I’m very heavily considering this optic. I am curious what others who have owned them, and other LPVO’s have to say. Vortex has claimed that it optically performs along side the Mk6. I had a MK6, and the glass was phenomenal. It was better than phenomenal. It gathered light just as well as my K16i at dusk, with 4mm less objective!
I also know that they are making a very + impact on those who use them on Range 37, and other places.
Does this optic, which costs VERY LITTLE compared to others actually “punch” in the same weight as the ATACR, MK6, etc?
I am very happy with the performance level of my razors for the price I paid. I would absolutely choose the razor over just about any lpvo under 2k, even the kahles.
Okay, why? I’m not being argumentative. I’ve owned the k16i, mk6, vcog, and nightforce nxs 1-4. Have not messed with razor hd2…hated 25.x oz. Now that it’s a shade over 21oz…its on my radar. Especially with its track record with military use, and the reticle options. Call me simple, but I want a point and click to 200 yards, and a laze and dial for further. From what I get, they dial true.
Cost vs performance. I dont think $600 is worth a 4 oz difference (I have 2 of the e’s) The glass is very similar and I like the reticle, eye relief, and eye box better on the vortex. Also, not a fan of the reostat like illumination dial on the kahles. One guy I respect alot once told me that if you are going to replace a red dot with a lpvo, then make damn sure it has at least 90% of the performance of the red dot. The razor fits that criteria for me. For what it’s worth, I would also look at uso new 1-6. Very very similar to the the new razor e’s.
Has USO fixed themselves? Nothing they have made to date is worth a damn, IMO, if reliability and durability are a factor.
Also, how is the eyebox on the Razor? I know it’s 4", but can you also get CLOSE to the optic, or will you start getting shadowing fast if you move in on it, say, from going prone?
Not sure about reliability on all of their new reworked models, but performance wise the 1-6 so far is good to go. It’s performance so far is a 34mm version of the razor 1-6 without the track record pedigree.
The eye relief is insane on the vortex. You will want to move the optic one or 2 t marks forward from the industry average. As for the eye box, I’ve never had problems falling into it and getting a sight picture even when shooting from improvised and uncomfortable positions.
I’ve got a new Vortex Gen II-E in the EE if anyone’s interested.
When you get down to it, the only consistent negative feedback on the Razor is weight and the new version (~21 oz) is only four ounces more than the lightest-in-class scopes (17 oz K16i and NX8). The savings you get with the Razor, assuming it meets all your usage requirements, can buy a spare Aimpoint. For some people, that four ounce difference could be a requirement and they’re willing to pay more or compromise eyebox to get it.
ETA: I just weighed an NX8 and Razor Gen II-E on my digital food scale and the NX8 was 17.5 oz with battery while the Razor was 21.8 oz with battery.
I think the glass is on par with the majority of higher priced optics out there and the eye box is extremely forgiving. The weight doesn’t bother me at all. I carried a SAW for a long time, so a heavier carbine or SPR is no big deal. The only thing I wish it had is zero stop turrets, but that is just nitpicking.
I think a zero stop with capped turrets may be redundant and adding the mechanism will make the turrets bigger. It makes sense for exposed turrets like on larger long-range scopes designed for dialing bullet drop or even a “hybrid” FFP scope like the NX8.
The military contract Razors have the zero stop, but I also get your point. For me it is a nice to have option, especially if I decide to not use the caps, like I have in the past.
I like the Razor capped turrets for their low-profile. I’ve never seen a US-made .mil Razor. I just wonder how much larger a zero-stop capped turret will be. It’d be great if you could grab a picture sometime. Another option could be a locking elevation turret with zero-stop like on their AMG scope.
21.8 oz with battery. Did you include any flip up covers when you weight the scopes? While the Vortex flip up covers are very durable compared to others, they are definately heavier. For my needs, I will still take the Kahles 16i above all to about 400yds , after that I don’t care, but then there are better but heavier options out there.
I had one example of each, more than 4 years ago. For those single examples, the Razor was far behind the Mk6 in optical quality. Like an entire class down. My Mk6 was also great, the Razor was “meh” and behind not only the Mk6 but also a VX-6 1-6x I had at the same time.
Sometimes companies improve a product’s quality without renaming it, and sometimes there are single bad examples, so I can’t say what’s true of one you might buy today. At the time, the optical quality and weight compelled me to use the excellent resale value and sell it.
There can also be differences in how people evaluate resolution and optical quality. I have never found a Nightforce NXS that impressed me, while many people think they are very good. I’ve found Steiner Military and Leupold Mark 4/6 series to be far ahead in optical quality, but that doesn’t mean everyone would evaluate them the same way. By the way, this has involved hours of evaluation at a range of distances up to a mile in various lighting and weather conditions, but that doesn’t mean I’m perfect or the final word on XYZ scope quality. Also, optical quality is not the last word, because durability, repeatability and feature set all matter a lot, and those are all positive for both Nightforce and the Razor. Best bet is for you to find a way to try out the scope for yourself.