Rifle Scopes Razor Gen 3 line?
- Thread starter jzerfoss
- Start date
I'm happy with the current mag ranges, just want lower weight.
But as dreams are free, I'd be keen on the following:
2-12x32
3-20x44
3-20x50
4-28x50
4-28x56
6-42x56
But as dreams are free, I'd be keen on the following:
2-12x32
3-20x44
3-20x50
4-28x50
4-28x56
6-42x56
3-24x at 32oz max would be all I need. If they do the Gen 3 line like NF's NX8 and everything is at the 10x ratio then 2-20x and 4-40x would be expected. Of course I'd have called it the Gen X line then. 
Really just curious how usable the 1-10x reticle will be. Looks awesome though. Definitely going to buy one of these.
Really just curious how usable the 1-10x reticle will be. Looks awesome though. Definitely going to buy one of these.
I wouldn't mind a lightweight 2-20x50 hunting scope.
That would be great at 13inches and under 30oz.
Like y'all have said. I love my Gen2 4.5-27 but it's way too heavy to use hunting. if they could do a lighter 30-34mm tube, 44+mm obj, and something in the 2/3 low range, 15-25 high range, they'd probably get a lot of my money.
The AMG covers a lot of that except low end.
I want tool-less zero knobs, and improved glass that handles mirage better. As much as I love my G2 Razor, their zero system leaves a lot to be desired (IMO), and I've struggled on some hot summer stages where the mirage was high and the targets were far or partially obscured.
I'd prefer something like an HST with better glass and reticle options. At just over 13 inches and about 21 ounces, it would be ideal with a low magnification of 2.
Tool less zero stop would great.
100% agree and love my AMG but the low end (6) is way too high to me for a hunting scenario and doesn't get used for that and where my 3-15 PST Gen IIs get used but wish they had the better glass. I'd posit they make an AMG with a lower end start but then the higher end wouldn't be there with just a 4x system.
I would really like to see a 4-20x or thereabout version of the AMG.
I am playing with some March scopes that go after that same niche, so I know it is possible and can be done well. I am evaluating a March 4.5-28x52 prototype that weighs 30 ounces, is 13 inches long and has about 23 mrad FOV on 20x. It is not the final version and all, but the AMG is getting a little long in the tooth and competition is not exactly snoozing. This March will really go head to head with ZCO 4-20x50, S&B 3-20x50 and AMG 6-24x60. AMG being 6x on the low end is a real disadvantage in this group, although it is a little lighter.
That havng been said, I am not getting rid of my AMG any time soon. It is very easy to use and just about bulletproof.
As far Razor Gen 3 goes, I would not hold my breath. Vortex has a lot of things going on and if I were them, I would not be in a rush to reinvent the entire tactical Razor line until the 1-10x24 is in full production and stable. I would really like to see more from the AMG and HD LH product lines.
ILya
I am playing with some March scopes that go after that same niche, so I know it is possible and can be done well. I am evaluating a March 4.5-28x52 prototype that weighs 30 ounces, is 13 inches long and has about 23 mrad FOV on 20x. It is not the final version and all, but the AMG is getting a little long in the tooth and competition is not exactly snoozing. This March will really go head to head with ZCO 4-20x50, S&B 3-20x50 and AMG 6-24x60. AMG being 6x on the low end is a real disadvantage in this group, although it is a little lighter.
That havng been said, I am not getting rid of my AMG any time soon. It is very easy to use and just about bulletproof.
As far Razor Gen 3 goes, I would not hold my breath. Vortex has a lot of things going on and if I were them, I would not be in a rush to reinvent the entire tactical Razor line until the 1-10x24 is in full production and stable. I would really like to see more from the AMG and HD LH product lines.
ILya
[QUOTE="koshkin, post: 8209764, member: 7515"
As far Razor Gen 3 goes, I would not hold my breath. Vortex has a lot of things going on and if I were them, I would not be in a rush to reinvent the entire tactical Razor line until the 1-10x24 is in full production and stable. I would really like to see more from the AMG and HD LH product lines.
ILya
[/QUOTE]
I would be surprised if they don't follow up with some type of long range competitive and/or hunting optic since those are larger markets. Comparatively to the dying 3 gun or 2 gun matches which is what I'm guessing the 1-10x is designed for unless they are going for a contract.
As far Razor Gen 3 goes, I would not hold my breath. Vortex has a lot of things going on and if I were them, I would not be in a rush to reinvent the entire tactical Razor line until the 1-10x24 is in full production and stable. I would really like to see more from the AMG and HD LH product lines.
ILya
[/QUOTE]
I would be surprised if they don't follow up with some type of long range competitive and/or hunting optic since those are larger markets. Comparatively to the dying 3 gun or 2 gun matches which is what I'm guessing the 1-10x is designed for unless they are going for a contract.
I would be surprised if they don't follow up with some type of long range competitive and/or hunting optic since those are larger markets. Comparatively to the dying 3 gun or 2 gun matches which is what I'm guessing the 1-10x is designed for unless they are going for a contract.
[/QUOTE]
I am sure they will, but I will be surprised if it happens within a year.
ILya
Not light enough or low enough.
A 3-12/15 around 20oz and I’m sold. Currently using the March 3-24x42 at 20 oz. I’m willing to give up some magnification for better FoV.
I thought it was aimed at mall ninja who thought the video was sick and thought it should be made into a movie.
The only thing more cringeworthy than that video were the instagram comments.
Been asking Vortex for a 4-20x50 AMG for quite some time, but would accept a Gen III 4-20x50 that was around 30oz or less.
Better glass that handles mirage better? Have you tried the same environment on a different scope? I have tested the G2 razor and ATACR and S&B under similar conditions and found them all very similar. Perhaps you have too much magnification dialed in or have a lot of heat coming off your barrel or can.
It would have worked for him. If you need a scope that light then you need a hunting style like the Razor HD LH/ 3-15x and 16.5 ounces. You start losing features on the scopes when you want super light.
Had one, great scope. I could deal with the SFP for a hunting rifle. I could not deal with MOA.It would have worked for him. If you need a scope that light then you need a hunting style like the Razor HD LH/ 3-15x and 16.5 ounces. You start losing features on the scopes when you want super light.
Hurry up and talk them into making a Mil version!
There are a couple local shooters that use Tangent Thetas, and I can assure you they “see through” mirage better than a Razor.
the mirage issues is what drove me away from vortex...everyone raves about vortex glass...it’s not that great.
I have and with all the glass you mentioned...2 other guys and myself laid or in the dirt on a 95deg day for a couple hours looking at targets at 300-550-700 and 850 at different magnifications.
2 kahles(mine)a 5-25 mark5 a vortex 4.5x27 a PSTGEN2....I sold both kahles the next day and bought a 5-25 and a 7-35 mark5s...we did not have a S&B but I’ve looked through enough of them to know the mark5 is better in the mirage.
I had two AMG's, they both had phenomenal glass that impressed me enough to sell my Kahles and Schmidt & Bender at the time. Be careful when you make claims like this as it infers that none of their scopes have great glass, but "great" is a relative term. For the quality of glass you get with different lines of Vortex optics, they seem to punch above their weight class compared to other scopes within similar price class. Maybe the Razor Gen II 4.5-27 isn't as good as the S&B PMII 5-25 but neither does the Vortex cost as much.
ive owned just about every high end scope so I’ve looked through enough glass to make claims about scopes and I’ve looked through 3 AMGs and they are nice but they do not impress me.
This is a prototype, so I will hold off on publishing a full review until there is a production model to look at.
This scope was designed for depth of field and ease of use while maintaining compact size. It is a touch shorter than 3-24x52 March, but a bit heavier with its 34mm tube: just under 30 ounces. Really wide FOV, covered windage turret and a couple of new reticles.
ILya
They do. I have a couple of Tangents and they are remarkably good in bad atmospheric conditions. I did side-by-side with a bunch of fancy scopes to see which sees through mirage better.
ILya
Oh okay, I didn't realize that, you must be right, all Vortex glass doesn't impress. ?
If you are located SE Qld let me know and can compare ZCO420 side by side to your 525i.
You mean 4 or 5x or zoom ratio as they make a 28.5 ounce 4 zoom right now with the AMG 6-24 but 50mm objective. The 50mm works fine on it though.
I doubt tooless zero will be showing up. Just is what it is. Don't know for sure but just a feeling. If it was a choice between tooless and clickless as it is now I would definitely like clickless. I like being able to get a perfect zero. Just my preference. Had tooless in Premiers years back and it was nice.
As to the glass debate, you like TT then go buy one at $4700. You want a scope that will do 95% of what it will do then get a Razor II for under $2000. Simple. People have to buy what works for them.
I said it does not impress “ME” or “MY” eyes...I’m not knocking or saying vortex Does not make good scopes I’m telling the OP my opinion.
I understand that a TT is better, and also costs $2500+ more than a Gen2 Razor. I do prefer the short form factor of the Razor vs the uber long TT, and the weight doesn't bother me as it's sole use is on my match rifle where the extra 10oz gets lost in the fray.
Honestly (for ME) the Vortex turret/zero system leaves a lot to be desired. It's just more work than it's worth to get that sub-0.1 mil "perfect" zero, especially if you ever swap barrels on an AI, DT, etc. Not only do you have to unscrew the cap (which always gets marred up), then three set screws, then have to adjust the clickless turret the correct direction. It seems easy/foolproof, but when you're rushing before a match, or trying to adjust zero without taking any more shots, I've seen (and done it myself) where you end up adjusting that last 0.2 mils the wrong direction and completely screwing yourself up. I also got rid of my AMG after one match, as when I adjusted the zero and re-tightened the set screws, the zero would move (rotate) on its own, no matter how I tightened the set screws. My Razor has never done that over the course of 4 years.
There's just something inherently better (to me) about shooting a group, adjusting the turret with the regular click adjustments to get it zeroed, then doing a couple set screws to rotate the turret to zero. DONE. Even easier if it's a TT because you don't need the set screws. Vortex if you're listening... ?
3-30 daylight bright illumination.
Do you guys think, that if there is and will be bigger scopes in gen III line, are they 34 or 36mm tube.
Old gen II 1-6 is 30mm and the new low end scope is 34mm.
Are the bigger ones be also with bigger main tube?
ZCO has 36mm main tube, so could Vortex go in the gen III also for the 36mm tube, or stay in the 34mm.
Do you guys think, that if there is and will be bigger scopes in gen III line, are they 34 or 36mm tube.
Old gen II 1-6 is 30mm and the new low end scope is 34mm.
Are the bigger ones be also with bigger main tube?
ZCO has 36mm main tube, so could Vortex go in the gen III also for the 36mm tube, or stay in the 34mm.
If everyone would just abandon the "official" Vortex process for adjusting L-Tec turrets, they'd be a lot happier with the process. Frankly, the erectors move WAAAAY too easily to be farting around with adjusting them with a screwdriver. I'm not aware of any other scope that can adjust in increments smaller than a turret click, and I don't feel like I actually need that level of precision anyway. My process:
- adjust turrets until rifle shoots to point of aim
- lock turrets
- pull caps, loosen screws
- unlock turret and turn to zero
- lock turret again (and press internal "hub" back into place, if it stays elevated)
- gently tighten screws until L-Tec tool just starts to "bend" a bit (per Vortex)
- replace caps
You really don't need to lock/unlock, but I do it to prevent accidental movement of the turret while I'm working.
That's because you managed to gorrilla one of the set screws when you zero'ed it. It mars the hub, and the screw tries to slip back into the marred spot when you tighten it down. I did the same thing. Vortex sent me a couple of hubs (one to fix the scope, one to have as a spare, just in case). They also gave me the "tighten until the included tool just barely starts to bend or flex" suggestion.
I agree that TT's tooless turrets are fantastic, and having something that works more like that would be very cool. But... in the meantime, there's a better way to zero these scopes (IMO).
Good to know. I bought the AMG used, and this happened to me on my first range session when I was trying to zero it, so maybe it wasn't me. Like I said, I've never had that issue with my Razor and I've cranked down those screws pretty hard.
As stated many times already in this thread just give me a new mid power AMG!!! Please! 3-4x on the low end and 15-20x on the high end. 44 - 50mm objective. 30mm tube. Shorten it 2" or so. 25 ounces or less.
I apologize for my snarky remark, just in a mood I guess and thought your original comment was a bit abrasive
I would agree with you that there is a lot of glass that "I" do not like, to my eyes it just doesn't match up with other glass at a similar price point. As I mentioned above, Vortex tends to punch above it's weight for the price you can usually get the scopes for (not MSRP, but actual street price), this has often been the "value" behind Vortex; however, I will admit that many manufacturers have been uping their game of late. You mention grabbing a couple Leupold Mark 5's because you felt they were superior to Kahles, Vortex and Schmidt and Bender with mirage, I've heard really good things about those scopes (the 5-25's) but I think some would argue your conclusions.
With regard to mirage, you bring up an interesting point, mirage is an atmospheric condition and I've often thought what gives one scope an ability to "penetrate" mirage better than another and my guess is that it is a combination of the scopes ability to resolve detail, micro contrast and wide DOF. Mirage is not something you can eliminate through the design of the scope like CA and other optical aberrations, because it is an atmospheric condition it will exist regardless of the scope you have, I do not believe there is any multi-coating or optical trickery that cuts through mirage better, but it's more a matter of what our eye perceives and again, scopes that tend to offer better resolution, micro contrast and wide DOF seem to do better in this regard. So is it really that one scope allows you to "see through" mirage better than another, or more a matter of the detail of the image that you see gives the perception that it is "cutting" through mirage. This is not the thread to get into a long discussion about this, but might be a good topic on its own.
I usually don't test for mirage in my reviews, but now I'm thinking I ought to, especially when I'm doing comparisons to other scopes.
ZCO claimed they went with a 36mm tube because they wanted zero compromise and felt they had to use 36mm to keep optical distortion to a minimum when the scope was bottomed out at max elevation. I have not seen any conclusive evidence that the ZCO is any better than say a Schmidt & Bender 3-27x56 when both are set at 35 mils elevation, all things being equal. The new March 5-42x56 High Master has 40 mils of elevation and uses a 34mm tube, I'd be curious to see how the ZCO and March compare when both are set at 35 mils but might test this when I get the 5-42.
Back to your point, I do not believe we will see a 36mm Vortex, the original Razor used a 35mm tube but Vortex abandoned that with the Gen II most likely because 34mm is much more popular and they did not see a distinct advantage with 35mm over 34mm. Without discrediting ZCO's claims, I'm not convinced that 36mm has that much advantage over 34mm (I may be wrong).
Guess I'll throw my wish list but out there. I like multiple purpose scopes. Basically a competitive long range scope that wouldn't be horrible to throw on your hunting rifle.. I realize there are similar power ranges out there but I think Vortex could do it with a better feature set and at a lower price.
3-24x and 5-35x with no tunneling (yes I know those are different ranges)
34mm tube
Semi-short/ultra-short length
Same turret features as the 4.5-27 or maybe add 2 mils but have spacing for clicks
No purpleish/brown/red poop color
35oz range or lighter would be nice on the 3-24x
Best in class FOV or close to
3-24x and 5-35x with no tunneling (yes I know those are different ranges)
34mm tube
Semi-short/ultra-short length
Same turret features as the 4.5-27 or maybe add 2 mils but have spacing for clicks
No purpleish/brown/red poop color
35oz range or lighter would be nice on the 3-24x
Best in class FOV or close to
no need to apologize your good...and i dont mean to be abrasive.
i agree 100% that vortex is a great value for someone on a budget or if the scope suits your eye and like i said ive owned a few vortex scopes...theres a PST GEN2 on my vudoo right now.
you are also 100% correct about better detail in the mirage or in simple terms "seeing through mirage better"...as i said we looked at several targets but mostly at a rabbit silhouette at 550yds because that target in particular is pretty much ground level all the way out so the mirage is bad...looking at that target with every scope ive owned when its hot it is blurry...when i look at that target through a mark5 i can clearly see that it is a rabbit and so can everyone else that has looked through the mark5...im not saying the the mark5 is better in every aspect because the turrets could be better and i could nit-pick a few other things but the glass "TO MY EYE" is hands down better.
scopes are like everything else in life i buy and use what i like and what works best for me...only problem with scopes is ive spent enough to pay cash for a new truck finding the one that fits best LOL!!
LOL! I think we should form a club - the "I could have bought a new truck, but decided to find the right scope" club
