Rifle Scopes Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

[wdhigh]

For starters I ordered a 4-16 pst FFP moa last august from euro optics. Received the scope and was stunned at how "dark" the glass seemed. I liked everything else but being that I needed it to pull duty on a dual purpose rifle I need good low light ability. Notice I said good. I understand I can not afford GREAT at this point in my life so I just trying to find good. Long story short I ended up returning it to let the dealer have a look and give me some feed back. On return they inspected it and said it looks normal and offered me a refund which I accepted.

Fast forward a few months and I get a call that my buddy ordered a pst 4-16 moa sfp. I rolled my eyes and wished him luck being that he wanted to use it exactly how I did. I then had a chance to look through his and must say there is now way this scope was related to the one I had!! I have yet to be able to compare it to some other scopes but I very shocked by the fact that I am wanting to.

My question is has anyone else compared the 4-16 in both FFP and SFP? Could there be a difference even though vortex CS told me there is not? Is there a logical explanation for why the 4-16 glass reviews seem to not be consistent?

Let me apologize in advance for starting another pst thread, and I have searched my ass off trying to make sense of this.

Thanks!

 

[highridge1]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

I had two 4-16's and one was better than the other. I thought it was strange to. Both were sfp. I have a PST 6-24x50 and the glass is excellent.

 

[Doctawho]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

Sounds like some Q/C issues going on over there at Vortex.

 

[B3dlam]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

I am by no means an expert but I had been looking at PSTs for a while before I settled on the SWFA SS due to its better internal adjustments and lack of long backorder wait. I remember something being mentioned about some of the early scopes having darker glass just part of the growing pains of a new brand. I understand the 6-24s are all great though as they were introduced after this issue was fixed. Again I am no expert but it sounds like you might have had one of the early production scopes I heard mentioned.

 

[koshkin]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

I suspect that Vortex has been incrementally improving PSTs since they introduced them. The ones I have seen recently were better than the early samples and seemed consistent.

ILya

 

[coldboremiracle]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

Not sure if it helps, but I have one of the very first 4-16's (#0000004) and mine is clear as I could ever expect, I have no complaints about mine.

 

[wdhigh]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

Coldbore, your extensive review along with JON A's are the biggest reason I gave one a try. I thought the actual through the scope pics were very decent when compared to the others.

Thank you both again for taking the time to even give such an extensive review.

 

[majohnson2]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

My PST 6-24x50 seems bright. Its only been out once but it compared to others I was more then happy.

 

[LSOSGT1109]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

When I firs got my 4-16 and looked thru it I thought wow, this sucks! Then I looked thru my Mk4 and thought damn, this sucks too, WTF?? Then I realized I had been wearing my contacts for about 2 weeks straight and they were about a month over due to be replaced anyway. Replaced contacts and both scopes looked bright and clear! LOL

 

[wdhigh]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

Update!

After spending a little more time behind a sfp 4-16 pst I decided to give the pst another look. Picked up a used 4-16 moa ffp identical to the original I bought and quickly returned. Needless to say that this scope is noticeably "brighter" than my first.

These are just quick observations made in the back yard well after dark with a 2.5-10x50 4200 to compare it to. They were close which is all I was looking for in brightness. Obviously it needs to track well which I don't have any concerns from feedback on here and great warranty if an issue comes up.

Thanks to those that offered help!

 

[majohnson2]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

My 6-24X50 is a SFP, it has absolutely crystal clear glass. I have had others comment on how clear and bright the scope is.

The turrets offer positive clicks, in both directions. The only downside from my point of view is using the shims for a zero stop. I think they could have done a better job there. Hopefully they will come up with a reasonable upgrade for their current customers. I see were Nightforce offers an upgrade for their turrets.

 

[zmann]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

I put a ARD on my Vortex and it def. dimmed it up, took it off.

 

[CSTactical]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

I use the 4-16x50mm FFP and the glass on it is nice but it is not great, I will say the glass is what I expect for the price. I really like the Vortex PST.


Mike @ CST

 

[Onoko]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

Are the glass quality fairly consistent now or is it basically luck of the draw? Is the glass really much better on a 6-24 vs 4-16?

 

[1MoreAR]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

I have the PST in 1-4 and 2.5-10 for almost a year on my AR. I noticed that the 2.5-10 glass is a little brighter than the 1-4.This thread make me feel better and my eyes are still ok...lol.

 

[jrob300]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ILya</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I suspect that Vortex has been incrementally improving PSTs since they introduced them. The ones I have seen recently were better than the early samples and seemed consistent.

ILya </div></div>

Between unit to unit variability and incremental in-process design improvements, you're likely to see anywhere from almost no difference to large, obvious differences between scopes of the same model, depending on a lot of factors that are largely transparent to us and not in the manufacturers best interest to advertise.

You cannot manufacture a full-featured tactical scope cheaply and not make shortcuts somewhere. But neither are you guaranteed by paying $3500 for a scope that the manufacturer understands the issues at hand and has taken steps to mitigate them.

When you see scopes such as the NXS, where they come off the line like cookie cutters, you can infer that you are dealing with a company that cares and has it's process under control.

Vortex is an very customer-oriented company. They value us and work very hard to give us value in return for our dollar. (no I don't work for them). When you buy a Razor from Vortex, you are paying not only for a full-featured scope with excellent optics and robust build, you are paying for the extra care to make sure that unit-to-unit variability is low, because customer perception is an important factor in sales. You cannot expect that same level from the PST line. There simply is not enough margin built in at the pricepoint to pull it off. Is it a great scope for the money? Yes. But let's remember that "for the money" delimiter, OK?

John

 

[_Shay_]

Re: Another PST glass quality question. 4-16 x50

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ILya</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I suspect that Vortex has been incrementally improving PSTs since they introduced them. The ones I have seen recently were better than the early samples and seemed consistent.

ILya </div></div>

Between unit to unit variability and incremental in-process design improvements, you're likely to see anywhere from almost no difference to large, obvious differences between scopes of the same model, depending on a lot of factors that are largely transparent to us and not in the manufacturers best interest to advertise.

You cannot manufacture a full-featured tactical scope cheaply and not make shortcuts somewhere. But neither are you guaranteed by paying $3500 for a scope that the manufacturer understands the issues at hand and has taken steps to mitigate them.

When you see scopes such as the NXS, where they come off the line like cookie cutters, you can infer that you are dealing with a company that cares and has it's process under control.

Vortex is an very customer-oriented company. They value us and work very hard to give us value in return for our dollar. (no I don't work for them). When you buy a Razor from Vortex, you are paying not only for a full-featured scope with excellent optics and robust build, you are paying for the extra care to make sure that unit-to-unit variability is low, because customer perception is an important factor in sales. You cannot expect that same level from the PST line. There simply is not enough margin built in at the pricepoint to pull it off. Is it a great scope for the money? Yes. But let's remember that "for the money" delimiter, OK?

John </div></div>

Right on the money right there.