I have a fair ammount of Cabelas gift cards (perk of the job) to spend. Leaning towards either a Leupold Mk4 or Vortex PST.
Thoughts, Opinions.
Thanks
Thoughts, Opinions.
Thanks
Rifle Scopes Vortex PST vs Mk 4
- Thread starter Josh Ward
- Start date
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
My take is that the PST has more features but the Leupold has a bit better build quality (maybe).
Go down to Cabelas, pick up one of each and whichever you like best is the winner.
My take is that the PST has more features but the Leupold has a bit better build quality (maybe).
Go down to Cabelas, pick up one of each and whichever you like best is the winner.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
Id go with a Mark 4 with M5 knobs. The TMR reticle on the Leupy is fantastic. Optically, I think youll be more happy with the Leupold as well.
Id go with a Mark 4 with M5 knobs. The TMR reticle on the Leupy is fantastic. Optically, I think youll be more happy with the Leupold as well.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
Having just purchased a 6-24X50 PST I would recomend this scope over the MK IV. I think it's a better scope over all. I think the PST is alot brighter than my MK IVs and maybe just a tad bit clearer but not by much. I don't have any experience with the lower power versions of the PST but from everything I read the -2-10 and 4-16 does not have as good of glass as the 6-24.With all of the feature the PST offer and the cost is quite a bit lower I would choose the Vortex over Leupold, everytime. I have a 4-14X50 M1 TMR and a 3.5-10X40 M3 so I am not a basher of Leupold.
Having just purchased a 6-24X50 PST I would recomend this scope over the MK IV. I think it's a better scope over all. I think the PST is alot brighter than my MK IVs and maybe just a tad bit clearer but not by much. I don't have any experience with the lower power versions of the PST but from everything I read the -2-10 and 4-16 does not have as good of glass as the 6-24.With all of the feature the PST offer and the cost is quite a bit lower I would choose the Vortex over Leupold, everytime. I have a 4-14X50 M1 TMR and a 3.5-10X40 M3 so I am not a basher of Leupold.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I have owned seven vortex pst's, lots of nightforce, and a few leupold's and for the money and options I would go vortex(plus warrant).
I have owned seven vortex pst's, lots of nightforce, and a few leupold's and for the money and options I would go vortex(plus warrant).
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
PST nuf said.
PST nuf said.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I think the PST is better in almost every way possible except the Leupold Mk4 is made in the USA.
I think the PST is better in almost every way possible except the Leupold Mk4 is made in the USA.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
+1 on the PST I have a good amount of time behind two different 4-16's and have owned MK4's in the past. For the price, the quality and features of the PST make it, In my mind, a no brainer. Besides the service Vortex offers along with their products is superb to say the least.
+1 on the PST I have a good amount of time behind two different 4-16's and have owned MK4's in the past. For the price, the quality and features of the PST make it, In my mind, a no brainer. Besides the service Vortex offers along with their products is superb to say the least.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I have done a side by side comparison between Nightforce, PST's, and Leupold ER/T's and would take the ER/T's hands down. The build quality of the Leupold is better than the Vortex, but not quite as good as the Nightforce. I think the ER/T wins in the reticle(TMR)/Glass deparment hands down. I know this opinion wont be popular on here, but I believe that Leupold is the best for what you pay out of the three.
I have done a side by side comparison between Nightforce, PST's, and Leupold ER/T's and would take the ER/T's hands down. The build quality of the Leupold is better than the Vortex, but not quite as good as the Nightforce. I think the ER/T wins in the reticle(TMR)/Glass deparment hands down. I know this opinion wont be popular on here, but I believe that Leupold is the best for what you pay out of the three.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
Mk4 glass beats the crap out of PST. For the money though, PST has more "features".
Mk4 glass beats the crap out of PST. For the money though, PST has more "features".
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
Yes your absolutely right-PST are a good option if cost is a factor.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Powder Burns</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mk4 glass beats the crap out of PST. For the money though, PST has more "features". </div></div>
Yes your absolutely right-PST are a good option if cost is a factor.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Powder Burns</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mk4 glass beats the crap out of PST. For the money though, PST has more "features". </div></div>
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I tried the mark 4 and the PST. I bought the PST.
I believe they are the same glass wise but more options
For less price with the PST. My2cents.
I tried the mark 4 and the PST. I bought the PST.
I believe they are the same glass wise but more options
For less price with the PST. My2cents.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
Glass wise the Leupolds are hands down better, but you do get a lot of features in the PST.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do the Leupold Mid Range TActicals stand up to the Vortex PST 2.5-10? If anyone knows? </div></div>
Glass wise the Leupolds are hands down better, but you do get a lot of features in the PST.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do the Leupold Mid Range TActicals stand up to the Vortex PST 2.5-10? If anyone knows? </div></div>
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pointman10-32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glass wise the Leupolds are hands down better, but you do get a lot of features in the PST.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do the Leupold Mid Range TActicals stand up to the Vortex PST 2.5-10? If anyone knows? </div></div> </div></div>
Glass isn't the most important to me. First is tracking, then the quality/robustness of the scope, then glass.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pointman10-32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glass wise the Leupolds are hands down better, but you do get a lot of features in the PST.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do the Leupold Mid Range TActicals stand up to the Vortex PST 2.5-10? If anyone knows? </div></div> </div></div>
Glass isn't the most important to me. First is tracking, then the quality/robustness of the scope, then glass.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I would say to go with Leupold if that is what is most important. Just my 2 cents.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pointman10-32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glass wise the Leupolds are hands down better, but you do get a lot of features in the PST.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do the Leupold Mid Range TActicals stand up to the Vortex PST 2.5-10? If anyone knows? </div></div> </div></div>
Glass isn't the most important to me. First is tracking, then the quality/robustness of the scope, then glass. </div></div>
I would say to go with Leupold if that is what is most important. Just my 2 cents.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pointman10-32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glass wise the Leupolds are hands down better, but you do get a lot of features in the PST.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do the Leupold Mid Range TActicals stand up to the Vortex PST 2.5-10? If anyone knows? </div></div> </div></div>
Glass isn't the most important to me. First is tracking, then the quality/robustness of the scope, then glass. </div></div>
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pointman10-32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would say to go with Leupold if that is what is most important. Just my 2 cents.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pointman10-32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glass wise the Leupolds are hands down better, but you do get a lot of features in the PST.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do the Leupold Mid Range TActicals stand up to the Vortex PST 2.5-10? If anyone knows? </div></div> </div></div>
Glass isn't the most important to me. First is tracking, then the quality/robustness of the scope, then glass. </div></div> </div></div>
There is also the NF, which I forgot about.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pointman10-32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would say to go with Leupold if that is what is most important. Just my 2 cents.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pointman10-32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glass wise the Leupolds are hands down better, but you do get a lot of features in the PST.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do the Leupold Mid Range TActicals stand up to the Vortex PST 2.5-10? If anyone knows? </div></div> </div></div>
Glass isn't the most important to me. First is tracking, then the quality/robustness of the scope, then glass. </div></div> </div></div>
There is also the NF, which I forgot about.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
Having a PST and having a friend with a Mark 4, I would personally choose the PST every time. There just isn't much that the Mark 4 offers above the PST to justify the difference in price. Save some money and put it towards more ammo!
Having a PST and having a friend with a Mark 4, I would personally choose the PST every time. There just isn't much that the Mark 4 offers above the PST to justify the difference in price. Save some money and put it towards more ammo!
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
i have read that the PST glass quality "improved" somewhere in the production. is there such a thing as an "old-PST" and a "new-PST-with-better-glass"?
i have read that the PST glass quality "improved" somewhere in the production. is there such a thing as an "old-PST" and a "new-PST-with-better-glass"?
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I am not sure, but I wish it were true. Glass matters to me and my $400 dollar 3200 Elite has better glass than the PST I looked through. If Vortex could rectify this they would have the best scope for the money hands down in my opinion.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 2_many_dogs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have read that the PST glass quality "improved" somewhere in the production. is there such a thing as an "old-PST" and a "new-PST-with-better-glass"?
</div></div>
I am not sure, but I wish it were true. Glass matters to me and my $400 dollar 3200 Elite has better glass than the PST I looked through. If Vortex could rectify this they would have the best scope for the money hands down in my opinion.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 2_many_dogs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have read that the PST glass quality "improved" somewhere in the production. is there such a thing as an "old-PST" and a "new-PST-with-better-glass"?
</div></div>
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
What power PSTs have you used/looked through? I heard the 2.5-10 and 4-16 doesn't have the best glass but the 6-24 has very good glass. I can't remember what member posted a pic of similar powered glass between the Leupold, Vortex and NF. They ranked in that order going from 3rd to 1st. Like I said I could see a difference has far as brightness and maybe, just maybe a sharper image with the PST over my other two Leupolds
What power PSTs have you used/looked through? I heard the 2.5-10 and 4-16 doesn't have the best glass but the 6-24 has very good glass. I can't remember what member posted a pic of similar powered glass between the Leupold, Vortex and NF. They ranked in that order going from 3rd to 1st. Like I said I could see a difference has far as brightness and maybe, just maybe a sharper image with the PST over my other two Leupolds
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I my opinion this is a NO-BRAINER. The Mk-4 from Leoupold is far superior to most optics being sold today. I have a NF and 2 MK-4's. I think the glass quality is too close to call between those two. The only thing that I have ever seen that had better glass is Schmidt and Bender, but for the cost it better.
I would also say that the MK-4 has the best reticle design for long distance shots. That tiny gap that they insert is AWESOME to me. The illuminated reticle on the Leupolds works flawlessly at every level of brightness.
I would offer that the U.S. Army has used the Leupolds for years and years. There is a reason for that. I have used Leupold optics while deployed on several deployments and NEVER regretted it.
There are cheaper optics that do a great job, however, they don't do as great a job as the Leupolds in my opinion. I have have seen some MK-4's that have really taken a beating and still worked flawlessly on tracking and picture quality.
Optics are always a loaded question becuase we all have our favorites. Yes the Leupolds cost a bit more but they, very simply, GET THE JOB DONE day after day under the worst conditions.
Just one guys opinion
I my opinion this is a NO-BRAINER. The Mk-4 from Leoupold is far superior to most optics being sold today. I have a NF and 2 MK-4's. I think the glass quality is too close to call between those two. The only thing that I have ever seen that had better glass is Schmidt and Bender, but for the cost it better.
I would also say that the MK-4 has the best reticle design for long distance shots. That tiny gap that they insert is AWESOME to me. The illuminated reticle on the Leupolds works flawlessly at every level of brightness.
I would offer that the U.S. Army has used the Leupolds for years and years. There is a reason for that. I have used Leupold optics while deployed on several deployments and NEVER regretted it.
There are cheaper optics that do a great job, however, they don't do as great a job as the Leupolds in my opinion. I have have seen some MK-4's that have really taken a beating and still worked flawlessly on tracking and picture quality.
Optics are always a loaded question becuase we all have our favorites. Yes the Leupolds cost a bit more but they, very simply, GET THE JOB DONE day after day under the worst conditions.
Just one guys opinion
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
What he said.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob.308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I my opinion this is a NO-BRAINER. The Mk-4 from Leoupold is far superior to most optics being sold today. I have a NF and 2 MK-4's. I think the glass quality is too close to call between those two. The only thing that I have ever seen that had better glass is Schmidt and Bender, but for the cost it better.
I would also say that the MK-4 has the best reticle design for long distance shots. That tiny gap that they insert is AWESOME to me. The illuminated reticle on the Leupolds works flawlessly at every level of brightness.
I would offer that the U.S. Army has used the Leupolds for years and years. There is a reason for that. I have used Leupold optics while deployed on several deployments and NEVER regretted it.
There are cheaper optics that do a great job, however, they don't do as great a job as the Leupolds in my opinion. I have have seen some MK-4's that have really taken a beating and still worked flawlessly on tracking and picture quality.
Optics are always a loaded question becuase we all have our favorites. Yes the Leupolds cost a bit more but they, very simply, GET THE JOB DONE day after day under the worst conditions.
Just one guys opinion
</div></div>
What he said.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob.308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I my opinion this is a NO-BRAINER. The Mk-4 from Leoupold is far superior to most optics being sold today. I have a NF and 2 MK-4's. I think the glass quality is too close to call between those two. The only thing that I have ever seen that had better glass is Schmidt and Bender, but for the cost it better.
I would also say that the MK-4 has the best reticle design for long distance shots. That tiny gap that they insert is AWESOME to me. The illuminated reticle on the Leupolds works flawlessly at every level of brightness.
I would offer that the U.S. Army has used the Leupolds for years and years. There is a reason for that. I have used Leupold optics while deployed on several deployments and NEVER regretted it.
There are cheaper optics that do a great job, however, they don't do as great a job as the Leupolds in my opinion. I have have seen some MK-4's that have really taken a beating and still worked flawlessly on tracking and picture quality.
Optics are always a loaded question becuase we all have our favorites. Yes the Leupolds cost a bit more but they, very simply, GET THE JOB DONE day after day under the worst conditions.
Just one guys opinion
</div></div>
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I cant recall if I have looked through the 6x24, but I will make it a point too do so. The 4x16 was just to lack luster at 16x that I it totally turned me. But when I compared the M5 to the Nightforce I prefered the M5.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GhostFace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What power PSTs have you used/looked through? I heard the 2.5-10 and 4-16 doesn't have the best glass but the 6-24 has very good glass. I can't remember what member posted a pic of similar powered glass between the Leupold, Vortex and NF. They ranked in that order going from 3rd to 1st. Like I said I could see a difference has far as brightness and maybe, just maybe a sharper image with the PST over my other two Leupolds </div></div>
I cant recall if I have looked through the 6x24, but I will make it a point too do so. The 4x16 was just to lack luster at 16x that I it totally turned me. But when I compared the M5 to the Nightforce I prefered the M5.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GhostFace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What power PSTs have you used/looked through? I heard the 2.5-10 and 4-16 doesn't have the best glass but the 6-24 has very good glass. I can't remember what member posted a pic of similar powered glass between the Leupold, Vortex and NF. They ranked in that order going from 3rd to 1st. Like I said I could see a difference has far as brightness and maybe, just maybe a sharper image with the PST over my other two Leupolds </div></div>
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
Here is a review I did a couple years ago when the first PST's came out. If you read the whole thread there is alot of comparisons between the two scopes your interested in and others.
http://snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1903058&page=1
Here is a review I did a couple years ago when the first PST's came out. If you read the whole thread there is alot of comparisons between the two scopes your interested in and others.
http://snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1903058&page=1
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
Honestly, none of my Leupolds have never tracked 100% and I have had them (Mark 2, 4, VX-R, Vari-x III) lose zero from being tossed in the back of my truck. Only tactical-ish one I have left is a VXR 3-9 patrol and I think it'll be on the chopping block soon in favor of a super sniper, IOR or nightforce if I can swing it.
Only Mk4 I'd consider right now would be the M2 or M3 model. The new models look interesting but spending 2k I would put it on something proven like a Razor or F1.
Honestly, none of my Leupolds have never tracked 100% and I have had them (Mark 2, 4, VX-R, Vari-x III) lose zero from being tossed in the back of my truck. Only tactical-ish one I have left is a VXR 3-9 patrol and I think it'll be on the chopping block soon in favor of a super sniper, IOR or nightforce if I can swing it.
Only Mk4 I'd consider right now would be the M2 or M3 model. The new models look interesting but spending 2k I would put it on something proven like a Razor or F1.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pointman10-32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I cant recall if I have looked through the 6x24, but I will make it a point too do so. The 4x16 was just to lack luster at 16x that I it totally turned me.</div></div>
The 6-24 model is like night and day compared to the 4-16. No idea why though. My 1-4, 2.5-10 were about like a Nikon Monarch.
Under a grand I don't get too picky about glass quality. If it doesn't give me a headache on the range it is fine.
Past 1k I would think about IOR or used NF. IOR has great glass and NF has the reliability rep. Leupold is kinda in between.
I hope their new lines turn out to be great scopes but like I said in my above post not big on spending 2300 to find out
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pointman10-32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I cant recall if I have looked through the 6x24, but I will make it a point too do so. The 4x16 was just to lack luster at 16x that I it totally turned me.</div></div>
The 6-24 model is like night and day compared to the 4-16. No idea why though. My 1-4, 2.5-10 were about like a Nikon Monarch.
Under a grand I don't get too picky about glass quality. If it doesn't give me a headache on the range it is fine.
Past 1k I would think about IOR or used NF. IOR has great glass and NF has the reliability rep. Leupold is kinda in between.
I hope their new lines turn out to be great scopes but like I said in my above post not big on spending 2300 to find out
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I have one of each. They are very comparable in quality, but the PST is conderably less money with the same warranty. Boils down to price and who makes exactly what you want.
I have one of each. They are very comparable in quality, but the PST is conderably less money with the same warranty. Boils down to price and who makes exactly what you want.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I just bot the PST 6-24x50 PST after considering the Leupold M-4, and the NF. I ended up with the SFP Vortex instead of the FFP as I rangefind just about everything I shoot in the field.
My reasons for buying the Vortex, were actually pretty simple. The scope was going on a Savage, single shot action with a Shilen bull barrel chambered in 6.5 Swede. I also have it screwed into a Bell & Carlson full aluminum block bedded stock. So, I use this rifle at the range to poke holes in paper, and I use it to shoot groundhogs in the summer at longer ranges from steady platforms, and it just may see a WY Antelope hunt.
So, the scope isn't going to be drug up the rocky cliffs of anywhere, nor hauled across the Alaskan mountains.
That doesn't mean the PST isn't a rugged scope, but for the price difference, it seem to be the right fit for me.
Dave
I just bot the PST 6-24x50 PST after considering the Leupold M-4, and the NF. I ended up with the SFP Vortex instead of the FFP as I rangefind just about everything I shoot in the field.
My reasons for buying the Vortex, were actually pretty simple. The scope was going on a Savage, single shot action with a Shilen bull barrel chambered in 6.5 Swede. I also have it screwed into a Bell & Carlson full aluminum block bedded stock. So, I use this rifle at the range to poke holes in paper, and I use it to shoot groundhogs in the summer at longer ranges from steady platforms, and it just may see a WY Antelope hunt.
So, the scope isn't going to be drug up the rocky cliffs of anywhere, nor hauled across the Alaskan mountains.
That doesn't mean the PST isn't a rugged scope, but for the price difference, it seem to be the right fit for me.
Dave
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I have five Leupold Mrk 4's and I love em. They are very tough, very good glass, and very reliable. Their warranty is great and their product outstanding. I have no experiance with Vortex, but everyone I know that owns one seems to like them. My 2 cents.
I have five Leupold Mrk 4's and I love em. They are very tough, very good glass, and very reliable. Their warranty is great and their product outstanding. I have no experiance with Vortex, but everyone I know that owns one seems to like them. My 2 cents.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
Price really isn't the issue. Like I said I have quite a bit of "free money" for Cabelas. Maybe I'll just rub some dimes together and say "f" it and spring for a NF.
Price really isn't the issue. Like I said I have quite a bit of "free money" for Cabelas. Maybe I'll just rub some dimes together and say "f" it and spring for a NF.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I would only suggest you compare the MK 4 and the NF side by side. If you can see a difference in them then you will have your answer for sure. At that level I honestly believe it is all personal preference. I just don't see a $500 difference between them.
As for the comment about them being off a little just by putting them in the back of a truck. Well, a MK 4 is way different than a VX-3. I have a VX-3 on a Browning A-Bolt, 30.06 that I use for hunting. The combo has been set up for years and I have never had to readjust my zero unless I changed bullet weight. I would have to think the above comments were made by someone who might not have taken into consideration the weather changes they were shooting in. 10 degrees in temperature or 5 mph wind will always change the bullet point of impact. I have seen many guys on the range readjusting their optics in August to get ready for Octobers hunting season and wonder why the impact point is off, usually they blame it on the optics or mount.
I have used the Leupold stuff in both Iraq and Afghanistan under some pretty crappy conditions and I NEVER had a problem with the optics or mounts. In my opinion the MK-4 mounts are the best in the world, no questions asked. They are heavy but they are also heavy duty.
Just one mans thoughts. Please let me know what you decide after looking at them both side by side. I do it often on the range and I personally can’t see any difference in the glass quality at all between Leupold and NF. It does seem to me that NF has the momentum right now if the shooting world but Leupold has passed the test of time. I wonder if the NF momentum is a fad that will fade. I remember when all anyone would even consider for a quality optic was Leupold.
I would only suggest you compare the MK 4 and the NF side by side. If you can see a difference in them then you will have your answer for sure. At that level I honestly believe it is all personal preference. I just don't see a $500 difference between them.
As for the comment about them being off a little just by putting them in the back of a truck. Well, a MK 4 is way different than a VX-3. I have a VX-3 on a Browning A-Bolt, 30.06 that I use for hunting. The combo has been set up for years and I have never had to readjust my zero unless I changed bullet weight. I would have to think the above comments were made by someone who might not have taken into consideration the weather changes they were shooting in. 10 degrees in temperature or 5 mph wind will always change the bullet point of impact. I have seen many guys on the range readjusting their optics in August to get ready for Octobers hunting season and wonder why the impact point is off, usually they blame it on the optics or mount.
I have used the Leupold stuff in both Iraq and Afghanistan under some pretty crappy conditions and I NEVER had a problem with the optics or mounts. In my opinion the MK-4 mounts are the best in the world, no questions asked. They are heavy but they are also heavy duty.
Just one mans thoughts. Please let me know what you decide after looking at them both side by side. I do it often on the range and I personally can’t see any difference in the glass quality at all between Leupold and NF. It does seem to me that NF has the momentum right now if the shooting world but Leupold has passed the test of time. I wonder if the NF momentum is a fad that will fade. I remember when all anyone would even consider for a quality optic was Leupold.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Josh Ward</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Price really isn't the issue. Like I said I have quite a bit of "free money" for Cabelas. Maybe I'll just rub some dimes together and say "f" it and spring for a NF. </div></div>
That is what I would do if you're serious about your shooting.
Also maybe I missed it but what rifle is this going on?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Josh Ward</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Price really isn't the issue. Like I said I have quite a bit of "free money" for Cabelas. Maybe I'll just rub some dimes together and say "f" it and spring for a NF. </div></div>
That is what I would do if you're serious about your shooting.
Also maybe I missed it but what rifle is this going on?
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pointman10-32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glass wise the Leupolds are hands down better, but you do get a lot of features in the PST.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do the Leupold Mid Range TActicals stand up to the Vortex PST 2.5-10? If anyone knows? </div></div> </div></div>
Glass isn't the most important to me. First is tracking, then the quality/robustness of the scope, then glass. </div></div>
In all honesty, if tracking, sturdiness, performance, and reliability are most important to you, definitely go with the Leupold. If you are looking just to get a scope with a lot of "bells and whistles" on it, then get the PST. I abuse my Mark 4 and it holds zero 100% of the time. The only things my Mark 4 ERT M5 doesnt have is a zero stop and illuminated reticle. And for the type of dynamic shooting that I do, I dont need those features. Ive never found myself saying "aww fuck, If I would of had a zero stop, I would of made that shot". What i need is reliability, repeatability, and good clarity...which = Leupold Mark 4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pointman10-32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glass wise the Leupolds are hands down better, but you do get a lot of features in the PST.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _Shay_ ©</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do the Leupold Mid Range TActicals stand up to the Vortex PST 2.5-10? If anyone knows? </div></div> </div></div>
Glass isn't the most important to me. First is tracking, then the quality/robustness of the scope, then glass. </div></div>
In all honesty, if tracking, sturdiness, performance, and reliability are most important to you, definitely go with the Leupold. If you are looking just to get a scope with a lot of "bells and whistles" on it, then get the PST. I abuse my Mark 4 and it holds zero 100% of the time. The only things my Mark 4 ERT M5 doesnt have is a zero stop and illuminated reticle. And for the type of dynamic shooting that I do, I dont need those features. Ive never found myself saying "aww fuck, If I would of had a zero stop, I would of made that shot". What i need is reliability, repeatability, and good clarity...which = Leupold Mark 4
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob.308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would offer that the U.S. Army has used the Leupolds for years and years.</div></div>
The military also mixes mil reticles and moa knobs, so I'm not sure what to take from this point.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob.308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would offer that the U.S. Army has used the Leupolds for years and years.</div></div>
The military also mixes mil reticles and moa knobs, so I'm not sure what to take from this point.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
The combination can work very well for a shooter that knows how to use it properly.
It is always nicer and preferred to make moa adjustments when you have the time to do it, however, when the targets you are shooting at...return fire...well that are a completely different matter.
Just a thought.
The combination can work very well for a shooter that knows how to use it properly.
It is always nicer and preferred to make moa adjustments when you have the time to do it, however, when the targets you are shooting at...return fire...well that are a completely different matter.
Just a thought.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I went to the gun shop today, and I had the chance to compare the PST and Mk 4 side by side, and this is what I got
Turrets- Vortex, to me, hand much better feeling turrets. The clicks weren't mushy like the Mk4, which almost had a spring feel to it, and no real definition of where you were at, besides an audible click.
Glass- To my eyes, the PST was a bit brighter than the Mk4. The glass on the Mk4 had a little bit more definition, but light gathering was better on the PST
Reticle- PST won this as well, matching turret and reticle is a no brainer. The Leupold had a SFP Mil Dot reticle and Moa turrets, and much about 1300 compared to 900 of the PST. Both in a Similar Magnification range. But, the Reticle on the Leupold was much thinner, I will give them that.
Illumination- Vortex had it, Leupold didnt.
Ruggedness- I could not really tell, since I couldn't abuse either scopes, but the Leupold did feel a little sturdier than the PST, I must say.
I went to the gun shop today, and I had the chance to compare the PST and Mk 4 side by side, and this is what I got
Turrets- Vortex, to me, hand much better feeling turrets. The clicks weren't mushy like the Mk4, which almost had a spring feel to it, and no real definition of where you were at, besides an audible click.
Glass- To my eyes, the PST was a bit brighter than the Mk4. The glass on the Mk4 had a little bit more definition, but light gathering was better on the PST
Reticle- PST won this as well, matching turret and reticle is a no brainer. The Leupold had a SFP Mil Dot reticle and Moa turrets, and much about 1300 compared to 900 of the PST. Both in a Similar Magnification range. But, the Reticle on the Leupold was much thinner, I will give them that.
Illumination- Vortex had it, Leupold didnt.
Ruggedness- I could not really tell, since I couldn't abuse either scopes, but the Leupold did feel a little sturdier than the PST, I must say.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I'm just getting started in longrange competition and I'm finding this thread very interesting. I need a good scope for my new stick and I've always went with the Leupold however there are many saying good things about the PST. I looked thru a PST at our local Cabelas last week and was pleased with the brightness and the feel of the turrets. The scope felt well built but It's hard for me to shake that Leupold addiction. I grew up where Weaver was the one you could afford and Leupold was the one you wanted.
I'm just getting started in longrange competition and I'm finding this thread very interesting. I need a good scope for my new stick and I've always went with the Leupold however there are many saying good things about the PST. I looked thru a PST at our local Cabelas last week and was pleased with the brightness and the feel of the turrets. The scope felt well built but It's hard for me to shake that Leupold addiction. I grew up where Weaver was the one you could afford and Leupold was the one you wanted.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
Got my PST 6-24x50 a couple of days ago and my Badger rings arrived today (Thanks Steve@Triad). Did a quick/temp mount-up of the PST and then went to comparing it to my Mark 4 4.5-14x50. PST is brighter. Resolution is a toss-up. Click feel goes to PST. Eyebox is pretty tight and I'm going to hold judgement until I shoot it a fair number of rounds.
Now the part that sucks. I noticed the Mark 4 has a shitload of specs inside the scope! Wasn't there previously but it's sure there now. Its on a KAC SR-25, I suspect something happened the last time I had it out and just now noticed.
Got my PST 6-24x50 a couple of days ago and my Badger rings arrived today (Thanks Steve@Triad). Did a quick/temp mount-up of the PST and then went to comparing it to my Mark 4 4.5-14x50. PST is brighter. Resolution is a toss-up. Click feel goes to PST. Eyebox is pretty tight and I'm going to hold judgement until I shoot it a fair number of rounds.
Now the part that sucks. I noticed the Mark 4 has a shitload of specs inside the scope! Wasn't there previously but it's sure there now. Its on a KAC SR-25, I suspect something happened the last time I had it out and just now noticed.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
Shooting at the last SH get together at Chaffee County Range in Colorado, my PST track great. Constantly changing yardage ranging from 275 to 1020, to engage (yes they have a lot to chose from) the different steel targets.
The turrets adjustments are positive clicks, along with being able to return to zero quite easily. Then there is the warranty, they stand behind what they sell.
Shooting at the last SH get together at Chaffee County Range in Colorado, my PST track great. Constantly changing yardage ranging from 275 to 1020, to engage (yes they have a lot to chose from) the different steel targets.
The turrets adjustments are positive clicks, along with being able to return to zero quite easily. Then there is the warranty, they stand behind what they sell.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
something that I find interesting here on the hide is this: There are countless posts regarding "scope X" vs Leupold. When it comes to optics, there are more "Scope X" vs Leupold posts than any other optic comparison. why is it that everyone compares their prospective scope to a Leupold Mark 4? Maybe because the Leupold has been the gold standard and performed great in field more than any other scope? Before the majority of these up and coming scopes came to market, Leupold was there, producing top notch reliable optics. There is a reason everyone compares scopes to leupolds...and that is because Leupolds flat out perform. If you have to ask yourself "should I get Scope X over a leupold?" then youre skeptic about the non leupold scope. I cant stand the Leupold down talking on this site.
something that I find interesting here on the hide is this: There are countless posts regarding "scope X" vs Leupold. When it comes to optics, there are more "Scope X" vs Leupold posts than any other optic comparison. why is it that everyone compares their prospective scope to a Leupold Mark 4? Maybe because the Leupold has been the gold standard and performed great in field more than any other scope? Before the majority of these up and coming scopes came to market, Leupold was there, producing top notch reliable optics. There is a reason everyone compares scopes to leupolds...and that is because Leupolds flat out perform. If you have to ask yourself "should I get Scope X over a leupold?" then youre skeptic about the non leupold scope. I cant stand the Leupold down talking on this site.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I think you are 100% correct. I am so tired of everyone jumping on the "newest and greatest thing" band wagon. Maybe with some time, everyone will realize that there is a reason why the Leupold has ruled for years.
I don't want to build up any one product excessively; however, companies like Leupold, Remington, Smith and Wesson have built a great reputation because....they build great stuff.
Just a thought.
I think you are 100% correct. I am so tired of everyone jumping on the "newest and greatest thing" band wagon. Maybe with some time, everyone will realize that there is a reason why the Leupold has ruled for years.
I don't want to build up any one product excessively; however, companies like Leupold, Remington, Smith and Wesson have built a great reputation because....they build great stuff.
Just a thought.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
In my opinion go with the mark 4.
The pst has more features such as the nicer reticles, nice defined clicks, and illumination.
BUT the mark 4 has MUCH better glass, and that is my top priority. The turrets are ok, the clicks are maybe a little mushy but not bad. If you are going to get the mark 4 get the m5 turrets, matched reticles are the only way to go....
Just my opinion, I have a couple psts, not a bad scope, but I just think the mark 4 is better.
In my opinion go with the mark 4.
The pst has more features such as the nicer reticles, nice defined clicks, and illumination.
BUT the mark 4 has MUCH better glass, and that is my top priority. The turrets are ok, the clicks are maybe a little mushy but not bad. If you are going to get the mark 4 get the m5 turrets, matched reticles are the only way to go....
Just my opinion, I have a couple psts, not a bad scope, but I just think the mark 4 is better.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob.308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should send it back to Leupold, they will fix it at no cost to you.
you have to love their warranty.
</div></div>
i sent my vx3 back to leupold becaue my 3.5-10x50 did not draw as much light as my simmons 6.5-20x50. the leupold was on 3.5x and the simmons was on 6.5x so brand asside the leupold should have easily won.
i got the scope back with a note saying "nothing done, the scope meets our standards"
so no you dont have to love the warrenty of a company whos standards are lower than simmons
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob.308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should send it back to Leupold, they will fix it at no cost to you.
you have to love their warranty.
</div></div>
i sent my vx3 back to leupold becaue my 3.5-10x50 did not draw as much light as my simmons 6.5-20x50. the leupold was on 3.5x and the simmons was on 6.5x so brand asside the leupold should have easily won.
i got the scope back with a note saying "nothing done, the scope meets our standards"
so no you dont have to love the warrenty of a company whos standards are lower than simmons
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
Yeah I've sent a couple back and they bungled them too. You really have to call them and get a tech on the phone and be specific to get your shit fixed these days.
As far as X vs. Leupold threads...that's not because Leupold is the best out there. They just make lots of scopes that are readily available.
Think about it...I will bet dollars to donuts that you can go down to your local sporting goods store and find a Leupold VX3, Mark 4, etc...but can you find Meopta, IOR, Zeiss, Vortex PST, Weaver Tactical, Super Sniper or any of the other zillion scopes out there? Probably not. So people post on the internet asking these questions.
Just my 2cents as someone who owns Leupold mk4's, IORs, Zeiss, Bushnell HD's, Vortex PST, Super Sniper, etc etc...
Yeah I've sent a couple back and they bungled them too. You really have to call them and get a tech on the phone and be specific to get your shit fixed these days.
As far as X vs. Leupold threads...that's not because Leupold is the best out there. They just make lots of scopes that are readily available.
Think about it...I will bet dollars to donuts that you can go down to your local sporting goods store and find a Leupold VX3, Mark 4, etc...but can you find Meopta, IOR, Zeiss, Vortex PST, Weaver Tactical, Super Sniper or any of the other zillion scopes out there? Probably not. So people post on the internet asking these questions.
Just my 2cents as someone who owns Leupold mk4's, IORs, Zeiss, Bushnell HD's, Vortex PST, Super Sniper, etc etc...
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
So much more to a quality scope then the glass unless you are only hunting and keep it sighted in at one distance.
Sure leupold was the way to go in the 90s, but now so many other mfgs have stepped up to their quality and then some.
For the price of Vortex PSTs, you cant beat them for what they offer in their scopes. Their warranty cant be beat either.
If your leupold wont track, call up their CS and see how that conversation goes. Vortex will send you a new one without hassle.
For the present price of a leupold with M5 turrets, TMR, and illumination, You could go NF.
If I had some coupons at Cabela's and only had leupold and vortex pst to choose from. It get a Vortex without hesitation and have funds left over for rings or ammo.
If someone gave me a leupold, Id sell it right here and use the money to buy another vortex pst.
Brightness, clearness are subjective to each persons own eye sight. I dont want to bash Leupold, but there are just too many newer scopes that match their quality on todays market IMO. Leopold charges a premium for their name which does carry a legacy in the optics market.
Before people get pissed. This is just my opinion. I have older friends that still wont shoot anything but Leupolds on their rifles.
So much more to a quality scope then the glass unless you are only hunting and keep it sighted in at one distance.
Sure leupold was the way to go in the 90s, but now so many other mfgs have stepped up to their quality and then some.
For the price of Vortex PSTs, you cant beat them for what they offer in their scopes. Their warranty cant be beat either.
If your leupold wont track, call up their CS and see how that conversation goes. Vortex will send you a new one without hassle.
For the present price of a leupold with M5 turrets, TMR, and illumination, You could go NF.
If I had some coupons at Cabela's and only had leupold and vortex pst to choose from. It get a Vortex without hesitation and have funds left over for rings or ammo.
If someone gave me a leupold, Id sell it right here and use the money to buy another vortex pst.
Brightness, clearness are subjective to each persons own eye sight. I dont want to bash Leupold, but there are just too many newer scopes that match their quality on todays market IMO. Leopold charges a premium for their name which does carry a legacy in the optics market.
Before people get pissed. This is just my opinion. I have older friends that still wont shoot anything but Leupolds on their rifles.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I'm a Leupold Fan. I have one on every one of my guns except my Savage muzzle loader. It has a Burris. Leupold has always been the go to scope for quality. And everyone seems to compare all other scopes to a Leupold. But IMO Leupold has been losing some ground in the last few years. Just like many other companys. It seems like it is more acceptable today to cut corners, ease up on quality control, and customer service, to keep up with todays market. Just because a company has built a name for quality over many years, does not mean that it is operating under those same standards today. Its happening with products all over this country. The old saying goes "They just don't build em like they used to". Well its JMO. I'm getting ready to send back a 6x18 to Leupold for repair. depending on what happens with their reply will make the decision on weather or not my new 260 will be wearing a Leupold or a Vortex pst.
I'm a Leupold Fan. I have one on every one of my guns except my Savage muzzle loader. It has a Burris. Leupold has always been the go to scope for quality. And everyone seems to compare all other scopes to a Leupold. But IMO Leupold has been losing some ground in the last few years. Just like many other companys. It seems like it is more acceptable today to cut corners, ease up on quality control, and customer service, to keep up with todays market. Just because a company has built a name for quality over many years, does not mean that it is operating under those same standards today. Its happening with products all over this country. The old saying goes "They just don't build em like they used to". Well its JMO. I'm getting ready to send back a 6x18 to Leupold for repair. depending on what happens with their reply will make the decision on weather or not my new 260 will be wearing a Leupold or a Vortex pst.
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
Well, made my decision. Just ordered a 5.5-22x56 NXS. I get pretty good kick back in the form of Cabelas bucks from Purina because of all the dog food I buy. So, no reason to not spring for the good stuff.....
Well, made my decision. Just ordered a 5.5-22x56 NXS. I get pretty good kick back in the form of Cabelas bucks from Purina because of all the dog food I buy. So, no reason to not spring for the good stuff.....
Re: Vortex PST vs Mk 4
I also carried and used Leupold's in the Army over just short of 10 years, mainly the M3A. I saw and heard stories of that scope take unbelievable abuse (fell out of M1950 WPNS case into drop zone, run over by Bradleys, fell out of Blackhawk, etc.) but we never really did anything like a tracking or box test to see if the gears had shifted.
Zeroes would be confirmed, and adjusted as needed, then run the guns out through the targets on a KD or transition range out to 900m, with the double-wide E-type at 900 so you could actually get a hit with M118 at that range in modest wind.
Anyway, I bought a LR/T 3.5-10x40 for my first AR10, thinking that was the best glass to go with at the time, which was pretty high-end then. I eventually sold it, but it was a decent scope.
I've since purchased or used the S&B, USO, NF, and Hensoldt a lot, but have settled on the Viper PST's as my go-to tubes now. If I'm going to spring money, I want it to go towards a clearly superior glass, so I'm holding out for the new Hensoldt.
I do spend a lot of time behind the 2.5-10x44 PST, and I jumped over to a guy's Mk IV 6.5-20 at the range. Bang! The clarity of that glass was unmistakably better than the 2.5-10x44 PST, but then I asked the guy if I could feel the Mk IV turrets...
Mushy and questionable as to click position, which is why I don't buy the Leupold's anymore. Even the new $4000 uber Lupy's have mushy turrets, and I checked specifically for this at SHOT this year, thinking they might have stepped up to the competition in that regard...nope.
I will agree with the poster who mentioned the Nikon Monarch glass quality being very close to my Viper PST 2.5-10, although my PST has a <span style="font-style: italic">very</span> slight edge over a 2.5-10 Nikon I compared it to.
I have no problem resolving an 8" Shoot n' C at 1000yds in mirage enough to shoot sub-MOA with my 2.5-10x44 PST on top of the GAP .260 Rem AR in late afternoon lighting in the summer in Utah, but it will not help you in a "know your scope (budget)" stage at a practical long-range match.
The 6-24x50 PST's I have looked through had a clearer FOV and image quality, which I think has something to do with the x50 OBJ lens, in addition to whatever glass they're using.
I also carried and used Leupold's in the Army over just short of 10 years, mainly the M3A. I saw and heard stories of that scope take unbelievable abuse (fell out of M1950 WPNS case into drop zone, run over by Bradleys, fell out of Blackhawk, etc.) but we never really did anything like a tracking or box test to see if the gears had shifted.
Zeroes would be confirmed, and adjusted as needed, then run the guns out through the targets on a KD or transition range out to 900m, with the double-wide E-type at 900 so you could actually get a hit with M118 at that range in modest wind.
Anyway, I bought a LR/T 3.5-10x40 for my first AR10, thinking that was the best glass to go with at the time, which was pretty high-end then. I eventually sold it, but it was a decent scope.
I've since purchased or used the S&B, USO, NF, and Hensoldt a lot, but have settled on the Viper PST's as my go-to tubes now. If I'm going to spring money, I want it to go towards a clearly superior glass, so I'm holding out for the new Hensoldt.
I do spend a lot of time behind the 2.5-10x44 PST, and I jumped over to a guy's Mk IV 6.5-20 at the range. Bang! The clarity of that glass was unmistakably better than the 2.5-10x44 PST, but then I asked the guy if I could feel the Mk IV turrets...
Mushy and questionable as to click position, which is why I don't buy the Leupold's anymore. Even the new $4000 uber Lupy's have mushy turrets, and I checked specifically for this at SHOT this year, thinking they might have stepped up to the competition in that regard...nope.
I will agree with the poster who mentioned the Nikon Monarch glass quality being very close to my Viper PST 2.5-10, although my PST has a <span style="font-style: italic">very</span> slight edge over a 2.5-10 Nikon I compared it to.
I have no problem resolving an 8" Shoot n' C at 1000yds in mirage enough to shoot sub-MOA with my 2.5-10x44 PST on top of the GAP .260 Rem AR in late afternoon lighting in the summer in Utah, but it will not help you in a "know your scope (budget)" stage at a practical long-range match.
The 6-24x50 PST's I have looked through had a clearer FOV and image quality, which I think has something to do with the x50 OBJ lens, in addition to whatever glass they're using.
Similar threads
