PST 6-24x50 FFP or PST Gen II 5-25x50 FFP?

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - PST 6-24x50 FFP or PST Gen II 5-25x50 FFP?

Posted: 8/15/2017 12:14:21 PM EDT

I'm trying to decide which of these to get and as always $$$$$ is part of the equation.

I can get a refurbished PST 6-24x50 FFP for $670 or a PST Gen II 5-24x50 for $990. The refurbished PST is still covered by Vortex's lifetime warranty so no worries there.

The scope will be used for shooting steel out to 850 yards with my 5.56 AR. Is the Gen II worth the extra $320?

Posted: 8/15/2017 2:06:18 PM EDT

[#1]

I'd get the cheaper one. There is not enough difference for me to pay more.

Posted: 8/15/2017 2:12:09 PM EDT

[#2]

The PST II is far and away a better scope from the first gen. Get the PST II.

Posted: 8/15/2017 2:19:00 PM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:
The PST II is far and away a better scope from the first gen. Get the PST II.

View Quote

In what way is it better? What is different?

Posted: 8/15/2017 2:34:03 PM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:
In what way is it better? What is different?

View Quote

optical quality of the glass is better. clicks in the turrets are stronger and more positive. 25 minutes per rotation as opposed to 12 makes the turrets faster. actual zero stop as opposed to the shims that get you close. the larger diopter makes a big difference to me as well, everything feels closer even at similar power levels.

ETA: I had a PST 6-24 on my 20" 6.5 grendel, and replaced it with a 5-25 PST II.

Posted: 8/15/2017 2:35:58 PM EDT

[#5]

Get the PST gen II FFP. I've used both and I think the gen II is worth the extra cost. It has better glass and the eye box is easier to get behind then the gen i. I was really impressed with the 5-25x50 pst gen II. When I compared it to my razor hd gen II 3-18x50 the glass was only a little bit better on my razor. I think the eye box on the pst gen II was better. I've only used the pst gen II once and it was on a buddy's gun but I was impressed at how nice it is for the price.

Posted: 8/15/2017 2:42:41 PM EDT

[#6]

I'd probably go with the Gen II if those were my two options, but if you're cool with spending $1k what's another couple hundred.. I'd take a look at the Gen II Bushnell DMR scopes. 34mm, 3.5-21, etc.

Posted: 8/15/2017 3:01:30 PM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:
25 minutes per rotation as opposed to 12 makes the turrets faster.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
In what way is it better? What is different?

25 minutes per rotation as opposed to 12 makes the turrets faster.

This right here makes it worth it, in my opinion. I hate getting lost in turns and having to go back to my zero stop.

Not a big deal if you are shooting at one distance, but shooting multiple ranges at a time it is a big plus.

Posted: 8/15/2017 3:24:43 PM EDT

[#8]

I would pony up the money for the gen II, lots of upgrades as already mentioned. The better zero stop and more adjustment per rotation is worth it alone.

Posted: 8/15/2017 3:57:39 PM EDT

[#9]

Guess I'll be saving up some more for a gen II.

Posted: 8/16/2017 3:33:14 PM EDT

[#10]

Buy the refurb, and save money to go towards the gen 2, then sell the refurb for what you have in it, and buy the gen 2. That way you can shoot while you save. Used PST 6-24 FFP's bring more than 670 all day long.

Posted: 8/16/2017 4:15:42 PM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
Buy the refurb, and save money to go towards the gen 2, then sell the refurb for what you have in it, and buy the gen 2. That way you can shoot while you save. Used PST 6-24 FFP's bring more than 670 all day long.

View Quote

I've also been thinking about the refurbished 4-16 SFP. I don't know how well it would resell though.

Posted: 8/16/2017 4:18:47 PM EDT

[#12]

AA optics has the refurbished pst 6x24x50 for $500 right now if that sways your decision at all. They recently became a site sponsor and have a section in the Industry forum

Posted: 8/16/2017 4:37:56 PM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:
AA optics has the refurbished pst 6x24x50 for $500 right now if that sways your decision at all. They recently became a site sponsor and have a section in the Industry forum

View Quote

I believe the 6-24 will be too much magnification for me in SFP which is why I was thinking about going with the 4-16.

Posted: 8/16/2017 7:52:43 PM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:

I've also been thinking about the refurbished 4-16 SFP. I don't know how well it would resell though.

View Quote

The PST 4-16 FFP would resell better, but the 4-16 SFP would easily bring 450.

Posted: 8/16/2017 9:41:55 PM EDT

[#15]

I bought a first Gen PST 6-24x50. It was OK. I wouldn't pay for one no matter the discount after trying the Gen II. Noone will want your Gen I once they realize how much better the Gen II is. That is why the prices are so low... the Gen I is beyond obsolete now.

Posted: 8/20/2017 12:26:40 AM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:
I bought a first Gen PST 6-24x50. It was OK. I wouldn't pay for one no matter the discount after trying the Gen II. Noone will want your Gen I once they realize how much better the Gen II is. That is why the prices are so low... the Gen I is beyond obsolete now.

View Quote

This. Everyone wants 10 Mil turrets and a true zero stop these days. It really kills the resale on the older models.

Posted: 9/15/2017 1:09:48 PM EDT

[#17]

I ended up getting a PST 6-24 FFP and overall I'm very happy with it. My only complaint is that on 24x the eyebox seems really small and unforgiving. Backing down the magnification a little takes care of it though.

Posted: 9/16/2017 8:31:47 PM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
I bought a first Gen PST 6-24x50. It was OK. I wouldn't pay for one no matter the discount after trying the Gen II. Noone will want your Gen I once they realize how much better the Gen II is. That is why the prices are so low... the Gen I is beyond obsolete now.

View Quote

I have owned several of both and this poster and all who say get the gen ll are spot on.

The glass on my gen ll rivaled a higher end Japan made glass optic I compared it too when I got my first gen ll. It also gathered light better, and had a more forgiving eyebox.