Spent the day behind my G3 Razor for the first time. Had a 7-35 MK5 with the PR2 reticle, G1 Razor, 4.5-27 G2 Razor, and a 5-25 Tangent Theta to compare to side by side. Spent a few mins going back and forth with each side by side. Spent quite a bit of time behind each while shooting. Only looked through the TT, didn't shoot with it. Thoughts:
G3 turrets are great to zero, but way too stiff when dialing and having to make sure you don't apply downward pressure on the elevation turret to avoid it locking is just a shit design. I actually thought the G1 Razor had the best turret "feel", it's a well used scope but the smoothness, sound, and feel of each click is just perfect *to me. MK5 turret is great all around. TT was great but the clicks are very close together compared to the rest, I think it was a 15 mil turret VS 10 mils on the other scopes, think I preferred 10. The TT tool less turret is awesome. G2 turrets were fine.
Obviously preferential, but the PR2 reticle in the MK5 is badass. Just enough information and it's so unuttered that finding the target and spotting impacts is so easy, that reticle is the winner for me. The G3 reticle is definitely very good, better than the 7C it sort of replaced. I would probably be in love with the G3's 7D reticle if I wasn't using the PR2 at the same time.
Glass: I'll start by saying that my vision is exceptional but my eyes aren't real picky when it comes to glass clarity/resolution/etc, when I get behind a scope I'm focused on what is happening, finding a target and taking a shot VS thinking about the glass. I've always cared about tracking/durability/reticle choice in that order when picking a scope, not really glass quality. Our shooting was 400-900 yards on mostly white steel with dirt backstops. None of the scopes had any trouble spotting impact splashes of 6mm bullets or flying dirt from misses at 900. The extra magnification of the G3 and MK5 made picking out individual splashes in a cluster of impact marks easier I thought. I wasn't blown away by the TT like I expected to be, actually wasn't blown away at all. Great detail and color but I didn't find it better than the G3 or even the MK5 for that matter. I did not like the edges, my eyes seemed to be forced to the center of the picture to be happy. G1 and G2 Razor were as expected, good, not limiting, the others were better but I could run these 2 all day and be happy.
The MK5 and G3 Razor are close. I spent a lot of time behind both at the range and at the house afterwards at dusk looking at trees/buildings/etc, lots of color and detail to pick apart. They both seem to show a very natural picture, not tinted or anything weird. Neither seems brighter than the other. The colors they show are very close, the different shades of green on palm trees appeared pretty similar between the two scopes, a tan stucco wall was nearly exact. The G3 is crystal clear all the way to the edge, it's really great in that regard. The MK5 has a slight blur right at the edge, I don't really notice it unless I look. After a LOT of back and forth between the 2 scopes, the G3 definitely has a sharper image, but not by a ton. It resolved individual leaves and branches on bushes at about 700 yards better than the MK5 and I could pick up some movement of the screen on a porch blowing ever so slightly in the wind that I couldn't really pick up with the MK5 at roughly 800 yds, not certain what it was about the screen that the G3 saw better. The G3 glass is really really good in my opinion.
I'm not real thrilled with the eye box on the G3, I found it harder to get behind than any of the other scopes.
Overall, the G3 is pretty slick. Like widely discussed, the turrets are stiff and the eye box was finicky to me... I could look through that crystal clear picture for hours though!
At street prices *I'd* probably go:
MK5
G3
G1
G2
TT (what I saw didn't beat or justify double the cost of the next most expensive)