<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Introduction</span>:
</span>
Many of you have followed my Field Test series and in many ways this is a follow-up to the original Razor 5-20 vs. SS 5-20 as the Razor I used for that test had the original ocular. I promised to update when I got one with the ocular upgrade and I've owned two now and had a chance to look at another example of the SS, so I thought it time to not only update that information, but include another huge player in that "below-$2000 tactical scope" category. I now own a Bushnell DMR 3-21 with the excellent GAP G2 reticle. I also am including information on the NF NXS 5-22 as this comes up all the time, even though it's SFP.
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Testing:</span></span>
As I stated in the past, when most people think of scope performance, they think optics. I don't place nearly as much importance on this, as at the end of the day it’s a sighting tool. Camera lenses and binoculars have to have great glass. Scopes not so much. For the most part, if I can see through it, I can use it if it does its mechanical job the way it should. More on this later.
Tracking and adjustment accuracy, reticle design, mechanical robustness and industrial design are far more important to me than optical performance (with a few exceptions... as I've said many times... if you're hunting in low light or identifying threats in a darkened window or doorway at distance, you have special needs. Most of us do not fall in this category.)
For each category, I'll list them in order from best to worst.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Tracking and Adjustment Accuracy</span>
After verifying that the scopes were indeed level in the rings on each rifle, I set the rifles in a vise at 100 +-.5 yds from a 10 mil x 5 mil grid that is plumb and level. The crosshairs are centered on the "zero" intersection. The scope is run up 10 mils, down 10 mils and left/right 5 mils. Then the same grid is used to determine the accuracy of the reticle as well as whether the reticle is plumb and level in the scope tube.
Results:
All four scopes showed perfect adjustments and tracking as well as reticles that calibrated accurately.
<span style="font-weight: bold">
Reticle Design.</span>
This is a very subjective topic. In this case all of the reticles were very useable and unobtrusive. All of them allow a shooter to engage targets and hold for wind or elevation without confusion (with the exception of the SFP NXS, but I'll get to that).
DMR G2: I really like this reticle. It is perfect for my use, with two exceptions. Firstly, the wind holds must have been designed around my shooting partners old 7STW shooting 180 Bergers, 'cuz with my .260, I often have wind holds that fall outside of what is provided by the reticle. I'd love to see a bit more windage on that christmas tree. Secondly, compared to the Razor, the reticle appears to have been etched by an aged Herzegovenian in a thatched hut. By comparison, the Razor’s reticle is crisp and sharp and black at the edges and very contrasty, whereas the G2 is a little less well defined and almost translucent at the edges.
Razor: I absolutely LOVE the reticle in the Razor HD 5-20 EBR 2 and 2B. With one exception... it's too thick for my taste. I shoot both tactical matches and precision. I have a .260 that is probably capable of benchrest level accuracy, except I shoot it in the dirt from bipod and bag, even so, it will often group .25 moa or less to 750 yds and beyond. I have a much more difficult time exacting the performance of the rifle with the reticle in the Razor than the G2 or the MLR. Yes, I can use an aiming point in the "christmas tree" but thin is fast and aiming dots are not. Other than that, by far the best executed reticle of the bunch. If Vortex took a page from the G2 and simply offered a .03 mil middle section, I'd be in heaven. The P4F, Gen II XR and the G2 all have thin reticles and work just fine in FFP.
NXS 5-22: the MLR reticle is showing its age and NF has responded with new designs. The MLR pales in comparison to any of the other reticles, but is outstanding for placing precision shots. The one thing I will add here... I would still own the NXS if I could have found a reliable way to use the SFP reticle without making mistakes, but simple is smart and I went back to FFP.
SS 5-20: a bit too thick for my tastes. The more I use it, the more I dislike it. I find the diamonds with dots overkill. I want elevation and wind holds *without* obstructing my target. If the reticle were thinner, it would help, but simple hashes would be sufficient.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Mechanical Robustness.</span>
All four of these scopes feel very strong and robust and have gotten great feedback from customers. If your life absolutely depends on it, either the Razor or the NXS would be my recommendation, but I understand that there are many HMDR's in service in the middle east with no real reported issues. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that says the the SS's are holding up very well. I never had any mechanical problems with any of these scopes.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Turrets</span>
I separated this out from ID, because when we have discussions about scopes, there are usually two areas of focus: glass and turrets. The important issues here are ability to quickly make accurate adjustments, good audible as well as tactile feedback, and they need to stay set when carrying slung or handling in brush.
NF NXS 5-22: The NF turrets are nearly perfect. They were without doubt the best in feel of the group, and even though they are HS (10 mil/rev.) they are extremely precise and I never had a question about the adjustment. They have very good feedback, both audibly and by feel and work very well with gloves. I never had them move without me turning them.
Razor 5-20: I initially hated the huge turrets, but have gotten used to them... the clicks are audible and can easily be detected while wearing gloves and I love how the turret "snaps" firmly into each .1 mil increment. I would love to review one of the new 10 mil/rev. Razors and see how the feel compares, but the 5 mil/rev version is nearly perfect.
DMR 3-21: Other than being a bit large the turrets are excellent. Once I got used to the locking feature, I was able to make field adjustments nearly as fast as the NXS and Razor. Clicks are firm (but not quite as "snappy" as the NXS or Razor. I would think a 10 mil/rev. version of this scope would have some of the same issues as the SS due to the smaller adjustment spacing). Although they are not as crisp as the other two, gloves are no issue. The Bushy does suffer a little from the same thing the Weaver tactical does with the locking turrets. When trying to press them back down, they often need a little wiggle to get them to go back down.
SS 5-20: The SS is 10 mil/rev . The more I use the other 3 scopes, the less I like the turrets on the SS. And it's not just because the others are 5 mil/rev. The NF is 10. I used my SS to shoot a couple matches and definitely spent more time making sure I was really on 3.6 mils and not 3.7. There is just enough slop and not quite enough "snap" to make me lose confidence in what I was looking at. Terry Cross argues that 5 mil/rev. is superior because of the increase in speed and confidence in adjustment. The SS 5-20 makes his case for him.
<span style="font-weight: bold">
Industrial Design.</span>
By ID, I am addressing the user controls and layout. Does the scope have a layout and controls that help or hinder a shooter.
NXS: This scope is the Velociraptor of the scope market. Lean, no frills, no marketing hype (well, there was the NXS with the 7.62x39 hole…) , just pure performance. Everything about this scope just works. The ZS is awesome, parallax and focus are aligned. Great layout. Well, there is that antiquated illumination and somewhat irritating ocular that rotates with the magnification ring, but other than that, scope perfection.
Razor: Fantastic fit and finish. Zero stop is awesome, although I found it less intuitive to set than the NXS. I do like that zero can be really set for zero. The new ocular design seems easier to rotate than the old one, almost too easy. Parallax works great and is well aligned with focus. Hate the location of the illumination. It blocks access to the magnification ring when I tried to change it quickly in match situations. Prefer the location on the SS much more. A cattail would help with this.
DMR G2 3-21: Very utilitarian, but everything just works. Lack of illumination and ZS may concern some. I swore that I’d never own another scope without ZS, but I’m making do for the money I saved.
SS 5-20: The magnification ring on the SS is really hard to find and turn without breaking cheekweld. A cattail is a necessity. Other than that all the controls were placed well and worked as they should. I did notice that the focus and parallax settings were different for both scopes I’ve seen. In other words, when parallax is properly set, the scope in not properly focused and vice versa. I really like the locking ocular. I wish more companies offered this. Lack of a ZS may be a concern to some, but with 10 mil/rev it’s less of an issue.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Optical Performance.
</span>
For this segment of the evaluation, I placed the following chart at 100 yds. I've also spent hours laying behind each one and have included my general subjective comments about my experience.
What I looked for here was the smallest set of 3 bars that the scope could resolve as well as general attributes such as edge sharpness, overall brightness and contrast chromatic aberration and edge to edge sharpness. Most of us err on the side of the subjective, but one of the things I learned in this evaluation is that subjective evaluation does have its place.
All scopes were set at 20x (the Bushy was set to 21x and NF to 22x)and were 100 yds. from the target.
Razor: either the ocular upgrade really improved the performance of this scope or I got two really good examples. They are much sharper and crisp and contrasty than the last example I had. Colors were reproduced accurately and have a little "pop". I could easily resolve down to the "5" in the "-2" row (dead center of chart)and depending on atmospherics, could resolve the "6" bars. This scope now rivals the SS for glass quality and for under $2000 both offer excellent glass that is enjoyable to look through and does everything I would ask a scope to do very well, including low light performance. Just the faintest hint of CA. I would call this a tie for first…
SS 5-20 HD: This scope was nothing short of amazing when it came to optical performance. Crisp. Sharp. Bright. Contrasty. Colors are accurate. Very little CA. Simply amazing for a sub-$2000 scope . Very similar to the Razor with the improved ocular. I could easily resolve down to the "5" in the "-2" row (dead center of chart)and depending on atmospherics, could resolve the "6" bars.
NXS 5-22 – Although the NXS has good resolution, the glass isn’t nearly quite the visceral experience that the Razor and SS give. The light is a little “flatter” and colors don’t pop as much. If anything it looks just a touch “hazier” than the first two. CA is in line with the first two. I could easily resolve down to the "5" in the "-2" row (dead center of chart).
DMR G2 3-21: <span style="font-weight: bold">EDIT:</span> This is the second scope of this type I've owned. The first was an HDMR H59. I returned it for full refund because of exactly the sort of IQ issues observed on this DMR G2.
This was only disappointing attribute I could find on this scope. Compared to the Razor and SS the glass is poor. Light is very flat and colors appear as if they would on an overcast day with a distinct blue-grey cast. There is a LOT of chromatic aberration which I find highly distracting when looking at a white steel plate on a bright day or trying to count points on a bucks rack. It minimizes a lot if you center your eye perfectly behind the scope, but as you move your eye off center even slighty, the very distinct purple fringe will follow your eye around the center. This is the second Bushnell 3-21 I’ve owned. The first was an HDMR with the H59 and I sent it back to Horus as defective. The glass looked just like this model. I sent this example to Todd Froloff at Bushnell, explaining that I was going to be doing a review on it and wanted to make sure that I represented their product accurately. It was returned to me untouched as “within specification”. When I spoke with Todd, he stated that what I was seeing was as the result of a design compromise to enhance performance in other areas by adjusting the coatings on the lenses. When I asked him to email me the exact areas that were supposedly enhanced, as well as the exact verbiage so I could effectively test these supposed enhancements and represent the advantages to anyone who might read this review, I never received anything back. My personal opinion is that Bushnell made an executive decision to not address this and sugar coat it with marketing speak. Either way, it's an eyes open business decision on the part of Bushnell. Whatever the case, I found the glass very disappointing for a scope in this pricepoint. Surprisingly, despite the rather bland view through the scope, resolution was actually the best of the four. I could resolve “6” quite easily even though there was CA, but this is where subjective meets objective and where Bushnell might actually be running into problems. When set up on a test bench and evaluated with test fixtures, this scope may look just fine, but get it into the field and the shortcomings are immediately apparent. Another note on the Bushy, although they call it a 3-21, it is actually more like a 4.5-21, as below about 4.5x all that happens is the image gets smaller with no increase in FOV.
Note: Before all the Bushnell owners jump in here and bash me, I know this has been hashed and rehashed. I know a lot of you are thrilled with your scopes. All I can do is test and report what I see, and the two examples I’ve had, have very poor glass. If Bushnell’s acceptance specification is very generous, this could easily account for the differences. But future buyers need to know that there is a chance you could get one like mine and Bushnell will think it’s just fine and will not replace it.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Conclusion</span>
The ocular upgrade to the Vortex Razor HD 5-20 definitely made it the scope it was intended to be. Kudos to Vortex for not making an in-process change, but notifying existing customers of the change and offering free upgrades. Other companies often respond to customer feedback by making transparent changes without notifying the installed base. With all the features the tactical community demads and outstanding glass, the Razor is definitely the frontrunner of this group *IF* you can live with the control layout and the reticle. Different scopes have very different “personalities” and what works for one, may not work for another even if it is a great scope.
Second place would have to go to the Nightforce NXS 5-22 HS ZS. If you can work with an SFP scope, this is an outstanding all around performer that does almost nothing to disappoint. But again, need will drive whether this scope is appropriate for you or not. Glass is not quite as good as the Razor or SS, but certainly did not make me cringe when I got behind it like the Bushy does every time.
Third place would have to go the Bushnell DMR G2 3-21. Why? Even with the poor glass, I find it much easier to get fast accurate elevation adjustments and the reticle is MUCH more flexible than the SS. At the end of the day, this makes it a better match scope for me and the reticle, even though it is FFP allowed me to easily shoot a bee at 100 yds. This is a very utilitarian scope. No frills, just great mechanical performance. I like to think of it as a Weaver 3-15 EMDR on steroids.
The SWFA SS 5-20 is an excellent scope at the Hide one-time (now expired) discount price of $1000. The $1500 pricepoint makes it less attractive to me given some of the nitpicky things I dislike about it. For instance, I can live with the poor glass of the Bushnell because I can buy it for less than $1100, but if it were $1750, I’d never even consider it. The $1250 non-illuminated version is a step in the right direction. I would like to see either NF quality turrets or go back to a nice, crisp 5 mil/rev. I cannot afford a mistake of .1 mil when I’m shooting a match. I would also like to see a thinner reticle with plain hashes, but again that’s a personal thing. The SS *is* the lightest of the four by a fair bit and that may be a factor to some.
Remember, a lot of this is very subjective based on personal need. If you own one of these scopes and I didn’t rate it well, it’s not a personal attack. These things are tools. They should not be an extension or expression of our ego. If it works for you. Great. But I pay for my scopes. I get nothing from the manufacturers, so I call ‘em as I see ‘em and you get my raw, unadulterated, as often as possible objective, opinion.
John
</span>
Many of you have followed my Field Test series and in many ways this is a follow-up to the original Razor 5-20 vs. SS 5-20 as the Razor I used for that test had the original ocular. I promised to update when I got one with the ocular upgrade and I've owned two now and had a chance to look at another example of the SS, so I thought it time to not only update that information, but include another huge player in that "below-$2000 tactical scope" category. I now own a Bushnell DMR 3-21 with the excellent GAP G2 reticle. I also am including information on the NF NXS 5-22 as this comes up all the time, even though it's SFP.
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Testing:</span></span>
As I stated in the past, when most people think of scope performance, they think optics. I don't place nearly as much importance on this, as at the end of the day it’s a sighting tool. Camera lenses and binoculars have to have great glass. Scopes not so much. For the most part, if I can see through it, I can use it if it does its mechanical job the way it should. More on this later.
Tracking and adjustment accuracy, reticle design, mechanical robustness and industrial design are far more important to me than optical performance (with a few exceptions... as I've said many times... if you're hunting in low light or identifying threats in a darkened window or doorway at distance, you have special needs. Most of us do not fall in this category.)
For each category, I'll list them in order from best to worst.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Tracking and Adjustment Accuracy</span>
After verifying that the scopes were indeed level in the rings on each rifle, I set the rifles in a vise at 100 +-.5 yds from a 10 mil x 5 mil grid that is plumb and level. The crosshairs are centered on the "zero" intersection. The scope is run up 10 mils, down 10 mils and left/right 5 mils. Then the same grid is used to determine the accuracy of the reticle as well as whether the reticle is plumb and level in the scope tube.
Results:
All four scopes showed perfect adjustments and tracking as well as reticles that calibrated accurately.
<span style="font-weight: bold">
Reticle Design.</span>
This is a very subjective topic. In this case all of the reticles were very useable and unobtrusive. All of them allow a shooter to engage targets and hold for wind or elevation without confusion (with the exception of the SFP NXS, but I'll get to that).
DMR G2: I really like this reticle. It is perfect for my use, with two exceptions. Firstly, the wind holds must have been designed around my shooting partners old 7STW shooting 180 Bergers, 'cuz with my .260, I often have wind holds that fall outside of what is provided by the reticle. I'd love to see a bit more windage on that christmas tree. Secondly, compared to the Razor, the reticle appears to have been etched by an aged Herzegovenian in a thatched hut. By comparison, the Razor’s reticle is crisp and sharp and black at the edges and very contrasty, whereas the G2 is a little less well defined and almost translucent at the edges.
Razor: I absolutely LOVE the reticle in the Razor HD 5-20 EBR 2 and 2B. With one exception... it's too thick for my taste. I shoot both tactical matches and precision. I have a .260 that is probably capable of benchrest level accuracy, except I shoot it in the dirt from bipod and bag, even so, it will often group .25 moa or less to 750 yds and beyond. I have a much more difficult time exacting the performance of the rifle with the reticle in the Razor than the G2 or the MLR. Yes, I can use an aiming point in the "christmas tree" but thin is fast and aiming dots are not. Other than that, by far the best executed reticle of the bunch. If Vortex took a page from the G2 and simply offered a .03 mil middle section, I'd be in heaven. The P4F, Gen II XR and the G2 all have thin reticles and work just fine in FFP.
NXS 5-22: the MLR reticle is showing its age and NF has responded with new designs. The MLR pales in comparison to any of the other reticles, but is outstanding for placing precision shots. The one thing I will add here... I would still own the NXS if I could have found a reliable way to use the SFP reticle without making mistakes, but simple is smart and I went back to FFP.
SS 5-20: a bit too thick for my tastes. The more I use it, the more I dislike it. I find the diamonds with dots overkill. I want elevation and wind holds *without* obstructing my target. If the reticle were thinner, it would help, but simple hashes would be sufficient.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Mechanical Robustness.</span>
All four of these scopes feel very strong and robust and have gotten great feedback from customers. If your life absolutely depends on it, either the Razor or the NXS would be my recommendation, but I understand that there are many HMDR's in service in the middle east with no real reported issues. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that says the the SS's are holding up very well. I never had any mechanical problems with any of these scopes.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Turrets</span>
I separated this out from ID, because when we have discussions about scopes, there are usually two areas of focus: glass and turrets. The important issues here are ability to quickly make accurate adjustments, good audible as well as tactile feedback, and they need to stay set when carrying slung or handling in brush.
NF NXS 5-22: The NF turrets are nearly perfect. They were without doubt the best in feel of the group, and even though they are HS (10 mil/rev.) they are extremely precise and I never had a question about the adjustment. They have very good feedback, both audibly and by feel and work very well with gloves. I never had them move without me turning them.
Razor 5-20: I initially hated the huge turrets, but have gotten used to them... the clicks are audible and can easily be detected while wearing gloves and I love how the turret "snaps" firmly into each .1 mil increment. I would love to review one of the new 10 mil/rev. Razors and see how the feel compares, but the 5 mil/rev version is nearly perfect.
DMR 3-21: Other than being a bit large the turrets are excellent. Once I got used to the locking feature, I was able to make field adjustments nearly as fast as the NXS and Razor. Clicks are firm (but not quite as "snappy" as the NXS or Razor. I would think a 10 mil/rev. version of this scope would have some of the same issues as the SS due to the smaller adjustment spacing). Although they are not as crisp as the other two, gloves are no issue. The Bushy does suffer a little from the same thing the Weaver tactical does with the locking turrets. When trying to press them back down, they often need a little wiggle to get them to go back down.
SS 5-20: The SS is 10 mil/rev . The more I use the other 3 scopes, the less I like the turrets on the SS. And it's not just because the others are 5 mil/rev. The NF is 10. I used my SS to shoot a couple matches and definitely spent more time making sure I was really on 3.6 mils and not 3.7. There is just enough slop and not quite enough "snap" to make me lose confidence in what I was looking at. Terry Cross argues that 5 mil/rev. is superior because of the increase in speed and confidence in adjustment. The SS 5-20 makes his case for him.
<span style="font-weight: bold">
Industrial Design.</span>
By ID, I am addressing the user controls and layout. Does the scope have a layout and controls that help or hinder a shooter.
NXS: This scope is the Velociraptor of the scope market. Lean, no frills, no marketing hype (well, there was the NXS with the 7.62x39 hole…) , just pure performance. Everything about this scope just works. The ZS is awesome, parallax and focus are aligned. Great layout. Well, there is that antiquated illumination and somewhat irritating ocular that rotates with the magnification ring, but other than that, scope perfection.
Razor: Fantastic fit and finish. Zero stop is awesome, although I found it less intuitive to set than the NXS. I do like that zero can be really set for zero. The new ocular design seems easier to rotate than the old one, almost too easy. Parallax works great and is well aligned with focus. Hate the location of the illumination. It blocks access to the magnification ring when I tried to change it quickly in match situations. Prefer the location on the SS much more. A cattail would help with this.
DMR G2 3-21: Very utilitarian, but everything just works. Lack of illumination and ZS may concern some. I swore that I’d never own another scope without ZS, but I’m making do for the money I saved.
SS 5-20: The magnification ring on the SS is really hard to find and turn without breaking cheekweld. A cattail is a necessity. Other than that all the controls were placed well and worked as they should. I did notice that the focus and parallax settings were different for both scopes I’ve seen. In other words, when parallax is properly set, the scope in not properly focused and vice versa. I really like the locking ocular. I wish more companies offered this. Lack of a ZS may be a concern to some, but with 10 mil/rev it’s less of an issue.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Optical Performance.
</span>
For this segment of the evaluation, I placed the following chart at 100 yds. I've also spent hours laying behind each one and have included my general subjective comments about my experience.
What I looked for here was the smallest set of 3 bars that the scope could resolve as well as general attributes such as edge sharpness, overall brightness and contrast chromatic aberration and edge to edge sharpness. Most of us err on the side of the subjective, but one of the things I learned in this evaluation is that subjective evaluation does have its place.
All scopes were set at 20x (the Bushy was set to 21x and NF to 22x)and were 100 yds. from the target.
Razor: either the ocular upgrade really improved the performance of this scope or I got two really good examples. They are much sharper and crisp and contrasty than the last example I had. Colors were reproduced accurately and have a little "pop". I could easily resolve down to the "5" in the "-2" row (dead center of chart)and depending on atmospherics, could resolve the "6" bars. This scope now rivals the SS for glass quality and for under $2000 both offer excellent glass that is enjoyable to look through and does everything I would ask a scope to do very well, including low light performance. Just the faintest hint of CA. I would call this a tie for first…
SS 5-20 HD: This scope was nothing short of amazing when it came to optical performance. Crisp. Sharp. Bright. Contrasty. Colors are accurate. Very little CA. Simply amazing for a sub-$2000 scope . Very similar to the Razor with the improved ocular. I could easily resolve down to the "5" in the "-2" row (dead center of chart)and depending on atmospherics, could resolve the "6" bars.
NXS 5-22 – Although the NXS has good resolution, the glass isn’t nearly quite the visceral experience that the Razor and SS give. The light is a little “flatter” and colors don’t pop as much. If anything it looks just a touch “hazier” than the first two. CA is in line with the first two. I could easily resolve down to the "5" in the "-2" row (dead center of chart).
DMR G2 3-21: <span style="font-weight: bold">EDIT:</span> This is the second scope of this type I've owned. The first was an HDMR H59. I returned it for full refund because of exactly the sort of IQ issues observed on this DMR G2.
This was only disappointing attribute I could find on this scope. Compared to the Razor and SS the glass is poor. Light is very flat and colors appear as if they would on an overcast day with a distinct blue-grey cast. There is a LOT of chromatic aberration which I find highly distracting when looking at a white steel plate on a bright day or trying to count points on a bucks rack. It minimizes a lot if you center your eye perfectly behind the scope, but as you move your eye off center even slighty, the very distinct purple fringe will follow your eye around the center. This is the second Bushnell 3-21 I’ve owned. The first was an HDMR with the H59 and I sent it back to Horus as defective. The glass looked just like this model. I sent this example to Todd Froloff at Bushnell, explaining that I was going to be doing a review on it and wanted to make sure that I represented their product accurately. It was returned to me untouched as “within specification”. When I spoke with Todd, he stated that what I was seeing was as the result of a design compromise to enhance performance in other areas by adjusting the coatings on the lenses. When I asked him to email me the exact areas that were supposedly enhanced, as well as the exact verbiage so I could effectively test these supposed enhancements and represent the advantages to anyone who might read this review, I never received anything back. My personal opinion is that Bushnell made an executive decision to not address this and sugar coat it with marketing speak. Either way, it's an eyes open business decision on the part of Bushnell. Whatever the case, I found the glass very disappointing for a scope in this pricepoint. Surprisingly, despite the rather bland view through the scope, resolution was actually the best of the four. I could resolve “6” quite easily even though there was CA, but this is where subjective meets objective and where Bushnell might actually be running into problems. When set up on a test bench and evaluated with test fixtures, this scope may look just fine, but get it into the field and the shortcomings are immediately apparent. Another note on the Bushy, although they call it a 3-21, it is actually more like a 4.5-21, as below about 4.5x all that happens is the image gets smaller with no increase in FOV.
Note: Before all the Bushnell owners jump in here and bash me, I know this has been hashed and rehashed. I know a lot of you are thrilled with your scopes. All I can do is test and report what I see, and the two examples I’ve had, have very poor glass. If Bushnell’s acceptance specification is very generous, this could easily account for the differences. But future buyers need to know that there is a chance you could get one like mine and Bushnell will think it’s just fine and will not replace it.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Conclusion</span>
The ocular upgrade to the Vortex Razor HD 5-20 definitely made it the scope it was intended to be. Kudos to Vortex for not making an in-process change, but notifying existing customers of the change and offering free upgrades. Other companies often respond to customer feedback by making transparent changes without notifying the installed base. With all the features the tactical community demads and outstanding glass, the Razor is definitely the frontrunner of this group *IF* you can live with the control layout and the reticle. Different scopes have very different “personalities” and what works for one, may not work for another even if it is a great scope.
Second place would have to go to the Nightforce NXS 5-22 HS ZS. If you can work with an SFP scope, this is an outstanding all around performer that does almost nothing to disappoint. But again, need will drive whether this scope is appropriate for you or not. Glass is not quite as good as the Razor or SS, but certainly did not make me cringe when I got behind it like the Bushy does every time.
Third place would have to go the Bushnell DMR G2 3-21. Why? Even with the poor glass, I find it much easier to get fast accurate elevation adjustments and the reticle is MUCH more flexible than the SS. At the end of the day, this makes it a better match scope for me and the reticle, even though it is FFP allowed me to easily shoot a bee at 100 yds. This is a very utilitarian scope. No frills, just great mechanical performance. I like to think of it as a Weaver 3-15 EMDR on steroids.
The SWFA SS 5-20 is an excellent scope at the Hide one-time (now expired) discount price of $1000. The $1500 pricepoint makes it less attractive to me given some of the nitpicky things I dislike about it. For instance, I can live with the poor glass of the Bushnell because I can buy it for less than $1100, but if it were $1750, I’d never even consider it. The $1250 non-illuminated version is a step in the right direction. I would like to see either NF quality turrets or go back to a nice, crisp 5 mil/rev. I cannot afford a mistake of .1 mil when I’m shooting a match. I would also like to see a thinner reticle with plain hashes, but again that’s a personal thing. The SS *is* the lightest of the four by a fair bit and that may be a factor to some.
Remember, a lot of this is very subjective based on personal need. If you own one of these scopes and I didn’t rate it well, it’s not a personal attack. These things are tools. They should not be an extension or expression of our ego. If it works for you. Great. But I pay for my scopes. I get nothing from the manufacturers, so I call ‘em as I see ‘em and you get my raw, unadulterated, as often as possible objective, opinion.
John
