parallax. The X42 was slightly out of the price range for the mil/mil versions. The Bushnell LRHS was a little too big and I wanted illumination.

I figure I'll give the vortex a shot and if I don't like it, I can always sell it for a minimal loss.

I think you will be pleased. Ive had one of each of the PST line models and the x32 is much better than its brother the x44. My 6-24 also much better than the 4-16 I had.  I actually sent Vortex an email about how disappointed I was with how inconsistent their glass quality seems. To my surprise within an hour Jimmy from Vortex called me and spent a good 30 minutes on the phone explaining everything. If you notice the x44 and 4-16 have a much steepr objective bell angle as opposed to the x33 and 6-24, this more gradual bell allows more light to be gathered for a better picture. My complaint on both scopes was how dark and downroght blurry it was in certain lighting conditions.  Ive been very happy with my x32 and 6-24. Their 1-4 PST is a great value as well. I recently got a 1-6 razor and while its nice its not 3x better glass than the 1-4, thats not to say the razor is bad, just that the PST is an awesome value. Im struggling with deciding whether to put a x32 on my 12.5" 6.8 or try a 1-6 swfa. I have no problem putting shots on an 8" plate at 300(my max hunting distance for that gun) using a 1-4 but even more magnification is nice but the 1x bottom end sure is handy for close in work over the 2.5 of the x32. The onky complaint I have about the x32 is the reticle is not good for fast shots at 2.5 due to how small it is. It really needs a donut like the 1-4 or the one in the bushnell LRHS. For a tick over $700 its hard to beat for someone wanting magnification in that range. I dont think I'd put it on a battle rifle but for a game/recreation gun its great.

I just grabbed a Leupold 2.5-10 Mark IV ffp so we'll see whose breaks first.
I have a couple 1-4 pst's and like em.

I owned a PST 2.5-10x32 FFP for quite a while. Was a great optic.

I've actually owned a PST 1-4x, 2.5-10x32 FFP and 6-24x50 FFP. They were all great optics, but I no longer own any of them.

That's not because they weren't solid, but just because I "traded up" on two of them (TR24R and NF 2.5-10x32), and the 6-24x was more scope than I needed. Though I really regret selling my PST 6-24x now as I have a 338 Lapua bolt gun arriving soon.

I had really great luck with the PST line, and in their pricepoints, I found them to be in a class of their own.

They are also light compared to their competitors, and that's relative to any pricepoint.

The NF doesn't have an adjustable parallax on the compacts because the eyebox is such that it's not needed.

Good luck on your 4th vortex though

HA, challenge accepted!

This is actually only my second PST. The other two I listed were a friend's. I don't have a whole lot of confidence seeing as how I've broken a Mark 4, Nightforce compact, and Sightron in the past. Although this will be mounted on a much tamer recoiling rifle.

Huh? What does the eyebox have to do with parallax?

Yes they do offer it in the 42mm compact.

Damnit, as soon as I order the PST a NF 2.5-10X42 shows up locally for 1350. If it were the reticle and turret combo I wanted, I would consider cancelling my order.

parallax is minimal below 10x to begin with, but the eyebox forces you to consistently put your head in the same place when you get to that 10x spot (keeping the eye on the optical axis). So where they have it set at the factory leaves little room for error for you to notice the whole "reticle shifting around the target while your head is moving" effects that are easy to see on scopes with say 25x.

I guess you can look at it that way but whether or not parallax is present still has nothing to do with the eyebox. Either way a small eyebox on any scope is a bad thing IMO.

I  agree that a 10x optic does not necessarily need an adjustable parallax and I wish the 42mm NF didn't have one.

I thought the same way until a recent range trip. I compared the 2.5-10X32 PST on 6X to my SWFA 1-6. The SWFA appeared to have better quality glass as it was brighter despite the smaller objective and it showed colors and contrast better. However I could make out my hits with the PST that I couldn't with the SWFA because I could focus it at the correct distance, giving it much better resolution. I tend to have optic ADD anyways so unless I'm 100% thrilled by the PST, I'll likely end up trying something else eventually.

I like the PST line but NF it ain't.

Maybe I could have worded it better lol.

Basically I guess the nature of the compact NF make it so it's difficult for parallax to be an issue.

I don't know about that one. Plenty of known good scopes with great optical designs have a steeper objective bell angle. The Bushnell 3-21 and Leupy Mark 6 comes to mind. In fact, the steeper angle seems to be the trend these days and even the latest from S&B and Hensoldt exhibit this.

you are correct

So I got it in today and am giving it a brief overview. The other scopes I have on hand, unmounted, are the SWFA 1-6X24 and a March F 3-24X42.

As far as glass quality goes: I tested the three scopes by looking at a roof 100 yards away, and a pine tree 300 yards away. This was a very quick and informal test, and I did not pay major attention to things like Chromatic Aberration. On 6X the PST was noticeably better than the SWFA. The SWFA has focus/parallax set at 100 yards as per a call to the company so I had set the focus to 100 for the PST and March as well. The March was able to resolve a tad bit more than the PST by not a whole lot. The resolution of both was satisfactory. Moving to the 300 yard pine tree, and keeping the focus set to 100 yards, the differences were more pronounced. The PST was still a good bit better than the SWFA, while the March showed details that neither of the others could (individual pine needles, a hidden branch, etc.). Brightness was about the same for all three on 6X. The day was relatively bright at this point.

I then dropped the SWFA out and compared the PST to the March at 10X using proper focus (actually adjusting it to best resolution). As you'd imagine the March blew the PST out of the water, not even close. This is nothing against the PST as I'm comparing an $800 optic to a $2800 optic, but I just wanted to get a baseline. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the glass.

Build quality is unfortunately where the price difference showed more than the glass. The PST just simply did not feel as well built as the other two. The focus felt quite rough compared to the March, and the magnification ring was extremely hard to turn, with some grittiness. The SWFA has a few rough spots on the magnification ring, whereas the March was butter smooth. The elevation and windage turrets of the PST on the other hand, were excellent. It's hard to compare with the other two since they are 10 mils per turn vs 5, but even for a 5 mil per turn turret, it was very good, better than the Nightforce compact I used to own.

There was one issue that could potentially be major. I say potentially because it could also turn out to be nothing. The screw on the bottom where the scope is purged appears to be cross-threaded. If this allows a leak, it will compromise the integrity of the scope, and fog inside the scope is a major issue for clarity. I called Vortex to see if this screw is actually what holds the gas in, or just the cap for a real seal inside. I would imagine there would be a real seal inside, in which case I will simply re-install the screw and call it good. They will get back to me in the morning and we shall see what to do.

Thanks for the update! I'll have to drag out my pst 1-4 and compare it to the 1.5-5 Leupold mark 4.

Just telling you verbatim what Jimmy at Vortex told me about their product line. I wasnt happy with my x44 and 4-16 and he said the dimmer image compared to the others that I was seeing was due to the objective bell angle. In their optics I tend to agree as every other scope I've had of theirs has been noticeably better. Obviously the other scopes you mentioned are of a different design. Its no secret the x44 and 4-16 are known to have comparatively shitty image quality compared to the x32 and 6-24.

I have a Viper PST 4-16x FFP and I am very impressed with the quality.  I actually bought it and a NF NXS at the same time to compare them.  Originally I was really wanting the NF, but figured I would give the PST a try and possibly save money.  Looking through both of them back to back I couldn't really tell any difference between the two, they were both excellent.  I sent the NF back since I didn't think it was worth the $600+ that it cost over the Vortex.

In the most comprehensive scope test I have seen, the dated NXS was still in top 5 for image quality. (And this is from high end scopes, pst weren't even included)

Though, the $600 price difference is made up from more than just image quality.

No offense meant here but you should probably get your eyes checked out.

"No offense meant here but you should probably get your eyes checked out."

Heh, I know mine are aging.......

My own experience is that I can't see a *big* difference between the mid range (Vortex) and higher end (NF) similar featured scopes at 10x or lower, at 200yds or less.

However, above 10x, past 200yds, and especially in less than ideal conditions (low light, shadows, dust, mirage etc..) the higher end gear really starts to earn the pricing.

If someone just takes them out to look at targets at 100yds on bright, clear day I could understand not being overly impressed with the difference.

If they just look through glass at the local store counter....well....that's definitely less than ideal for making comparisons.

Spoke with Vortex. They told me a way to possibly fix it, although I'm not too thrilled by it since the treads are what keeps the gas inside and being crossthreaded, it's likely that a lot has escaped already.

They did say messing with it myself would not void the warranty regardless, their warranty good as always.

You are right that 100 yards on a bright sunny day is not going to tell the whole story. Great glass will have the best balance in all areas, not just be better in one. You cannot improve one area of glass quality without negatively affecting another. Brightness, color, contrast, and resolution are all important and that's where the more expensive scopes will do better. Not to mention overall build quality.

exactly, environmental conditions mean a lot, and change everything

people that are comparing scopes on sunny days inside stores or @ 100 yards at targets without holes in them shouldn't even voice an opinion on the topic since it doesnt mean anything.

Finding a scope that meets their needs is one thing.

Saying that a Nikon and a leupold Mk6 look the same "to their eye" is just putting out uninformed comments that don't help anybody actually looking for info.

Because that evolves later into "oh, I've looked through a Mk6, and my prostaff is just as good"

Saying "I checked out some scopes, and it looks like the prostaff will work perfect, it was plenty clear to see targets I normally shoot at, at a price I can afford, with the options I need for my XXXXXXX rifle"

Is a very different statement and perfectly valid.


Otherwise, that is like doing a car comparison by sitting in two different vehicles on a showroom floor and coming to conclusions about their actual performance.

I don't like the scope...in fact it's going back to Vortex before I ever fire a round with it.

opinions don't need to be scientific to be helpful.

And yes, useless opinions are still "valid" just adds more bs to syphon through.

Imo red cars are faster than black cars. Just as valid, and just as helpful

I never expected it to be a NF. Optically, it's very nice. Build quality is what I didn't like, even for it's price range. Sightrons and Bushnell elites compete with these and are much better built IMO (take my opinion with a grain of salt, although I am a manufacturing engineer). The screw is a big part of it.

I will add however, that I just spoke with a friend that has the optic and his screw is the same way. He hasn't had issues with fogging.

To be fair I am zero for five on brand new optics. I've never gotten an optic from a retail store that didn't have to go back. Ironically most of the optics I've bought used have been perfect.

And to show I'm not picking on Vortex:

NF compact had to go back due to lack of turret feel, like none at all.
Sightron SIII had debris in reticle(metal shavings and a lot of it) and ridiculously stiff parallax (I've had 3 SIIIs, only the new one had problems)
Sightron SII big sky had a turret that basically fell apart (love the Sightron SIII line, hate the SII, built like crap)
SWFA 5-20 had some sort of glue or opaque substance in reticle, directly on the crosshair making it unuseable
Now the issue with this PST.

I've bought probably triple this number of scopes used from forums and had far fewer problems with them. You can call me nitpicky and OCD, but all of the above issues affected function. The only "brand new" optic I've bought that had zero issues out of the box was a Vortex Razor HD spotting scope.

What was it you were saying about me a bad luck?

I just dont think youll find anything even close in price that will outperform the x32. The only scope I'd trade mine for is a NXS compact with zero stop which will run at least 1600. Thw rifle my x32 rides isnt a battle rifle so I dont see the point in paying double to get marginally better glass but a tougher scope. Why not run the scope? If it has a fogging issue send it in for repair. I sent a scope to them on a monday and had a new one by Friday. My buddy had a match to shoot one weekend and they sent him a replacement even though they didnt have his back yet so he wouldnt miss his match. I wasnt happy with my 4-16 and Jimmy gave me a good deal to trade up to the 6-24 which I'm completely happy with. Stuff like that is why I own 5 of their scopes and have plans to get 4 more.

I ended up ordering a Bushnell SMRS 1-8.5. I figure Bushnell elite have been all the rage recently so might as well give them a try.