Vortex Razor Gen III 6-36 Opinions
- Thread starter mw22481
- Start date
Great scope. Haven't had any issues in the multiple ones I've shot through. If you can get an open box or a used one even better on the price. I definitely wouldn't pay msrp.
FANTSTIC Scope!!!! Buy with confidence!! Glass clarity is top notch and the turret mechanics are a HUGE improvement over the Gen II scopes (which are awesome as well). Cannot beat that scope for the money, I have 2 of them, will have a 3rd soon!
I picked one up a few months ago and I really like it.
I have a Zeiss LRP S3 4-25 and multiple Leupold MK5 optics.
The Vortex feels like a damned tank, rightly so because of its weight. Everything on it is solid and the zero mechanism is actually really kind of neat. It feels a little bit less flimsy than messing with set screws on caps.
Does it do anything better than my Leupolds that cost less money? Arguably yes but I can't really quantify that as glass clarify is subjective. I break everything. The vortex warranty gives me peace of mind so for me, it's worth the price premium.
IF you like the reticle and you like the features of the optic, buy without hesitation.
I have a Zeiss LRP S3 4-25 and multiple Leupold MK5 optics.
The Vortex feels like a damned tank, rightly so because of its weight. Everything on it is solid and the zero mechanism is actually really kind of neat. It feels a little bit less flimsy than messing with set screws on caps.
Does it do anything better than my Leupolds that cost less money? Arguably yes but I can't really quantify that as glass clarify is subjective. I break everything. The vortex warranty gives me peace of mind so for me, it's worth the price premium.
IF you like the reticle and you like the features of the optic, buy without hesitation.
I have had one for about a year now.
I like just about everything about it, especially the turret adjustment feature and reticle (for my eyes). Optically, I would say that it is extremely close to the 7-35 ATACR on the subjective "glass quality". Mine has served me well. Parallax, magnification, and diopter are super smooth, and the tactile clicks/feeling of the elevation and windage are excellent.
I bought it for $2,4xx. They are a hair under $3K now, unless you get the all-black EuroOptic exclusive. I can literally buy the 7-35 ATACR for less now through the correct chain...so that is exactly what I did last scope purchase.
I like just about everything about it, especially the turret adjustment feature and reticle (for my eyes). Optically, I would say that it is extremely close to the 7-35 ATACR on the subjective "glass quality". Mine has served me well. Parallax, magnification, and diopter are super smooth, and the tactile clicks/feeling of the elevation and windage are excellent.
I bought it for $2,4xx. They are a hair under $3K now, unless you get the all-black EuroOptic exclusive. I can literally buy the 7-35 ATACR for less now through the correct chain...so that is exactly what I did last scope purchase.
I bought a G3 here in the for sale section still sealed in box for half the price of my ZCO527. For the money hard to beat. The G3 was going to be my budget temporarily scope till I figured out what I wanted to get for my new rifle. After having used it a few times, she might be here to stay. Hard to justify the price jump considering how small the gap has become between the Vortex G3 and the top tier brands.
I suggest you read Glassaholic's comparison/review:
www.snipershide.com
I suggest you read Glassaholic's comparison/review:
Rifle Scopes - Alpha Class Long Range Scope Review - TT, ZCO, Schmidt, March, Vortex
For those who've known this has been coming, thank you for your patience, it is finally here, hope you all enjoy! Tangent Theta 5-25x56, ZCO 5-27x56, Schmidt & Bender 3-27x56, Schmidt & Bender 5-25x56, Vortex Razor G3 6-36x56, March G2 5-40x56, March 4.5-28x52 and Burris XTR III 5.5-30x56 It...
www.snipershide.com
Attachments
I also just finished my high mag version of the alpha review and included the Vortex RG3 and the Element Theos there, I have a review in progress for the three LOW 6-36's available on the market today - Vortex RG3, Zeiss S3 and Element Theos and all perform extremely well. If splitting hairs I would say the RG3 has a slight edge in overall optical performance, but only noticeable when comparing side by side, I doubt anyone would complain on their own.
All that said, the Vortex RG3 is one of my most recommended scopes as it performs well above its price point as do the Zeiss and the Element as well.
All that said, the Vortex RG3 is one of my most recommended scopes as it performs well above its price point as do the Zeiss and the Element as well.
I was waiting for this to come out. Thank you for putting all the hard work in. Your comparison reviews are so valuable in making purchase decisions especially to those who dont have acces to these scopes until we actually buy them. I have to say I am shocked by the "poor" performance of the S&B. Thats is the one I was told could potentially beat the TT in optical performance and absolutely blows it out the water in the eyebox department. I was convinced I would pull the trigger on that one as soon as I was done reading your review only to learn that my cheap G3 outperforms it in almost every level and the S&B has the worst eyebox of all of them. Bummer!
Interesting you have that takeaway on the Schmidt, it is still a fantastic scope that keeps right up with the best. Keep in mind these reviews are based on my evaluations and what I see on any given day which is why I try to review my scopes side by side in the same conditions to rule out anomalies caused by adverse conditions at one time vs another. Again, the Schmidt is a fantastic option even though it may have slightly trailed in some areas vs some of the other scopes. Once again, these are my opinions based on my observations during my testing regimen, YMMV and I try to make that clear. I know numerous shooters within the community who own the Schmidt 6-36 and think it is the best scope they've ever used and based on my analysis I have no reason to argue with them, we all see things differently and our eye tells our brain what we like (and don't like). The Schmidt certainly falls within the range of performance that I would put up against the rest of the pack. Since you can pick up the Schmidt 6-36 for less than the TT and ZCO I would say it is well priced for what it offers and with the DT II+ turrets would have arguably the best turrets of all.
They are made by elven lord Celebrimbor, it is truly the one scope to rule them allIt's ok, I'll just have to get the TT
While reviews are nice, they don't really mean shit because most of the people arent running them hard enough, for long enough to be able to make an educated recommendation.
I ran 3 , Gen 3 razors for the last year and a half. For the money, they are very good glass, reticle, fov wise. It feels closer to a 3K optic than the 2K they typically go for. Turrets could use some improvement and the zero process is by far the worst and clumsiest.
Now there are issues with them, outside the initial turrets. I had to send one back to vortex because a part broke, that shouldn't have. Cost me winning a match and took 3rd instead. A number of very high level long time vortex shooters have switched to ZCO recently. I can assure you, ZCO doesn't do much when it comes to sponsorship much like TT. People running that shit, are doing to with their own money. There has been alot of talk in the competition circles about wandering zeros. You can probably figure out from social media and the PRS website who some of those top shooters are. I had both tell me that is the reason they left vortex. And have heard half a dozen others through the grapevine.
With that being said, if any product is going to fail, hope its a vortex. They are hands down the best in the industry and will 100% take care of you. I run a ton of vortex optics from cheap crossfires on plinking 22's, to vipers and razors and hunting guns. Im not going to shoot the Gen 3 razor in matches anymore but will still support them because support this sport and industry like few others. They really are a first rate company and you wont go wrong with the G3 razor. Its just one of those things to think about.
I ran 3 , Gen 3 razors for the last year and a half. For the money, they are very good glass, reticle, fov wise. It feels closer to a 3K optic than the 2K they typically go for. Turrets could use some improvement and the zero process is by far the worst and clumsiest.
Now there are issues with them, outside the initial turrets. I had to send one back to vortex because a part broke, that shouldn't have. Cost me winning a match and took 3rd instead. A number of very high level long time vortex shooters have switched to ZCO recently. I can assure you, ZCO doesn't do much when it comes to sponsorship much like TT. People running that shit, are doing to with their own money. There has been alot of talk in the competition circles about wandering zeros. You can probably figure out from social media and the PRS website who some of those top shooters are. I had both tell me that is the reason they left vortex. And have heard half a dozen others through the grapevine.
With that being said, if any product is going to fail, hope its a vortex. They are hands down the best in the industry and will 100% take care of you. I run a ton of vortex optics from cheap crossfires on plinking 22's, to vipers and razors and hunting guns. Im not going to shoot the Gen 3 razor in matches anymore but will still support them because support this sport and industry like few others. They really are a first rate company and you wont go wrong with the G3 razor. Its just one of those things to think about.
I guess everyone has different opinions but I personally find the zeroing process for the Gen 3 is very user friendly. One screw to loosen and no caps to remove and lose. I also like being able to see where the zero is set on the inner dial at any time.
Some minor things I don't care for or feel could be better:
It's heavy. It's not crazy heavy but a lot of scopes in its class are about a pound lighter.
I find the reticle too fine for the magnification range. At 6x on anything but a high contrast background like white paper it's not that great. Maybe I am oddball for thinking this but I am fan of thick horseshoe or half circle reticle above the fine cross hairs for low magnification use. Also I preferred their older EBR-2 reticle with the elevation numbers close to the center of the reticle not the edges.
The markings on the turrets don't really pop out. Quite minor and fixed with aftermarket turret tape but the grey on brown color scheme is a poor choice, especially in low light.
And speaking of things popping out I feel they could have done something better with the revolution indicator. It's supposed to help prevent a brain fart but it's very easy to overlook and is unchanged from the gen 2.
I do like the scope but those are some areas that I feel other scopes do a little better.
If you like a reticle like that, you should checkout the Burris SCR2 reticle. It has little + signs instead of dots. I find it easier to get more precise groups out of, because you can use the center of the + as an even FINER point of aim in the bullseye, and you can see the bull around the center axis of the reticle. You honestly get more FOV and a more open looking reticle, but it's more user-intuitive than the solid black dots, IMO.
I agree on the Razor G3 reticle being a bit fine, but I've gotten used to it, and can still use mine without issue.
I find it quite usable for precision long range shooting I just find a reticle that fine lacks versatility. I think something like the Bushnell LRHS with the thick circle are a good compromise. They don't obstruct the target much if at all while still working as a Christmas tree holdover reticle but you have that aiming circle for targets close in, in low light, or against a dark backdrop. It's not a common design but I really like it and I wish more manufacturers had reticles like it.
That's something I dislike about a lot of reticles not just the RG3.
Attachments
IMHO the RG3 is as good as it gets until you get into ZCO/TT territory, and I love the RG3 zeroing process, I find it fast and super easy.
They're built like tanks, have great solid-feeling/deliberate turrets, and their glass is excellent (better than Kahles, better than NF). For the money, there isn't anything better out there currently (they make Leupold MK5HDs feel like little kids' toys by comparison).
That said, I also wish the reticle was a hair thicker and I wish they offered a non-Xmas tree reticle, but the EBR-7D is a great "one size fits most" reticle.
They're built like tanks, have great solid-feeling/deliberate turrets, and their glass is excellent (better than Kahles, better than NF). For the money, there isn't anything better out there currently (they make Leupold MK5HDs feel like little kids' toys by comparison).
That said, I also wish the reticle was a hair thicker and I wish they offered a non-Xmas tree reticle, but the EBR-7D is a great "one size fits most" reticle.
I have had 3 now, and I've sold them all. I may still buy a black one off a used sale some day...but IMO, the Element Theos is the same optic with a better turret system for less $
Sold all my Razors, still have my Theos
Sold all my Razors, still have my Theos
It would be good to hear from those wandering zero shooters in a few years to see what there experience has been after switching to another brand. I've heard the complaints too but it's not always a Vortex on the rifle. I'd bet conditions are playing more into it than they realize. My zero moves too, but I've found it's also mirage dependent with a wind direction factoring in as well... and then there is the support surface your shooting from that plays a role too. Not says it isn't real, just highly skeptical.
In a sport where people take equipment so seriously I wish there was more hard data about factors such as mirage and other variables. I would like to see time lapsed scope cam footage of a rifle with a visible laser pointed at a target from sunrise to sunset in a variety of weather conditions.
I’m looking forward to this review! Right now my next purchase is a r3 or S3. I currently have a 4-25 s3 and to my eyes the glass is as good, maybe slightly edges out the two r3’s I’ve looked through. Both we pretty nice days outside though.
My main deciding factor will be eye box and image size. How does the s3 eyebox and image size compare to the r3?
Owning both of your choices, I'd give the eyebox and FOV to the G3, but only by a little.
Which optic do you prefer using? I really like the reticle on the s3 and I like the glass. Although I haven’t seen the g3 I. Low light or rain/fog. The s3 works well in low light.
I'd agree with diggler above, I think the RG3 has a slight advantage, but it is ever so slight. All 3 LOW OEM'd 6-36's are very close and each has its pros and cons, that said I think you would be very happy with either choice. FWIW, I do prefer the larger numbering of the Zeiss S3 turrets over the tiny numbering of the RG3 and Theos, but this is more personal preference...
The reticle in the S3 is going to be a winner in extremely low light/fog. It is extremely dark, and a tad thicker. I still prefer the EBR-7D though.
If you are trying to dial in low light, the larger numbers on the elevation turret of the S3 that @Glassaholic mentioned above really do work well. That being said, the G3 Razor is no slouch either with good spacing, but the numbers are smaller...fortunately there is good spacing between the lines to where it is difficult to misjudge which tenth you are on.
If I were buying again and the two scopes were the same price, I'd go G3 again and be very content. But there is a pretty decent gap between the two nowadays, and that would weigh in on my choice.
