I’m setting up my Larue Tactical OBR with an 18 inch barrel for Coyote hunting. My absolute limit on what I can spend on a scope is $2,000. I’m really liking the idea of the 2.5-20x50 offerings from Nightforce NX8 and the US Optics TS-20. I like the wide FOV of being able to drop all the way down to 2.5x zoom. I’ve read countless threads and I know these scopes have their flaws. But I’m wondering which scope in this price range is less flawed. I’ve also seen people compare the Leupold Mark 5 maybe? Also considering the Razor HD 3-18x50. Any info in comparing these scopes would be greatly appreciated! I see the TS-20 listed online for $1000 less than the Nightforce NX8. Merry Christmas everyone! Again, thank you for your time!
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Need help picking a scope $2000 or less
- Thread starter Bdockter
- Start date
I would personally go razor myself. With the NF as a second and the mark 5 as third with personal experience with those. However if you want to save weight I would take the razor off the table.
If weight is non factor the Razor 3-18 is likely the best in the price range that also gives you wide field of view. It has no real compromises save the weight.
i guess I should of explained further in my original post. And part of has already been said by hk Dave. The razor is just best in class in mine and many others opinions. It’s hard to beat without paying a lot more. Vortex did a great job on it.
as for individual things I prefer about it over the nightforce. i prefer not only the reticle itself on the razor. But the illumination as well. Your opinion on reticle choices may be different. And illumination may not matter to you. It’s personally not a deciding factor for me. But the reticle is. And honestly I would say pick what reticle you like the best. And go with that. All the scopes your looking at are good options and shouldn’t disappoint you.
the next thing is turrets. I prefer the razors turrets over the nf. Again it’s more of a personal preference. Both get the job done
as for the glass, clarity, contrast, ect. My eyes arnt good enough to tell a big enough of a difference for that to be a deciding factor. Someone else might say otherwise.
Thank you for your input. My main doubt with the Razor was quality and clarity of glass compared to NF/Leupold/US Optics etc...I do own a set of Razor binoculars and really do like those. This will be my highest end optic I’ve purchased. Best scope to date was a Swarovski 3-18x50 with the ballistic turret. So if you think the glass is just as good on the Razor, that is huge.
Awesome input! This will be my first scope with anything other than a basic crosshair. So the reticle will be all new to me. The reticle that caught my eye was the “2c”? I believe that’s what they refer to it as. Again, outstanding input. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to help out.
The 4.5-27 razor they had a 2c. But have since updated it. I believe the 3-18 you mentioned is the 7c(the updated 2c). But you can get it moa or mil. As for that argument. It’s been beat to death many times over. And a few search’s should answer that question for you if you have it.
I've been running my Bushnell DMR2 Pro on an 18" 223 gasser, and I have been very happy with it. So far, I've only been going after coyotes at night, so I mainly use a top-mounted RDS with a PVS-14, but the DMR stays on the rifle so I can use it at the range when I want, or have it there if I get a chance to do some daylight hunting.
@Hollywood, Is the DMR2 really as heavy as the spec sheet says? 37 ounces? I'd think you'd be very top heaving on a "average weight" 223.
I haven't weighed it, but I'd assume that weight is right. My rifle doesn't seem top heavy at all with it, but I am running a rifle length stock and Seekins 3G2 upper with a TBAC can on it. The rifle isn't absurdly heavy, but it's not an ultralight rig, either.
There’s some very solid advise here already. I can’t comment on the bushnell as I’ve never run one.
I did have a razor 3-18 for about a year. It’s heavy is the only bad thing to be said. I only sold it to upgrade to a S&B 3-20 Which was about $1k more. I can’t say the S&B is $1k better. it was about preferences.
Because I have multiple barrels for my rifle the Razor turrets could be a pain when swapping barrels.
I hope to pick up a rifle in 300PRC this coming year. I already plan to pick up a razor for it.
I did have a razor 3-18 for about a year. It’s heavy is the only bad thing to be said. I only sold it to upgrade to a S&B 3-20 Which was about $1k more. I can’t say the S&B is $1k better. it was about preferences.
Because I have multiple barrels for my rifle the Razor turrets could be a pain when swapping barrels.
I hope to pick up a rifle in 300PRC this coming year. I already plan to pick up a razor for it.
My vote is razor but it’s a heavy son of a bitch. The newish ebr-7c reticle is really the cats ass too.
Razor 3-18 is great in every way. Makes me laugh all the glass comments in a lot of posts, there’s a bees dick of a difference between all scopes in that price range. Comes down to your reticle preference.
If you go Vortex, check in with Scott @LibertyOptics via PM - it's worth your while. If you go Amazon, be aware that there has been at least one report here of receiving a counterfeit scope.
Just something to think about because you mentioned wide FOV.
Not all scopes at a low power, offer the same FOV. As an example the cheap Viper PSTII 3-15 is 41’ @ 100 with the way better glassed Leupold 5HD 3-18 is 28ish. Both light FFPs.
What I’m saying is pay less attention to the magnification range than the actual field of view number. Just because something has Low magnification doesn’t mean you’re getting what you’re after.
Not all scopes at a low power, offer the same FOV. As an example the cheap Viper PSTII 3-15 is 41’ @ 100 with the way better glassed Leupold 5HD 3-18 is 28ish. Both light FFPs.
What I’m saying is pay less attention to the magnification range than the actual field of view number. Just because something has Low magnification doesn’t mean you’re getting what you’re after.
The PST gen 2 glass isn't bad at all for the price, but it is far more finicky in terms of requiring more adjustment on the parallax knob compared to the RG2. I've shot them both side by side numerous times.
A little late to the party, but thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.
I own (have owned) a number of Vortex scopes and have used NF and Leupolds a fair amount. I used to think that the Vortex PSTs (then the PST Gen 2s) were the best valued glass you could get. That was until the price on the Razor Gen 2s dropped below $2k for the 4.5-27. I currently have three and love them. Are there better scopes out there in their class? Absolutely. Can you find one for under $2k? Not even close. Hence why I think the Razor Gen 2s are the best bang for the buck out there.
Then there's the fact that you can literally do anything to the scope (damage) and their warranty covers it, no questions asked. Not all manufacturers have this.
I own (have owned) a number of Vortex scopes and have used NF and Leupolds a fair amount. I used to think that the Vortex PSTs (then the PST Gen 2s) were the best valued glass you could get. That was until the price on the Razor Gen 2s dropped below $2k for the 4.5-27. I currently have three and love them. Are there better scopes out there in their class? Absolutely. Can you find one for under $2k? Not even close. Hence why I think the Razor Gen 2s are the best bang for the buck out there.
Then there's the fact that you can literally do anything to the scope (damage) and their warranty covers it, no questions asked. Not all manufacturers have this.
