Is the Vortex Razor HD II line in the same league as the NXS, MK6, and other scopes regarding durability, repeatability, and ability to handle field use? Specifically I am speaking of the 1-6, but anecdotes regarding the higher power optics in the Razor HD II line apply, I'm sure.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Vortex Razor HD2 vs...
- Thread starter JWG
- Start date
The Razor Gen II scopes are all alpha class scopes.
Been using the Razor II optics for years and never an issue. Have used the 1-6x in 3 gun for 5 years and it gets banged around and tossed into barrels and never a problem. A lot of people use the optic as they do the higher powered versions in PRS style matches.
How does it compare to the k16?I'd also say that it's a "Duty" quality optic that some Soldiers and LEO's have been using with success for awhile. And if the color happens to bug you we can always have it Cerakoted
IMO they are two of the best 1-6's out there overall! Both have excellent eyeboxes, daytime bright reticles but the Kahles is 4.6oz lighter. Check the reticle you prefer and go with that model, you can't go wrong with either IMO.
Yup the Razor II 1-6 has a huge eye box and great glass. Here are a couple pics of the neighbor's house on 1x and 6x. It's about 80 yards away if I remember correctly. Don't hold the bad quality against the optic as it's from me taking the pic trying to hold my phone behind it. I am not a pro through the scope pic taker. LOL But it does show you that the FOV is very good as all you see of the scope when behind it is the small black ring and you can see the end of the forend also. With the great glass is very clear as well. On 1x it's almost like not having anything there except a reticle. Almost like a red dot/holographic vs a scope.
That's the JM-1 reticle in the pics. It's a very fast reticle to use and easy to find your holds. The scope uses a 200 yard zero and then the hold marks below it for farther distance. With 55grn bullets in my .223 it's dead on. With 75grn bullets I take 25 yards off each hashmark hold so first is 275, 375, 475 and 575. It's right on. Vortex gives the distances on their reticle spec page so you can figure it for any load or caliber. The JM-1 is very good for the fast holds and target sizes used in 3 gun.
That's the JM-1 reticle in the pics. It's a very fast reticle to use and easy to find your holds. The scope uses a 200 yard zero and then the hold marks below it for farther distance. With 55grn bullets in my .223 it's dead on. With 75grn bullets I take 25 yards off each hashmark hold so first is 275, 375, 475 and 575. It's right on. Vortex gives the distances on their reticle spec page so you can figure it for any load or caliber. The JM-1 is very good for the fast holds and target sizes used in 3 gun.
Here's some excellent pictures of the Vortex Razor Gen II in this link: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread...r-Gen-II-1-6-Review-with-some-SR-15-thrown-in
No...no. Because then I'd be looking at CoF between 7075 ano and ceracote, psi adhesion, and all sorts of things to obsess over.I'd also say that it's a "Duty" quality optic that some Soldiers and LEO's have been using with success for awhile. And if the color happens to bug you we can always have it Cerakoted
Thanks. It looks like he used a filter or something though. Is that the camera doing funny things because the sunlight is bright as shit, and t he dot is still going hard, or what? Please tell me nooone used a snapchat filter.
Which one has generated the least warranty related returns through your shop, adjusted for amount sold?
I'd want to, but my OCD. I'd worry it would be more prone to move around in rings, whether that's BS or not.Or not?Haha
Then how could it be 0.5moa on 1x, being a SFP optic? Physics dictates that it must appear at 3moa on unity.
CS Tactical stated it's hard to compare the Vortex to Aimpoint because the Vortex is 0.5moa, and I did not understand why he was comparing the Vortex on 6x to the Aimpoint T series. I'd figure you'd compare the two at unity, no?
The numbers do not lie, but with my eyes the actual size of the Razor dot at 1x looks smaller than the T2 when looking through them side by side. IMO the Aimpoint dot is either larger than what it's rated, the Vortex at 1X's slight magnification is playing tricks on top of my eyes astigmatism not helping though I set the brightness level low and look towards a bright background to eliminate any distortion I'd usually have. I usually will take a pic with my phone with red dots to see how I should see them with corrected vision and the Razor still looks slightly smaller.
Not the best pics with my phone and not scientific, and maybe someone more knowledgeable than myself has an explanation.
- Richard
More and more, I'm leaning toward the Razor. I was looking at the ATACR, but this picture kindof swayed me a bit:
The vortex and ATACR both use "HD" glass from Japan...is the Vortex as clear and crisp and true fidelity and good at resolving at distance as the ATACR, or is the ATACR a step above?
I guess I'm hung up second-guessing the Razor HD2 because I know what they cost, and I do NOT know what other scopes actually cost. I admit to being a bit of a snob, and I am hung up on "how can something so cheap to make play with Euro glass!?"...or is Euro glass like Kahles/Swaro cheap AF too, and I just don't know?
The vortex and ATACR both use "HD" glass from Japan...is the Vortex as clear and crisp and true fidelity and good at resolving at distance as the ATACR, or is the ATACR a step above?
I guess I'm hung up second-guessing the Razor HD2 because I know what they cost, and I do NOT know what other scopes actually cost. I admit to being a bit of a snob, and I am hung up on "how can something so cheap to make play with Euro glass!?"...or is Euro glass like Kahles/Swaro cheap AF too, and I just don't know?
Last edited:
Interestingly Kyle Defoor has an ATACR on his personal gun, but says the Vortex has the clearer, crisper, better resolution. Wild, IMO, considering he's rocking the ATACR.
You’re comparing two very different designs between the ATACR 1-8 and the Razor 1-6. The ATACR is FFP, vs the Razor SFP. Buy virtue of how they are made, the Razor is going to have a “bigger, more forgiving eye box.” It has to do with where the reticle is placed in the body of the scope. The SFP will give you that huge, “disappearing” edges thing that the Razor is famous for. It’s good glass. For what it is. The difference is, the ATACR has an incredible reticle that has true sub tensions at every power level. The Razor only is true at 6X. Most people, myself included, will tell you SFP is great UP TO 1-6. Most want a FFP after that.
I ran the Razor for several years when it was the shit hot LPV. Now I’m running the FFP NX8 and the ATACR 1-8. I sold my Razor when my ATACR arrived. The NF is in a different catagory. That being said, the Razor can be had for about $1000 street price. The ATACR 1-8 is still a solid $2200. Is the ATACR 2X the scope? Only you can decide that. I use my scopes for a living, so for me, it’s worth it.
I ran the Razor for several years when it was the shit hot LPV. Now I’m running the FFP NX8 and the ATACR 1-8. I sold my Razor when my ATACR arrived. The NF is in a different catagory. That being said, the Razor can be had for about $1000 street price. The ATACR 1-8 is still a solid $2200. Is the ATACR 2X the scope? Only you can decide that. I use my scopes for a living, so for me, it’s worth it.
I use my scopes more in the 20-80 yard application, and that means 2-4x is often used. Not what I want to be messing with with a FFP reticle. I also like to stretch out to 2-400 yards. Not necessarily something that makes FFP really useful.
That said, I've just seen to much correlation to the NXS 1-4 of the NX8's glass, and the NXS 1-4 had shit for glass, so I'm not going to shell out money for NXS 1-4 glass quality, whether it has a great reticle illumination and 1-8, or not. It was terrible.
The ATACR, seems the Vortex has better clarity and resolution, so since I don't need FFP...
I like Vortex fine...I want the Razor HD2...but, the weight seems like a meme at this point. Is the weight the hidden cost that gives you a competitive optic at a fraction of the price when comparing the Vortex offering to the likes of Kahles, S&B, etc.?
I'm just curious if it's worth having an extra pound on the rifle and extra cash in the bank at this point...
I'm just curious if it's worth having an extra pound on the rifle and extra cash in the bank at this point...
Extra pound? Not sure what you are looking at for specs but the 1-6E is only about 4 ounces more than most if that.
The biggun...juxtaposed the optic I was interested in versus what was actually under discussion by the OP. I'm on the hunt for a 3-18 or 4-24 (ball park) variable and that bled over into this convo. I blame a lack of caffeine, and maybe hooked on phonics.
Even then it's only about 8-9 ounces more than similar optics. I went from S&B 5-25s to Razor IIs and the rifle felt no different with the extra 9 ounces. People strap tons of other crap on their rifles for looks that weigh more. If you needed light weight then there is the AMG.
There are basically two 1-6x options out there right now that seem to be far an away above the field and thats the Gen II Razor and the Kahles K16i. I chose the Khales just for the 3GR reticle, the wider FOV, the .1 mil adjustments and the weight. Otherwise you can't go wrong with either.
.300 BLK
If you have any plans of ever dialing DOPE on your LPVO, then the Razor is the better option. If you are going to set it and forget it and use the reticle for all your holds, the Kahles is the better optic in my opinion.
Similar threads
