Rifle Scopes Vortex razor HD gen3 1-10 FFP
- Thread starter elfster1234
- Start date
For $100 you can pre-order Vortex Optics Razor HD Gen III 1-10x24 FFP (MAP price is $1,999.99) here: https://www.cstactical.com/vortex-razor-hd-gen-iii-1-10x24-ffp
@CSTactical a previous post in this thread stated that the mil reticle hashes aren’t labeled when they observed it at Shotshow. Is this true? All photos I’ve observed of the EBR Xmas tree reticle are labeled on even hashes. Additionally any word on the possibility of an uncapped version down the road? Thank you.Let us know when you are ready and we'll get one for you
I was not at Shot myself, we should have a demo to observe soon which will most likely be in Mil.
Vortex would not indicate an updated version of a scope that is not officially released yet.
So maybe lower the amount of people that show up to shot show from say 60,000 people to maybe 50,000? Have you been to shot show before?
Many times - range day has turned into an unbelievable cluster vs 10-15 years back. I'd love if they could cut attendance by even a bit more than 10k. Not sure what the threshold is for "media" anymore (specifically social personalities with limited following), but I'd curious if there was a way to weed out those with a real social presence vs those who start a channel, have friend and family subscribe for the sole purpose of getting admittance. They said they were scaling back a year or two ago, but haven't heard what changes are/were made.
I was talking about the 3GR in the K18i
Look at the post I quoted, a member asked if an updated 1-10 uncapped was in the future. I doubt they would talk about an updated version when this isn’t even officially released, nor would something like that be officially discussed publicly anyway.
My bad lol. I thought there was rumor of a new Razor on top of the 1-10. Got me all excited.
- Apr 17, 2019
- 129
- 87
I'm pretty excited to get them in. Already got quite a list of preorders (including me haha). Had a chance to mess around with one a few a month ago and honestly the hype is real. These are going to be a game changer.
Ordered it....I'm not a pre-order kind of guy, so hopefully it is comperable or better than the NF ATACR. I was on the fence between the two. I am not a fan of the capped turrents though on either as I think these optics are both more DMR-ish leaning on the LPVO side in my mind when you're at 8 power and beyond. Too bad it isn't offered in black too, not a fan of burnt bronze on a black rifle. Might have to send the rifle to Joint Force Enterprises so the carpet matches the drapes. I'll give feedback in April. Fingers Crossed. Now I have to decide if I want to go with Scalarworks mount or a new style Badger Ordnance. Both are sweet and light. I'm hesitant on trusting the Scalarworks mounting system/torquing knobs, although I've heard no negative feeback considering the abysmal inch/lbs spec. I like the scope leveling feature though and the footprint. Wish the Badger had the same leveling feature.
I love all the razor optics
For $100 you can pre-order Vortex Optics Razor HD Gen III 1-10x24 FFP (MAP price is $1,999.99) here: https://www.cstactical.com/vortex-razor-hd-gen-iii-1-10x24-ffp
Any new updates or reviews on this scope?
what do you want to know? ive been running one for a couple weeks
Vortex GEN3, 1-10, mil/mil. I’ve no previous experience with Vortex Optics. This particular optic checks a lot of boxes for my 7.62 MLOK MWS, otherwise I’m usually Leupy leaning. First impression... it feels very robust. Glass isn’t as good as my Leupold MK8, which is exceptional. Definitely daylight bright. Magnification at 10X doesn’t seem like a significant difference compared to my MK8 1-8, but I’ve yet to side by side compare. Eye relief is significant. It’s definitely a true 1x. Definitely daylight bright. Horus style reticle is decent, but doughnut crosshair could go imho. It’s plain looking. I hate the purple-ish, burnt bronze color. I would personally prefer uncapped turrets. The dials aren’t the most pleasurable feeling, they feel lunky compared to my MK8. The magnification dial is smooth and on point, as is the illumination system. The lens caps are shit for a $2K optic. I need to decide on the mount, possibly spend some time with it to see if it’s truly what I want....
ETA: I just got my MK8 1-8 CQBSS H27d out for side by side comparison. The Glass clarity/image clarity on the MK8 is much better. On 8 power, the images in the 1-8 actually look closer, I think this is just do to image clarity, but I prefer the Leupold quite a bit more. The Vortex is much better on 1x with illumination, to be used as a red dot, however, clarity still goes to the Leupold. Overall it still feels like a fine optic for the money and the glass is good, but not great. I’m not sure how it would compare to a nightforce ATACR 1-8, but if the nightforce has better glass, I suspect my opinion would be the same. I would personally like to see someone’s opinion of a first hand comparison between a MK6 1-6 and the Vortex GEN3 1-10 as to glass quality.
ETA: I just got my MK8 1-8 CQBSS H27d out for side by side comparison. The Glass clarity/image clarity on the MK8 is much better. On 8 power, the images in the 1-8 actually look closer, I think this is just do to image clarity, but I prefer the Leupold quite a bit more. The Vortex is much better on 1x with illumination, to be used as a red dot, however, clarity still goes to the Leupold. Overall it still feels like a fine optic for the money and the glass is good, but not great. I’m not sure how it would compare to a nightforce ATACR 1-8, but if the nightforce has better glass, I suspect my opinion would be the same. I would personally like to see someone’s opinion of a first hand comparison between a MK6 1-6 and the Vortex GEN3 1-10 as to glass quality.
Last edited:
SWFA has them for 1600 last year. Seen a few sales for 2000 new as well.
That being said I care more about the reticle and 1x performance than maximum clarity so I would still choose the Razor.
Agree that I would prefer a locking uncapped turret but that may add more weight than I want.
That being said I care more about the reticle and 1x performance than maximum clarity so I would still choose the Razor.
Agree that I would prefer a locking uncapped turret but that may add more weight than I want.
@lennyo3034
You’ll love it then. Not Trying to dog the optic, just giving perspective. Overall power of the optic, depending on glass quality, for intended use, in this case leaning DMR at higher power, wasn’t as applicable as initial utterances would suggest. Obviously this isn’t a new phenomenon and is context dependent...
You’ll love it then. Not Trying to dog the optic, just giving perspective. Overall power of the optic, depending on glass quality, for intended use, in this case leaning DMR at higher power, wasn’t as applicable as initial utterances would suggest. Obviously this isn’t a new phenomenon and is context dependent...
Last edited:
$1600? Sure it was the same MK8 scope? If so that was a half price deal. I searched and the cheapest I found was $2999 and that was for the TMR mildot reticle, which is not really the best reticle for this power range optic. All with the CQB reticles were $3799.
And I agree with the knobs. It would add weight and you would get people complaining about how heavy it was. The MK8 is 23.5 ounces so surprised no one complains about the weight. LOL
It's hard to beat the CQBSS even still. Especially with the H27D reticle. I sold a couple for the ATACR anticipation and went back to all CQBSS. The mk6 1-6 is also a great optic. They did these scopes really well. Was going to spring for the Razor 1-10 but not sure it will dethrone the CQBSS as a total package. But it just depends what the end user is looking for. To some, for their uses, the Razor is a better choice.. The ZP8 is another that the glass is a step above many of the LPVOs out there but with lack of nuke bright illumination, that seems to be my only complaint on that optic.
So many choices out there these days. Glad to see vortex make this optic and it might see it's way to one of my rifles here soon.
So many choices out there these days. Glad to see vortex make this optic and it might see it's way to one of my rifles here soon.
It was and was ridiculous. It lasted about a day. I held off because I don’t like the TMR reticle for this application.
I think that weight is acceptable for a 34mm 1-8 with locking zerostop turrets. I’d be willing to go to that weight with the Razor G3 if that means getting a locking turret. Vortex’s locking turret is better than Leupold’s though and probably heavier.
Currently running the NF1-8 and not hugely impressed. I see myself dropping it for the Razor once I get my hands on one.
I did not realize the mk8 was still holding up this well compared to the NF ATACR and even the newest razor gen 3. Too bad it is $3800 or something obscene like that - I could buy two of the razor gen 3 scopes for that price.
I’m sure it is subjective, contextually dependent. I don’t know how an exceptional optic suddenly becomes irrelevant or unexceptional. I have no experience with the ATACR, but I’m sure it’s on a gradient of the exceptional scale. The MK8 falls short on the CQB Side due to the 1.1 magnification, it’s heavy....but compared to the newest Gucci it is comparable. To me the MK8 H27D is exceptional for a DMR leaning, RECCE-ish, 7.62 gas gun. If you’re leaning toward the pop cultured low 1x red dot-ish end usage of the lpvo, you probably won’t like the MK8.
Mk8 is still a really decent scope, but it mostly holds up well on higher magnification owing to nice wide and well corrected FOV on 8x. There is a fair amount of eye relief change with the Mark 8 (notice the FOV ratio between low and high; it does not match the erector ratio). The eye relief changes between low power and high power by about a half inch or so. Notice that the FOV of the Razor is only slightly wider than that of CQBSS on 8x (by about 3-4%), but it is a whopping 25% wider on low power. That also creates a very consistent sight picture. The Razor's apparent FOV is constant across the whole magnification range, while that of CQBSS varies considerably.
In terms of pure optical quality, from what I have seen, there shouldn't be much difference on high power between CQBSS and Razor, unless the eyepiece setting is screwed up. I would spend some time messing with that. On low power, Razor is substantially better.
As far as the turrets go, that is the part that I am a little perplexed by. While I like the CQBSS a lot overall, the "Swueeze-to-turn" turrets were always horrible in every scope I have seen them in. Aside from getting clogged with sand, they also natively has nearly +/-0.1 mrad of slop. The Razor's turrets are designed to be out of the way. That's why they are low profile and covered. I checked the tracking and they track well, but this scope is really intended to be used with reticle holdover.
I am really not sure what you mean by "pop cultured low 1x red dot-ish end usage of the lpvo". If you are not planning to use it on 1x, why, for the love of god, are you looking at a 1-to-something design? The whole reason for their existence is to give you good 1x. If your primary us is on 8x with only occasional foray to low powers, do yourself a favor and buy a more conventional scope with an offset red dot. There is a ton of them that will do much better on 8x for half the price.
ILya
In terms of pure optical quality, from what I have seen, there shouldn't be much difference on high power between CQBSS and Razor, unless the eyepiece setting is screwed up. I would spend some time messing with that. On low power, Razor is substantially better.
As far as the turrets go, that is the part that I am a little perplexed by. While I like the CQBSS a lot overall, the "Swueeze-to-turn" turrets were always horrible in every scope I have seen them in. Aside from getting clogged with sand, they also natively has nearly +/-0.1 mrad of slop. The Razor's turrets are designed to be out of the way. That's why they are low profile and covered. I checked the tracking and they track well, but this scope is really intended to be used with reticle holdover.
I am really not sure what you mean by "pop cultured low 1x red dot-ish end usage of the lpvo". If you are not planning to use it on 1x, why, for the love of god, are you looking at a 1-to-something design? The whole reason for their existence is to give you good 1x. If your primary us is on 8x with only occasional foray to low powers, do yourself a favor and buy a more conventional scope with an offset red dot. There is a ton of them that will do much better on 8x for half the price.
ILya
I have my MK8 on a rifle for it’s intended purpose. Thanks.
As far as the 1x thing you stated ... mmm.. The same thing could be said for going to an optic that is 10x capable and 1/10th mil. A 15 ounce-ish 1-6 would be better served. If that floats your boat whatever. That’s is the route I’ve went on my 5.56, grosser adjustments, more cqb capable, but competent within transonic distances.
The GEN3, to me, given the weight, and magnification, is clearly more suited for a DMR role, I don’t care how competent it is at 1x, or the fov is, otherwise I would have certainly went with a lighter, lower powered optic. I like the capabilities for the tertiary purpose of close range, because it is on a GAS semiautomatic. If I wanted a true DMR, I’d use a bolt gun with the optic you suggested in addition to a different caliber.
As far as pop culture, I am referring to industry trending towards usage of magnified optics as red dots. Given your rationale at the opposite end of the spectrum, to rebut me for some moral reason, just use a red dot... However, idc, and I get it, within context.
As far as glass quality, nothing is wrong with the vortex, but it isn’t in the same league as the MK8.
Having said all of that, my observation are of having both optics. I’m sorry if you disagree. I like the Vortex for what I purchased it for. I had things I didn’t care for prior to it’s purchase. Apparently it has attributes I do like or I would not have purchased it. If it doesn’t shake out in the end, I’ll buy whatever I want.
Worship whatever tickles your fancy...
As far as the 1x thing you stated ... mmm.. The same thing could be said for going to an optic that is 10x capable and 1/10th mil. A 15 ounce-ish 1-6 would be better served. If that floats your boat whatever. That’s is the route I’ve went on my 5.56, grosser adjustments, more cqb capable, but competent within transonic distances.
The GEN3, to me, given the weight, and magnification, is clearly more suited for a DMR role, I don’t care how competent it is at 1x, or the fov is, otherwise I would have certainly went with a lighter, lower powered optic. I like the capabilities for the tertiary purpose of close range, because it is on a GAS semiautomatic. If I wanted a true DMR, I’d use a bolt gun with the optic you suggested in addition to a different caliber.
As far as pop culture, I am referring to industry trending towards usage of magnified optics as red dots. Given your rationale at the opposite end of the spectrum, to rebut me for some moral reason, just use a red dot... However, idc, and I get it, within context.
As far as glass quality, nothing is wrong with the vortex, but it isn’t in the same league as the MK8.
Having said all of that, my observation are of having both optics. I’m sorry if you disagree. I like the Vortex for what I purchased it for. I had things I didn’t care for prior to it’s purchase. Apparently it has attributes I do like or I would not have purchased it. If it doesn’t shake out in the end, I’ll buy whatever I want.
Worship whatever tickles your fancy...
Last edited:
Believe what you will about optical quality. Perhaps you have a particularly nice CQBSS. There is always sample variation.
As far as 1x use goes, there is no moral reason and I am not sure what the "worship" comment was all about.
The reason for the existence of 1-to-something scopes is 1x. Everything else is an addition to that. That is not my invention. That is fairly well accepted. The latest crop of 1-8x and 1-10x scope is indeed very good across the whole magnification range and that optimization is a recent thing. I have the S&B 1-8x24 CC coming my way shortly which should also be excellent.
All of the better 1-8x and 1-10x scopes have been in development for quite a long time. However, all of these scope are coming out now because of the difficulty of making them good on 1x. That is what all of the makers have been struggling with and are finally figuring out how to do. Higher magnification performance really was not the issue. Making them good across the board with constant eye relief, consistent apparent FOV and well corrected FOV at all magnifications was difficult.
CQBSS is an earlier generation design, so it does not do all of that. As I recall, it was designed for a fairly specific program and it is an excellent match for that. However, it is not good as the recent designs overall. If it makes you feel better to think it is, more power to you. If low magnification is not important for you, then there isn't all that much reason to upgrade. If you want a scope that is better overall, then there are better options out now.
ILya
As far as 1x use goes, there is no moral reason and I am not sure what the "worship" comment was all about.
The reason for the existence of 1-to-something scopes is 1x. Everything else is an addition to that. That is not my invention. That is fairly well accepted. The latest crop of 1-8x and 1-10x scope is indeed very good across the whole magnification range and that optimization is a recent thing. I have the S&B 1-8x24 CC coming my way shortly which should also be excellent.
All of the better 1-8x and 1-10x scopes have been in development for quite a long time. However, all of these scope are coming out now because of the difficulty of making them good on 1x. That is what all of the makers have been struggling with and are finally figuring out how to do. Higher magnification performance really was not the issue. Making them good across the board with constant eye relief, consistent apparent FOV and well corrected FOV at all magnifications was difficult.
CQBSS is an earlier generation design, so it does not do all of that. As I recall, it was designed for a fairly specific program and it is an excellent match for that. However, it is not good as the recent designs overall. If it makes you feel better to think it is, more power to you. If low magnification is not important for you, then there isn't all that much reason to upgrade. If you want a scope that is better overall, then there are better options out now.
ILya
Possibly talking out of my ass here since I haven't had the chance to see this scope in person yet. But by the brochures I have some small issues. I'm a giant Razor fan so this isn't coming from a place of hate.
First off, why is the elevation turret capped? I understand if it was a 1-4x, 1-6x, etc. But at 10x max magnification with a good reticle this is a 1,000+ yard scope depending on the gun it's fixed to (of course). No reason imo for capped elevation.
Second, this is meant to be a shorter distance tactical scope in 2020... Make it in a 36mm tube. The better FOV and light inlet on the objective lense, etc. makes this seem like a no-brainer. Not like the main tube would be bigger than the eyepiece.
Lastly, why is it so expensive? I have a 4.5-27 gen II (and absolutely love it) and this new 1-10x is way more than that. Following the trend that means the next 4.5-27(ish) PRS style scope would be priced more like a Kahles or ZCO that the entry-level Gucci scope that it is. I don't like the idea of not being able to trade up in a year or two because of price.
Like I said y'all, might be talking out of my ass here. Feel free to tell me if full if it. I can't wait to see a gen III 1-10 in the wild tbh ??
First off, why is the elevation turret capped? I understand if it was a 1-4x, 1-6x, etc. But at 10x max magnification with a good reticle this is a 1,000+ yard scope depending on the gun it's fixed to (of course). No reason imo for capped elevation.
Second, this is meant to be a shorter distance tactical scope in 2020... Make it in a 36mm tube. The better FOV and light inlet on the objective lense, etc. makes this seem like a no-brainer. Not like the main tube would be bigger than the eyepiece.
Lastly, why is it so expensive? I have a 4.5-27 gen II (and absolutely love it) and this new 1-10x is way more than that. Following the trend that means the next 4.5-27(ish) PRS style scope would be priced more like a Kahles or ZCO that the entry-level Gucci scope that it is. I don't like the idea of not being able to trade up in a year or two because of price.
Like I said y'all, might be talking out of my ass here. Feel free to tell me if full if it. I can't wait to see a gen III 1-10 in the wild tbh ??
I'll ignore the price argument. For what it offers, I have no issues with the price and I don't want to speculate on future designs.
As far as the turrets go, I do not plan to be dialing with an LPVO. The reticle takes me to 1000 yards. That's a personal preference though, but I am not alone on this. ATACR is configured the same way.
As for the rest of it, what does the tube diameter have to do with FOV and light transmission (assuming that's what you mean by inlet)?
ILya
Capped as it's meant to hold as mentioned and if it wasn't then it would add weight and you would get people complaining about that. For what it is and with th reticle capped is the right choice.
You gain nothing with 36mm and lose a ton of mounting options.
The price is very fair for what it is. Look at similar scopes. It's also the same price as the 4.5-27. Not way more.
You gain nothing with 36mm and lose a ton of mounting options.
The price is very fair for what it is. Look at similar scopes. It's also the same price as the 4.5-27. Not way more.
part of the reason the top tiers are pushing the price boundaries imo is that is whats required to improve the designs. Scopes have been getting far better over the past few years and prices are dropping. With atacr, razor gen 2, and mk 5 near 2k price point. To beat that you have to spend sone money. Like most things the incremental cost of improvment really increases as you move up the spectrum
Just scored my Vortex Razor HD Gen 3 April 6th. Sweet looking scope and cost me nothing cause I won it. Had to buy 34mm rings(bummer). Going to mount it on a Ruger Precision Rim Fire rifle. Crazy to put a $2800 scope on a $549 rifle. Than buy a Scar and remount it on the Scar.
Bastage....I’m jealous. Congratulations.
Wouldn’t be my first choice. Would work ok at nrl like a 10x scope although reticle a little thick but don’t think it would work for benchrest at all. Low power and the wrong reticle for that game. Got to pick the right tool for the job.
put the g3 to work . amazing optic with a clip on .
Though you are right about the potential of 1,000yds with this scope, that hardly its primary purpose, and in the MIL version. we got it out to 800 on steel with no dialing necessary, on a 16 inch AR. LPVOs are a balance between rapid transition and precision, so I think with the primary purpose for this optic, most people will rarely dial.
36mm tube would limit from about 100 mounting options to 5, and probably drive the price up substantially since it would be Vortex's first scope that had that feature. keeping it a 34 makes it fit with the rest of the Razor family nicely
Magnification is NOT the primary determinate of price in optics. Sure, it contributes, but bumping up in magnification is usually accompanied by a minimal price increase. Bumping up the magnification MULTIPLE causes things to cost way more. Your gen 2 has a multiple of 6. This has a multiple of ten. so even though it is overall lower power and less materials and such, it stands to reason that if a 10x scope more comparable to a gen2 (say 2.5-25x56) was more than a gen2, then a 10x scope with lower mag should be about the same price, which it is
Mounted it on a Ruger precision rim fire
Attachments
Ehhhh.
Take your current rifle with a standard scope with adjustable parallax and adjust the parallax at 100y. Great, now pan to a target at 1000 yards. Can you see it? Can you hit it? It depends on the size, contrast, color, of the target and atmospherics on that particular day. You're not going to enjoy using any scope with fixed parallax set to 100y @ further than 500ish yards. Some have a broader depth of field, I have not handled the Gen III, but a gray 10" plate @ 500y with my ATACR 1-8 in the AZ mirage sucked.
I think the "GAME CHANGER" will come when mfg's learn that at this point, and even at 1-8 in my opinion, the guns deserve a parallax knob.
well that was fast
what!! how did you win one?
Haven't handled one yet, but the new Schmidt, Dual CC 1-8 seems to have addressed this in the LPVO market.
Similar threads
