<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Introduction</span>:
</span>
I've had my Vortex Razor for about 10 months now and it has definitely become the standard by which I judge other scopes. It has some things that I'm less than thrilled with, but more than makes up for its weaknesses with the fact that it is built like a tank and has an awesome (if a little thick for my tastes) reticle. It does NOT have the ocular upgrade, and will go to Vortex for that work now that I have another scope, so some outcomes may be different, dependent upon that upgrade. I will update this thread if any significant changes are noted.
I've gone through a few scopes in the last few months looking for a less expensive alternative to the Razor. Ideally with all the same features, for less cost. Without question, a tall order. The 6-24 PST seemed like the ideal candidate, but in addition to being a little short on internal elevation, it left me less than confident that it would hold up to long term everyday use. I tried a Weaver 3-15 Tactical, which I loved. It was *almost* perfect for my criteria, but lacked the magnification on the high end I was looking for. I would still have that scope, though, if SWFA had not come out with the new SS 5-20 HD.
If the price had been $1500, I may still have the Weaver. I'd have a difficult time justifying 2x price for 33% more magnification. But the SH/SWFA group buy price made it a no-brainer. I ordered mine the minute FB hit 5000 likes and received the scope on June 28.
I promised Chris that I'd do a side-by-side with my Razor when I got the SS, so here goes:
(Disclaimer: as I stated in my review on the PST's and Weaver, I am not an optics expert and I don't do scope reviews for a living. But I am a photographer and a shooter and an ex-engineer, so I have given my best shot of communicating to the rest of you, as objectively as possible, my impressions as I used and looked through these scopes side-by-side. This is not meant to be an exhaustive review of each scope, but rather what I described: my impression from using them side-by-side in one sitting.)
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Testing:</span></span>
When most people think of scope performance, they think optics. I don't. For the most part, if I can see through it, I can use it if it does its mechanical job the way it should.
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.)
<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:
SS 5-20 HD - perfect
Razor HD 5-20 - perfect
<span style="font-weight: bold">
Reticle Design.</span>
This is a very subjective topic. In this case both the reticles were very useable and unobtrusive. Both of them would allow a shooter to engage targets and hold for wind or elevation without confusion. I do prefer the thickness of the SS over the Razor, but prefer the hashed reticle of the Razor over the "diamonds" on the SS. YMMV.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Mechanical Robustness.</span>
Again, very subjective at this point (due to the lack of history) but both of these scopes send the same message loud and clear: Stout. They both have an overwhelming sense of strength and robustness.
The Razor to date, has borne this out. The SS will have to prove itself with time.
<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.
I really did not like the location of the illumination knob on the Weaver 3-15. But apparently I got used to it, because the illumination knob on the SS not only did not bother me, I actually prefer it now to the location on the Razor. The SS is a little more streamlined for it and it falls more naturally under the hand than one located on the ocular.
Both have the handy "off" setting between each level... a nice touch.
Both scopes have very nice, albeit very different turrets. The Razor is 5 mil/rev and when compared to the SS, the adjustments seem really far apart. But they are VERY distinct and there is never a question about where you are on the knob.
The SS is 10 mil/rev. I love that. I shoot over 1500 yds. often and trying to keep track of all those revolutions can be dizzying. The Razor has an excellent zero stop, which helps a lot, but 10 mil/rev. is an enormous upgrade for me. One downside to the closely spaced adjustments was that combined with just the slightest amount of backlash, or slop, there were a couple times when I got lost between "0" and "-.1" mils. This is not a huge deal, but it did get my attention. It's possible that I received one that is just on the edge of spec, or out of spec in this regard, and will be interesting to see if others experience this phenomenon. Other than that little quirk, the turrets on the SS are nothing short of amazing. Great audible and physical feedback. Good knob ergonomics. SWFA did their homework here.
The magnification ring on the SS is really hard to find and turn without breaking cheekweld. A cattail will become standard fair. The Razor mag ring is a little stiff, but the rubber ring sets it apart from the rest of the ocular and makes it possible to change while looking through the scope.
Other than that, all controls worked as required and did not bring significant notice to themselves.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Optical Performance.
</span>
For this segment of the evaluation, I placed the following chart at 100 yds.
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.
Both scopes were set at 20x and were 100 yds. from the target.
Razor - could resolve down to the "5" in the "-2" row (dead center of chart). Good brightness and contrast. Good line sharpness. Overall sharpness and focus begins to fall off about 60% of the way between the aiming point and edge of FOV. Significant Chromatic aberration that moves quickly from red on one edge to blue on the other if the eye is moved even slightly behind the occular. This scope is very hard to get a sight picture with on 20x. (Vortex is fully aware of this issue and has redesigned the ocular as a free upgrade. When this scope is retrofitted, I will post an update)
SS 5-20 HD - 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 was nothing short of amazing when it came to optical performance. Crisp. Sharp. Bright. Contrasty. No chromatic aberration that I could detect. Simply amazing for a sub-$1000 scope (more that once this scope reminded me of the Weaver 3-15. I would not doubt they share some heritage). Final note here... the SS was a *LOT* less stressful to shoot groups with. I noticed that when I'm really concentrating for extended sessions, the Razor leaves me drained. The SS did not. And perhaps coincidentally, but probably not, I shot the tightest 5 round group I've ever shot with the first 5 rounds after zeroing the SS.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Conclusion</span>
I have to say that I was quite pleasantly surprised by just how well the SS stacked up against the much more expensive Razor. I'm always suspicious of "hype", but in this case, it would seem warranted. There may be specific needs that require the use of features on the Razor (such as zero stop or the additional elevation), but overall I cannot imagine why anyone would need to pay the extra for a Razor when they could own a SS 5-20 HD for less than $1500. The only question mark is longevity and long-term reliability... The SS line has a lot going for it, but this scope must still earn its stripes in this area. Still, I would not hesitate to highly recommend this scope.
John
</span>
I've had my Vortex Razor for about 10 months now and it has definitely become the standard by which I judge other scopes. It has some things that I'm less than thrilled with, but more than makes up for its weaknesses with the fact that it is built like a tank and has an awesome (if a little thick for my tastes) reticle. It does NOT have the ocular upgrade, and will go to Vortex for that work now that I have another scope, so some outcomes may be different, dependent upon that upgrade. I will update this thread if any significant changes are noted.
I've gone through a few scopes in the last few months looking for a less expensive alternative to the Razor. Ideally with all the same features, for less cost. Without question, a tall order. The 6-24 PST seemed like the ideal candidate, but in addition to being a little short on internal elevation, it left me less than confident that it would hold up to long term everyday use. I tried a Weaver 3-15 Tactical, which I loved. It was *almost* perfect for my criteria, but lacked the magnification on the high end I was looking for. I would still have that scope, though, if SWFA had not come out with the new SS 5-20 HD.
If the price had been $1500, I may still have the Weaver. I'd have a difficult time justifying 2x price for 33% more magnification. But the SH/SWFA group buy price made it a no-brainer. I ordered mine the minute FB hit 5000 likes and received the scope on June 28.
I promised Chris that I'd do a side-by-side with my Razor when I got the SS, so here goes:
(Disclaimer: as I stated in my review on the PST's and Weaver, I am not an optics expert and I don't do scope reviews for a living. But I am a photographer and a shooter and an ex-engineer, so I have given my best shot of communicating to the rest of you, as objectively as possible, my impressions as I used and looked through these scopes side-by-side. This is not meant to be an exhaustive review of each scope, but rather what I described: my impression from using them side-by-side in one sitting.)
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Testing:</span></span>
When most people think of scope performance, they think optics. I don't. For the most part, if I can see through it, I can use it if it does its mechanical job the way it should.
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.)
<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:
SS 5-20 HD - perfect
Razor HD 5-20 - perfect
<span style="font-weight: bold">
Reticle Design.</span>
This is a very subjective topic. In this case both the reticles were very useable and unobtrusive. Both of them would allow a shooter to engage targets and hold for wind or elevation without confusion. I do prefer the thickness of the SS over the Razor, but prefer the hashed reticle of the Razor over the "diamonds" on the SS. YMMV.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Mechanical Robustness.</span>
Again, very subjective at this point (due to the lack of history) but both of these scopes send the same message loud and clear: Stout. They both have an overwhelming sense of strength and robustness.
The Razor to date, has borne this out. The SS will have to prove itself with time.
<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.
I really did not like the location of the illumination knob on the Weaver 3-15. But apparently I got used to it, because the illumination knob on the SS not only did not bother me, I actually prefer it now to the location on the Razor. The SS is a little more streamlined for it and it falls more naturally under the hand than one located on the ocular.
Both have the handy "off" setting between each level... a nice touch.
Both scopes have very nice, albeit very different turrets. The Razor is 5 mil/rev and when compared to the SS, the adjustments seem really far apart. But they are VERY distinct and there is never a question about where you are on the knob.
The SS is 10 mil/rev. I love that. I shoot over 1500 yds. often and trying to keep track of all those revolutions can be dizzying. The Razor has an excellent zero stop, which helps a lot, but 10 mil/rev. is an enormous upgrade for me. One downside to the closely spaced adjustments was that combined with just the slightest amount of backlash, or slop, there were a couple times when I got lost between "0" and "-.1" mils. This is not a huge deal, but it did get my attention. It's possible that I received one that is just on the edge of spec, or out of spec in this regard, and will be interesting to see if others experience this phenomenon. Other than that little quirk, the turrets on the SS are nothing short of amazing. Great audible and physical feedback. Good knob ergonomics. SWFA did their homework here.
The magnification ring on the SS is really hard to find and turn without breaking cheekweld. A cattail will become standard fair. The Razor mag ring is a little stiff, but the rubber ring sets it apart from the rest of the ocular and makes it possible to change while looking through the scope.
Other than that, all controls worked as required and did not bring significant notice to themselves.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Optical Performance.
</span>
For this segment of the evaluation, I placed the following chart at 100 yds.
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.
Both scopes were set at 20x and were 100 yds. from the target.
Razor - could resolve down to the "5" in the "-2" row (dead center of chart). Good brightness and contrast. Good line sharpness. Overall sharpness and focus begins to fall off about 60% of the way between the aiming point and edge of FOV. Significant Chromatic aberration that moves quickly from red on one edge to blue on the other if the eye is moved even slightly behind the occular. This scope is very hard to get a sight picture with on 20x. (Vortex is fully aware of this issue and has redesigned the ocular as a free upgrade. When this scope is retrofitted, I will post an update)
SS 5-20 HD - 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 was nothing short of amazing when it came to optical performance. Crisp. Sharp. Bright. Contrasty. No chromatic aberration that I could detect. Simply amazing for a sub-$1000 scope (more that once this scope reminded me of the Weaver 3-15. I would not doubt they share some heritage). Final note here... the SS was a *LOT* less stressful to shoot groups with. I noticed that when I'm really concentrating for extended sessions, the Razor leaves me drained. The SS did not. And perhaps coincidentally, but probably not, I shot the tightest 5 round group I've ever shot with the first 5 rounds after zeroing the SS.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Conclusion</span>
I have to say that I was quite pleasantly surprised by just how well the SS stacked up against the much more expensive Razor. I'm always suspicious of "hype", but in this case, it would seem warranted. There may be specific needs that require the use of features on the Razor (such as zero stop or the additional elevation), but overall I cannot imagine why anyone would need to pay the extra for a Razor when they could own a SS 5-20 HD for less than $1500. The only question mark is longevity and long-term reliability... The SS line has a lot going for it, but this scope must still earn its stripes in this area. Still, I would not hesitate to highly recommend this scope.
John
