Rifle Scopes Razor HD Gen 3 - what’s next?

[b6graham]

I think he was speaking of the higher powered top end FFP scopes.

his ramblings in post 33 about a 3-18 AMG

btw, played with a 4-32 NX8 this weekend. perfectly usable at 4x. holdover at 44mil is usable.

it's about smart design and lineweights. there's a reason the 4-16 5-25 and 7-35 etc have different thickness lines

 

[wade2big]

I think he was speaking of the higher powered top end FFP scopes.

his ramblings in post 33 about a 3-18 AMG

btw, played with a 4-32 NX8 this weekend. perfectly usable at 4x. holdover at 44mil is usable.

it's about smart design and lineweights. there's a reason the 4-16 5-25 and 7-35 etc have different thickness lines

i agree that reticle thickness helps. The LRTSI scopes use a .06 mil thick reticle. They are by far the best FFP scopes if a more user friendly lower end is wanted/needed. That said the lower end still sucks compared to scopes geared for the lower end. Its all tradeoffs. I use all types.

i did say if Vortex would throw a .06 mil thick reticle in the theoretical 3-18 amg that keeps getting brought up it would actually make sense.

 

[Luvman]

I would like to see a 3-27 gen 3 razor with FOV numbers at 3X the same athe 3-18 gen2.

As to FFP being unusable at 3X I had no problems with my gen2 razor at 3X. I currently run a 3-20 PM2 and have no issues with the reticle at 3X

BTW I was shooting out to 1600 this weekend at around 16x. No issues seeing the target. Hitting it was another story.

You guys get way too hung up on magnification. Tracking, FOV, and IQ (in that order) all rank higher than magnification for me.

 

[chutinlead]

I doubt they will be able to bring the 10x zoom range to anything above the 1-10. As cool as a 2-20x would be, I think a 3-24 would be amazing and only 8x zoom factor. Bring it to the Viper lineup and have the range to do both of what the current PST scopes can do.

 

[koshkin]

Doesn't Marche make something along those lines?

March makes a 8-80x56 SFP scope and 6-60x56 FFP.

ILya

 

[Odysseus1911]

March makes a 8-80x56 SFP scope and 6-60x56 FFP.

ILya

Wow

 

[koshkin]

I doubt they will be able to bring the 10x zoom range to anything above the 1-10. As cool as a 2-20x would be, I think a 3-24 would be amazing and only 8x zoom factor. Bring it to the Viper lineup and have the range to do both of what the current PST scopes can do.

3-24x52 has been it for a long time from March.

S&B has a 3-27x56 although it is a lot larger.

3-30x is definitely doable, but there are compromises involved.

ILya

 

[goneballistic]

I'D like to see something in the 3x18 range for a hunting optic. I thought really hard about the 1x10 but not sure it will pull enough light in the 30 min windows before and after sunset.

They should release one like the Leopold mk5 3x18. They are really liked and short.

With the vortex warranty and a short light repeatable scope, they'd sell a lot of them

 

[HMRamateur]

They aren’t ideal for anyone under those conditions described. It would be dishonest to say otherwise.

Get any FFP scope you choose and turn it down to 4x. Now get a Leupold or similar duplex reticle SFP and turn it down to 4x. The SFP duplex reticle blows the FFP scope out the water as far as usability goes. The FFP would be crushed in poor lighting. These types of scopes are superior out to 300 yards.

Get on past that to where the magnification can be cranked up and wind holds become important than yes the FFP scopes are superior. My point is not to discount either. My point is that there are tradeoffs inherent in both designs.

That 1-10 you pointed me to would be a worse choice yet on a hunting rifle.

I would like to know your thoughts on why you think it's a bad choice for a hunting rifle? Not disagreeing, just curious

 

[wade2big]

I would like to see a 3-27 gen 3 razor with FOV numbers at 3X the same athe 3-18 gen2.

As to FFP being unusable at 3X I had no problems with my gen2 razor at 3X. I currently run a 3-20 PM2 and have no issues with the reticle at 3X

BTW I was shooting out to 1600 this weekend at around 16x. No issues seeing the target. Hitting it was another story.

You guys get way too hung up on magnification. Tracking, FOV, and IQ (in that order) all rank higher than magnification for me.

I would like to know your thoughts on why you think it's a bad choice for a hunting rifle? Not disagreeing, just curious

@HMRamateur,
Feel free to disagree. I never said that the scope would be bad for hunting. I can’t decide that for someone else. My point is that regardless of what anyone says, these tactical FFP scopes have many benefits, but many drawbacks as well. It is up to the end user to decide what he wants and needs. The $150 Leupold with a 40mm objective kills the $1800 Razor in low light applications and especially at low mag which is a necessity shooting at last light.

Here are some pictures I just took. The scopes used are a Vortex Gen 2 3-18x50 and the cheapest 3-9x40 Leupold you can get. All photos taken at 3X. Remember I was by myself and getting these through scope pictures with my phone was tough. Use them to get the idea only.

20 minutes of legal shooting light left
Razor

20 min of legal shooting life Leupold

Last legal shooting light razor

lastl legal shooting light 30min after sunset Leupold

here is where illuminations is a must for a hunting scope as you can see the Razor reticle is gone. The Leupold actually stands out much bolder with the bare eye at last light than even the photos show. Remember the Leupold only has a 40mm objective as well. It is the clear winner over the Razor not only in reticle visibility but image quality when the light fades. This isn’t saying anything against the Razors at all. I have many. I have done this same thing with many other brands and the simple hunting scopes always win in these conditions. Go out shooting long range in switch winds, and the results would be completely opposite. I just wanted to give guys something to think about before they buy that “do it all scope.” It doesn’t exist. You won’t be competing with the same scope you are fox and coyote hunting with under red lights at night. You can get by using a wrench for a hammer sometimes but it isn’t ideal.


The photo below shows that illumination does do its job. The Leupold doesn’t need it however.

I cant wait to see what Vortex Gen III hunting line of scopes look like since they discontinued the Razor LH scope (i believe that is what it was called). I am a Vortex man myself and will buy there top tier hunter when it comes out if it meets my requirements.

 

[HMRamateur]

@HMRamateur,
Feel free to disagree. I never said that the scope would be bad for hunting. I can’t decide that for someone else. My point is that regardless of what anyone says, these tactical FFP scopes have many benefits, but many drawbacks as well. It is up to the end user to decide what he wants and needs. The $150 Leupold with a 40mm objective kills the $1800 Razor in low light applications and especially at low mag which is a necessity shooting at last light.

Here are some pictures I just took. The scopes used are a Vortex Gen 2 3-18x50 and the cheapest 3-9x40 Leupold you can get. All photos taken at 3X. Remember I was by myself and getting these through scope pictures with my phone was tough. Use them to get the idea only.

20 minutes of legal shooting light left
Razor
View attachment 7257899


20 min of legal shooting life Leupold
View attachment 7257900

Last legal shooting light razor
View attachment 7257911

lastl legal shooting light 30min after sunset Leupold
View attachment 7257912

here is where illuminations is a must for a hunting scope as you can see the Razor reticle is gone. The Leupold actually stands out much bolder with the bare eye at last light than even the photos show. Remember the Leupold only has a 40mm objective as well. It is the clear winner over the Razor not only in reticle visibility but image quality when the light fades. This isn’t saying anything against the Razors at all. I have many. I have done this same thing with many other brands and the simple hunting scopes always when in these conditions. Go out shooting long range in switch winds, and the results would be completely opposite. I just wanted to give guys something to think about before they buy that “do it all scope.” It doesn’t exist. You won’t be competing with the same scope you are fox and coyote hunting with under red lights at night. You can get by using a wrench for a hammer sometimes but it isn’t ideal.


The photo below shows that illumination does do its job. The Leupold doesn’t need it however.

View attachment 7257906


I cant wait to see what Vortex Gen III hunting line of scopes look like since they discontinued the Razor LH scope (i believe that is what it was called). I am a Vortex man myself and will buy there top tier hunter when it comes out if it meets my requirements.

Thanks for the insight. I was curious about the 1-10 for a hunting scope because I love a 1x red dot in the bush, and a 10x is all I need on the high end. The 2-10 Leupold has been the top of my list for my next hunting scope, so it's good to see a little bit of proof that the more expensive option doesn't always mean the better option in that scenario.

 

[wade2big]

Thanks for the insight. I was curious about the 1-10 for a hunting scope because I love a 1x red dot in the bush, and a 10x is all I need on the high end. The 2-10 Leupold has been the top of my list for my next hunting scope, so it's good to see a little bit of proof that the more expensive option doesn't always mean the better option in that scenario.

The 1-10 has a 24mm objective. That would be tough when the sun isn’t up. That small objective won’t let much light through. It would work well during most of the day though. Depending on the hunting you do, it may be perfect. I don’t have one to compare to so I am just speculating.

A 2-10x42Leupold would be a fantastic choice if it suits your needs. Since this is a Vortex thread, check out a comparable one from them.

 

[Aescobar17]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the people complaining about weight don't shoot prs, or they have other non-prs guns they would like glass for.

Don’t go using any logic here. It’s not like there was ever any shooting occurring before PRS came about.

 

[LawnMM]

How about a 1-10 with gen 2 razor turrets you can dial? ??‍

 

[JayseM_SportOptics]

I'm thinking they're going to try something along the 2.5-25 line. Idk how well it may work, but I suppose if anyone can pull it off Vortex has as good a chance as anyone.

 

[Rob01]

How about a 1-10 with gen 2 razor turrets you can dial? ??‍

That would be great but then you would have people complaining how heavy it is compared to other 1-8/10 scopes.

 

[DJL2]

A 4-36 would be pretty neat...from ACOG to ATACR with one throw of the lever would cover everything from up close to out long pretty well.

I'll echo the comments about losing weight. They're not just competition scopes, are they? Ounces equal pounds, pounds equal...well, you know how that goes. Anyone ever hit the field with their kit and think "Man, I wish I had some more shit to carry, all this stuff is just too light?" I'd love to meet that guy, because it ain't me. ;-) There's a reason I've got my eye on a March if I scrape together enough cash (or just decide to blow the slush fund / tax refund).

 

[Geno C.]

A 4-36 would be pretty neat...from ACOG to ATACR with one throw of the lever would cover everything from up close to out long pretty well.

I'll echo the comments about losing weight. They're not just competition scopes, are they? Ounces equal pounds, pounds equal...well, you know how that goes. Anyone ever hit the field with their kit and think "Man, I wish I had some more shit to carry, all this stuff is just too light?" I'd love to meet that guy, because it ain't me. ;-) There's a reason I've got my eye on a March if I scrape together enough cash (or just decide to blow the slush fund / tax refund).

I believe they were originally designed to pretty much be tactical scopes, hunting wasn’t something they put too much consideration into with the gen2 razors

 

[Rob01]

Ah the thread wouldn't be complete without someone being up the ounces equals pound yada yada yada. Lol

Yup the Razor II was designed as a competition/Tactical long range scope. Can it be used for other things? Sure. People complained about the weight and Vortex listened and put out the AMG as a long range hunter at 28.5 ounces but still doesn't make people happy so guess the moral is you can't make everyone happy and you never will. That said Vortex will keep trying as they listen to their customers so keep watching.

 

[wade2big]

Ah the thread wouldn't be complete without someone being up the ounces equals pound yada yada yada. Lol

Yup the Razor II was designed as a competition/Tactical long range scope. Can it be used for other things? Sure. People complained about the weight and Vortex listened and put out the AMG as a long range hunter at 28.5 ounces but still doesn't make people happy so guess the moral is you can't make everyone happy and you never will. That said Vortex will keep trying as they listen to their customers so keep watching.

Vortex is giving it one hell of a try though.

 

[chutinlead]

Vortex is giving it one hell of a try though.

I think they made a good move with the 3-15x44 PST. I just got one for my entrance into long range/still a hunting rifle. I personally wouldn't want anything over 44mm objective on a hunting rifle.

 

[koshkin]

On FFP scopes for hunting: we have had this argument before and it is a fundamentally dishonest one.

If you take a FFP scope with a reticle designed for precision, it will not have a particularly bold reticle on 3x. It is not designed for that. It can be used for that in a pinch with illumination. You are comparing it to traditional SFP hunting scope. It would be equally silly tryign to compare how your cheap Leupold SPF scope will do in PRS next to the 3-18x Gen 2 Razor.

It is not even an apples to oranges comparison. It is more like apples staplers comparison.

It is not terribly difficult to design a FFP reticle that works fairly well across the board. One example is the FFP Meopta Meostar 3-12x56 (there are both FFP and SFP versions). It is a hunting scope, so the reticles are designed for that. They have 4B, 4 Dichro, #4 and #1 reticles that work great in any light on any magnification in a FFP hunting scope.

When I designed the reticle for the 3-18x50FFP Optika6, I added a donut there specifically for visibility on 3x and it works quite nicely in low light on 3x.

The new TT Hunter has a differently sized FFP reticle from the M scope and it works nicely on low power sicne it was designed with that in mind.

SWFA SS 3-9x42 is FFP and is perfectly usable in low light on 4x.

The fact that most FFP reticles are quite thin on low power is a reflection of the fact that most of these scopes were designed for precision.

ILya

 

[koshkin]

That would be great but then you would have people complaining how heavy it is compared to other 1-8/10 scopes.

The turrets in the 1-10x dial quite nicely and seem very repeatable. Personally, I prefer to use the reticle in scopes like this, but that wide low profile turret is really nice.

ILya

 

[Rob01]

The turrets in the 1-10x dial quite nicely and seem very repeatable. Personally, I prefer to use the reticle in scopes like this, but that wide low profile turret is really nice.

ILya

I agree. In my 1-6 the only time I use the turrets is to zero then the caps go on. It will work even better with the 1-10 as it has a more precise reticle.

 

[wade2big]

On FFP scopes for hunting: we have had this argument before and it is a fundamentally dishonest one.

If you take a FFP scope with a reticle designed for precision, it will not have a particularly bold reticle on 3x. It is not designed for that. It can be used for that in a pinch with illumination. You are comparing it to traditional SFP hunting scope. It would be equally silly tryign to compare how your cheap Leupold SPF scope will do in PRS next to the 3-18x Gen 2 Razor.

It is not even an apples to oranges comparison. It is more like apples staplers comparison.

It is not terribly difficult to design a FFP reticle that works fairly well across the board. One example is the FFP Meopta Meostar 3-12x56 (there are both FFP and SFP versions). It is a hunting scope, so the reticles are designed for that. They have 4B, 4 Dichro, #4 and #1 reticles that work great in any light on any magnification in a FFP hunting scope.

When I designed the reticle for the 3-18x50FFP Optika6, I added a donut there specifically for visibility on 3x and it works quite nicely in low light on 3x.

The new TT Hunter has a differently sized FFP reticle from the M scope and it works nicely on low power sicne it was designed with that in mind.

SWFA SS 3-9x42 is FFP and is perfectly usable in low light on 4x.

The fact that most FFP reticles are quite thin on low power is a reflection of the fact that most of these scopes were designed for precision.

ILya

Thank you for solidifying my point. My intentions are to show there are differences and tradeoffs between these FFP scopes and SFP. I already made the point in this thread that a standard hunting scope is at a disadvantage past about 300 yards or so compared to a good FFP or SFP scope with a milling reticle but a huge advantage in low light and closer in situations. We agree.

Comparing apples to oranges is exactly what I was going for to prove this point as there are too many guys who think one type of scope or the other is always the answer. It is not. Compromises have to be made in one area or the other. Its up to the end user to decide what he wants to highlight and which areas he wants to give up. This is absolutely not a fundamentally dishonest comparison. It is dishonest to say one type excels over the other all the time. It doesn’t.

Reticle design plays a huge role just as you described. It plays just as big of a role in SFP scopes as FFP scopes. If I am night hunting varmints, I wouldn't use the duplex reticle that I pictured. I would use a thick duplex reticle in a sfp scope. A FFP scope regardless of reticle or illumination would not even be considered. If I were hunting the wide open plains where longer shots are more normal than not or shooting matches or general plinking then I would have that illuminated FFP scope on board to take advantage of the holdovers on any magnification.

A well designed FFP reticle can close the gap some but it is still a tradeoff and still should’ t be considered for some uses (night and thick timber hunting for example). I have been very successful with a Bushnell LRHSI scope with the ring of death. It is an example of what you described and is one of the better all around FFP scopes for sure. I am not arguing one over the other. I have thousands tied up in both. I am just pointing out differences for all to consider. Not everyone understands the tradeoffs. Hopefully this conversation and the photos provided helps with that.

 

[steve123]

So funny when people complain about the Gen II weight, about 10 OUNCES more than similar scopes, and then add weight kits and tons of ARCA to their chassied match rifles and use MTU/Heavy Varmint weight barrels for more weight to tame recoil. LOL If 10 ounces takes you down then I don't know what to say.

Yeah, the way things have gone in tactical comps with all the obstacle shooting it caused that extra weight of the Gen2 Razor to actually work out well for this application.

 

[steve123]

Out of curiosity could someone put through the scope "20 minutes before dark" pics of the new 1-10 on 10x please.

I love FFP as much as anyone but with my old eyes I opted for a SFP 4-16 on my yote rifle. Man a basic mildot is great for this type of hunting when most shots are inside 200Y and scope on 4x. Top of back for 300Y on 4x. 10x for holds. 16x and dial.

 

[koshkin]

Out of curiosity could someone put through the scope "20 minutes before dark" pics of the new 1-10 on 10x please.

I love FFP as much as anyone but with my old eyes I opted for a SFP 4-16 on my yote rifle. Man a basic mildot is great for this type of hunting when most shots are inside 200Y and scope on 4x. Top of back for 300Y on 4x. 10x for holds. 16x and dial.

I'll try to take some pictures later in the week.

To be clear though: if you do not need 1x on a very frequent basis, do not buy a 1-anything scope. If the scope is going to be on 4x most of the time, there are better options.

ILya

 

[beetroot]

Ah the thread wouldn't be complete without someone being up the ounces equals pound yada yada yada. Lol

Yup the Razor II was designed as a competition/Tactical long range scope. Can it be used for other things? Sure. People complained about the weight and Vortex listened and put out the AMG as a long range hunter at 28.5 ounces but still doesn't make people happy so guess the moral is you can't make everyone happy and you never will. That said Vortex will keep trying as they listen to their customers so keep watching.

Why do you have your panties in a twist over folk wanting a lighter weight Razor?
This whole thread is supposed to be about what folk would like to see changed in the Gen 3 Razor, weight is something the obviously could be improved upon.
This thread would be worthless if all we wanted was the exact same scope as the Gen 2, just a new name and higher price.

Pretty much every review on the Gen 2 Razor will say that it's an excellent scope with the caveat of being heavy.
There's no other scope that even comes close to the same weight, even the 40mm tube IOR only weighs 42oz.
You might say it's only 10oz heavier but that's 25-35% more than most competing scopes.

Does that make it a piece of shit? No over course not, but is it something that can be improved on in the next generation? Yes.
The very fact that Vortex released the Gen II-e 1-6 shows that the Razor could clearly loose a few ounces.

Notice on the initial Gen 3 1-10 press release they specifically mention that despite being a 34mm instead of a 30mm the weight was kept the same? Clearly it's important to them and the shooting public.

 

[b6graham]

you're literally talking to yourself at this point.

your viewpoints don't match the VAST majority of users who buy appropriate scopes for their purpose. you know the logical thing to do

can i put the new 1-10 on a prs rifle and shoot just fine? sure but im not gonna bitch because it's only a 24mm objective. that's why they make other scopes.

that weight gain is much more important on the MAJORITY of people who are going to be buying a 1-10.

there's tons of room for upgrades for the gen 3. weight is not high on the list of what most people have as a prioprity

 

[Rob01]

Why do you have your panties in a twist over folk wanting a lighter weight Razor?
This whole thread is supposed to be about what folk would like to see changed in the Gen 3 Razor, weight is something the obviously could be improved upon.
This thread would be worthless if all we wanted was the exact same scope as the Gen 2, just a new name and higher price.

Pretty much every review on the Gen 2 Razor will say that it's an excellent scope with the caveat of being heavy.
There's no other scope that even comes close to the same weight, even the 40mm tube IOR only weighs 42oz.
You might say it's only 10oz heavier but that's 25-35% more than most competing scopes.

Does that make it a piece of shit? No over course not, but is it something that can be improved on in the next generation? Yes.
The very fact that Vortex released the Gen II-e 1-6 shows that the Razor could clearly loose a few ounces.

Notice on the initial Gen 3 1-10 press release they specifically mention that despite being a 34mm instead of a 30mm the weight was kept the same? Clearly it's important to them and the shooting public.

Why are your panties in a bunch over my opinion? LOL

It's important to some. Not all. Not me. I just find it funny when people say things and do the opposite. "Make my scope light! How can I attach this weight kit to my chassis?" Funny.

 

[hk dave]

I'm still waiting for a digital reticle that can be changed to suit my situation that can be left on with aimpoint battery life.

 

[wade2big]

Here is my Vortex Gen III wish list. I may be the only one interested though. LOL

Bring back the Razor Hunting models (I'm in the market for a couple)
1" main tube
44 and 50 mm obj options
15-18X
Simple mil reticle
SFP calibrated at 12-15X
capped windage
exposed elevation
reliable turrets
weight at 20 oz or under

This would be a pure hunter. No need for 30 mils of elevation in this one as 8-900 yard shots are not what I am after with this one. I would think a 1" tube would keep the weight down and allow enough elevation to get out plenty far especially if a 20moa rail is used. If that isn't possible then a bump to a 30mm would work but would be at a weight penalty.

As far as tactical scopes go, the Gen II Razor has me covered already (own 3) but Vortex would have to offer other options beside the EBR7C because I am not a buyer with that reticle. I'm not reticle picky usually. The EBR7C is the only reticle I have used that I just can't stand. It is great on 18X and up but is eye strain below that. Others love it. Go figure

 

[b6graham]

tube size and weight has to be one of the biggest myths

just like objective size and brightness

 

[beetroot]

you're literally talking to yourself at this point.

your viewpoints don't match the VAST majority of users who buy appropriate scopes for their purpose. you know the logical thing to do

Ar

you're literally talking to yourself at this point.

your viewpoints don't match the VAST majority of users who buy appropriate scopes for their purpose. you know the logical thing to do

can i put the new 1-10 on a prs rifle and shoot just fine? sure but im not gonna bitch because it's only a 24mm objective. that's why they make other scopes.

that weight gain is much more important on the MAJORITY of people who are going to be buying a 1-10.

there's tons of room for upgrades for the gen 3. weight is not high on the list of what most people have as a priority

I'm just surprised that you and Rob don't understand the purpose of a wishlist thread.
BTW literally the first post in this thread wished for weight loss.

 

[b6graham]

to look at the OP, as you mention, a little weight is the 38-44 ounce range, which is more in line with the atacr 7-35. i really dont see 35oz from the 5-35, maybe a 3-21 version

not shave 42% off the scope to get below 30oz like the AMG. that's illogical

 

[Lil Casino]

Since it's a wishlist thread...I wish it were April so @CSTactical would send my preordered RG3 1x10?

 

[CSTactical]

Since it's a wishlist thread...I wish it were April so @CSTactical would send my preordered RG3 1x10?

Me too!!!

 

[beetroot]

to look at the OP, as you mention, a little weight is the 38-44 ounce range, which is more in line with the atacr 7-35. i really dont see 35oz from the 5-35, maybe a 3-21 version

not shave 42% off the scope to get below 30oz like the AMG. that's illogical

I don't believe I suggested below 30oz, 35oz would be pretty much right for the 3-18/3-21.

I do understand that the AMG is the light weight hunter scope and the Razor the heavier tactical scope, at this point in time there is no lower magnification AMG which is bought up every single thread about the AMG. Hopefully one comes in the near future.

IMO if the 3-18x50 Razor weighed around 30-35oz it would be damn near perfect for a cross over hunting scope, until the recent release of the NX8 and XTR3 there was very little options that offered the same performance and specs certainly not at the price point the 3-18 Razor is available for.

 

[DOA]

Since we are throwing suggestions out, how about a Vortex gen 3 with TT quality glass in the 3-35 range, shave off 10 oz and make it the price comparitable to an ncstar.
I can see both sides on the weight thing. Nf is considered durable even with not having the weight of the Razor so why cant the Razor lose a few oz? On the other hand, as Rob01 points out, people bitch about the scope weight yet purposely add weight to their rigs.
Time will tell what Vortex puts out next.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Next up in the lineup is a 1-99x56 with a reverse engineered sphincter in it so that it quadruples the exit pupil on higher magnification and doesn’t have a tight eyebox. Also has a built in laser that evaporates the mirage so that you can see crystal clear at higher magnifications.

Seriously, these threads are so fucking stupid. A company like Vortex knows better than 95% of the people in threads like these (that are pitching ideas or wants that are often retarded) what the market needs/wants next and what’s doable with current tech. Threads like these have also created false rumors and crap too.

So sit back, relax, and see what they pull out of their hat next.

 

[HMRamateur]

They could make it heavier and save people the cost of m lok weights

 

[JC0352]

Damn, this thread took a turn...

I was simply wondering what everyone thought we’d see next in this line. My wish of a 3-30x at 35oz doesn’t seem as wild as some of the other stuff in here. Then again, I’m not in the industry and have no fucking clue what a 10x erector requires. In the meantime I’ll happily keep shooting with my G2 Razor.

 

[HMRamateur]

Next up in the lineup is a 1-99x56 with a reverse engineered sphincter in it so that it quadruples the exit pupil on higher magnification and doesn’t have a tight eyebox. Also has a built in laser that evaporates the mirage so that you can see crystal clear at higher magnifications.

Seriously, these threads are so fucking stupid. A company like Vortex knows better than 95% of the people in threads like these (that are pitching ideas or wants that are often retarded) what the market needs/wants next and what’s doable with current tech. Threads like these have also created false rumors and crap too.

So sit back, relax, and see what they pull out of their hat next.

Well, technically, we are the market... If anyone from vortex was reading this, it's something they could use. Even if we all disagree with what we want, it's useful information for vortex and can use it to add to their research.

 

[b6graham]

i'd be willing to wager the gen 3 razor we're looking for is basically done, designed, and has been in the field.

 

[IowaGeologist]

Gen III Razor Wishlist:

1) Black
2) 5-25/4.5-27 and 7-35 options
3) Black
4) Capped Windage
5) Upgraded Glass
6) Black


If any 4 of those 6 are hits I'll be very happy.

 

[HMRamateur]

With how everything that progresses with technology, lighter weight could be a byproduct of better engineering and material. Lighter weight might not have been on vortex's radar, but could be something that just happened coincidentally. Only time will tell.

 

[bjay]

First? glass then reticle then amount of power and weight.... i guess optics are like bitches

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Damn, this thread took a turn...

I was simply wondering what everyone thought we’d see next in this line. My wish of a 3-30x at 35oz doesn’t seem as wild as some of the other stuff in here. Then again, I’m not in the industry and have no fucking clue what a 10x erector requires. In the meantime I’ll happily keep shooting with my G2 Razor.

Anyone who has a clue won’t be able to say anything because of NDA’s so everything is just blind speculation. I’d wager that the gen 3 line will see some models in the future. What the specs would be... well I wouldn’t even begin to guess anything. It will probably be pretty damn good. If they make something at the very top of top tier like S&B and TT, well that would even mo betta.

What I can tell you with absolute 100% certainty is that you will drive yourself crazy and waste a crap ton of money chasing the latest and greatest. Ask me how I know ??

 

[Lil Casino]

Gen III Razor Wishlist:

1) Black
2) 5-25/4.5-27 and 7-35 options
3) Black
4) Capped Windage
5) Upgraded Glass
6) Black


If any 4 of those 6 are hits I'll be very happy.

Please help me understand. What do you mean by upgraded glass?