Rifle Scopes For those who have used both- Razor Hd Gen2 vs. ATACR

[glock_nor_cal]

I’ve lurked a long time on here. Just signed up.

I can get a Razor HD Gen 2 4.5 x 27 for $1300 less than an ATACR 7-35. This is going on an MPA 6.5 Creedmoor. Shooting occasionally out to 1000 with most shooting at 300-500.

All my long distance shooting experience at this distance was shooting an RPR 6.5 Creedmoor with a PST GenII 5-25. The rifle is new to me and I’m looking for good glass. I want to be able to take it out in the national forrest at shoot farther distances as time allows. Am I right I’m thinking there isn’t $1300 in difference here?? I’m willing to buy once cry once but i wonder if it’s needed? Appreciate some advice. Thanks

 

[koshkin]

I would stick with the Razor Gen 2 and keep the difference.

ILya

 

[acudaowner]

for 200 more delta stryker hd 5x50x56 34 mm could be an option at $1,560 or cheaper if you can find it i have not sadly . I also have not been able to see through the scope yet but hear its better glass than the sightron 10x50x60 30mm than i have now that was a 1050 scope that so far is ok to look through
but can see the what i think is the limitation of the light getting in the tube at full mag it gets much darker than i would like.

 

[koshkin]

Delta 5-50x is a SFP scope. The scopes he is asking about are FFP. The relevant Stryker to that is the 4.5-30x56 whcih I happen to have and like quite a bit.

Also note that $1300 is the difference between prices. He did not say how much he is actually paying.

ILya

 

[eklarsen]

You will not regret the Razor in any way, I have three of them and they are the bomb. However I haven't personally shot the ATACR LGBQT or whatever it is so I may be biased.

 

[koshkin]

You will not regret the Razor in any way, I have three of them and they are the bomb. However I haven't personally shot the ATACR LGBQT or whatever it is so I may be biased.

I have a fair amount of mileage with both Razor and ATACR and both are good scopes. However, I do not think $1300 price difference in this case is justifiable.

ILya

 

[Yerman]

I have both. As long as you are not at the extremes of the turret dial, the GenII will work fine. If you pan to take it to longer distances, I would not get it.

Of course, your turret travel will be highly dependent on the base and ring combo you get. I shoot my Gen II on a 6.5CM on a 40moa base and 0moa rings and frequently dial it to 22-26 mils, ~1800 yards to ~2000 yards, respectively. Max travel is ~26 mils for my setup...can’t remember exact. At 26 mils plus a couple mils if holdover for 2000yards, the scope it boarderline unusable. At ~22mils, the picture starts to deteriorate quickly. Something about the light bending at sharp angles when you dial that much.

It’s been back to Vortex twice and they keep saying “it’s fine, any scope dialed to the extreme travel will look bad.”

My ATACR disagrees. I’ll be selling my Gen II soon.

If you will never shoot past 1000yards, get a 40moa base and GenII and call it a day. If you want a top tier scope, get the ATACR.

BTW, if you plan to use a 20moa base, you will loose about 6 mils which will put you around 20-21mils of max travel, deteriorated sight picture around 16-17 mils. 16 mils will take you to about 1500 yards before the scope starts to crap out in image quality and ability to dial parallax. A 40moa base will allow you to dial further and stay around the optical center of your scope.

 

[smokeon]

If money is no option I'd get the ATACR in a heartbeat.
Having said that : for the lesser distances you mention the Gen II will be just fine.

But but once, cry once - the ATACR will never limit you in your shooting...ever.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Unless you prefer the mil-c or mil-xt over the other reticle options, nothing wrong with the razor if saving $1300 is of great value to you.

$1300 can buy a lot of ammo or a week long training course, another action, etc etc. So to some that is more valuable, others have the $1300 to spend on the atacr without an issue.

 

[Timo Turl]

I have both. Thinking of swapping my Gen II for another ATACR.

 

[10xk9]

I have a couple of each , I honestly prefer the Razor Gen II over my ATACR in a few areas (mostly eyebox), I also prefer the Vortex EBR2C reticle over the NF MOAR reticle. Both scopes are excellent quality but if you’re only shooting to 1000 yards I’d go with the Razor.
The ATACR will parallax down to 10 yards while the RAZOR 4.5-27 will only parallax down to 32 yards. For my NRL22 rifles this is the only reason I use ATACRs on them instead of Razors.

 

[jbell]

I have owned a few of both, and agree with the general consensus here the ATACR is not worth $1300 more. However if $ was no object I would get the ATACR out of the 2 options.

 

[patriot07]

I have owned a few of both, and agree with the general consensus here the ATACR is not worth $1300 more. However if $ was no object I would get the ATACR out of the 2 options.

Agreed. If money doesn't matter, I like the ATACR a hair more. If money matters at all, it's not worth $1300. For the OP's uses, I'm not even sure there would be a noticeable difference.

 

[JSTARSZ]

I have a Gen II Razor and had a 7-35 ATACR. The Nightforce has very impressive glass and is way better than the NXS series. I did hate that the occular ring moves on the Nightforce but I guess I knew that going in. When all was said and done the Razor doesn't give up a whole lot to the ATACR so I sold the Nightforce and pocketed the difference. And, I have access to a farm to shoot out to 1500 yards and I never have felt short-changed by my decision of selling the Nightforce.

 

[glock_nor_cal]

Thanks. That settles it for me. I’m going with the Razor

 

[shaun1826]

I have both. As long as you are not at the extremes of the turret dial, the GenII will work fine. If you pan to take it to longer distances, I would not get it.

Of course, your turret travel will be highly dependent on the base and ring combo you get. I shoot my Gen II on a 6.5CM on a 40moa base and 0moa rings and frequently dial it to 22-26 mils, ~1800 yards to ~2000 yards, respectively. Max travel is ~26 mils for my setup...can’t remember exact. At 26 mils plus a couple mils if holdover for 2000yards, the scope it boarderline unusable. At ~22mils, the picture starts to deteriorate quickly. Something about the light bending at sharp angles when you dial that much.

It’s been back to Vortex twice and they keep saying “it’s fine, any scope dialed to the extreme travel will look bad.”

My ATACR disagrees. I’ll be selling my Gen II soon.

If you will never shoot past 1000yards, get a 40moa base and GenII and call it a day. If you want a top tier scope, get the ATACR.

BTW, if you plan to use a 20moa base, you will loose about 6 mils which will put you around 20-21mils of max travel, deteriorated sight picture around 16-17 mils. 16 mils will take you to about 1500 yards before the scope starts to crap out in image quality and ability to dial parallax. A 40moa base will allow you to dial further and stay around the optical center of your scope.

Yerman, how many mils from bottoming/topping out do you start noticing a reduction in image quality? I’m trying to get an idea of where scopes start to break down in image quality. See my post if interested.

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...ation-near-vertical-elevation-limits.6927734/

 

[glock_nor_cal]

Appreciate the help guys. last question: Which Spuhr mount do I want for the Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27x56 to mount on the MPA 6.5 Vector rail?

 

[smokeon]

Chat to Milehigh - or email SPUHR direct...they'll be able to advise you on which mount to go for.

Can't beat a SPUHR- they're fantastic!

 

[diverdon]

Vortex Razor, even at the same price.

 

[Shadow knows]

Not to hijack but it sounds like OP made his decision and I am stuck between these two scopes myself. Since this has already started I have one more question about brightness. I went into the local box store and looked out the window at dusk and it seemed as though the atacr wasn’t quite as bright.
I am getting older now and my eyes are just staring to change. Problem is I have some issue with a blind spot in my right eye in the right edge of it at night time. The more light it is out the more it is gone and my vision is fine. Eye docs and brain docs have no idea.
So brightness has moved up on my priority list vs me being able to see the numbers which became an issue this last year.

I like the new razor2 reticle and atacr ‘s new reticle so that will not be an issue. I like the feel of both turrets. Costs isn’t a big deal as cry once applies but for those that actually have has them outside how do you feel they compare in brightness?

 

[texag0842]

ATACR by a wide margin if it's my money.

 

[Stevo3556]

Mr Glock,

Thanks for asking this question. I have several Vortex Razors in Gen I and II and am shopping for a NF 7-35 and was wondering the same. I am buying NF to at least try and won't sell the Razor until I decide I like the NF. Hope to shoot regularly to 1500 + with the 300NM and think the extra power might be nice. I really didn't like the reticles that most of the scopes have. All my GenII's are the EBR-2C's, RZR-42706. That has been my personal favorite. I like the new Mil-XT? That sealed my decision to try NF along with the 7-35 power, and just wanted to try another scope.....

I can tell you that I have had the Gen II Razors for over two years and have shot a few thousand rounds with them in a three 260 Rems, 300WM and 300NM. We always shoot out to 1,000 yards and sometimes move back where we have 1200 yards. Have recently used the scope to shoot 1500 with the 300NM. I am using a 20 MOA bases or mounts and have never seen an issue with not having enough elevation or a problem with clarity. Maybe I didn't need enough internal adjustment to see it, yet....

I can also say that I was mad at Vortex and thought their scope broke on two consecutive shoots, Saturdays. So I was in search of a new scope company. I tried a S&B and Leupold Mark 5. Still preferred the Vortex. Found I broke the scope, twice! Vortex over nighted me the scope after repairing it so I would have it for the shoot the following Saturday even though we decided I must have damaged it.

Vortex is great with questions on what base/scope mount to use as well. I have called them a couple times to ask what was needed so I didn't buy the wrong mounts and didn't miss a day at the range.

I don't think you will be unhappy with the Razor Gen II and I have seen several great deals on them in the PX here.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[Stevo3556]

Not to hijack but it sounds like OP made his decision and I am stuck between these two scopes myself. Since this has already started I have one more question about brightness. I went into the local box store and looked out the window at dusk and it seemed as though the atacr wasn’t quite as bright.
I am getting older now and my eyes are just staring to change. Problem is I have some issue with a blind spot in my right eye in the right edge of it at night time. The more light it is out the more it is gone and my vision is fine. Eye docs and brain docs have no idea.
So brightness has moved up on my priority list vs me being able to see the numbers which became an issue this last year.

I like the new razor2 reticle and atacr ‘s new reticle so that will not be an issue. I like the feel of both turrets. Costs isn’t a big deal as cry once applies but for those that actually have has them outside how do you feel they compare in brightness?

Shadow,

I can't answer your question personally as I don't have a NF yet, however, in researching whether I want to try one I found a thread on SH where the question was asked the differences between the 7-35 and the 5-25, was it worth the extra money to sell the 5-25 one and buy the 7-35. At least one person said that they thought the 7-35 turned down to the same magnification was brighter than the 5-25. Might be a good thread to answer your questions re the 7-35.

Steve

 

[Shadow knows]

Shadow,

I can't answer your question personally as I don't have a NF yet, however, in researching whether I want to try one I found a thread on SH where the question was asked the differences between the 7-35 and the 5-25, was it worth the extra money to sell the 5-25 one and buy the 7-35. At least one person said that they thought the 7-35 turned down to the same magnification was brighter than the 5-25. Might be a good thread to answer your questions re the 7-35.

Steve

I will look into that power also now. Thanks.

 

[Friday]

Nightforce costs a bit more but I’ve never had buyers remorse lol never had issues with nightforce from SHV through ATACR but I have had many issues with vortex. and I’m sure there are people who would say the complete opposite. But for me if I don’t buy nightforce I buy Steiner, I recently bought the P4Xi to put on my 6.5 CM and love it it’s a 34mm tube with big ol fat chew can turrets I’ve been impressed with it thus far.

 

[DOA]

I was in the same boat and decided on another Gen 2 Razor. While I can afford a TT, S&B, NF, etc. there is a a point where there is diminishing returns.

 

[Muscleminded]

I’ve shot both. I have two gen 2 razors. I have zero complaints and I will pick up another in the future. You will not be disappointed. Never had a tracking issue or anything. All you need is a 20 moa base to get you well past 1k unless you are shooting a round not suitable for the distance.

 

[shark101au]

Got rid of my Razor II 4.5-27 for an ATACR 7-35.....absolutely no regrets, a definitely superior scope. To me the ATACR has better pop and performance in low light. If money is a factor then you'll get . alot of scope with the Razor.

 

[Big Ern]

I have had both. The atacr is nice, but I just don’t think it is worth the extra $$. While the atacr has a little better glass, I hate the magnification turning eyepiece on the NF. I much prefer the Vortex reticles, turrets, illumination setting, and the way you set the zero stop.

(Side note: i prefer my S&B over both of these. A used S&B is very affordable at the moment compared to a couple years ago)