Rifle Scopes No Self Control. Vortex 2.5-10x32 FFP on Order

[RFtinkerer]

I have absolutely no self-control. I don't have that much money to throw on my shooting habit, but for some reason I can't avoid buying Vortex PST scopes. I just love them. I have a 6-24x50 and a 1-4x24 already for my long range rifle and AR respectively, and now I just ordered a new 2.5-10x32 from Eurooptic to put on...a $300 Savage Mark II that I plan to start smallbore silhouette shooting. I was looking at cheaper optics, but I just couldn't help myself. Nothing less could do. I couldn't buy one for less and be happy with it; I'd always want better.. More than twice as much for the optic than the rifle. Fuck.

Nobody show me a Schmidt&Bender. I'd have to take a second mortgage.

Edit: At least I can throw it on my HP rifle for hunting, I didn't much like the 6-24 for the application. Now that justifies it, right?

 

[Chopperguy]

You won't regret it. Great little scopes.

I have 2. One on an AR and the other is going to rest on a hunting rifle. Just don't know which one yet.

 

[SICARIO]

I'm right there with you. I ordered 2 of the Vortex scopes. The good part is I bought two for the price I would have paid for the NF I was thinking of buying.....

 

[gunslinger07]

I hear ya. Just ordered a vortex razor spotting scope myself. It was semi impulsive, but I needed it right?

 

[Rob01]

Join the club. I ordered one from Scott at Liberty Optics about 30 minutes after looking at a friend's 2.5-10.

 

[nn8734]

Same here...bought a 2.5-10 x 44 Mil/Mil illuminated from a fellow hide member and received it earlier this week. Its going on my 6.5 Grendel. Glass is awesome and turret clicks are positive...It completely owns the Leupold Mk 4 3.5-10 x 40 i have on my other AR. Congrats on your purchase!

 

[tmpohuski7]

I really don't see the point of a FFP scope if when you dial down you can't see the hash marks. I can understand it on a high mag scope but really are you going to dial down to 4x and shoot holdovers.

 

[Dkindels]

I agree with the thought on FFP and holdover at low power. I would see it as an advantage in speed to zoom on a target when stalking or ambushing. Can give u quick range estimation and no need to dial holdover. Pick your hash and shoot.

 

[RFtinkerer]

What you say about FFP may be quite true, which I will definitely find out for myself, and a big reason why I didn't care the 1-4 was SFP. Although it rocks for the 6-24. However, the more important spec to the scope for me was the side focus knob. I will be shooting offhand at 40, 60, 77, and 100 meters, and frankly I need all the help I can get without worrying about parallax! The other PST has no side focus, nor the SWFA SS 3-9x42 I was looking at as well. So. Well. Pay more, get more.

 

[Landon]

I really don't see the point of a FFP scope if when you dial down you can't see the hash marks. I can understand it on a high mag scope but really are you going to dial down to 4x and shoot holdovers.

In my experience using ffp scopes with low power in the field you do not dial down to "use holdovers." That would, in my opinion, be an improper use for the scope. the ffp scopes i have the reticle is useful for holdovers down to somewhere around 5x.

I dial down below 5x because I expect to shoot at a target at a closer range where a wider field of view is more important than "holdovers." Also, when below 5x I do not need a high level of precision to get the desired result and expect to shoot center mass point of aim point of impact. Targets such as hunting medium game, using a well designed reticle can easily be taken at 100+ yards using a ffp reticle on 1-2.5x. To me a ffp scope offers some desirable capabilities in the field over what a SFP scope offers.

If you are target shooting and simply looking for max precision in everything you do a SFP could work for use.

 

[kombayotch]

Of all the scoped I saw at Shot, this was the one I was most excited about.

 

[priler]

Of all the scoped I saw at Shot, this was the one I was most excited about.

i was wondering if you had a chance to look at the weaver tactical 2-10x36 and how you would compare it to this vortex? for my application,the lighter weight of the vortex is not an issue. i'm more interested in what my money gets me in quality of glass,toughness,internal design(tracking,erector system,etc.),eye box,tunneling,FOV,etc.,etc.,....just overall which is a better optical design and execution. i'm not so interested in a few extra frills,which one is more pretty,which brand is more popular,expecting to use their CS or warranty and can easily see the difference in reticles or features that one has and the other doesn't.

perhaps a thread on your findings or you can PM me if you want. please?

thanks.

i have a feeling you examined the weaver,call it an educated guess,lol.

 

[kombayotch]

I did look at both, and between the two I would definitely choose the Vortex. It felt like a higher quality scope, but without testing who can say for sure. The clarity was better, and it had a better reticle. It also didn't seem as bulky. I didn't have any particular issues with the eye box on either. It's tough to go into great detail about every little difference when you don't have them side-by-side and didn't see them on the same day. Quality looks to be the same as their 1.5-5x24mm, if that helps.


Vortex Viper PST 2.5-10x32mm FFP

The Vortex's 2.5-10x44mm PST:

MOA reticle at 2.5x:

The heavy outer parts make it usable on low magnification even without the illumination.


MOA reticle at 10x:

Weaver Tactical 2-10x36mm FFP

The Weaver 2-10x36mm FFP features a 30mm tube, illumination and exposed, locking turrets.

The scope is similar in size to the 1.5-5x24mm, but large objective bell added on. The turrets are of the exposed locking variety, that work like the Bushnell HDMR turrets. They are only available in 0.1 mil clicks.

Zeroing the turrets requires no tools, you simply unscrew the retainer cap, take off the turret cap, re-install it at your zero and screw the retainer cap back on.

Reticle at 2.5x:

Reticle at 10x:

Sorry for the poor pics. The reticle is basically a standard mildot with 0.5 mil hashes between the 1.0 mil dots.

 

[RFtinkerer]

Oh hell yes. Can't wait.

 

[surprise]

Apparently I am missing the boat I do not own a Vortex yet.

 

[surprise]

Funny now that I think about it one of my shooting buddies has two of them!

 

[RFtinkerer]

They're like Pringles. Once you pop you can't stop...

 

[pinkhair]

Except pringles won't hurt your pocket book quite as bad haha.

 

[RFtinkerer]

Got the scope yesterday. Opened it, started looking through it, squealed and almost wet my pants. I mean, grunted and manly stuff. Mounted it and started evaluating it. Impressions:

1) Optics. Clear and bright. Subjectively better than my 6-24, about the same as the 1-4. Keep in mind I haven't looked through a more expensive scope know for optics, but this seemed great and very usable to me.

2) FFP usefulness. Estimated range of use about 5x-10x, which is great for me. Reticle thickness is not bad at all at 10x where I do precision, and seemed non-invasive for easy sub-moa accuracy. A little too thin at 2.5x, but the crosshairs were visible enough for the quick shots I would need.

3) Image brightness at twilight. This will be important in hunting to me and 32 mm is rather small compared to the 50 mm I used previously. I used a comparison tool at Low-Light Performance Calculator for Fixed & Variable Power Scopes to guide me in buying this and didn't think it'd be too bad. The image brightness (given equal optical clarity) is related to the magnification and aperature, optimal at the exit pupil diameter (aperature/mag), which is stated at 7 mm. Now that I had them both, I compared them in the clear moonlit night. I estimated what setting "got deepest in shadows". I could not see the mag ring so I was not too biased. The image got brightest around 5x for the 32 mm, and 8x or so for the 50 mm. This indicates my pupil is actually 6 mm or so. But I would use both at lower mags than that if available, and they are equivalent for the exit pupil image. In BOTH cases, my 10x42 binoculars rocked the socks off of them. So no real impact.

4) Range. 2.5-10x. Seems perfect for my silhouette shooting and hunting. Greatness.