What do you dislike about the gen3xr?Until TT comes out with better reticles I would not consider dropping that kind of money on one.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What do you dislike about the gen3xr?Until TT comes out with better reticles I would not consider dropping that kind of money on one.
Until TT comes out with better reticles I would not consider dropping that kind of money on one.
I kind of agree. Dot on my Stryker is .045 - that's really the minimum I'd consider with a 25x scope. I think the .03 dots are too small and anything from .045 to .06 is perfect. .07 might be a tad heavy, but I can't imagine it would be an actual problem.Better? Reticles are a personal preference. I really like the gen3xr. Have you actually looked through the scope with it? The center dot everyone complains about really is not that big at all. If anything I’d say my skmr3 center dot is too small... again personal preference.
I caution folks to make judgements about reticles on paper. Often times through the scope and on a steel range they come into their own. Case and point I thought the h2cmr was shit on paper and it’s quickly become one of my favorite clean reticles.
Cracks me up on this forum sometimes, everyone demands .2 mil wind holds then bitches about the center dot. If you’d go to shoot rather than read on the Internet you’d realize that wind holds are almost always needed and you’ll rarely spend time on that center dot!
This especially holds true as you shoot to distance, wind is always a variable. Use the .2 mil wind holds you say you needed and stay off the center dot, you may start hitting the target!
Cracks me up on this forum sometimes, everyone demands .2 mil wind holds then bitches about the center dot. If you’d go to shoot rather than read on the Internet you’d realize that wind holds are almost always needed and you’ll rarely spend time on that center dot!
This especially holds true as you shoot to distance, wind is always a variable. Use the .2 mil wind holds you say you needed and stay off the center dot, you may start hitting the target!
The center dot is 1.2” and the whole mil dots are 1.6” at 450 yds.
How do you feel about that when you’re shooting at a 2” or 2.5” piece of steel?
Completely fine because my dot is only 36% the size of a 2” target at 450 yards which is probably the smallest or smaller than any Kyl rack I’ve seen.
Talking about gen3xr.
Yes correct. You say it’s 1.2” at 450. That’s 1.13 in^2. A 2” and 2.5” plate is 3.14 or 4.9 in^2 respectively.
The 2” plate is 2.8X larger than the dot and the 2.5” plate is 4.33x larger than the center dot on the gen 3 xr.
That’s more than enough to see both my dot and plenty of the target to make the shot precisely.
Until TT comes out with better reticles I would not consider dropping that kind of money on one.
Just depends on shooting style.
When there is a single target engagement, many people dial wind. Or at least dial wind until the width of the target is left.
On kyl targets many people dial so they can use the small center dot for more precise aiming on the smaller targets.
Also, the dots on the full mil are even larger than the center dot. So what’s your reasoning if people are holding wind and it falls on the whole mil, some may not like that.
Frank has a video on how many people set up their NPA to the center as a habit. So dialing is an easy way to not muscle your rifle over.
And in general some people’s eyes just don’t like the large center dot as we gravitate towards it.
The gen3xr is great for some people, but not others.
You’ve made the mistake of thinking your way is the only/right way.
Let me clarify. I’m speaking on how many will perceive this when looking through an optic.
While the area of a 2” square is greater than the area of a 2” circle, most people are not going to perceive it this way when seeing a .075 dot on a .5moa target.
On paper, yes, but as you said in another thread, it’s how you see perceive it in real life that matters.
Have you not seen the GEN3XR? It's between that and the mil-XT for best reticle imo.Until TT comes out with better reticles I would not consider dropping that kind of money on one.
I like the sb 5-25. I feel some of the other manufacturers are making a better product today. The reticle that really interest me are the msr2 and tremor 3.
Basically I can point out things I dislike about any scope, none perfect. I've narrowed down the features I prefer and at this point I'm sticking with what I have!!!
Have you not seen the GEN3XR? It's between that and the mil-XT for best reticle imo.
For what reasons and what trade offs do you think you may of given up. The one thing I love with them is the 10 mil per rev
personal preference things
i like the turret system of the gen 2 better than anything...i have multiple barrels for my rifles and swap them pretty often...its the easiest to track and adjust and not get lost with
i like center dots, but they arent much use to me...i usually zero on 1/4" dots and the ebr2c gap is perfect for centering up on the dot, then i hold for 99% of everything else
vs the 525i - eye box is better, eye relief on the 525i is almost too short to mount on any of my rifles because my LOP is pretty long...cant move it back far enough because of the turret housing
vs minox - like the turret feel/system better
I sold 2 theta to gungasm here..one was 3-15 and 5-25 both tactical model..gen2xr love those scopes...again reticle is preference and the g2xr only offers .5 mil hash lines..i wish they had some part of that ret in .2 but it was good enough..the g2xr has .025 lines then g3xr .07 pretty big jumpBJay you pay for QC and for everything being perfect on that scope ( Reticle is personal opinion and it's subjective) . TT is more $$$ than some others optics but i think you pay that extra for everything to be perfect on that optics. Just my opinion not trying to start argument.
The turrets are the main reason I sold my AMG. I absolutely HATE the dial nonsense. On top of that, they still can't get with the times and give me .2 elevation holdovers. I bent the hell out of a Vortex rep's ear about this bullshit at SHOT show.
How in the fuck are you going to come out with a new reticle and only add a dot? GTFO
The only flaw on the Minox MR4 is that the holdovers are not quickly distinguishable because they are all the same size.
No matter for me. In the end I'll stick to NF and TT since their new reticle finally give me everything I want.
personal preference things
i like the turret system of the gen 2 better than anything...i have multiple barrels for my rifles and swap them pretty often...its the easiest to track and adjust and not get lost with
i like center dots, but they arent much use to me...i usually zero on 1/4" dots and the ebr2c gap is perfect for centering up on the dot, then i hold for 99% of everything else
vs the 525i - eye box is better, eye relief on the 525i is almost too short to mount on any of my rifles because my LOP is pretty long...cant move it back far enough because of the turret housing
vs minox - like the turret feel/system better
the main thing i always notice...i dont know if its called anything, but its the sight presentation i guess? when i look thru the gen 2s i cant hardly see much of the outter tube or any ring around the sight picture...the tube sort of goes away...with every other scope it feels more like im looking thru a tube...the 525i is the worst, the minox is better but i still notice it...more annoying to me than negatively affecting anything...but if im paying $3k+ for scopes i need to like them more than what i can get for sub $2k
the zco is nice, but im not super hot on a new optic co...needs to prove itself
dont like the TT reticles...i like lines a certain way for multiple targets and combo movers...same with schmidts
im splitting hairs based on years of experience what i prefer looking at...anyt of them are more than capable....if i liked something better, id buy it...and ive bought a lot lol but i keep comin back to the gen 2...just bought another one this morning lol
the higher end scopes are definitely better optically
how much it matters is hard to say cause everyone sees differently
im left eye dominant, shoot right handed...my right eye is weaker than my left even after lasik...its hard for me to tell much difference between a gen 2/kahles/schmidt/TT/minox etc with my right eye because my eye is the limiting factor...its mainly just small tone/color variance...left eye i can tell the differences better, but i dont use my left near as much
so for me...having the weaker right eye, it doesnt get much better past the 2k-ish mark
Dude, if TT is on the table, get that. Why even ask?
As for the gen 2 razor, I'm considering getting one of those --Eurooptic has 'em on sale. The 3-18 is $1450, normally $2200 and the 4.5-27 is $1850, normally $2500. Both have EBR reticles. The 3-18 is $750 off and the better deal. Then there's 3% off for bank checks and maybe they'll even honor vet discounts (but I doubt it). Everyone is saying it's a deal not to pass on. There's one for sale used for $1350 on here I'm told.
I have always tried to draw parallels b/w the car and gun world - they don't work.lol Vortex razor = Toyota Corola.
TT = Ferrari both will get you from point A to point B
So whats your take k5-25 vs razor gen2 ..which would you rather keep i know one is bit more priceyWhile everyone's eyes are quite obviously different, i can definitely see the superiority in Minox, NF, Tangent vs Burris, Kahles, etc.
I think the vortex glass is great while Kahles left me very disappointed in terms of CA and glass in general. Many people call me crazy. But at some point it comes down to features and reliability. I trust NF and TT the most without a doubt in my mind that they will track and work as intended. A great warranty is great, but I'd rather not need it.
People think the only difference between a Zp5 and TT is the “slightly better glass” and the tool less zero. It’s really not. The QC level of TT, the speed and ease of warranty, and better internals, and overall fit and finish are what make it worth $1500 more.
What do you mean by better internals and fit and finish? The Minox fit and finish is as good as it gets and the internals you know nothing about. You don’t know what either scope is made of on the inside.
I have Schmidts, Hensoldts, Zeiss, Nikons, Redfields, Leupolds, Kahles, Russian Military Scopes, and the Vortex hangs right in there with them. I just purchased a Vortex Razor Gen II from Europtics. For what I do it will do just fine. My only negative on it is the weight. You can get lighter scopes but you will pay more. I am not sure if the Vortex weight is by design or because they are using less expensive materials or both. I have an equivalent Schmidt PMII that is 10 oz lighter but I paid a lot more money for it. You do get a lot of scope for the money.AT $1850 the Razor is by far the best bang for your buck! I've been using one for 2 years and I currently have the optics bug to upgrade. However, I shoot with several guys that run the TT, Kahles and NightForce and every time I do side by sides with those scopes I struggle to understand what I would be upgrading to for the huge difference in cost. That being said, I still have the bug![]()
You clearly haven’t owned a TT then. The fit and finish is impeccable. The white marks on the Minox look like a 6 year old drew on with crayon in comparison. It’s the little things. Not saying the Minox is awful. It’s not. But it’s not a TT optically or from a fit and finish standpoint.
Especially the ones that click in between hash marks and/or the ones with off center reticles.
Once you get beyond the price of the Gen 2 Razor, you run in to diminishing returns. If a TT is 10/10 optically, the Razor is a 7-8/10 and nearly 1/3 the cost. Value wise, it is the current King.From an optical stand point at what point do you feel it is just a diminishing return for the price paid.