• Get 30% off the first 3 months with code HIDE30

    Offer valid until 9/23! If you have an annual subscription on Sniper's Hide, subscribe below and you'll be refunded the difference.

    Subscribe

  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Rifle Scopes Anything better value than a used gen 2 razor?

M

mi223

Full Member
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 14, 2017
822
442
West Michigan
#1
Time to upgrade my pst. It has served me well but it is definitely the week link in my system.

I see gen 2 razors in the px for sub 1500 especially the 3-18 model sometimes down around 1200. What other scopes compare with the gen 2 either new or used? Really the only thing holding me back is the size and weight of the gen 2.

This will be used for matchs but it is definitely not a true match rifle. It needs to pull double duty as a hunting/utility rifle. I only shoot a few matchs so that is of little priority.

Mostly want great glass, tracks true and super reliable. 3-18 is about the lowest power i will consider.

Should i jump on a razor and deal with the weight? Or should i be looking at other scopes. I like the pst gen 2 but afraid i will be wanting to upgrade again in a few years.

I am ok with buying used and really want to stay under 1500ish.

Thanks for any replies
 
Last edited:
#4
Check out the tract toric prs

I’ve been running one for about 2 months now.

Very similar features and reticle to the razor gen 2, awesome glass, and it’s about $300 cheaper
 
#6
mmlook said:
Check out the tract toric prs

I’ve been running one for about 2 months now.

Very similar features and reticle to the razor gen 2, awesome glass, and it’s about $300 cheaper
Click to expand...

Smaller objective, less magnification, only 20mil of elevation.

That’s a lot of difference for $300.

In my opinion, that’s enoigh difference to be in a different class of optic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hollywood 6mm
#8
Dthomas3523 said:
Smaller objective, less magnification, only 20mil of elevation.

That’s a lot of difference for $300.

In my opinion, that’s enoigh difference to be in a different class of optic.
Click to expand...

Compare it to the 3-18x50 razor, not the 4.5-27x56

Compared to the 4.5-27x56, it’s $700 cheaper
 
#12
The Gen 2 razors are hard to beat. I picked up my 3-18 this time last year around 1600 off the PX. I thought it was a steal then. With what they’re going from now it’s a no brainer. You’ll have to spend above 2K to move up from a razor.

I just upgraded to a PM2 on my bolt gun. My razor will most likely end up on my gas gun once my wallet recovers and I’m able to pick up another mount.

My only criticism is the weight. Well I guess the color sucks too. But it is what it is.
 
#15
mi223 said:
The xrs2 is definitely a scope that interests me. Just not sure how it holds up side by side with the razor
Click to expand...

Smaller eye box, slightly more CA, resolution is not quite as good, turrets are mushier. I’ve had four razor 2s and three xrs2s, there is no comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: generalzip
#16
mi223 said:
The xrs2 is definitely a scope that interests me. Just not sure how it holds up side by side with the razor
Click to expand...
lte82 said:
Smaller eye box, slightly more CA, resolution is not quite as good, turrets are mushier. I’ve had four razor 2s and three xrs2s, there is no comparison.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree.
The Bushnell eye box is good. CA, never noticed. Resolution is better than the Razor. I had them side by side on Sunday just to compare them. I was looking at a wellhead that was roughly 1000 yards away. I could pick up more detail on the valves with the Bushnell. This was true for distances even further out. I wasn’t expecting that to happen. I went back and forth between the scopes for a long while. The XRS II is lighter. I prefer the slightly thicker XRSII reticle as I shoot down in power as well and this helps.

The Razor does have better turrets. It does have a larger field of view and more forgiving eye box which it has compared to any other scope as well. The Bushnell had to be set at 2x below the Razors magnification to have the same field of view.

I call it a wash. I like both scopes. Neither blows the other away in any comparison. The differences are little.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hollywood 6mm and BallisticPrimate
#17
I agree with lte. I've owned both. The razor is a better scope in every category I've tested. Closer parallax, way better eyebox especially at higher powers, resolution and color (pop) is better in the razor, lowlight is better in the razor, turrets are way better on the razor, reticle is better and thinner on the razor, FOV is better on razor, it's shorter. CA I can't recall which was worse honestly but I remember seeing it in both more than my schmidts and NF.

The XRS2 is a decent scope, but you'd have to be drunk to buy it over a Razor for the same price.
 
#18
wade2big said:
I completely disagree.
The Bushnell eye box is good. CA, never noticed. Resolution is better than the Razor. I had them side by side on Sunday just to compare them. I was looking at a wellhead that was roughly 1000 yards away. I could pick up more detail on the valves with the Bushnell. This was true for distances even further out. I wasn’t expecting that to happen. I went back and forth between the scopes for a long while. The XRS II is lighter. I prefer the slightly thicker XRSII reticle as I shoot down in power as well and this helps.

The Razor does have better turrets. It does have a larger field of view and more forgiving eye box which it has compared to any other scope as well. The Bushnell had to be set at 2x below the Razors magnification to have the same field of view.

I call it a wash. I like both scopes. Neither blows the other away in any comparison. The differences are little.
Click to expand...

Ehh, CA is *really* visible on both, especially on high contrast targets. Not a big deal, but if someone is looking for "zero CA", neither of these scopes will get you close to it.
 
#19
I’ve run the gambit. Steiner and Minox to Nightforce and Kahles, Bushnell, Sig, Cronus etc. You name it I’ve pretty much had it.

You can recommend a million different optics and at the end of the day, each of them have their merits. This is one of the great benefits of being a consumer in today’s market... It’s pretty hard to go wrong.

But from a total performance/value perspective, to feature set, durability, and overall company support - there is nothing that touches a Gen 2 in my personal experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psychosniper
#20
generalzip said:
I agree with lte. I've owned both. The razor is a better scope in every category I've tested. Closer parallax, way better eyebox especially at higher powers, resolution and color (pop) is better in the razor, lowlight is better in the razor, turrets are way better on the razor, reticle is better and thinner on the razor, FOV is better on razor, it's shorter. CA I can't recall which was worse honestly but I remember seeing it in both more than my schmidts and NF.

The XRS2 is a decent scope, but you'd have to be drunk to buy it over a Razor for the same price.
Click to expand...

If its shorter its by a hair. Thats a wash. As far as reticles go, I despise thin reticles. I see no benefit to them. It makes the scope harder to use in the lower power range. I don't shoot ELR so take that into consideration. Thats clearly personal preference because I know that I am in the minority when it comes to reticle thickness. Hell im not even a fan of Christmas tree reticles or .2 mil subtensions. I can hit targets holding out in space without a Christmas tree just as easily as with one. The .2 mil subtensions just get in the way.

I own both right now and see very little difference. Of all categories to compare the two scopes to each other side by side, the weight difference and reticle is what separates them apart the widest. These two things are what I would recommend a man that is considering both to base his decision.

I’m happy with both. If the Razor stuck with the ebr-2c reticle and thickened the main lines to .05 mil then It would be the only scopes I would own on my target rifles. That would be almost perfect for me.
 
#21
I agree reticle is subjective. Just giving my .02 for the OP. I was not happy with the XRS2 which is why I sold it. The difference in weigh is .6 lbs at the center of gravity of the rifle. You're really not going to notice that difference on a 14+ lb rifle system. If weight is a concern I'd save it on stock selection and barrel profile/material.

The fact is a good match rifle does not make a good carry gun. My advice is to invest in a rifle for each. If that's absolutely not an option get a light stock (KRG bravo for budget or manners PRS1) and get an action with 2 pre-fits. Straight taper for your matched and a light palma or lighter for hunting.
 
#22
mmlook said:
Compare it to the 3-18x50 razor, not the 4.5-27x56

Compared to the 4.5-27x56, it’s $700 cheaper
Click to expand...

Still, different class.

Also, he asked about razor going for $1500 used. There’s zero difference in a new and used razor as the warrant will get you a new one of something goes wrong.

For all intents and purposes, a gen 2 razor 4.5-27 can easily be found for $1500 all day everyday.
 
#23
I've been looking for a Razor Gen II 4.5-27 replacement due to the weight but I haven't found anything that compares yet that's not many times more expensive. Too many compromises in other options, the Razor's only compromise in my eyes is its weight.
 
#24
Dthomas3523 said:
Still, different class.

Also, he asked about razor going for $1500 used. There’s zero difference in a new and used razor as the warrant will get you a new one of something goes wrong.

For all intents and purposes, a gen 2 razor 4.5-27 can easily be found for $1500 all day everyday.
Click to expand...

different class?
for price, its more expensive
elevation, its has more, but unless you're shooting past 1000y all day, it shouldn't matter

everything else, not really

I've shot a Tract Toric and a Razor gen2 side by side
if anything the glass is a little better on the Tract

it's also very difficult to find a used razor with an EBR-7c reticle,
which imo, quite critical for shooting past 500yards.
Deal breaker to me for PRS style shooting, where you don't have time to dial wind
 
#27
I love my Gen II Razor but prefer the EBR-1C reticle. I wouldn't hesitate to purchase a second and third. The weight is definitely an issue if you're packing it up and down mountains, but if it's a target rifle the weight actually helps out.
 
#30
Besides price is there any reason not to go with a used amg? Used can be had for 1-300 more than your budget sure but it sounds like it’s a gen 2 razor on a diet at 20 oz lighter?
 
#31
Lunabear said:
Besides price is there any reason not to go with a used amg? Used can be had for 1-300 more than your budget sure but it sounds like it’s a gen 2 razor on a diet at 20 oz lighter?
Click to expand...

Dialable elevation is the only reason I can think of. I can take 6.5CM American Gunner to a mile with a scope in the 32-34mrad travel range but 26mrad is less than I’d need to dial.
 
#33
I need ~27.3mrad with 2775fps at the muzzle. Once you account for manufacturing tolerances and a 100yd Zero you end up losing 3-4mrad of dialability if you’re using anything other than shims or Burris Signature-style rings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lunabear
#34
Lunabear said:
Besides price is there any reason not to go with a used amg? Used can be had for 1-300 more than your budget sure but it sounds like it’s a gen 2 razor on a diet at 20 oz lighter?
Click to expand...

AMG is considerably smaller. Especially when you are behind it and on the turrets.

If you can deal with the weight then the Gen 2 is the better option in my experience, especially on a match gun or similar. If the weight is of concern then go AMG.
 
#35
if anyone wants to trade an FDE XRS2 g3 for a Gen2 4.5-27 EBR-2c....ill pull the xrs2 off my gas gun tonight

ive got 3 Gen 2s...the bushy is outta place ive just been to lazy to sell it and swap lol
 
#38
Jonnyb0381 said:
Id go with the MK 5 over the Razor but its not by a long shot. The both have a lot of pros and are excellent value for the price!
Click to expand...

I agree I am on my 4th MK5 and for the Fed-Mil and used market price, optical quality, tracking quality (sample of 4), and weight I don’t think there is anything that can touch them. IMO the only downside to the MK5 is the reticle offered, but the CCH & illuminated TMR are both very useable. But that’s just me...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jonnyb0381
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Optics Vortex MOA scopes. AMG, Razor Gen 2, PST
Replies
15
Views
881
ryleecarr2006
R
Tyrich88
Rifle Scopes Is a Viper PST Gen 3 coming???
Replies
318
Views
19K
Gtscotty
Gtscotty
Hogg0494
Gen 3 Razor vs PM2 vs ZC Opinions
Replies
62
Views
3K
Trevor300wsm
Trevor300wsm
DAC_0612
Optics WTS: Vortex Razor GEN 3 6-36 MIL EBR-7D
Replies
2
Views
743
kolegears
K
Tigerfan601
Optics Razor Gen 3 6-36 Mrad (Sold)
Replies
6
Views
686
Tigerfan601
Tigerfan601
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts