• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!

    Create a channel Learn more
  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Anyone running a 2.5-10x32 Vortex on their AR's?

EasternNChunter

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Aug 28, 2012
465
2
Eastern NC
I figured this would get more attention here. Move if needed.

Anyone using this scope or the 2.5-10x44 on their AR's? Thoughts? I want to stay in this magnigication and size range as this will go on a "truck" rifle with 16" barrel.
 
Anyone running a 2.5-10x32 Vortex on their AR's?

I'm using then 2.5-10x44 on a 16" 6.8. It's my favorite AR combo I've ever handled. Shot a yote with it today with a 90gr Sierra HP. I think it's an awesome scope/rifle combo and would highly recommend it.

null_zps5449c038.jpg
 
Ive had the x44 and now the x32. There is no comparison, x32 blows the x44 out of the water. The glass is so much better and it just looks more at home with the smaller objective.

Ive shot out to 500yds with my 300blk which is really stretching it for that cartridge and I didn't feel under-scoped. It works well in low light, not too heavy and really helps when I swap to subs with the reticle. All around a great scope and I have no plans to replace it. Im going to run the 3-15SS on my 20" 223 AR though as I want a bit more mag and the size/weight of it doesn't bother me since its a bench gun.
 
It rocks !
Glass is much improved, my 44mm is like looking through a dirty bottle in comparison.
Light, compact, good reticle, zero stops, illumination, etc., all at a price point significantly lower than all the competition.
I'm no vortex fanboy, but they knocked it out of the park with this one...
 
What's the difference in glass? Shouldn't all the vipers be the same? Per vortex's website they are.
The x44 is a SFP and the x32 is FFP. Totally different manufacturing and its most definitely has different glass regardless of what their site says. I believe I read somewhere on here where all the FFP scopes have different glass than the SFP of old. They may all run the same glass now. I don't know, but I do know that my x32 is almost exactly one year newer manufacturer date wise than my x44 and the glass is much more clear and colors are vivid. Its got much better glass than youd expect at its price point.
 
I understand the difference in SFP and FFP but per vortex's website the Viper, Viper HS, Viper HS-T, and Viper PST all share the same glass.

XD lense elements
XR lens coating
Argon purging
Armortek
And same Oring seals.

It does say the PST's have "optically indexed lenses" and the others don't.
 
I'm using then 2.5-10x44 on a 16" 6.8. It's my favorite AR combo I've ever handled. Shot a yote with it today with a 90gr Sierra HP. I think it's an awesome scope/rifle combo and would highly recommend it.

null_zps5449c038.jpg

Good looking Rail. Who makes it.

Also, I hope your not taking it out without a threadprotector/muzzle break. You do Not want to mess those threads up bro. That is unless you just took a thread can off.
 
I understand the difference in SFP and FFP but per vortex's website the Viper, Viper HS, Viper HS-T, and Viper PST all share the same glass.

XD lense elements
XR lens coating
Argon purging
Armortek
And same Oring seals.

It does say the PST's have "optically indexed lenses" and the others don't.

From what I have read from guys like Scott from LO and people who own them, is the glass looks much better than the rest of the pst line. That Scope is a NF 2.5-10x32 killer. Half the price, just as good glass and FFP.
 
Good looking Rail. Who makes it.

Also, I hope your not taking it out without a threadprotector/muzzle break. You do Not want to mess those threads up bro. That is unless you just took a thread can off.

Thanks, parallax tactical makes it. It's an awesome rail for the money ($200).

I hadn't been shot or even left my house at that point. I waited to get a Troy brake installed to take it out. This is it currently.

null_zps0f02259a.jpg
 
I've never handled one so I'll have to take their word on it but I'm curious as to what makes the glass in the 2.5-10x32 PST better than the 2.5-10x44 PST when vortex says the glass is the same. And I'm not talking SFP VS FFP.
 
Not sure. But from everything I have read, it looks clearer than the previous PST's. Pretty amazing considering its a 32MM. Maybe they did something different with the coatings.

The 4-16 and 6-24 have the "same glass" but most people say the 6-24 looks better for some reason.
 
I have been very pleased with my 2.5-10x32. The glass appears clearer to me than my old Nightforce, and the FFP and parallax made it an easy decision to switch. Especially at the price point.
 
From what I have read from guys like Scott from LO and people who own them, is the glass looks much better than the rest of the pst line. That Scope is a NF 2.5-10x32 killer. Half the price, just as good glass and FFP.

I've owned a PST and a couple NF compacts and I will agree that the glass is a toss up. Every other aspect will be better on the NF though, with the exception of maybe the reticle. I really liked the EBR-1 Mil reticle on my PST.
 
I've owned a PST and a couple NF compacts and I will agree that the glass is a toss up. Every other aspect will be better on the NF though, with the exception of maybe the reticle. I really liked the EBR-1 Mil reticle on my PST.

Well, considering the price difference and the fact that a buddy of mine can get Vortex discounted due to being law enforcement, its a no brainer.
 
I've owned a PST and a couple NF compacts and I will agree that the glass is a toss up. Every other aspect will be better on the NF though, with the exception of maybe the reticle. I really liked the EBR-1 Mil reticle on my PST.

Which pst ?
The glass does look a bit better to me on the 32mm vs my 2.5-10 night force.
The pst is slightly more picky on the eye box, but that's it. Everything else is comparable or better.
The new 42mm night force 2.5-10 is a bit bulky for .223 ar's in my opinion.
 
I understand the difference in SFP and FFP but per vortex's website the Viper, Viper HS, Viper HS-T, and Viper PST all share the same glass.

XD lense elements
XR lens coating
Argon purging
Armortek
And same Oring seals.

It does say the PST's have "optically indexed lenses" and the others don't.
I don't know how else to tell you, its different. Ive had the x44, I own a 4-16x50 and have looked through a 6-24 and the x32 is clearer and the colors are more vivid. I don't care what Vortex's website says, there is something different that makes for a better scope. The x32 is their best scope below the razor line.

Eyebox is a little picky at max power but that's a function of the smaller objective and vortexs in general are a little more picky on eye placement than the higher end scopes.
 
I don't know how else to tell you, its different. Ive had the x44, I own a 4-16x50 and have looked through a 6-24 and the x32 is clearer and the colors are more vivid. I don't care what Vortex's website says, there is something different that makes for a better scope. The x32 is their best scope below the razor line.

Eyebox is a little picky at max power but that's a function of the smaller objective and vortexs in general are a little more picky on eye placement than the higher end scopes.

So the 4-16 and the 6-24 are the same and the 2.5-10x32 is clearer? The guy up above says the 6-24 has better glass than the 4-16.

I can't argue with you because I've never looked through it, much less side by side with another one, but it sounds like it may be a subjective opinion.

It may very well be that the 2.5-10x32 does have better glass or there is some science behind it that makes it better, but why wouldn't vortex advertise the new and improved glass?

I really hope the glass is better. It just doesn't make since that they don't advertise a new improved product if they have a better product than previously established.
 
So the 4-16 and the 6-24 are the same and the 2.5-10x32 is clearer? The guy up above says the 6-24 has better glass than the 4-16.

I can't argue with you because I've never looked through it, much less side by side with another one, but it sounds like it may be a subjective opinion.

It may very well be that the 2.5-10x32 does have better glass or there is some science behind it that makes it better, but why wouldn't vortex advertise the new and improved glass?

I really hope the glass is better. It just doesn't make since that they don't advertise a new improved product if they have a better product than previously established.
They probably don't advertise it because the old glass in the PST line was pretty terrible and theyre embarrassed. Vortex stands behind their products but theyre a bit secretive about whats going on with their scopes. I have a viper PA that I ran out of windage at 100yds trying to sight it on 3 different rifles. It also wouldn't zoom past 8x on a 6.5-20 range. Somehow you could blame the windage on my mounting skills or bad guns(doubtful) but the zoom problem is undeniable. I sent it in, got another one back very quickly but it had a nice little note in there saying they couldn't duplicate the problems but replaced the scope anyway. Horseshit, the scope was fucked right out of the box and if someone actually evaluated it they would've seen that. Instead they sent me a lie, either way my scope got fixed and now its used for load development. My point is, Vortex isn't exactly forth-coming with details on their scopes and IMO are probably just embarrassed about their shit glass the first time around. The 4-16s were so bad they let people trade up to the 6-24s if they complained enough. Theyre great scopes for the money and I own 5 but their product line does have limitations.

When the FFP line came out the glass was improved in both SFP and FFP lines. They may not tell you they changed but its widely documented on here the better quality glass starting about a year and a half ago. The 4-16 glass quality is hit or miss. Mine is fine and is as good as the 6-24 I looked through. There have been plenty of people send their 4-16s back as well as their 6-24s, most of that was before the glass changed a little over a year ago. My x44 was terrible and was why I sold it in addition to selling the rifle it was on and the x32 coming out that I wanted. The x32 is good to go and like I said the best scope below the razor line.
 
It sounds like you got a lemon as well as a lot of other people.

Didn't vortex come out and upgrade the eye piece on the origional Razor because of a bad eye box? And didn't they come out with a Gen II Razor that fixed a lot of the complaints from the first gen? They were up front and advertised those upgrades. I don't see why they wouldn't advertise this one.

"I don't know how else to tell you, its different." - Everything published by Vortex on the scope says that its the same as all the other Viper's but you say its different. You say your 4-16 is the same quality as your 6-24 but cobracutter says "The 4-16 and 6-24 have the "same glass" but most people say the 6-24 looks better for some reason."

"I don't know how else to tell you, its different." - In your opinion its different. In Vortex's opinion its the same. If you don't believe me check out their website.

Like I said, I can't say either way because I've never looked through the x32, much less side by side with an older one. It seems to me that there are a lot of subjective opinions being passed around and maybe some bad quality control at Vortex.

I also don't understand why so many unhappy Vortex customer's keep upgrading to the new Vortex if they're really that unhappy with them?

P.S. I have a funny story the broken windage on your scope mad me think of. One of my first scopes was a Super Sniper 10x about 6-7 years ago. I was boresighting my rifle with it and when I'd move the turret "UP" the reticle would move down relative to the target. I didn't get the concept and I swore to SWFA it was bad. I'm sure they thought I was an idiot but they replaced the scope for me, no questions asked.


og10h.jpg
 
Last edited:
It sounds like you got a lemon as well as a lot of other people.

Didn't vortex come out and upgrade the eye piece on the origional Razor because of a bad eye box? And didn't they come out with a Gen II Razor that fixed a lot of the complaints from the first gen? They were up front and advertised those upgrades. I don't see why they wouldn't advertise this one.

"I don't know how else to tell you, its different." - Everything published by Vortex on the scope says that its the same as all the other Viper's but you say its different. You say your 4-16 is the same quality as your 6-24 but cobracutter says "The 4-16 and 6-24 have the "same glass" but most people say the 6-24 looks better for some reason."

"I don't know how else to tell you, its different." - In your opinion its different. In Vortex's opinion its the same. If you don't believe me check out their website.

Like I said, I can't say either way because I've never looked through the x32, much less side by side with an older one. It seems to me that there are a lot of subjective opinions being passed around and maybe some bad quality control at Vortex.

I also don't understand why so many unhappy Vortex customer's keep upgrading to the new Vortex if they're really that unhappy with them?

P.S. I have a funny story the broken windage on your scope mad me think of. One of my first scopes was a Super Sniper 10x about 6-7 years ago. I was boresighting my rifle with it and when I'd move the turret "UP" the reticle would move down relative to the target. I didn't get the concept and I swore to SWFA it was bad. I'm sure they thought I was an idiot but they replaced the scope for me, no questions asked.


og10h.jpg

I think you are getting a bit confused. There are a couple of things going on here.

My "same glass" comment was sarchasim. The Glass in the 624 IS better than the 416, as can be verified by anyone who has looked through them.

Just beacuse Vortex SAYS something or Publishes something, does not make it absolute. They are in the business of making money and they are not going to shoot themselves in the foot with product placement, advertisement and pricing.

I don't know where you are seeing all these unhappy customers... people who have issues, are taken care of. Its pretty generous in fact and as was stated in the previous post, they even gave people upgraded newer optics, when that is not what they bought. That would be like sending an Older S&B PM2 in with lesser features and getting a brand new top of the line one back.

Vortex has pretty much taken over a large part of the market. They came out of nowhere and put out products that were comparable or even better featured than shit that was twice the price and still lacking features. You cant expect them to just come out with perfect products on everything. They have revised and taken customer feedback, and continue to put out improved and better products. The 2.5-10x32 is an example of that. There is Nothing on the market that really compares to these optics at anywhere near the price point. An arguement could be made for some of the Bushnell line, but they are priced a bit higher with different features and no illum for the desirable reticles (G2, H58/59).

So what are you exactly trying to say? You say SWFA took care of you but vortex didnt? The previous dude just said that althought vortex did not verify and admit to the problem, they gave him a brand new updated scope. More to do with pride and shame than anything.... and at the end of the day..... the company took care of him.....I assume thats why he continues to buy their products.
 
Believe whatever you want then. Everyone has said the same damn thing I have. The glass in the X32 is much better than the rest of the PST line period! Sounds like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Youre reading but not comprehending, I even said the 4-16 glass is hit or miss. People buy vortex because they offer good value, not because they make the best shit out there. Bushnell is higher quality and comes at a little higher price. I will NOT be going with vortex for my 300WM as the magnum calibers eat PSTs like candy. It will get an ERS, and my 6.5 build will get their new LRHS. If vortex doesn't change their lineup and react to what people want then they will lose their "bang for the buck" title. The vortex scopes that ride their respective rifles fill the need for me with those rifles. The rest of mine have other brands mounted because vortex doesn't make what I want for those given scopes.

My 4-16 is from the newer glass, some 4-16s were good, others weren't in comparison to the 6-24. Mine is, Im happy with it. Its no nightforce but I also paid a third of the price.

The gen 2 is advertised as a new scope, not an improvement on the gen 1. Otherwise why would they still keep the gen 1 1-4 in the lineup. Its simply another option. No different than the lines they make. Either way its well documented that vortexs standard response is "everything is ok with your broken scope but we will go ahead and replace it anyway". I don't care as they honor their warranty but it was merely a point to illustrate they don't really tell whats wrong with their scopes, they just fix it and go on down the road. Why else would the glass get better all the sudden on the SFP scopes when the FFPs came out? It changed whether their site says it or not. There are a lot less bitching threads about new build 4-16s than there were two years ago about glass clarity, unless its an older scope that someone bought second hand usually.
 
I like Vortex. I have four. I've had 3 or 4 others in the past as well. My first post in this thread was that I run a 2.5-10x44 on my 6mmAR.

I've never had a problem with Vortex to need them to take care of me. I'm 100% sure that if I did have a problem they would take care of me.

"everything is ok with your broken scope but we will go ahead and replace it anyway." I chalk that up to good customer service. There was nothing wrong with the Super Sniper that SWFA switched out for a new one with me, but they did it. Same as Vortex would probably do.

I just asked what made the x32 better.

What's the difference in glass? Shouldn't all the vipers be the same? Per vortex's website they are.

The x44 is a SFP and the x32 is FFP. Totally different manufacturing and its most definitely has different glass regardless of what their site says. I believe I read somewhere on here where all the FFP scopes have different glass than the SFP of old. They may all run the same glass now. I don't know, but I do know that my x32 is almost exactly one year newer manufacturer date wise than my x44 and the glass is much more clear and colors are vivid. Its got much better glass than youd expect at its price point.

I have still only gotten subjective answers and no facts on what makes it better. I don't care if its better, the same, or worse. But if it is better I'd like to know why other than, "I don't know how else to tell you, its different."

Maybe some one has gotten word from Vortex that things have changed in the manufacturing process or that different materials or coatings are being used. Maybe its science and angles and something to do with objective size. I don't know. But everyone's eyes and opinions are different and I don't see why if it truly is a better scope why they wouldn't sell it for what its worth.

I guess I'll go see if SWFA has one I can look through and do a trade in.
 
I like Vortex. I have four. I've had 3 or 4 others in the past as well. My first post in this thread was that I run a 2.5-10x44 on my 6mmAR.

I've never had a problem with Vortex to need them to take care of me. I'm 100% sure that if I did have a problem they would take care of me.

"everything is ok with your broken scope but we will go ahead and replace it anyway." I chalk that up to good customer service. There was nothing wrong with the Super Sniper that SWFA switched out for a new one with me, but they did it. Same as Vortex would probably do.

I just asked what made the x32 better.





I have still only gotten subjective answers and no facts on what makes it better. I don't care if its better, the same, or worse. But if it is better I'd like to know why other than, "I don't know how else to tell you, its different."

Maybe some one has gotten word from Vortex that things have changed in the manufacturing process or that different materials or coatings are being used. Maybe its science and angles and something to do with objective size. I don't know. But everyone's eyes and opinions are different and I don't see why if it truly is a better scope why they wouldn't sell it for what its worth.
I guess I'll go see if SWFA has one I can look through and do a trade in.
Sorry Im not going to get into an economics lesson as to why they don't want to shit on their entire PST line of scopes by saying why the x32 is so much better. Everyone who has a x32 and has/had other PSTs says the x32 is better so its far from a subjective statement. If you want to know their patented manufacturing process call em up.

Again the x32 is made different than your x44, the reticle is in a totally different place so its not a fair comparison even in that aspect. I can can explain it for you, but I cant understand it for you. Im done.
 
There isn't really a way to know exactly what Vortex has done to improve the image quality in the new 32mm. There are several factors that can change optical qualities BIG time, even with using same glass quality and coatings. Erector setup, focal length, number of lenses, objective diameter, eye relief... Everything is a factor. Also, you are comparing a scope priced at $599 vs. a scope $799. I guarantee there is way more involved that just shrinking the objective by 12mm and adding FFP. It is a total redesign, and the glass and coatings used are pure speculation and flat out not detailed enough in the specs listing to say "they are the same glass and coatings". The XD glass thing is a very loose term, and is a marketing name, not an absolute quantifiable standard of any sort. The 32mm is a different scope from the ground up, sharing only the PST name with its siblings, regardless of what the sales page says in the marketing literature. It is by all accounts one of the best SPR options on the market right now, for the money.
 
Last edited: