Rifle Scopes Is the ATACR 1-8 really worth two Razor 1-6's?

[Bakwa]

As the title implies, is the ATACR really that great of a value that it justifies the price?
I know we're comparing a FFP to a SFP here, but if I'm looking for a general purpose optic to Run N Gun with and engage targets from 25m-600m, should I save twice as much for the ATACR over a Razor? I've shot guns with both optics, and both seem very nice, but I guess I'm merely looking for people who have more experience on both to shed some light on the more nuanced aspects of each.
I'll be upgrading from a Vortex Viper PST 1-4. Either one of these two will be a noticable improvement for Run N Gun comps. I value durability over most anything else, and am willing to pay more if it means the difference of being able to trust my equipment.
I'm not rich, so choosing the ATACR would mean saving for several more months and training with a red dot until then in it's pace. For someone like me, is it worth it?

 

[Ryridesmotox]

2nd plane scopes aren't a detriment for me in those conditions. I'm either at 1x and not holding over at all, or its cranked to 6x and I'm holding. The measurements are correct at max power, which is where I need them for shots I need accuracy for. My local 3 gun match has a stage with steel that will go out to 500ish.

I would go with the razor and get a ton of ammo to train with... or hell, stay with the PST and shoot even more.

 

[RifleBlog]

No, it isn’t.

-—Person who sold their Razor 2 1-6 for ATACR and just sold the ATACR to return to Razor 1-6

 

[diverdon]

I got the Vortex when EuroOptic had them on sale. Had I known how nice this optic was I would have bought it sooner and been glad to pay a higher price.

 

[VegasHKShooter]

It is only “worth it” if it is worth it to YOU. We cannot define your needs and what you value.
I had a Razor 1-6, I now shoot the ATACR. For ME it is worth it. Reasons: 1) I use my guns professionally, my LPR May have more than paper in the scope. I value the advantage that the ATACR gives me. 2) I like the reticle much better in the ATACR. I had the JM-1 reticle in my Razor. That reticle ceased being ok for me at a certain point.
3) I like FFP for a 1-8 scope.
For the above reasons, yes, the ATACR is “worth it”.
I’m not trying to sound flippant, or be a smart ass. You just have to define your needs, then check that against the scopes offerings.

 

[Bakwa]

It is only “worth it” if it is worth it to YOU. We cannot define your needs and what you value.
I had a Razor 1-6, I now shoot the ATACR. For ME it is worth it. Reasons: 1) I use my guns professionally, my LPR May have more than paper in the scope. I value the advantage that the ATACR gives me. 2) I like the reticle much better in the ATACR. I had the JM-1 reticle in my Razor. That reticle ceased being ok for me at a certain point.
3) I like FFP for a 1-8 scope.
For the above reasons, yes, the ATACR is “worth it”.
I’m not trying to sound flippant, or be a smart ass. You just have to define your needs, then check that against the scopes offerings.

Do you notice any clarity difference or noticeable performance difference in glass quality/coating between the two? Also, do you feel like the ATACR is noticeably more reliable under adverse circumstances than the Razor? I know these are very subjective questions, but I feel the same way as Ryridesmotox does when it comes to lower power variable FFP/SFP scopes, so the FFP isn't a big seller for me.

 

[Bakwa]

No, it isn’t.

-—Person who sold their Razor 2 1-6 for ATACR and just sold the ATACR to return to Razor 1-6

Why did you go back? Which reticle do you have in your current Razor and why did you choose it?

 

[JayseM_SportOptics]

Coming from someone who deals with these everyday, I'd personally say no but I do think it's going to come down to mission. But for what I would call "normal" use, the Razor 1-6 is great for the price and does it's job extremely well.

 

[RifleBlog]

Why did you go back? Which reticle do you have in your current Razor and why did you choose it?

For exactly the reason you did. I would rather have two Razors on two guns than one ATACR. I had the old Bushnell SMRS 1-8 FFP and hated FFP in a LPVO and thought maybe the NF would solve my reticle issues and it just didn’t. I just don’t like FFP in a LPVO capacity, it’s a compromise on both the low and high ends in my mind.

I fully realize that it’s personal preference on reticle / focal plane so I’m not trying to claim that anyone is right or wrong.

I previously had the JM1 reticle and went with both the pure hash reticle in addition to another JM1 scope the second time around.

With regards to durability, there are photos floating around of some high-end DEVGRU / CAG cool-guys using them by choice in theater. They are built like tanks.

 

[JayseM_SportOptics]

For exactly the reason you did. I would rather have two Razors on two guns than one ATACR. I had the old Bushnell SMRS 1-8 FFP and hated FFP in a LPVO and thought maybe the NF would solve my reticle issues and it just didn’t. I just don’t like FFP in a LPVO capacity, it’s a compromise on both the low and high ends in my mind.

I fully realize that it’s personal preference on reticle / focal plane so I’m not trying to claim that anyone is right or wrong.

I previously had the JM1 reticle and went with both the pure hash reticle in addition to another JM1 scope the second time around.

With regards to durability, there are photos floating around of some high-end DEVGRU / CAG cool-guys using them by choice in theater. They are built like tanks.

Completely agree with the sentiment that in most cases, FFP doesn't belong in a LPVO.

 

[Bakwa]

I think these posts answered most of my questions.
Thanks gents.
I already love the idea of the Razor. Just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing out on some secret with the ATACR 1-8.

 

[JWG]

ATACR is going to be a better optic in the long run, once you put about 35-4500 rounds on it.

 

[Aescobar17]

ATACR is going to be a better optic in the long run, once you put about 35-4500 rounds on it.

Care to explain?

 

[Aescobar17]

I’ve had 3 Gen II 1-6s, and now run a NX8 1-8. I’m not a fan of the ATACR 1-8 at all. Optically it is an excellent optic. The mag ring is the largest deterrent for me though, It’s extremely stiff and slow to adjust mag, the reticle is excellent though. The other downside for me is the size of the ATACR. I wasn’t a fan of the weight of the Gen II 1-6, but it had a tolerable size. The ATACR is just as heavy, but even larger size. I normally run a LPVO or two on 11.5” rifles with a can, and the Gen II made them feel like a pig. The NX8 is excellent in that aspect, with the only downsides being the tighter eyebox and slightly lesser reticle than the ATACR. The size, weight, reticle, mag ring, and glass is all better than my Gen IIs. I’ve convinced several buddies that bought the ATACR to sell their ATACR and buy the NX8 after running mine for a bit.

 

[JWG]

Care to explain?

I've heard from multiple shooters that the Vortex optics (Razor Gen 2 1-6) will begin to lose the ability to retain zero, or dial accurate adjustments, over time. I have not heard this about Nightforce.

 

[RifleBlog]

I've heard from multiple shooters that the Vortex optics (Razor Gen 2 1-6) will begin to lose the ability to retain zero, or dial accurate adjustments, over time. I have not heard this about Nightforce.

I’m pretty sure that’s false.

They’re made under the same roof. Not to say everything coming out of that factory is of equivalent quality, but both the Razor line and NF have stellar reputations and have performed in really gnarly conditions.

The issue with Vortex is that they make stuff from $175 up to $2500. People see a $175 scope fail and immediately tout the whole product line as being equal quality.

That, and for whatever reason, Vortex has become the new company to hate on because it is so ubiquitous; Magpul has had the same fate in the AR15 world.

 

[Ryridesmotox]

People dial on the razor 1-6?

I usually just SWAG that shit. Inside 500 at most multigun matches it's not really necessary to dial for me. But that's just my 2 cents.

I used the strike eagle for a looooong time on my AR15 and never had a problem. The razor is way better though

 

[Steel+Killer]

I've heard from multiple shooters that the Vortex optics (Razor Gen 2 1-6) will begin to lose the ability to retain zero, or dial accurate adjustments, over time. I have not heard this about Nightforce.

Even if that statement were true (I don't think it is) one could easily send it back to Vortex and they would either repair or replace it within a week. I also agree with the others I like SFP on a LPV scope and I have both at the moment.

 

[craigos]

yes, glass is amazing in the NF

 

[VegasHKShooter]

I personally had the Razor for about 2years. I shot the heck out of it. I finished a Safariland 3 Gun Match with it in June here in Vegas (think 100 + degrees a day). The scope is beyond tough.
I shoot almost exclusively Nightforce now, but NOT because the Razor had any durability issues.

And yes, I dial my LPVO. Yesterday late afternoon I was hitting steel at 750 yds with my KAC LPR using my ATACR 1-8.
9.3 mils elevation, 2 mils for wind. Was hammering a steel IPSC at that distance. The ATACR really shines there because of the extra power.

To JWG: that sounds like some Internet bullshit, or rumor mill crap. I have NEVER heard that, and I work and live the gun industry.
Razors are tanks, but they don’t “lose zero” over time for no reason.

 

[Aescobar17]

I've heard from multiple shooters that the Vortex optics (Razor Gen 2 1-6) will begin to lose the ability to retain zero, or dial accurate adjustments, over time. I have not heard this about Nightforce.

I haven’t had this issue, but I also never dialed my Gen IIs. I don’t dial my NX8 either. For the ranges I use them at I mostly just hold, as it’s my faster optic and rifle. Typical usage for me is 600 and in. I’ve killed a prairie dog out to 678 with my NX8 though, and had multiple around 600 with my Gen II.

 

[SRPowah]

I love FFP, but I am perfectly content with the SFP in my NF 2.5-10x. If I really need the reticle, I will be on 10x. On a 1-8 or even 1-6, FFP just doesn't make much sense unless the reticle just happens to work flawlessly for the shooter's personal preference.

I've heard from multiple shooters that the Vortex optics (Razor Gen 2 1-6) will begin to lose the ability to retain zero, or dial accurate adjustments, over time. I have not heard this about Nightforce.

I think this is one of those times that its best to not say anything unless you are the one that personally witnessed/experienced the issue.

 

[JWG]

Well that is the dumbest thing I have heard. Designed to loose zero, eventually. Sounds like something a fudd says.

I'm not going to name drop as to who said it because they don't want to be involved in the he said/she said shenanigans that the discussion would (already has) turned into. Someone asked me a question, and I answered it, and I don't plan to elaborate further. If that frustrates, then apologies.

 

[hypno02]

I’ve owned the vudu, mk6, rzrg2, both mk 8’s, and the nx8.

Never owned the atacr. At this point if I could have only one 5.56 optic for sub 600yd work I’d take either the mk6 or nx8. Put the cmr-w 5.56 in the capped nx8 and tat that point there’s no other option.

 

[Powdermonkey4]

Depends on your end use and apologies as cannot say for Comp use.

Mate has the Atacr on his bolt .308 for pig hunting - works well at close distance and works well at long distance. 2 caveats being that in thick bush with lots of pigs the reduced fov on 1x is a slight hinderance in the FFP and the large tube does look a little out of place. Upside is if you want to take long shots at +600m the FFP and x8 does make it easier.

Kahles or razor 1-6 - great for in close on pigs in thick bush and I would personally say this is better for hunting application, use out to 600m or when the 6x starts to limit the distance with your eyes.

Durability, nightforce would be the tougher scope but in reality unless you are planning on using the scope as a hammer you should be gtg.

 

[Newbiesupremo]

Put the cmr-w 5.56 in the capped nx8 and tat that point there’s no other option.

I really wish more companies would put usable wind holds in LVPO reticles.

I traded an NX8 for a k16i. I would sell it immediately for an NX8 with a cmr-ish reticle.

 

[JWG]

I really wish more companies would put usable wind holds in LVPO reticles.

I traded an NX8 for a k16i. I would sell it immediately for an NX8 with a cmr-ish reticle.

I really wish we could get a horus type. Not into caliber/load specific reticles.

 

[79steeler]

NX8 for the win. Price, clarity, toughness, weight, overall a great scope.

 

[SkyScrapin]

Have both and shoot both. The HD sits on a 10.5” AR and the ATACR sits on a Scar 17. They are both great option optically and mechanically. Like many, I never dial with a LPVO and naturally the capped turrets are perfect for me. The HD had a slightly more forgiving eye box than the ATACR but it’s almost splitting hairs.

The only negative for both is the added weight. They really are pigs.... if you desire a light weight option, look elsewhere.

As to the HD losing zero - I LOL’d. That’s fake news.

 

[Bakwa]

At this point if I could have only one 5.56 optic for sub 600yd work I’d take either the mk6 or nx8. Put the cmr-w 5.56 in the capped nx8 and tat that point there’s no other option.

Trying to figure out this cmr-w reticle thing. I'm not seeing that as an option anywhere.
The only thing that has been steering me away from the NX8's for years now has been the super large .36mrad center dot of the reticle. Not good for percision work at longer distance at all. That, and every once in a while I'll hear someone say that in the maxed out 8 power that clarity suffers.

 

[plong]

Trying to figure out this cmr-w reticle thing. I'm not seeing that as an option anywhere.
The only thing that has been steering me away from the NX8's for years now has been the super large .5mrad center dot of the reticle. Not good for percision work at longer distance at all. That, and every once in a while I'll hear someone say that in the maxed out 8 power that clarity suffers.

CMR-W = Mk6 1-6

 

[Bakwa]

CMR-W = Mk6 1-6

Yes, I just wasn't sure if hypno had a source for a special run of NX8's with non standard reticles such as the CMR-W or something like that.

 

[SRPowah]

Yes, I just wasn't sure if hypno had a source for a special run of NX8's with non standard reticles such as the CMR-W or something like that.

He meant that if someone offered a combination similar, it would be the obvious choice for almost everyone.

 

[Bakwa]

He meant that if someone offered a combination similar, it would be the obvious choice for almost everyone.

I see.
I never put it past people who are in the know, to know things that I don't know though. You know?
Had to ask, just in case.


Thank you all again for the help.
At the end of this month I'll likely be picking up a Razor 1-6.

 

[deersniper]

Trying to figure out this cmr-w reticle thing. I'm not seeing that as an option anywhere.
The only thing that has been steering me away from the NX8's for years now has been the super large .36mrad center dot of the reticle. Not good for percision work at longer distance at all. That, and every once in a while I'll hear someone say that in the maxed out 8 power that clarity suffers.

Your going to be holding for long distance shots anyway. Who dials with a 1-x scope?

 

[Vereor]

I don’t really post here, however.....

I personally have had four (4) 1-6x Razor Gen II’s fail on work rifles between 2,700 and 3,500 rounds. Three were catastrophic fails. I’ve used a couple dozen, and around 50% have had intermittent zero shifts of .2-.4 mil (same lot of ammo for zero check), incorrect adjustments, etc.

This has lasted over 30k rounds without losing zero, but doesn’t adjust in .2 mils per click...
''


In any case, this 1-8x ATACR has just over 70k rounds on it-




There’s more than 120k rounds on these four NF 1-8x’s and None have ever had to be rezeroed except for barrel replacements.





As for eyebox, reticle, speed, etc. A whole lot of shooting has been on a timer and scored, and there is no statistical difference between the NX8/ATACR and the Razor, Kahles, Sig Tango 6, Swaro Z6, etc. Some of them are more “comfortable” to be behind maybe, but actual performance differences are unnoticeable. What is noticeable is differences in reliability, durability, longevity, and correct function. There is no comparison in that regard. As for dialing: I and those I’m around dial LPV’s for distance all the time. If you’re trying to hit a realistic sized target (8-10”) at distance, dialing elevation and holding wind is the best way to hit it- just like with more powerful scopes.


Though I’m sure some will start nonsense over this post, this is not a bash on the Razor or any other scope. It’s simply results from using and testing LPV’s heavily. In the end- reliability, durability and correct function are the most important things with optics to me. So yes, the ATACR/NX8 are worth it.

 

[Bakwa]

Your going to be holding for long distance shots anyway. Who dials with a 1-x scope?

Dialing in isn't the only reason to have a smaller reticle. I personally like the option of being able to take more precise shots under 300yds sometimes. If my reticle is taking up 3" at 200yds, then that makes it a bit difficult. That said, depending on the mission, it doesn't sound crazy to me to dial at 6 or 8 power at all if given the chance to.

 

[wade2big]

I don’t really post here, however.....

I personally have had four (4) 1-6x Razor Gen II’s fail on work rifles between 2,700 and 3,500 rounds. Three were catastrophic fails. I’ve used a couple dozen, and around 50% have had intermittent zero shifts of .2-.4 mil (same lot of ammo for zero check), incorrect adjustments, etc.

This has lasted over 30k rounds without losing zero, but doesn’t adjust in .2 mils per click...
''


In any case, this 1-8x ATACR has just over 70k rounds on it-




There’s more than 120k rounds on these four NF 1-8x’s and None have ever had to be rezeroed except for barrel replacements.





As for eyebox, reticle, speed, etc. A whole lot of shooting has been on a timer and scored, and there is no statistical difference between the NX8/ATACR and the Razor, Kahles, Sig Tango 6, Swaro Z6, etc. Some of them are more “comfortable” to be behind maybe, but actual performance differences are unnoticeable. What is noticeable is differences in reliability, durability, longevity, and correct function. There is no comparison in that regard. As for dialing: I and those I’m around dial LPV’s for distance all the time. If you’re trying to hit a realistic sized target (8-10”) at distance, dialing elevation and holding wind is the best way to hit it- just like with more powerful scopes.


Though I’m sure some will start nonsense over this post, this is not a bash on the Razor or any other scope. It’s simply results from using and testing LPV’s heavily. In the end- reliability, durability and correct function are the most important things with optics to me. So yes, the ATACR/NX8 are worth it.

You must shoot 50,000 rds a year of .556. That would bore me to tears. ? i’m just picking.

 

[Bakwa]

I don’t really post here, however.....

I personally have had four (4) 1-6x Razor Gen II’s fail on work rifles between 2,700 and 3,500 rounds. Three were catastrophic fails. I’ve used a couple dozen, and around 50% have had intermittent zero shifts of .2-.4 mil (same lot of ammo for zero check), incorrect adjustments, etc.

This has lasted over 30k rounds without losing zero, but doesn’t adjust in .2 mils per click...
''


In any case, this 1-8x ATACR has just over 70k rounds on it-




There’s more than 120k rounds on these four NF 1-8x’s and None have ever had to be rezeroed except for barrel replacements.





As for eyebox, reticle, speed, etc. A whole lot of shooting has been on a timer and scored, and there is no statistical difference between the NX8/ATACR and the Razor, Kahles, Sig Tango 6, Swaro Z6, etc. Some of them are more “comfortable” to be behind maybe, but actual performance differences are unnoticeable. What is noticeable is differences in reliability, durability, longevity, and correct function. There is no comparison in that regard. As for dialing: I and those I’m around dial LPV’s for distance all the time. If you’re trying to hit a realistic sized target (8-10”) at distance, dialing elevation and holding wind is the best way to hit it- just like with more powerful scopes.


Though I’m sure some will start nonsense over this post, this is not a bash on the Razor or any other scope. It’s simply results from using and testing LPV’s heavily. In the end- reliability, durability and correct function are the most important things with optics to me. So yes, the ATACR/NX8 are worth it.

And of course, after I thought I made up my mind, you hit me with this.
This is the same reason why I've never commited to buying a complete Larue rifle. Everytime I start feeling confident, something happens, [like they change their barrel manufacturers] and the horror stories start coming out....

Is that first pic of a NX8?
I've heard so many good things about the Razor's and they seem so nice in person. Do you know why your experiences aren't echoed as much on the internet? I believe you, but there seems to be plenty of people with high round counts on Razors in the wild that still love theirs.
I'm concerned because I'm very hard on my gear, and I may consider using this optic I purchase [whichever it may be] on a duty rifle if I like it enough.

 

[wade2big]

Dialing in isn't the only reason to have a smaller reticle. I personally like the option of being able to take more precise shots under 300yds sometimes. If my reticle is taking up 3" at 200yds, then that makes it a bit difficult. That said, depending on the mission, it doesn't sound crazy to me to dial at 6 or 8 power at all if given the chance to.

To me the thicker reticle the better on this class of scope. Quicker to pick up and fire a shot for practical shooting. A three inch dot at 200 yards can make headshots easy all day long.

I dont bag up and shoot carbines either. If I did then I would skip this class of scope all together. Different strokes for different folks

 

[padom]

I've heard from multiple shooters that the Vortex optics (Razor Gen 2 1-6) will begin to lose the ability to retain zero, or dial accurate adjustments, over time. I have not heard this about Nightforce.

This is hilarious and the first I've heard. I have Gen1, and Gen2 razors both 1-6 and 4.5-27 for many years. Havent experienced this with any of them or heard anyone with this issue.

 

[Burdy]

As for eyebox, reticle, speed, etc. A whole lot of shooting has been on a timer and scored, and there is no statistical difference between the NX8/ATACR and the Razor, Kahles, Sig Tango 6, Swaro Z6, etc. Some of them are more “comfortable” to be behind maybe, but actual performance differences are unnoticeable.

Thanks for the post and the info, that's actually some really good stuff/info. The only thing I am going to push back on is the above statement. I see similar claims like this often whether its LPVO vs Red Dot, Red Dot vs Holo, Optic vs Iron etc. I can assure you, the Razor/Kahles etc with the larger more generous eyebox and wider FOV is quicker. The reason this doesn't show up as a "statistical difference" during testing is because most all "testing" of this type is done on a known pattern/course. It's when an unknown course, unknown distances and/or unknown subjects are introduced that the speed advantage begins to show itself, and that is something that is a bit more complex to test.

 

[Vereor]

Is that first pic of a NX8?

I've heard so many good things about the Razor's and they seem so nice in person. Do you know why your experiences aren't echoed as much on the internet? I believe you, but there seems to be plenty of people with high round counts on Razors in the wild that still love theirs.
I'm concerned because I'm very hard on my gear, and I may consider using this optic I purchase [whichever it may be] on a duty rifle if I like it enough.

The first picture is the only Razor that has lasted.


As for why more don’t see it- quite a few, but simple reasons.

1). Most are shooting ball ammo that is only truly 4-5 MOA.

2). Most do not zero at 100+ yards with statistically valid group sizes (10+ rounds per group) and note group size and location exactly.

3). Almost no one uses the exact same lot of ammo to check zero every time, therefore they have to rezero anyways so can not see that something moved.

4). The targets most shoot at are generally large enough that most errors won’t be seen, or can be excused for a variety of reasons.

5). Most people baby their gear.




Take all of that away and when a gun and optic is brand new-

1). Mount correctly, degrease everything and loctite.

2). Use match grade ammo, and use the exact same lot to check zero retention for the life of the barrel.

3). Zero from 100 yards bagged, use multiple 10 round groups, and ensure exactly that the zero is truly “0”.

4). Check zero often using the same lot of ammo, and do not excuse even a slight shift for any reason.

5). Do not baby the gun/optic.



Do that and most scopes start to not look so good.

Thanks for the post and the info, that's actually some really good stuff/info. The only thing I am going to push back on is the above statement. I see similar claims like this often whether its LPVO vs Red Dot, Red Dot vs Holo, Optic vs Iron etc. I can assure you, the Razor/Kahles etc with the larger more generous eyebox and wider FOV is quicker. The reason this doesn't show up as a "statistical difference" during testing is because most all "testing" of this type is done on a known pattern/course. It's when an unknown course, unknown distances and/or unknown subjects are introduced that the speed advantage begins to show itself, and that is something that is a bit more complex to test.

I’m not referring to backyard “tests”. It has been tested, and continues to be tested in all environments and scenarios with more than 200,000 rounds fired in the last two years.

I thought like most that their would be a difference, and it still “feels” faster with a Razor in comparison with the NX8 for instance, but the difference does not show up. I don’t know who claims there is not a difference between irons and red dots- their absolutely is, just as there is between red dots and ANY LPV in unconventional position, but no, there has been no difference noted between top FFP and SFP in MEASURED performance in any task whether flat range, 3- Gun, CQB, alternate positions, etc, etc. The person that wins is the person that wins regardless of whether they have a Z6 or an NX8, and their times/performance is identical.

 

[USMC_JA]

I don’t really post here, however.....

I personally have had four (4) 1-6x Razor Gen II’s fail on work rifles between 2,700 and 3,500 rounds. Three were catastrophic fails. I’ve used a couple dozen, and around 50% have had intermittent zero shifts of .2-.4 mil (same lot of ammo for zero check), incorrect adjustments, etc.




Though I’m sure some will start nonsense over this post, this is not a bash on the Razor or any other scope. It’s simply results from using and testing LPV’s heavily. In the end- reliability, durability and correct function are the most important things with optics to me. So yes, the ATACR/NX8 are worth it.

Are these all ATACRs? Or are there NX8's in your sample size/data set?

 

[SPAK]

I’ve not logged 200,000 rounds on my razor, but I do have three deployments and close to 50,000 rounds of hard use in training and over seas on it. My razor does not look nice. IT literally looks like I used it as a hammer.

Vereor is correct in saying that the ammo we use down range isn’t always the most accurate nor from the same lot so typically I do rezero after I get into theatre if time permits. Although I will say some of what we are able to obtain is much more accurate as of late.

Pulling my razor on and off, my zero does not change more than .2-.4 mil each time I have zeroed at 50m. I will check groups at 100m to make sure they are what I want them to be... usually ends up around 1.5-3 moa depending on the ammo and which barrel I’m using. I also don’t expect the same performance that I do from my match rifle.

Could be the zero shift vereor is talking about or could be the ammo. Hard to tell. Though I haven’t observed any significant zero change once zeroed.

It has not failed me yet...... but another 10k rounds maybe it will. Maybe it won’t. That being said vereor’s findings will lead me to pay closer attention and do some testing of my own.

For my intended purposes and typical target engagement distances with a 5.56 the razor ii has been reliable and I’ll continue to use it.

I will do some more in depth testing of it when I get home.

 

[Vereor]

Are these all ATACRs? Or are there NX8's in your sample size/data set?

ATACR and NX8’s.

 

[ClangClang]

I'll address your question from a direction that no one else has. Actual Run N Gun matches. I've been doing RnG's for several years and have several match wins under my belt, most recently the Twilight Biathlon RnG in Pawnee, OK last month.

For all the RnG's I've ever competed in, I've never felt "underpowered" with a 1-6x. Typically, targets are 300 yards and in, and typically no smaller than around 2.5-3 MOA. I've encountered shots out to 500 yds, but always on large IPSC or B/C steel silhouettes. In other words, (specifically at RnG matches), the accuracy requirements aren't especially difficult. The challenge is still maintaining an ability to maintain "combat accuracy" after you've been running for several miles, negotiated multiple obstacles (rope climbs, river crossings, etc), and your gear is absolutely covered in mud.

I've used the Razor, Leupold Mk 6, Leupold VX6 Multigun 1-6, and Kahles K16i in matches. I've also got some decent trigger time behind the NX8, but not the ATACR 1-8.

I will always tend towards lighter weight. I'm flat-out not interested in running 4 (or 15) miles with a 22oz optic. The NX8 was initially attractive, but I quickly ruled it out due to the restricted eye box, which was especially noticeable in challenging shooting positions like a VTAC board, and the coarse aiming point. I'd much rather have the finer aiming point of the Razor or the MK6.

I've personally settled on the MK6 as my preferred RnG optic. It's got all the features I want including (IMHO) a best-in-class reticle. I was initially skeptical of FFP in a LPVO, but I've grown to absolutely love it. For those who still prefer FFP, I think the Kahles K16i is top dog. All that being said, the Razor is an absolutely fantastic scope, it's what I used to bring home my first ever major match win, and I wouldn't hesitate to run it if my MK6 somehow shit the bed. (And for those who are ballin' on a budget, the Steiner P4Xi is your huckleberry, hands down).

The ATACR is not under consideration for me due to the weight, the size, and the cost. While it weighs about the same as the Razor, both are heavier than I prefer in a perfect world. It's also a big/long optic. More bulk tends to get hung up on obstacles, tangled in slings, etc. Finally, it's really expensive. That isn't a specific deterrent for me (all my gear is top shelf, buy once cry once) but the amount of abuse that gets heaped on gear during RnG's is pretty much unprecedented outside of actual war, and I get a bit uneasy doing such willful damage to a $2500 scope. There are plenty of other options in the $1500 range that are just as "capable" and as a working man, that's a much more palatable level of risk for me in what essentially amounts to a weekend hobby (even though it more or less rules my life and social calendar haha).

Hope to see you at a match this summer! I'll be at the NC Gun Run, probably the Pawnee Summer 10k, and possibly the RBGC match.

 

[Burdy]

The first picture is the only Razor that has lasted.


As for why more don’t see it- quite a few, but simple reasons.

1). Most are shooting ball ammo that is only truly 4-5 MOA.

2). Most do not zero at 100+ yards with statistically valid group sizes (10+ rounds per group) and note group size and location exactly.

3). Almost no one uses the exact same lot of ammo to check zero every time, therefore they have to rezero anyways so can not see that something moved.

4). The targets most shoot at are generally large enough that most errors won’t be seen, or can be excused for a variety of reasons.

5). Most people baby their gear.




Take all of that away and when a gun and optic is brand new-

1). Mount correctly, degrease everything and loctite.

2). Use match grade ammo, and use the exact same lot to check zero retention for the life of the barrel.

3). Zero from 100 yards bagged, use multiple 10 round groups, and ensure exactly that the zero is truly “0”.

4). Check zero often using the same lot of ammo, and do not excuse even a slight shift for any reason.

5). Do not baby the gun/optic.



Do that and most scopes start to not look so good.









I’m not referring to backyard “tests”. It has been tested, and continues to be tested in all environments and scenarios with more than 200,000 rounds fired in the last two years.

I thought like most that their would be a difference, and it still “feels” faster with a Razor in comparison with the NX8 for instance, but the difference does not show up. I don’t know who claims there is not a difference between irons and red dots- their absolutely is, just as there is between red dots and ANY LPV in unconventional position, but no, there has been no difference noted between top FFP and SFP in MEASURED performance in any task whether flat range, 3- Gun, CQB, alternate positions, etc, etc. The person that wins is the person that wins regardless of whether they have a Z6 or an NX8, and their times/performance is identical.

Respectfully, If you can agree there is a difference in optics vs irons and Red Dots vs LPVO's then I am not sure how it can be argued there is no difference between a FFP optic with a tight eyebox and small FOV vs something like a Razor or K16i. Again, you aren't going to find a "statistical" difference when running a course of known entities/scenerios/engagements, the difference will come in the processing of the unknown. So if you are saying that is/has been tested, I would like to know the methodology. The bottom line is, if I can acquire the reticle sooner because of physics, ie: the larger eyebox or FOV, then I can take the shot sooner, and therefore, I will be faster.

 

[Bakwa]

I'll address your question from a direction that no one else has. Actual Run N Gun matches. I've been doing RnG's for several years and have several match wins under my belt, most recently the Twilight Biathlon RnG in Pawnee, OK last month.

View attachment 7088958


For all the RnG's I've ever competed in, I've never felt "underpowered" with a 1-6x. Typically, targets are 300 yards and in, and typically no smaller than around 2.5-3 MOA. I've encountered shots out to 500 yds, but always on large IPSC or B/C steel silhouettes. In other words, (specifically at RnG matches), the accuracy requirements aren't especially difficult. The challenge is still maintaining an ability to maintain "combat accuracy" after you've been running for several miles, negotiated multiple obstacles (rope climbs, river crossings, etc), and your gear is absolutely covered in mud.

View attachment 7088956

View attachment 7088957

I've used the Razor, Leupold Mk 6, Leupold VX6 Multigun 1-6, and Kahles K16i in matches. I've also got some decent trigger time behind the NX8, but not the ATACR 1-8.

I will always tend towards lighter weight. I'm flat-out not interested in running 4 (or 15) miles with a 22oz optic. The NX8 was initially attractive, but I quickly ruled it out due to the restricted eye box, which was especially noticeable in challenging shooting positions like a VTAC board, and the coarse aiming point. I'd much rather have the finer aiming point of the Razor or the MK6.

I've personally settled on the MK6 as my preferred RnG optic. It's got all the features I want including (IMHO) a best-in-class reticle. I was initially skeptical of FFP in a LPVO, but I've grown to absolutely love it. For those who still prefer FFP, I think the Kahles K16i is top dog. All that being said, the Razor is an absolutely fantastic scope, it's what I used to bring home my first ever major match win, and I wouldn't hesitate to run it if my MK6 somehow shit the bed. (And for those who are ballin' on a budget, the Steiner P4Xi is your huckleberry, hands down).

The ATACR is not under consideration for me due to the weight, the size, and the cost. While it weighs about the same as the Razor, both are heavier than I prefer in a perfect world. It's also a big/long optic. More bulk tends to get hung up on obstacles, tangled in slings, etc. Finally, it's really expensive. That isn't a specific deterrent for me (all my gear is top shelf, buy once cry once) but the amount of abuse that gets heaped on gear during RnG's is pretty much unprecedented outside of actual war, and I get a bit uneasy doing such willful damage to a $2500 scope. There are plenty of other options in the $1500 range that are just as "capable" and as a working man, that's a much more palatable level of risk for me in what essentially amounts to a weekend hobby (even though it more or less rules my life and social calendar haha).

Hope to see you at a match this summer! I'll be at the NC Gun Run, probably the Pawnee Summer 10k, and possibly the RBGC match.

Good insight.
I'll likely be at the RBGC RNG this year. I'm registered and paid for anyway.

Worst case, if I can't decide on anything, I may just role with a P4Xi purchase at the prices they're at. Not ideal, but objectively they're a step up from what I was running, and it would give me some time to figure something else out for the long run. I can always throw a solid 1-4 like the P4Xi on another random AR after everything is said and done and not feel bad.

 

[RifleBlog]

Well this unexpectedly turned into a great thread with some real deal downrange experience.