Putting together a gun to shoot 4-500 rounds a year with a range that maxes out at 600 on normal days. Is there enough of a benefit to justify an Atacr 5-25 or 7-35 over a razor 4.5-27? I don’t mind paying if the difference is monumental, but the extra 8-1300 would buy a lot of ammo.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Cost benefit Atacr vs Razor?
- Thread starter Lrdchaos
- Start date
I have a 3-18 razor and love it, for a square range where weight isn’t important I would repeat the purchase
The NF’s look really nice, and are nice, but the reticle and features you like, I don’t think you would regret either scope in 18 months
I have a 7-35 ATACR with the mil-xt reticle. I also have the Burris XTR-3 with the SCR-2 reticle. For the round count and conditions you describe, the Burris no questions asked. Any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Under these conditions the Burris is easier and more pleasant to use. Get behind an XTR-3 and see what I mean. Amazing scope for the price. Use the money you save to buy ammo. If you can find it.
I was not impressed at all with the glass on the 5-25 or 7-25 ATACRs and I hate how the entire power ring moves when you adjust it. Razors are hard to beat and you can pick them up on the secondary market for great prices.
The power ring rotating makes using scope caps impossible, thought that was odd when I was messing with the NF
You can use caps, just get Tenbraex covers that you can turn independent of the ocular housing.
The vortex are nice if you have someone who is willing to carry it for you. Vortex warranty is top notch and that is a big deal if you run your optics hard. I prefer nightforce personally but understand why people chose the vortex. Both have really nice glass. You can run a heavier contour barrel if you run a nf which i think is a benefit. Also prefer the nightforce turrets.
It really is odd how it’s 10 oz heavier than most other competitors. What the hell are they hiding in there...tungsten guts
It really is odd how it’s 10 oz heavier than most other competitors. What the hell are they hiding in there...tungsten guts
They’re filled with distilled water at 25psi so the lenses never fog or something. I’m not a scientist but the weight checks out.
It really is odd how it’s 10 oz heavier than most other competitors. What the hell are they hiding in there...tungsten guts
The extra weight helps hold the box down in the truck when shipping back and forth to vortex for warranty repairs
Last edited:
It really is odd how it’s 10 oz heavier than most other competitors. What the hell are they hiding in there...tungsten guts
What’s really odd is people actually add weights to rifles which do nothing but add dead weight and run straight taper barrels to add more weight but bitch about 10 ounces in a scope. Can’t make that up
That’s funny, I don’t care who you are!What’s really odd is people actually add weights to rifles which do nothing but add dead weight and run straight taper barrels to add more weight but bitch about 10 ounces in a scope. Can’t make that up
I swear I almost said the same thing!!! I don’t know if rail weight feels differently from an anchor on top so I kept my trap shut but that’s shit’s hilarious.What’s really odd is people actually add weights to rifles which do nothing but add dead weight and run straight taper barrels to add more weight but bitch about 10 ounces in a scope. Can’t make that up
Its all weight and feels as heavy no matter where it is but wait the mechanical engineers will be in with formulas for balance and yada yada yada. I bet if I replaced any 38 ounce scope with a Razor you wouldn’t feel the difference in any match rifle.
I switched from the Razor Gen II 4.5-27 to the ATACR 5-25 because I wanted a different reticle. I was never able to get razor sharp resolution on the Razor, the ATACR is much better in this regard. I’ve also grown to dislike the diopter adjustment commonly found on the Vortex optics (I’ve owned Viper PST 1-4, Razor 1-6 in multiple flavors, Strike Eagle 1-8 and now a 5-25), it constantly rotates on me throughout the day. I prefer the fixed diopter adjustment on the ATACR and my old Leupold MK6 1-6. The rotating barrel of the zooming function on the ATACR is a non-issue with the included Tenebraex covers. I orient the rear cap when flipped in such a way that it clears my 60 degree action regardless of zoom range.
Professional discounted individual purchase programs brought both the Razor with Tremor 3 and ATACR with MIL-XT reticle options in the same price bracket. It really boils down to what reticle you want and who offers it.
Professional discounted individual purchase programs brought both the Razor with Tremor 3 and ATACR with MIL-XT reticle options in the same price bracket. It really boils down to what reticle you want and who offers it.
I've never owned a Nightforce scope but I do have a ZCO 527 in a Spuhr mount, totaling $4000 at usual prices. I also have a Razor 4.5-27x56 with EBR-7C / mils reticle in Vortex PMR rings, which can be had new for well under $1900 total if you know where to shop. I had one with EBR-2C / MOA reticle that I sold when I made the transition to mils.
Bottom line: for what you want to do, the Razor is MORE than enough scope. I've posted in multiple places that the ZCO is "better" than the Razor, but it's nowhere near double-the-price better unless you are shooting for serious stakes in conditions where paying a lot more for a little improvement matters. I have one more Viper PST scope that I'm upgrading, and it will be another Razor even though I could swing another ZCO.
Bottom line: for what you want to do, the Razor is MORE than enough scope. I've posted in multiple places that the ZCO is "better" than the Razor, but it's nowhere near double-the-price better unless you are shooting for serious stakes in conditions where paying a lot more for a little improvement matters. I have one more Viper PST scope that I'm upgrading, and it will be another Razor even though I could swing another ZCO.
My nightforce 7x35 glass is far better than my razor HD glass ever thought about being. I don’t know if I’ve heard of anyone that has regretted buying a 7x35 atacr and most people have been really impressed with the Vortex Razor. I think ether would make you happy but I would take my atacr over a razor any day of the week. And I am really enjoying the Mil-XT!!!!!!
I've owned a few of these and the short answer in my experience, is there a cost-benefit for your use case, I'd say no. For the features the razor gen 2 offers at the price point its solid. The Atacr is very nice as well and the ability to parallax closer than the razor is nice, if you need that. My eyes prefer then ATACR glass a bit but like a few have said glass is very subjective. Personally I wouldn't touch the 5-25 atacr with the 7-35 on the market.
I would pick features that are important to you like: reticle, locking turrets a must have?, close parallax a must have?, fast focus diopter a must have? Those questions will sway the decision to a final choice. Both are solid and very well tested.
I would pick features that are important to you like: reticle, locking turrets a must have?, close parallax a must have?, fast focus diopter a must have? Those questions will sway the decision to a final choice. Both are solid and very well tested.
If you're going to be shooting so few rounds all year, it looks like you're already saving money on ammo.
Get a ZCO and be happy.
Get a ZCO and be happy.
This is a great thread hearing various experiences. I’ve read through a ton before getting a 525 PMII. Then a 527 ZCO. Beyond reticle choice and just personal preference of glass...specifically clarity, because I haven’t noticed CA in these two, the ZCO definitely seems clearer to my eyes. Noticeably. Through many conditions.
I’ve talked with folks that felt 735 ATACR lost this in upper magnification. I’ve definitely seen this in less expensive, but still Jap glass. Not in European glass I’ve looked through, which admittedly were spotting scopes mostly. Interesting in opinions on the 30-35 range of NF
I’ve talked with folks that felt 735 ATACR lost this in upper magnification. I’ve definitely seen this in less expensive, but still Jap glass. Not in European glass I’ve looked through, which admittedly were spotting scopes mostly. Interesting in opinions on the 30-35 range of NF
That's one of the big things I think most folks like about the vortex scopes, and definitely one of the things I like about em. The reticle is just right to me. Not too cluttered up, but enough to do whatever you want and good size on the marks. In all honesty I think the reticle is what determines most people's scope choice.
I know it's not on the list but I will second the XTR3. It looked better than the Razor G2 to me but I know they are a old proven scope.
I haven't looked through a Atacr but it was my first choice when my NXS sold. I'm now looking for a 2nd XTR3.
I haven't looked through a Atacr but it was my first choice when my NXS sold. I'm now looking for a 2nd XTR3.
You may think you like a reticle on paper, but in use your opinion may change. Luckily, there are a lot of used scopes on the PX. If you buy used and end up selling it, you won't lose much if anything.
For some reason my eye can focus easier on the MSR2 vs the MR4.
I used the XTR2 and it tracked perfectly but the glass was bad, I havent got my hands on the XTR3 yet. I also really like the Athlon Cronus, glass is better than the Razor and the tracking is spot on.
On most scopes just the magnification ring moves. On the ATACR the ocular moves with it. So the ring plus everything back including the scope cap turns
Ok, now I get it.
Haven't ever came across this before, is this unique to the Nightforce ATACR lineup?
NF is the only one I’ve used or seen that has this. My ATACR does it and if memory serves me right the NXS I had a while back did the same as well
Made for quicker adjustment of magnification under stress was one of the benefits
Yup the older NXS did it too. With the massive use of switch views now the whole “under stress” reasoning has fallen away.
If you need rugged, a Nightforce can't be beat, and for my eyes, I like their glass and reticle better.
I have an old Razor 1 on my AR and like it but my shooting friend has a Razor II on his SCAR 17 and it died after 200 rounds. The SCAR is really tough on optics.
I have an old Razor 1 on my AR and like it but my shooting friend has a Razor II on his SCAR 17 and it died after 200 rounds. The SCAR is really tough on optics.
If you need rugged, a Nightforce can't be beat. My eyes like their glass and reticles better. Experience is with the ATACR and my old 12-42 Benchrest. They are also made in the US which adds a premium.
I have an old Razor 1 on my AR and really like it but my shooting friend has a Razor II on his SCAR 17 and it died after 200 rounds. The SCAR is really tough on optics.
I have an old Razor 1 on my AR and really like it but my shooting friend has a Razor II on his SCAR 17 and it died after 200 rounds. The SCAR is really tough on optics.
Similar threads
