Venturing into the mid tier/higher level scopes for the first time, so I’m only getting one for now. It is going on a 6br rifle that I do most everything with. What’s your preferred and why?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Razor AMG vs. HD gen 2 4.5-27
- Thread starter Estes640
- Start date
Weight and FoV is what it comes down to for me. Optically I'd have to look harder for differences than I care to. I tried the 4.5-27 and didn't like the extra weight up top. Not so much the weight as it was the balance. The rest of the rifle was too light for it. That rifle has an AMG on it now, love it.
I have a heavy 300 PRC and it's going to get a 4.5-27 in the coming months.
I have a heavy 300 PRC and it's going to get a 4.5-27 in the coming months.
The two biggest difference are weight and reticle. I don't care about weight and I don't like any of the EBR-7 series reticles, so the 4.5-27 would be the logical choice for me. I will say that I shot an AMG for several months and it was a fantastic optic in terms of FOV, eyebox, glass quality, and turrets. I just couldn't warm up to the reticle.
I've shot with the Razor 4.5-27 as well and I'd be more than happy to run the EBR-2C reticle on that scope, if I didn't love the reticle and glass on the Delta Stryker 4.5-30.
I've shot with the Razor 4.5-27 as well and I'd be more than happy to run the EBR-2C reticle on that scope, if I didn't love the reticle and glass on the Delta Stryker 4.5-30.
If 6x is enough for you on the low end and if "most everything" involves carrying the weapon with you a fair bit, go for the AMG.
ILya
ILya
Thanks for the help guys. Really debated on the AMG, but most my shooting is mint much carrying and I think I’ll like the extra weight on the g2 razor. Ended up going that route.
I've used both the Gen 2 4.5-27x56 with the EBR-2C and Horus H-59 reticle. I prefer the H-59. Vortex makes great scopes and their service is terrific.
Harry
Harry
I have 2 AMGs and have shot rifles with the Gen 2 Razor. Both are great scopes but I chose the AMGs for myself because I do really like the EBR-7B reticle. I use the christmas tree portion really well in competition stages where we either can't dial the turrets or the time limits make don't allow enough time to dial and still finish the stage. I like the open center of the reticle with the dot in the middle. The deciding factor was that I don't like my competition rifles to be mega heavy 20 lb. + rifles, both of the rifles I use most often in matches are in the 16-17 lb. weight range so I like the 30 oz. weight of the AMG. Finally, for the price the glass, turrets, and reticle of the scope are excellent and except for the reticle, the scope is made in the good old USA.
The AMG is the best optic that you can buy at sub 2000 dollars. It competes very well with the "other" scopes that fetch a much higher price.
I looked at both scopes and went with two AMG's in the end, the weight savings were enough to swing me and for what I'm using them for...24x is enough magnification.
I have the HD GEN II 4.5-27 and absolutely love it, no complaints whatsoever. The turrets are very crisp.
Have a Razor II and no problem out to 1100 +.
See the impact, misses etc.
Don’t have a AMG but I prefer 34mm tube. Have to check out AMG in person before I actually buy one. I know many said it has better optics but I just have doubt. 30mm vs 34 mm tube just doesn’t pass the basic physics test. Again may be it is true but I will have to see it myself to believe. Many buys the AMG also because it is all made in USA. Good reason too.
See the impact, misses etc.
Don’t have a AMG but I prefer 34mm tube. Have to check out AMG in person before I actually buy one. I know many said it has better optics but I just have doubt. 30mm vs 34 mm tube just doesn’t pass the basic physics test. Again may be it is true but I will have to see it myself to believe. Many buys the AMG also because it is all made in USA. Good reason too.
Bigger tubes allow more light through.
34mm vs 30mm.
That is why many high end scopes have 34mm tube not 30mm. PMII, ZP5, Nightforce... etc you name it. Some are even going with 35.
May be wrong I am in engineering but not physics not optics. Feel free to educate me.
34mm vs 30mm.
That is why many high end scopes have 34mm tube not 30mm. PMII, ZP5, Nightforce... etc you name it. Some are even going with 35.
May be wrong I am in engineering but not physics not optics. Feel free to educate me.
Last edited:
Wrong. The tube size cant control what enters the scope. Light enters the objective, not the tube. All the tube has to do hold the lenses positioning, it controls nothing as far as what the glass does and does not let through.
Bigger tube due not have anything to do with light transmission. That's not how optics in a riflescope work. We've had a good number of discussions on the subject, some recently. I'll try to find the links or you can do some searching. There is also some info on that on my website.
There are good reasons why some designs have larger tubes and they are mostly there to maintain image fidelity at the edge of adjustment and to have a large range of adjustment.
However, light transmission or image quality on center are not really effected by tube diameter in any sort of significant way.
ILya
I hear you. I am probably wrong about bigger tube allows more light through. Intuition is not always right. Still have doubt though, imagine we go with a 1mm tube, are we still allowing same amount light through?
But I will take your explanations since you guys have researched this in the past probably times and times again.
But I will stick with 34mm tube for scopes in this range for what ever reason designers choose 34mm over 30mm for PM2, zp5, NF etc.
But I will take your explanations since you guys have researched this in the past probably times and times again.
But I will stick with 34mm tube for scopes in this range for what ever reason designers choose 34mm over 30mm for PM2, zp5, NF etc.
If light couldnt get through glass just because its small in diameter then fiber optic communication wouldnt exist.
Light isnt sand nor water nor any other medium that would be effected by the size of the hole it goes through. You just carefully bend it a bit and it passes right though.
Light isnt sand nor water nor any other medium that would be effected by the size of the hole it goes through. You just carefully bend it a bit and it passes right though.
I hear you. I am probably wrong about bigger tube allows more light through. Intuition is not always right. Still have doubt though, imagine we go with a 1mm tube, are we still allowing same amount light through?
But I will take your explanations since you guys have researched this in the past probably times and times again.
But I will stick with 34mm tube for scopes in this range for what ever reason designers choose 34mm over 30mm for PM2, zp5, NF etc.
Taking the exercise to absurd dimensions is not going to get you much. A 1mm diameter tube would not allow you to do much of anything, including building a scope at all. That is not enough space to put in appropriate lenses. However, from a pure light transmission standpoint, I can envision a light transmission device that is 1mm diameter and transmits nearly all the light it receives. If light transmission is all you care about, the light transmitting core of a fiber is 9 microns diameter for telecom fibers.
For common tube diameters used in riflescopes, light transmission is not a function of tube diameter.
ILya
Both are awesome scopes! I run a Gen2 Razor 3-18 on my range/practice rifle, and a Vortex AMG 6-24 on my hunting rifle. To my eyes, I prefer the ebr-2c over the ebr 7, and the FOV of the 3-18 Razor. However, the lighter weight of the AMG is perfect for a hunting rifle IMO. Good turrets and tracking, good glass and illumination, and a great warranty.
On another note my "small" 30mm AMG tube gives me 19.5 mil up. Light transmission at dusk is comparable with the big boys..even the 56mm objectives.
What impressed me the most is that at the top of the elevation range...the image quality did not degrade much at all ..if any. There are a ton of "alpha" scopes that do that.
What impressed me the most is that at the top of the elevation range...the image quality did not degrade much at all ..if any. There are a ton of "alpha" scopes that do that.
You're thinking of light more as a property closer to a liquid but this would be incorrect. When you were a kid, did you ever take a magnifying glass out and burn your name into a piece of wood? How did you do that, what properties of a magnifying glass allowed you to focus so much of the suns light into one spot? A riflescope works similarly by redirecting all the light gathered by the front objective through the entire optical system. So you might ask, why not use a 500mm objective instead of 50mm (disregarding how unwieldy that would be) if it allows more light, and similar to your thinking on the scope tube - why not have a bigger tube to allow more light, but here we get into "wasted light" because our pupil can only open up to about 7mm. You might then ask yourself, well then why have scopes with 34mm or 30mm or 1 inch if our eye can't use that, but that's where other optical properties come into play like eyebox and eliminating edge distortion, and mechanical properties like total travel of elevation. This is the reason why we have larger tubes, it is not because they allow more light transmission; however, to your point there is a detriment to making the tube too small, but there's also a waste in making a tube too large which is why the industry has settled on 1 inch to 36mm, yes there are some outliers but by and large this has become the industry norm with 30mm and 34mm being the predominant tube size from any manufacturer.I hear you. I am probably wrong about bigger tube allows more light through. Intuition is not always right. Still have doubt though, imagine we go with a 1mm tube, are we still allowing same amount light through?
But I will take your explanations since you guys have researched this in the past probably times and times again.
But I will stick with 34mm tube for scopes in this range for what ever reason designers choose 34mm over 30mm for PM2, zp5, NF etc.
You are welcome to stick with 34mm scopes, nothing wrong with that, but if you think they offer more light transmission than a quality 30mm you are mistaken. One of the best low light performing scopes I've had was the Premier LT 3-15x50 with a 30mm tube (this scope is now the TT315M from Tangent Theta), it bested numerous 34mm scopes with regard to low light performance.
You may also want to consider the NightForce NXS 2.5-20. If you are a new customer to Mile High Shooting they have a 10% off coupon code you can use. I got a great price on mine, $1755, shipped.
Better scope in which way? The AMG is going to have better eyebox and DOF, but it's also a 4x erector vs. the NX8's 8x, much will depend on the type of shooting you will be doing, if you're going to be doing a lot of PRS style shooting where you'll engage different targets at different distances in a short amount of time I would say the AMG is going to be "better" but if your shooting is not rushed and you have time to fiddle with the parallax to get it just right at a specific distance you are shooting then the NX8 might have the advantage. The AMG is going to have better edge to edge sharpness, but CA control and center sharpness are probably on par. The NX8 performs extremely well optically in about the center 60% or so of the sight picture.
I will be using the scope for hunting little critters with a 22rf that move fast so the eyebox and the clarity of the glass will be important to me.From what you are saying the AMG would be the better scope for me.Im just waiting for the Burris XTR3 to come out to see if it is as good as i think it might be.Thank you for the input.
To each their own, but I think the AMG is damn near perfect as a hunting scope.
I think lots of folks will disagree with you on that, including myself. I have one on a 300WM elk rig right now as a matter of fact. Fortunately, we have lots of great options out there right now. I'm actually looking to pick up an NX8 at some point for another hunting scope.
Of course it’s all preference. I am not a big fan of FFP scopes for hunting game no matter the reticle but if I had to pick one it would be something like the Bushnell G3 illuminated or SWFA milquad reticle. These are thick enough to see somewhat decently when dialed down. I do think the EBR2C thickened up to .05 or better yet .06mil put innthe AMG would make a little more sense as a hunting scope.
I think the Bushnell LRTSI 4.5-18 with g3 reticle is a much better crossover scope Than the AMG. But to answer the OPs question, for a do it all the AMG is better than the Razor because of weight alone. For a range gun it would be the other way around.
To the guys using the AMG for hunting, could you elaborate more on the typical hunting conditions your in, and what you like/dislike about the AMG?
I have a 4-27 Gen2 Razor on a range gun, and I like everything about it (big eyebox, nice turrets, parallax isn't finicky, etc. etc.) except the weight is more than I care for on a hunting rifle. I've been thinking of picking up an AMG for some time, but I'm a little concerned about the low end Field of View. I know the AMG has a comparatively high FoV for the magnification, but I've always had optics with +30-ft FoV on the low end of magnification for my hunting set-ups......if only there was a 4-16 AMG option
I have a 4-27 Gen2 Razor on a range gun, and I like everything about it (big eyebox, nice turrets, parallax isn't finicky, etc. etc.) except the weight is more than I care for on a hunting rifle. I've been thinking of picking up an AMG for some time, but I'm a little concerned about the low end Field of View. I know the AMG has a comparatively high FoV for the magnification, but I've always had optics with +30-ft FoV on the low end of magnification for my hunting set-ups......if only there was a 4-16 AMG option
I do prefer the ebr2c reticle and agree that it would be awesome in the AMG. I’m guessing the majority of hunters use SFP scopes, and I tried it for a couple years, but I just prefer FFP. If I need to take a shot at a lower magnification, I’ll just turn the illumination on and it helps to see the reticle a little better.
To the guys using the AMG for hunting, could you elaborate more on the typical hunting conditions your in, and what you like/dislike about the AMG?
I have a 4-27 Gen2 Razor on a range gun, and I like everything about it (big eyebox, nice turrets, parallax isn't finicky, etc. etc.) except the weight is more than I care for on a hunting rifle. I've been thinking of picking up an AMG for some time, but I'm a little concerned about the low end Field of View. I know the AMG has a comparatively high FoV for the magnification, but I've always had optics with +30-ft FoV on the low end of magnification for my hunting set-ups......if only there was a 4-16 AMG option
For me, I like the lighter weight, good locking and tactile/audible turrets, illuminated reticle, decent reticle- though I’d prefer the ebr2c, decent FOV, and good glass that has almost zero CA. I hunt in WY in conditions that could be 80F to -20F. Low light in mornings and in evenings, and bright sunlight during the day. Shots can be pretty far out here and the 6-24 mag range works perfect for me.
The main issue with FFP scopes is reticle thickness. Manufacturers shouldn’t be worried about making a reticle too thick for hunting. It would be nearly impossible within reason. Make a .06 or .07 mil thick reticle. There is no need for fancy reticles. They just need to be thicker and I would be all in.
What do you plan on shooting at 6x that you don't think you'll see with the EBR-7 reticle? Even in this dark tree I was able to see the center cross pretty easily at 6x. Illumination does help but I don't feel with the AMG is necessary, the AMG and EBR-7 is one of the better reticles for FFP at low magnification.
Are you talking about that single tree in bright daylight? ? The smaller pic to the side is not comparable to what is seen with the eye as it is enhanced by being blown up in the photo.
You can’t argue with me on the facts such as that reticle on that scope at 6x is considerably thinner and smaller than traditional hunting scopes which make the reticle harder to see and slower to be picked up in good light and worse yet in bad lighing (when and where most people hunt ). This is not debatable as its truth.
Now you can argue that it is good enough for you or that you like it better. That comes down to personal opinion and I would never say you are wrong there as people have differing opinions and needs. Everything is a compromise. Seems like we both know what we like and thats fine.
Edited to add: i have used FFP scopes and hunted successfully as many others have. I have also done the same with SFP scopes and for my style, SFP is better for me when purely hunting. A thicker illuminated FFP scope is also serviceable for my needs. I apologize OP for throwing your thread off topic.
Last edited:
That was just an image I took to provide an example, the reticle is actually more prominent to my eye than it is through the image. Scopes with much higher magnification erector typically fair much worse than the AMG, take for example the March 3-24x52 with the FML-1 and try and see the reticle center at 3x, this is where FFP reticles really struggle, not so much with the 4x erector and even many 5x erector scopes. Comparing FFP reticles to SFP reticles is apples to oranges, I didn't realize that is what you were thinking. If you are unable to use a FFP reticle at low mag than don't use it, but to tell others
is a bit presumptuous to think that just because you cannot use it means nobody else can (or should). Many shooters, and dare I say hunters, have come to "see the light" of FFP optics and while they may not have as thick of reticle for low mag shooting, it is rare that I hunt (or rather take the shot) at the lowest mag setting of a given scope - I typically spot with another optic, setup my rifle, start at low mag to gain visual awareness and then zoom in to an appropriate level based on conditions to take the shot, rarely do I find myself in situations where I am needing to take the shot at low mags, but in fairness my hunting is done for big game here in Colorado which may be very different from the type of hunting you or others do. SFP scopes really struggle with being able to hold for wind which is how I do most of my shooting, with SFP even with a mil/moa reticle you still have to be fixed at a certain magnification (usually the max) which I find even more constrictive than the size of the reticle, if your magnification is off from what is calibrated on the reticle then your shot will be off, with FFP your hold value will always be the same regardless of magnification. For a FFP scope, the AMG and EBR-7 series reticles actually perform very well through the mag range of the scope, even at 6x and present one of the better FFP scopes for hunters.
I never said that I couldn't use a FFP reticle at low mag. I said that it isn't ideal (opinion) and is tougher to see in low light conditions (fact). Everything is a compromise such in my examples and such as the examples you gave. I also didn't say that nobody else shouldn't use the scope for hunting purposes. In fact I said that it comes down to personal opinion as I understand that people have different needs and that I would never tell someone they are wrong when having differing opinions than me.
It kind of seems like you are arguing with yourself since I neither said or insinuated anything that you accused me of and in fact stated the opposite. Good grief
What you write above is different from what you wrote earlier, this is what you wrote earlier:
That is what I'm basing my rebuttal on, I am not arguing with myself, I am disagreeing with your premise that the AMG "will hold you back" that the EBR-7 reticle is "thin and busy", that the EBR-7 "a hunting reticle it is not" or that the AMG is a scope that someone should "never consider for hunting use". We can agree to disagree, but you are trying to influence others to not use the AMG for hunting by your comments and I'm simply giving an alternative to that way of thinking.
Which is my opinion as what you said is yours. That is the whole point of these forums. People posting opinions. I wrote many other things as well. Read it all to get the whole picture. That is how conversation and discussion works. It doesn't matter to me what the OP, you, or anyone else uses. I popped in to give my two cents. I gave my reasons why I feel the way I do. You did the same thing. I also acknowledged others' differing opinions as well and never called anyone wrong because nobody would be in this case. I am through repeating myself and arguing with you over nothing. Once again......Good Grief!!!
