Technical question for those with one of these. I'm only getting about 24 mils of elevation after I sighted in. I assume because the top micro dial used the remaining elevation of the 36 total it's suppose to have?
Vortex Razor HD Gen III 6-36x56
- Thread starter jb1000br
- Start date
The scope should ship optically centered, meaning you have 18 mils of useable elevation, minus however much you need to get zeroed. If you’re running a 20 MOA (~5.9 mils) base with rings or 0 MOA mount then you’re getting the full travel possible.
If you want more travel, increase your base MOA. I’m zeroed at 100 yards using a 50 MOA base and have 34.5 MILS of usable UP elevation.
So, has anyone heard anything from Vortex regarding any of the concerns or issues with this scope. Specifically the Elevation being stiff, the Parallax being stiff, the locking elevation. I just put an o ring under the turret on mine to take care of it. My suggestion was to disable the locking mechanism with the turret in the down position. That would allow the line on the body to be closer to the line on the turret. Also, take some of the wobble out, it's not much but it's there. My email was answered, but did not address my suggestion. The turret on mine has gotten better. I don't shoot high speed matches so not a big deal. But, for those that do, I can see it being problematic. Still evaluating mine for tracking and repeatability. Glass is really good.
What's the average target distance you're going to engage? In my prs league its around 700y, from my 100y zero that's 3.3 mils with my cartridge and elevation. A 20 moa rail has me about 1 mil above optical center in my elevation turret at avg target distance. I think this is the formula a guy should use for what moa to get in his base.
You been here 12 years and asking that question? Really? The scope is like any other. You don't get 36 mils mounted on a 0MOA base. You get 36 total. 18 up and 18 down. On a 20 moa base it would be about 24 mils. Want more elevation then get more in the base.
I get it man. I watched a video, can't remember which one, and someone mentioned after it's zeroed that you can utilize the full amount of travel. They may have just meant it doesn't need the turrets reset, and you just dial from 0.
I get that's not how scopes work, then again the magic micro dial is new to me.
I get that's not how scopes work, then again the magic micro dial is new to me.
Yeah, that's kind of odd. The people during the range day were pretty helpful, but the booth at SHOT itself was a different story.
ILya
And I quote from the video, "it kinda sounds like magic". Lol. But really man, it's not a big deal, just clarifying information which is why I've stayed for 12 years.
For those of you that have compared the XRS III to the Razor Gen III...comments/opinions?
I believe they were talking about the difference between the Gen II and III in that the Gen II limited the amout of travel to three revolutions of the knob and you get more out of the III in 4 turns so you get almost all in the MOA and all in the mil.
I guess you lost me. It sounds like he's specific about this gen 3 utilizing that much travel after zero. This was the source of my original question. It wasn't throwing any shade at the gen 3 because I bought one and love it, just saw this video and thought I was missing something or having a user error. I thought the micro adjustment on top had an independent travel range as the main adjustment. To me I also thought 'wow, that it magic'. Bottom line tho, I'm fine with everything. I certainly don't need a total of 36.1 mils of adjustment, but if I wanted more, I know where to buy more canted aluminum.
Last edited:
If you can’t the scope enough you can use it all.
On the 2 it was limited by physical attributes of the turret.
On the 2 it was limited by physical attributes of the turret.
Wondering if any of you that put the washer in between can show how you put it in? I could not figure out how to do it. Thanks.
Well I haven't had any issues with mine, at this point. Have only put a few hundred rounds under it but the elevation turret feels fine, it doesn't lock on it's own (ie the lock doesn't come back down on it's own) and the parallax feels fine as well. I'll be spending some more time comparing it directly to a Gen II and a Mk5 but so far I quite like this scope.
I used a round o-ring since my small town hardware store didn't have square. Just expand it and push it down to the unlocked turret gap.
That’s kind of how i understood what they said. No matter where you zero it in the elevation range, you are not limited by the turret design on how much upward elevation you can use. Unless it is the MOA version.
I want to get my hands on one of these Gen III but I doubt I will see one up here in Canader anytime soon.
I'm up here in Canada and have one... I believe I saw that Prophet River have some in stock as well.
Got mine out for the first range trip, really enjoyed it. Zero system is very easy to use. Clarity on 36 on a garbage day was really nice.
Very happy so far with the whole package aside from the little garbage cover cap pieces, a bikini cover would have been better.
Any recommendations on caps? Was think aadland?
Very happy so far with the whole package aside from the little garbage cover cap pieces, a bikini cover would have been better.
Any recommendations on caps? Was think aadland?
So, finally had a "nice" day out and a bit of time so did my close range evaluation (with line resolution chart) and I've got to say, I think Vortex has a real winner here. Arguments about "turret feel, resistance, sound, etc." aside, optically this scope performs and at a very high level. Eyebox is very impressive, DOF seems very forgiving, FOV is generous and edge to edge clarity is phenomenal, colors are accurate, color cast appears neutral, micro contrast shows amazing detail and very difficult to induce any CA throughout the magnification range. IQ falloff is very minor in the top magnification above 25x and when elevation turret adjusted to the extreme (all the way up) the image is still stunning which is impressive given its 36 mrad of travel.
Edit: Next up will be low light testing and then long range testing and mirage....
Edit: Next up will be low light testing and then long range testing and mirage....
Last edited:
I’ve had my Gen 3 now for about three weeks and the weather in Northern Virginia finally got above 40F for a few hours on Tuesday so I took the opportunity to zero it, along with zeroing a brand new 35X ATACR I bought myself for my birthday right after Christmas…
I’m certainly no expert like @Glassaholic, I’m just a dude who does 98% of his shooting at 1K on Quantico Range 4.
I have 3 Gen 2 Razors to compare the Gen 3 to, and two have been replaced by the ATACR and the Gen 3.
The Gen 3 is definitely different from the Gen 2 and not in a bad way. Turrets are different, mag ring is different, parallax adjustment is different. It’ll take some getting used to.
I like it a lot. I was was shooting with a buddy of mine who’s a big Nightforce guy. He even liked the performance of the Gen 3.
To my untrained eye, the Gen 3 held up well to my ATACR. The NF edges it out slightly at full magnification, but only slightly. It’s really not much.
Would I buy another ATACR? No, but I’m going to buy another Gen 3 as soon as I get rid of one of my Gen 2s.
Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. In the meantime, all I can do is glass my backyard. Better weather Is coming.
I’m certainly no expert like @Glassaholic, I’m just a dude who does 98% of his shooting at 1K on Quantico Range 4.
I have 3 Gen 2 Razors to compare the Gen 3 to, and two have been replaced by the ATACR and the Gen 3.
The Gen 3 is definitely different from the Gen 2 and not in a bad way. Turrets are different, mag ring is different, parallax adjustment is different. It’ll take some getting used to.
I like it a lot. I was was shooting with a buddy of mine who’s a big Nightforce guy. He even liked the performance of the Gen 3.
To my untrained eye, the Gen 3 held up well to my ATACR. The NF edges it out slightly at full magnification, but only slightly. It’s really not much.
Would I buy another ATACR? No, but I’m going to buy another Gen 3 as soon as I get rid of one of my Gen 2s.
Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. In the meantime, all I can do is glass my backyard. Better weather Is coming.
Last edited:
Now waiting patiently for shooters to start selling the gen 2's cheap so the can get a gen 3
I'm building a 6br trainer/loaner rig in same exact config as my GT main match rig, I'll be acquiring another gen3 for it as well.
Good info... I'm looking to buy new scope in a month or two and I'm deciding between the 7-35 atacr and 6-36 razor.
Why wouldn't you buy another atacr?
From what I can see, these occupy a similar price (used ATACRs for 2800-2900 vs 3k plus tax for the razor).
I can understand the argument that the atacr is more expensive 3600 vs 3000, but I can find used ATACRs, can't really find used razors.
For the guys who’ve got some rounds down range with the Gen3, and who also own or have owned the Gen2, thoughts on the new one vs the old one?
I’ll probably end up with one just because, like most, I like new shit lol… but as someone who spends 99% of their time at 15-18x on the 4.5-27 HDG2, so far I’m not seeing anything too compelling to make me upgrade just yet…
I’ll probably end up with one just because, like most, I like new shit lol… but as someone who spends 99% of their time at 15-18x on the 4.5-27 HDG2, so far I’m not seeing anything too compelling to make me upgrade just yet…
Don't have my Gen III yet but for me the 10 yard parallax and 36 mils of elevation is a driving reason for use on my rimfire. I use a 40 MOA base so being able to dial past 500 yards will be nice but also with staying more in the center of the elevation range for most shooting in matches is good. For centerfire, and rimfire too to some extent, the ease of zeroing, better glass and having the higher power to help the old eyes are also compelling. And of course new shit. LOL
@Thorbeast , I’ve only zeroed the Gen 3 and the ATACR @ 100 and popped some steel @ 200 on the same range.
I had to ask myself, is my new ATACR 35x worth $500 more (plus taxes) then the Gen 3? Is the slight edge above 30x worth that? Right now, if I’m honest, I say it isn’t worth the additional cost.
It’s gonna be a couple of weeks before I can get back on Range 4 and really compare them both at 1K, so this is all really subjective at this point.
And what the fuck do I know anyway? I’m certainly no expert and prior to last month, I’ve never spent more than $2K for a scope, and those were all Gen 2 Razors.
I had to ask myself, is my new ATACR 35x worth $500 more (plus taxes) then the Gen 3? Is the slight edge above 30x worth that? Right now, if I’m honest, I say it isn’t worth the additional cost.
It’s gonna be a couple of weeks before I can get back on Range 4 and really compare them both at 1K, so this is all really subjective at this point.
And what the fuck do I know anyway? I’m certainly no expert and prior to last month, I’ve never spent more than $2K for a scope, and those were all Gen 2 Razors.
I start losing the plot at mag ranges in the mid-thirties. For centerfire. Either go to +40x or stay in the twenties and really improve eyebox, min parallax, and other non-pure optical factors.
Now, I’m not a PRS/ELR/FTR/etc shooter, so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems that even at 20-25x mirage often comes into play. And I’m talking about at 500yds, not 1000, when shooting prairie dogs.
But I often wind up at 18x not because of mirage, but because of eye fatigue. You've all no doubt noticed the higher the mag you go on a given scope the more finicky and fatiguing it becomes for long stretches of time (in my case, hours).
For centerfire, I view the +25x magnification range as more of a convenience thing for checking out a target (even through mirage). Saves me from coming off the scope and getting out the big spotter. Max magnification over 25x is not a critical factor for me, but it could be nice to have. Occasionally.
Where high mag would really come in handy is rimfire off the bench. That’s where a 5-45x would be nice. Once, I shot through a 50x scope at 50yds with a .22LR and it felt like cheating lol. I swear I could see the atoms that comprised the paper target.
But in the rimfire target scene (either bench or NRL22-style), awesome low light and other pure optical specs don’t seem to matter quite so much and usability comes to the forefront (i.e. esp. eyebox & min parallax). For me.
For example, it was a bear to get behind that one 50x Sightron I shot. Had to back it down to 40x just to get a decent sight picture, and this was off the bench. Not saying other scopes would be equally hard to use, but just giving an example of “more mag=harder to use”.
As for use, these high mag scopes are too heavy for most hunters (but maybe not for you). How much centerfire target shooting with a heavy-ass scope do you do at twilight? How impt is pure optical performance vs. usability? I have no idea what mil folks want in mag ranges and weight.
Not poo-pooing 6-36/7-35 designs. I really like my Razor 4.5-27 for what I do. But at level of glass we’re discussing, usability concerns, not glass, would be the deciding factor. For me.
Eyebox, DOF, FOV, min parallax, turret style, etc.
And at these +$3k nosebleed price points, money becomes less of an issue. $2k to $3k and $3k to $4.5k are both 50% jumps, and unless you’re bankrolling this hobby on credit cards, does $1.5k-$2k really matter in your life that much in the long term?
For centerfire, a used Gen II Razor 4.5-27 would still seem to check a lot of boxes for most folks, and from what I've read, I'm not sure the more $$$ scopes offer that much more ease-of-use performance at 15-20x in good light (where I wind up).
I guess what I’m saying is pick a mag range that’s important to you, and buy a scope for that. Don’t be overly distracted by max magnification. You might find usability trumps pure optical performance.
I’d really be looking at the higher mag S&B 5-45 or maybe ZC 8-40 because that’s the mag range that seems to make more sense for target rimfire. For centerfire, if a scope in question blows my current scope out of the water at 15-18x (esp. in eyebox & ease of use), I’m interested.
Again, all this, for me. Not necessarily you.
My 2¢.
Now, I’m not a PRS/ELR/FTR/etc shooter, so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems that even at 20-25x mirage often comes into play. And I’m talking about at 500yds, not 1000, when shooting prairie dogs.
But I often wind up at 18x not because of mirage, but because of eye fatigue. You've all no doubt noticed the higher the mag you go on a given scope the more finicky and fatiguing it becomes for long stretches of time (in my case, hours).
For centerfire, I view the +25x magnification range as more of a convenience thing for checking out a target (even through mirage). Saves me from coming off the scope and getting out the big spotter. Max magnification over 25x is not a critical factor for me, but it could be nice to have. Occasionally.
Where high mag would really come in handy is rimfire off the bench. That’s where a 5-45x would be nice. Once, I shot through a 50x scope at 50yds with a .22LR and it felt like cheating lol. I swear I could see the atoms that comprised the paper target.
But in the rimfire target scene (either bench or NRL22-style), awesome low light and other pure optical specs don’t seem to matter quite so much and usability comes to the forefront (i.e. esp. eyebox & min parallax). For me.
For example, it was a bear to get behind that one 50x Sightron I shot. Had to back it down to 40x just to get a decent sight picture, and this was off the bench. Not saying other scopes would be equally hard to use, but just giving an example of “more mag=harder to use”.
As for use, these high mag scopes are too heavy for most hunters (but maybe not for you). How much centerfire target shooting with a heavy-ass scope do you do at twilight? How impt is pure optical performance vs. usability? I have no idea what mil folks want in mag ranges and weight.
Not poo-pooing 6-36/7-35 designs. I really like my Razor 4.5-27 for what I do. But at level of glass we’re discussing, usability concerns, not glass, would be the deciding factor. For me.
Eyebox, DOF, FOV, min parallax, turret style, etc.
And at these +$3k nosebleed price points, money becomes less of an issue. $2k to $3k and $3k to $4.5k are both 50% jumps, and unless you’re bankrolling this hobby on credit cards, does $1.5k-$2k really matter in your life that much in the long term?
For centerfire, a used Gen II Razor 4.5-27 would still seem to check a lot of boxes for most folks, and from what I've read, I'm not sure the more $$$ scopes offer that much more ease-of-use performance at 15-20x in good light (where I wind up).
I guess what I’m saying is pick a mag range that’s important to you, and buy a scope for that. Don’t be overly distracted by max magnification. You might find usability trumps pure optical performance.
I’d really be looking at the higher mag S&B 5-45 or maybe ZC 8-40 because that’s the mag range that seems to make more sense for target rimfire. For centerfire, if a scope in question blows my current scope out of the water at 15-18x (esp. in eyebox & ease of use), I’m interested.
Again, all this, for me. Not necessarily you.
My 2¢.
Last edited:
Oh yeah, no way!
My dream is to have the eyebox/ease-of-getting-behind/FOV of my PST II 3-15x44 at 3x, but move that up to 18x lol. That damn PST 3-15 bats way above its price point.
I’d really like to look through a TT 3-15. In terms of FOV/eyebox, it seems like a very, very, very nice PST II 3-15. (But on paper, the stupid PST beats the TT FOV at 3x grrrr!)
Anyway, carry on.
Heres s mind trick:
When reviewing optical sights, ask yourself...
Does this comment make sense if it was applied to a high end open sight?
If yes, its probably a good point...
Eg... are the sights
Accurate?
Repeatable?
Durable?
Gradations/adjustments correct ?
Overall size/bulk?
Field of view ?
Lighting/stray light?
Cost effective?
Reliable in field conditions?
Spare parts and warranty?
Etc etc
Glass clarity and distortions are mon issues with open sights-- the view is always perfectly clear and undistorted.
So this is a long way of saying good glass is not very important in a sighting system.
The best glass is basically only as "clear" as an open sight ( cant get clearer). Same with distortion (none). And light transmussion (100%).
When we talk about that stuff, its only in the context of "what sucks less". Basically even the best glass sucks, it just sucks less.
So it follows that the comments about glass quality really only matter if the glass SUCKS so bad it gives you problems.
Ie you get distracted by CA, headaches from distortond, eye strain from low light transmission...annoyances from colour rendition problems...etc
Resolution and what i would call "critical glass quality" is very rarely going to be a limiting factor on hitting targets 2 moa or larger.
And while those use cases are interesting, they are relevant to only a very small part of the conversation when evaluating optics for field use.
Even in competitions...
Just my $0.02
When reviewing optical sights, ask yourself...
Does this comment make sense if it was applied to a high end open sight?
If yes, its probably a good point...
Eg... are the sights
Accurate?
Repeatable?
Durable?
Gradations/adjustments correct ?
Overall size/bulk?
Field of view ?
Lighting/stray light?
Cost effective?
Reliable in field conditions?
Spare parts and warranty?
Etc etc
Glass clarity and distortions are mon issues with open sights-- the view is always perfectly clear and undistorted.
So this is a long way of saying good glass is not very important in a sighting system.
The best glass is basically only as "clear" as an open sight ( cant get clearer). Same with distortion (none). And light transmussion (100%).
When we talk about that stuff, its only in the context of "what sucks less". Basically even the best glass sucks, it just sucks less.
So it follows that the comments about glass quality really only matter if the glass SUCKS so bad it gives you problems.
Ie you get distracted by CA, headaches from distortond, eye strain from low light transmission...annoyances from colour rendition problems...etc
Resolution and what i would call "critical glass quality" is very rarely going to be a limiting factor on hitting targets 2 moa or larger.
And while those use cases are interesting, they are relevant to only a very small part of the conversation when evaluating optics for field use.
Even in competitions...
Just my $0.02
Totally agree
. We are saying the same thing in a different way. Good analogy with open sights! Although my targets often present areas that equate to 1 MOA at 400+ yds…little bastards.
I shot irons, for 12+ years, first service rifle, then Palma. I was also a SWAT sniper for 21 years..so I used both. Irons DO have an issue you don't have with a scope: you can only focus your eyeball on one plane, not 3...being, rear ap, front ap, target. Since you're continually going from one to another (I always went target/frt/rear/frt/targ...and kept going until things were purr-fek and the shot 'broke') AND 'conditions' play havoc with that, its always a compromise. Scopes now, have a different issue. The longest I've ever been 'on a rifle' was 12 hours....yes, we were trading off, every 30 minutes, but that's a LONG time. My partner had a very high end sniper scope (no names given here) and I had a PMII on my rig. His eye was toast at the 7 hr mark...I was fine. When we were pulled, I thought he was pussing out on me and looked through his scope. He wasn't pussing out. There are times you 'need' (key word) the best glass that $$$ can buy. Shooting steel, paper punching, etc., I'm not spending 4K+ for doing that.
My .02 worth.
My .02 worth.
Great info....I'd say your "$.02" worth has ALOT more value. Great points
I am extremely pleased with the addition up top in the mag range so far, and for my purposes am giving up nothing on the low end.
Further, I shoot for enjoyment, and get greater enjoyment with better glass quality. So yes, I care about it, and want the best I can get within the budget I give myself for hobby items.
Further, I shoot for enjoyment, and get greater enjoyment with better glass quality. So yes, I care about it, and want the best I can get within the budget I give myself for hobby items.
No one really needs that high of a quality of glass. It’s more of a want. But the mechanical quality is needed.
You have some great points there ma, the moral of the story comes down to "you don't know what you don't know" and if you're happy with a Vortex PST II and it works for you then do yourself a favor and don't go looking for "better" glass because once you "see" better glass it is very hard to go back.
"once you see better glass its very hard to go back".....I'd say impossible to go back. 25 yrs ago, I bought a PMII for my custom work rig, based solely on an opinion of a member SH, also a LE sniper TL. Once I had it used it, in all aspects of operations, there was NO going back to what I had been using.
So basically it's like setting zero in any other scope. I wasn't sure if the top allowed to zero and kept the turret at bottom to use all mils. It seems interesting how they designed the zero setting.
Similar threads
