Debating on what scope to get for PRS next year. I had a 7-35 atacr and really liked it. It definitely wasn't a tangent but haven't had much opportunity to look through a gen3 razor
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Gen3 razor vs atacr 7-35
- Thread starter DynamicAccuracy
- Start date
Haven't looked through a Atacr. But a good amount of rounds through a gen 3. It's great glass. I don't have the disposable income to justify a zco,tt...
Did you sell the atacr? Said you "liked" it. I think the 7-35 would be a great set of glass for prs.
Did you sell the atacr? Said you "liked" it. I think the 7-35 would be a great set of glass for prs.
Waiting on a Gen3. Figured I'd try one based on a lot of reviews here. I'll be able to compare it to my atacr 7-35 when it arrives.
I think PRS is more about the reticle than glass quality, atleast for me.
I've been salivating over getting a 7-35 ATACR with a Mil-C for my 300 PRC for quite some time, but my free cash has been going to other accessories, so I'm "stuck" with my M7xi. IMHO, the Mil-C is the perfect reticle for ELR work. For PRS, the EBR series of reticles is good. As @Baron85 mentions, at PRS ranges, glass quality (past a certain point) isn't as important as other features.
In either case, I'm not sure you need 35x on the upper end for PRS. Unless I'm self spotting, I don't even max out my M7xi's 27x when shooting at 2k+ yards.
In either case, I'm not sure you need 35x on the upper end for PRS. Unless I'm self spotting, I don't even max out my M7xi's 27x when shooting at 2k+ yards.
I sold it awhile back when we had our first kid to free up some funds so she could stay home a little longer. Mine had the milxt reticle and I liked it but it was a little busy. I absolutely love the g3xr fine reticle from tangent theta but I just can't really justify the cost of a tangent. Mil-c would be alot less busy but I still prefer a Christmas tree reticle for windholds when holding over. Like rocketman said I very rarely had my atacr or my current cronus btr past 22-25x even on a 1000-1200y prone stage..usually if im running a barricade I'm around 15-17x but unfortunately it seems the 5-25 atacr glass isn't as good as the 7-35. He'll most of the time here in missouri even with a tangent the mirage is bad enough that 25x is pretty soupy. As far as reticle choice between vortex and nf I don't either reticle option. I do prefer the turrets on the nf over the vortex but it's not a deal breaker.
I have both scopes. The NF has the mil-xt. The glass is very comparable between them, but my eyes like the Vortex better.
The Vortex is a recent purchase and the turrets are very good. The clicks are precise and audible with no turret lash. I like how you zero the scope and can get a perfect zero. However, I like the feel of the ATACR turrets better and the fact that they're non-locking has me giving the nod to NF on the turrets.
While I really like the mil-xt reticle, I prefer the ebr-7d reticle. It's very useful in the power ranges used in PRS type shooting. I also think that sometimes the mil-xt obscures some of my field of view when I'm running in the higher power ranges. I also prefer the way the illumination works on the Vortex.
Of course most of this stuff is just personal preference. Some things to consider are weight, the rotating ocular on the NF, and the difference in price. If you decide to go with the Razor you would be wise to order through Liberty Optics today on their sale.
The Vortex is a recent purchase and the turrets are very good. The clicks are precise and audible with no turret lash. I like how you zero the scope and can get a perfect zero. However, I like the feel of the ATACR turrets better and the fact that they're non-locking has me giving the nod to NF on the turrets.
While I really like the mil-xt reticle, I prefer the ebr-7d reticle. It's very useful in the power ranges used in PRS type shooting. I also think that sometimes the mil-xt obscures some of my field of view when I'm running in the higher power ranges. I also prefer the way the illumination works on the Vortex.
Of course most of this stuff is just personal preference. Some things to consider are weight, the rotating ocular on the NF, and the difference in price. If you decide to go with the Razor you would be wise to order through Liberty Optics today on their sale.
I agree with @Baron85 the reticle probably means more than the scope. When we’re talking scopes for PRS kind of that NF 7-35, Gen3, Mk5, line of common scopes.
A lot of guys, imo, like the Mk5 for the PR2 reticle, but the optical quality isn’t as good as NF/Vortex. I’ll state unequivocally that’s my opinion having used all 3 of those at different times but have competed with all 3.
The other differences to note are your personal thoughts on zero adjustment, zero stop, click feel. What I think you’re chasing, for PRS, is the little differences in such as the magnification process. For instance, I really do not like the way the NF mag works by rotating the entire rear optic. I think that’s an advantage to the Mk5. Just for example.
I think the vortex, due to its construction, has very little internal vibration. Because of this I always catch my trace better out of the Razors. Again, my experience and really I do not why that is, but for me it is, I’m just correlating the weight to sturdier construction?
I wouldn’t hesitate to try a Gen III it’s a great scope. That being said, if the NF has treated you well, I wouldn’t chase a different scope. Knowing your equipment and reticle through and through is the most important thing in the scope (talking higher end players). And in this instance glass to glass there’s not a lot of differences, in reference to shooting PRS.
A lot of guys, imo, like the Mk5 for the PR2 reticle, but the optical quality isn’t as good as NF/Vortex. I’ll state unequivocally that’s my opinion having used all 3 of those at different times but have competed with all 3.
The other differences to note are your personal thoughts on zero adjustment, zero stop, click feel. What I think you’re chasing, for PRS, is the little differences in such as the magnification process. For instance, I really do not like the way the NF mag works by rotating the entire rear optic. I think that’s an advantage to the Mk5. Just for example.
I think the vortex, due to its construction, has very little internal vibration. Because of this I always catch my trace better out of the Razors. Again, my experience and really I do not why that is, but for me it is, I’m just correlating the weight to sturdier construction?
I wouldn’t hesitate to try a Gen III it’s a great scope. That being said, if the NF has treated you well, I wouldn’t chase a different scope. Knowing your equipment and reticle through and through is the most important thing in the scope (talking higher end players). And in this instance glass to glass there’s not a lot of differences, in reference to shooting PRS.
I agree with much of what has been stated by @Big Timber and @JustSendit and have been using the 7-35 Atacr for about 3 years where it replaced my GenII razor. I have about a year of use on a 7-35 MK5 and just received the Gen III Razor about three weeks ago.
It would be hard for me to say there is a difference in the glass between the NF and Vortex and both are at a clear advantage to the MK5. Much of my likes on the Gen III are also personal preference. I like the locking turret, zero adjustment and that the knobs are large and only 10 mils per rotation with larger spacing between the 1/10ths. As my eye's age I find it easier to see and tell where I am on the turret while under time stress in all lighting conditions and dehydration levels
. The Reticle in the Gen 3 is still a little new to me but I like that it is a little cleaner to look through compared to the Mil-xt... with that said I prefer the design of the MK5 PR-2 the most.
I really want to love the MK5 but because of how they marked the windage turret index line and the lack of distance depth when the parallax is set have me not using that scope at matches.
The Atacr has seen 35+ matches and has always proven to be dependable but my plan for 2023 is to run the Gen III on my primary rifle because I have had a few occasions where I had to spend a second or two longer focusing on the elevation knob to verify I was where I wanted to be.
It would be hard for me to say there is a difference in the glass between the NF and Vortex and both are at a clear advantage to the MK5. Much of my likes on the Gen III are also personal preference. I like the locking turret, zero adjustment and that the knobs are large and only 10 mils per rotation with larger spacing between the 1/10ths. As my eye's age I find it easier to see and tell where I am on the turret while under time stress in all lighting conditions and dehydration levels
. The Reticle in the Gen 3 is still a little new to me but I like that it is a little cleaner to look through compared to the Mil-xt... with that said I prefer the design of the MK5 PR-2 the most.I really want to love the MK5 but because of how they marked the windage turret index line and the lack of distance depth when the parallax is set have me not using that scope at matches.
The Atacr has seen 35+ matches and has always proven to be dependable but my plan for 2023 is to run the Gen III on my primary rifle because I have had a few occasions where I had to spend a second or two longer focusing on the elevation knob to verify I was where I wanted to be.
Last edited:
Those two will be hard to judge a clear winner. IMO, it comes down to reticle preference, and I like the Mil-C, Mil-R and Mil-XT better than an EBR. Others will like EBR better.
A good friend shoots a ZCO, gen 3 razor, xtr pro, and a 624i. He had a 7-35 atacr. He ranks the glass in the order listed, says the atacr was probably around the xtr pro, give it take. For the money says the razor is hard to beat
I saw somewhere that it fell at approx 9.8meters per second per second. Don't quote me on that, though.
Having spent time with both, I purchased a Razor G3. Played with a ZCO last weekend and it didn't leave me wanting.
I've had an atacr before. I liked it. After seeing that they're very comparable scopes I'd rather have the one I know I liked over one I'm not sure about. Plus I liked the rotating ocular for magnification adjustment. I loved the turrets and reticle was nice. Plus you can pickup a used atacr cheaper than a gen3 razor since they're so new
Where can you get a new or used atacr at 2000-2400$ I can tell you where to get a new gen3 razor for that price, as I have a few.
Msrp, 4000$, standard street price 3000$, if you know where to look 2200$.
Well, the same force that brought it to that spot holds it in place.
All in good fun, man. I hope you get the answer you were asking for about the durability and such. If it's anything like the Gen II, it won't matter much how many inches it's acted upon by gravity.
Hit up Scott at @LibertyOptics . Hes running a sale for the next 2 hours today. He has the best pricing on Vortex, Burris and Steiner most of the time.
Pick a reticle and you'll be solid with either one
And I'd be happy to answer any questions you have at 916-628-3490
^^^ Richard makes a good point. The glass in both scopes are not going to let you down, the new turret fix from Vortex finally puts the Gen3 back in the running but I do think the ATACR has "better" feeling turrets if that is a deal breaker, but ATACR has an ocular housing that turns with the mag ring which can be a pain (especially if you like caps). Gen3 also has locking turrets if that makes a difference. Vortex is going to offer you more FOV at the bottom end, but if your plan is to use both scopes in the 12-20x range I don't think that is going to matter much so it really comes down to reticle choice, and if you think you'll be using above 20x in PRS style long range competitions, you might want to talk with some other competitors - having above 20x is helpful for LD and rimfire but not helpful for dynamic shooting sports where FOV is going to be your friend as well as taming some of the effects of mirage which are only exacerbated by higher magnifications.
