Rifle Scopes Leupold mark 5 or vortex razor gen 2?

[BoulderE89]

Got some Christmas money to spend on a new rifle scope and am down to either the Leupold mark 5 5-25 (probably cch reticle) or a vortex gen 2 4-27 (either ebr 2 or ebr 7). Tracking and clarity are the most important for me. Weights are pretty different but not really a deciding factor for me. Any advice, experiences or opinions on either of these is greatly appreciated.

 

[Kickin45]

What reticle you like more?

 

[Poorboyr]

do a search on the Mark 5. It has been discussed a lot.

 

[BoulderE89]

do a search on the Mark 5. It has been discussed a lot.

I did, I was Just curious what people’s current views are of them.

 

[Poorboyr]

The Mark 5 is better optically. The vortex has been around awhile and holds up well.

if it was my money, I would buy the Leupold.

 

[tracktrash]

I had the same dilemma last month. I went with the razor gen ii. Got it for $1850 new with the ebr7c reticle. I much prefer that reticle to the reticle offerings the mk5 has. Also even with the VIP pricing I have through Leupold getting the illuminated reticle of choice I would had to spend $600 more than I did with the razor. I like the turrets more and the parallax is way better on the razor. my Eyes seemed to prefer the razor as well. If I were you I’d go mess around with both at your local gun store.

 

[BoulderE89]

I had the same dilemma last month. I went with the razor gen ii. Got it for $1850 new with the ebr7c reticle. I much prefer that reticle to the reticle offerings the mk5 has. Also even with the VIP pricing I have through Leupold getting the illuminated reticle of choice I would had to spend $600 more than I did with the razor. I like the turrets more and the parallax is way better on the razor. my Eyes seemed to prefer the razor as well. If I were you I’d go mess around with both at your local gun store.

I’ll be doing just that tomorrow! The input and opinions are helpful, thank you

 

[hlee]

My BiL gets 40% off (Leo) on Vortex optics. That could be the deciding factor if you are, or know someone who is LEO. Then again, I have a 50% off cert for Leupold, so my next optic will be a Mark 5.

 

[gnochi]

If you can’t tolerate chromatic aberration, pass on the Mark 5HD.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Mark 5. Better glass, lighter, better turrets, and IMO a more reliable optic.

 

[BoulderE89]

If you can’t tolerate chromatic aberration, pass on the Mark 5HD.

Does it have more than the razor?

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Does it have more than the razor?

That shit is so blown out of proportion. The Mark 5’s have better glass than Razors all around.

The 3.6-18 Mark 5 has a little bit of CA. It’s certainly not “bad” though and unless you’re looking for it you’ll never notice it. The 5-25’s have none.

To get a better 5-25 than the Mark 5 you need to spend almost twice as much to the a S&B and while the S&B is overall a better scope, there’s still a couple things the Mark 5 does better like not tunneling and and weighing less.

 

[Blackfoot 7]

Does it have more than the razor?

For me it the CA in the MK5HD resides on the threshold of acceptable. It's present, but not distractingly present if that makes sense. At least not on my copy. The MK5HD is exceptional in every way (lightweight, compact and feature rich), but not sure if the overall durability is on par with a Razor. Just wish Leupold wasn't stingy about illumination and offered an illuminated CCH reticle.

 

[BoulderE89]

For me it the CA in the MK5HD resides on the threshold of acceptable. It's present, but not distractingly present if that makes sense. At least not on my copy. The MK5HD is exceptional in every way (lightweight, compact and feature rich), but not sure if the overall durability is on par with a Razor. Just wish Leupold wasn't stingy about illumination and offered an illuminated CCH reticle.

These are all good points to know, seriously grateful for all your guys input. I’m gonna go look through them today and see. Everyone seems to agree Leupold nailed it with the mark 5. Makes me pumped!

 

[levi8599]

I’ve had both the 3.6-18 mk5 and the 3-18 g2. I sold the razor, got the lupy, sold the lupy, and bought another razor. I don’t care for any leupold reticles tho and that’s just personal preference. Turrets were good on both. Glass was good on both but I liked the rzr a little better.

 

[BoulderE89]

I’ve had both the 3.6-18 mk5 and the 3-18 g2. I sold the razor, got the lupy, sold the lupy, and bought another razor. I don’t care for any leupold reticles tho and that’s just personal preference. Turrets were good on both. Glass was good on both but I liked the rzr a little better.

I’m torn between the clarity I hear on the Leupold and the reticle of the razor.

 

[Rob01]

I’m torn between the clarity I hear on the Leupold and the reticle of the razor.

Razors are plenty clear. When I got my first Razor II I put it up next to a S&B PMII and showed it to 6 or 7 guys I knew at different times at my old range. Side by side they said they couldn't tell the difference and that is plenty clear for me.

 

[jbell]

That shit is so blown out of proportion. The Mark 5’s have better glass than Razors all around.

The 3.6-18 Mark 5 has a little bit of CA. It’s certainly not “bad” though and unless you’re looking for it you’ll never notice it. The 5-25’s have none.

To get a better 5-25 than the Mark 5 you need to spend almost twice as much to the a S&B and while the S&B is overall a better scope, there’s still a couple things the Mark 5 does better like not tunneling and and weighing less.

I agree 100%. I spent quite a while doing side by side comparison with my 5-25X56 PMII, 5-25X56 ATACR F1, and 2 different 5-25X56 MK5’s one illuminated one not. They all 4 tracked perfectly, all 4 were easy enough to correct parallax and still have a good crisp reticle, the difference came down to reticles (personal choice, I was using the P4F, MilR, CCH, ILL TMR) they all work, turrets which my favorite is easily the PMII DT turret, followed by the NF and last the MK5 but the MK5 turrets are not bad by any means, optically the MK5 is better in every way with my samples (brighter, better in very low light, better resolution, just noticeable better). The MK5 brings a lot to the table, that being said I’m probably going back to the PMII or ATACR only due to the reticle, I cant get to where I like a center dot or open center.

 

[Blackfoot 7]

I'm a fan of the CCH. For that reason I plan to add an additional MK5HD to the stable once I have a new stick to throw it on.

 

[5RWill]

I would chalk better IQ up to sample variance. I'm a pretty big fan of the Mark 5 (5-25) wrote a moderately length write up on my thoughts between it and the ATACR i put it next to. For lots of opitcs turret feel, IQ, etc. are subjective. I vastly prefer the L-tec turrets to the Mark 5 turrets. I like the audible click of the MK5 but was not a fan of how they felt. I'm just one that really likes to be able to feel every click. I also like the eyebox better on the Gen II razor, the MK5 was a little tight to me at 25x. Pretty comparable to the AMG. FOV wise the Vortex is hands down the clear choice, MK5 sacrifices a lot in that realm. One attribute i have to give Leupold is the low light performance was outstanding and @redneckbmxer24 and @jbell will attest to this, in bad lighting they're phenomenal. The main reason i don't own one is because Leupold just doesn't have a reticle that i like. I now have an AMG on my hunting rig and it is an amazing optic for it's purpose. Resolution is a little lower than my ZP5 but it really does well in low light considering the objective size. If leupold could just put out something not so cluttered like a TMR competition with zero upcharge, my safe, and rifles would be littered with MK5s.


Here's my comparison followed by a ton of members opinions on the MK5.

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...t-leupold-mark-5.6869995/page-11#post-6948253

 

[beetroot]

Get a Arken, better glad than either of these turds.
Mine hangs with Tagnet Theta for a fraction of the cost.

 

[notorious]

Still have no idea why Leupold went with 35mm tubes on the Mark 5.

 

[1911hombre]

Still have no idea why Leupold went with 35mm tubes on the Mark 5.

PHAT

 

[BoulderE89]

PHAT

Thicc boi?

 

[levi8599]

A

I’m torn between the clarity I hear on the Leupold and the reticle of the razor.

At distance I actually thought the rzr had the better clarity. One of the reasons I got rid of the mk5 and went back to rzr.

 

[mjsand44]

I have a gen II razor 3-18, 4.5-27 and a Mark 5 7-35. If you care about weight go with the Leopold, The razor is a boat anchor. The Leopold noticeably lighter and has a nice zero stop system. The razor also has locking windage and elevation turrets. I really like both scopes and would go with whatever reticle you like better if weight is not a concern.

 

[LRhunter13]

If it’s only tracking and clarity that you’re concerned with like your OP stated then take your pick. I’ve owed both, and have been running both sizes of Mark 5s on hunting rifles that have seen quite a bit of field time over the last 2.5 years. Both scopes are plenty clear, hold up very well and track like a $1700-$2000 optic should. But the Leupold wins in the weight and side profile category if those matter to you.

 

[Grease]

You can get a Mark 5 3.6-18x44 and rings from Scott @LibertyOptics for $1589.00

Whats not to like about that.

 

[Rob01]

You can get a Mark 5 3.6-18x44 and rings from Scott @LibertyOptics for $1589.00

Whats not to like about that.

Probably get a Razor II 3-18x50 for the same price.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Still have no idea why Leupold went with 35mm tubes on the Mark 5.

For more space inside. Plenty of mounts on the market already since the Gen1 Razor used a 35mm tube so it's not like mounts aren't available, so whats the issue?

 

[Grease]

Probably get a Razor II 3-18x50 for the same price.

Probably, but the Razor weighing 20oz more than the Mark 5 is the deal killer.

 

[Rob01]

Probably, but the Razor weighing 20oz more than the Mark 5 is the deal killer.

For some maybe but the other features like reticle might be more important to some.

 

[ColbyLang]

You can get a Mark 5 3.6-18x44 and rings from Scott @LibertyOptics for $1589.00

Whats not to like about that.

cheaper than that at big daddy unlimited.com

just bought one for a hair over $1400 shipped

 

[JLP.Payette]

I checked out both before i made my purchase and I chose the Gen2 Razor. Glass seamed equal to me, I prefer the turrets and the locking mech on the razor, and I preferred the weight of the razor. Both are great scopes and you cant go wrong either way.

 

[Bayoubigcat]

Both great options with the same warranty, though I tend to hear more folks having to use the Vortex warranty (which may be a numbers game). Since weight isn’t a concern, pick the reticle you like. You’ll be happy with either.

 

[BoulderE89]

Thank you to everyone for the advice and opinions. I looked through both yesterday and they were both very clear and easy to use. Honestly hard for me to distinguish much of any difference with my own eyes. I do however prefer the razors reticle choices so I took the advice I got from here and got an ebr7 at a good price. I’m very pumped to get this thing rolling! If anyone has 34mm arc rings to sell let me know! Again, thank you for All the advice. Seriously helped me out as I’m pretty new to precision shooting

 

[tracktrash]

You can get a Mark 5 3.6-18x44 and rings from Scott @LibertyOptics for $1589.00

Whats not to like about that.

Non-illuminated model. That’s what I don’t like. To get the illuminated TMR it brings it to $1850. LOL. And that’s the lowest costing reticle so you make it a h59 illuminated it brings it up another $150. No thanks

 

[tracktrash]

Thank you to everyone for the advice and opinions. I looked through both yesterday and they were both very clear and easy to use. Honestly hard for me to distinguish much of any difference with my own eyes. I do however prefer the razors reticle choices so I took the advice I got from here and got an ebr7 at a good price. I’m very pumped to get this thing rolling! If anyone has 34mm arc rings to sell let me know! Again, thank you for All the advice. Seriously helped me out as I’m pretty new to precision shooting

You won’t be disappointed! Congrats on the purchase

 

[Bayoubigcat]

Good choice in glass. Congrats. Also good choice in rings. I’m a fan of the ones I have.

 

[Swoodhouse19]

I had the same question....but I was leaning towards the 3.6-18...

 

[glock63]

Get a Arken, better glad than either of these turds.
Mine hangs with Tagnet Theta for a fraction of the cost.

Lol

 

[Secant]

I had the same question....but I was leaning towards the 3.6-18...

I have the 3.6-18 Mk5 & 4.5-27 razor (not the best comparison). I’d say go for razor unless weight is a concern. Eye box, DoF, FoV are better in the razor to me. Turrets are nice on both, but I prefer the razor. Reticles are personal, but I like offerings from both. Price difference is really minimal between the two, except illumination in the Mk5 is ridiculous.

 

[wade2big]

Probably get a Razor II 3-18x50 for the same price.

The razor is much cheaper

 

[Runnineh]

I have a razor and 7-35 mk5. I like the mk 5 better. I think it's a brighter and more crisp picture. If you aren't leo or mil/ can't get a discount, then I think vortex would be the way to go based on price. That said, looking through both scopes is really the only way for you to decide.

 

[Blackice55]

i honestly prefer the mark5 turrets. At matches i always feel like I have to try and pull that damn turret up on my vortex. Also it pushes down too easily on the scope I had.

 

[LibertyOptics]

Probably get a Razor II 3-18x50 for the same price.

Nope. Cheaper.

 

[JeffPowers]

I own a handful of both and due to recently reading a comparison where the majority of people claimed the glass of the razors was a whole level above leupold and in every way better I did my own side by side with a poster at just over 100y. I know not the ideal range but just wanted to see the difference in level of detail like an eye test. Now first let me say I love both and both can be had for a similar price if you look around enough. But in my test I was actually a bit surprised to find that I was able to read the fine print through the mk5 at 25x that I was unable to read with the razor at 27x. I also found that maxed out the mk5 seemed more forgiving on the eyebox. My thoughts have always been a simple tmr reticle on the mk5 for hunting was ideal for its lighter weight and excellent image quality. As when it comes to my precision rifles I like the razor for its extra weight and standard reticles being more precision oriented. But this now has me considering ordering the mk5 7-35x with the pr2 reticle for my next long range build over the razor gen3. I actually prefer the turret design of the leupold. But I do like the amount of adjustability on the razor for getting dialed in dead nuts. The razor feels more rugged in part due to the weight but also everything feels stiffer and more tactile and audible leading it to give the feel of tighter tolerances. My perfect scope would be a mix of the 2 lol. So when it comes to making a choice out of these 2 it comes down to what feels best to you, what reticle you like and does weight matter?
I also bought a 4-20 tract scope to try and glass quality is right there with these 2 but the reticle is so fine that it's not usable on lower magnification so it's a dedicated 22lr scope now. But I do feel once they start offering more reticles they could be a true contender. Everything about it feel great leads me to believe it really is a good quality scope. I'll have to add the tract to my next side by side. And they need to add a black version I personally just don't like the gray haha