It is a much better scope than the NX8. I'd take it over the ATACR as well.
ILya
Rifle Scopes Vortex AMG 1-10 LPVO
- Thread starter Secant
- Start date
ILya
What about it is so excellent?
I performs very well in a very compact package. NX8 is full of optical compromises. That's why the ATACR 1-8x is larger. AMG resolves those compromises very well. That is very hard to do which probably makes the scope more expensive.
We currently have five very compact LPVOs: NX8 1-8x24, PLxC 1-8x24, AMG 1-10x24, March Shorty 1-10x24 and 1-8x24.
AMG is not really widely available, but I have had a chance to examine all of these with varying amount of effort. All the NX8s I have seen had a great reticle, excellent illumination and a very appealing size and weight. It is well made like most LOW scopes are. Beyond that, all it has going for it is Nightforce's marketing efforts.
In terms of optical optimization, PLxC, for example, walks all over it, but does not have nuclear bright illumination. AMG is another step up optically. It is even shorter than PLxC and has a nuclear bright illumination.
ILya
From what I gathered, the Vortex sacrifices eyebox on the altar of footprint. Durability/Reliability remain speculative.
Eyebox did not seem to be particularly restrictive to me. The easy way to bump up the eyebox is to throttle down the FOV like the ATACR does. They kept good FOV which I was happy to see.
Durability/reliability will only be fully known once a large number of these are made. The limited production units made to date clearly passed fairly rigorous durability tests during the military evaluations where they have been submitted.
ILya
hormone replacement therapy?
I recently bought the NightForce Mil-Spec ATACR 1-8x (SU-294/PVS) and the Vortex AMG 1-10x. I'm extremely impressed with the Vortex, it's an amazing LPVO. Pretty much everything about it is better than the NightForce SU-294 (and it was cheaper than the SU-294 after I consigned the DD rifle for sale at the FFL I had the rifle/scope transferred to). If the new Vortex scopes prove to be reliable and durable, and if they can offer them at a more competitive price point, they could sell a shitload of these things (that's if they decide to release more than 50 scopes to the public)! Even though it's nice to have a limited edition item in the collection, I truly hope that Vortex makes a ton of these scopes available to everyone!
AMG is in another league and has its own following, even if you don’t particularly like Vortex, the AMG is really a skunkworks type division and many love the made in USA feature not just assembled in USA.
I've spent hours messing with the new Vortex 1-10x scope and it's an interesting optic. I've spent a lot of time with it at 1x, it looks absolutely amazing at that setting. At times it just seems like there's not even glass in it, it's extremely clear. To my eye, it's also like looking at a TV with a very thin bezel. I switched to other scopes to compare them, and to me the Vortex looked like it had a very thin ring going around the image (this is the edge of the ocular housing), if that makes any sense. I notice a scope's ocular housing around the lens a lot more with other scopes, even on the SU-294.
The Vortex lenses can reflect lights that are around you or that you're looking at, just like any other optic, but the red illumination is reflected/flared like crazy in the Vortex! Even down to the 4 or 5 illumination setting there's a halo of reflected red light going around the reticle, but far enough away from the reticle that it dissappears around the 2x magnification (zoom in until it's out of the field of view). With the illumination on and continuing to zoom in, especially at 10x, all of the number 6's in the reticle are lit up (noticeable down to the 4 illumination setting). Literally all the 6's are lit up. The number 6 in the range finder at the top of the reticle, the 6's on the main windage stadia line, and the 6's on the reticle tree. I have no idea why the number 6 everywhere lights up. I understand that the engraved reticle will reflect illumination, but this is so much more. It's really weird seeing those 5 dots of red light in those places. I can even see the 6's lit up down to the 3x magnification.
I'm mainly comparing the new Vortex to my new NF SU-294. Looking through the NF with the illumination on, there's no red halo or illuminated numbers. Of course the reticle will reflect very high illumination settings in the NF, but it's nothing like what's happening in the Vortex.
Here's the Vortex at 1x magnification and 7 illumination in a bright room, the red at the lower left in the image is the brightest part of the red halo from the illumination that is reflected inside the scope. It doesn't show up that well on camera (in person you can see the entire red halo ring, not just this little piece of it in the camera), but looking through the scope it's extremely noticeable. I set the illumination to 7 (out of 11 illumination settings), and like I said before, you can clearly see this red halo reflection down to a 4 illumination setting in a bright room. If you're using any illumination in the dark, it is even more noticeable/distracting.
Same bright room with 7 illumination setting, this time at 3x magnification. You can now start seeing the illuminated 6's, notice the 5 red dots around the main dot. You'll also notice that the piece of the red halo that was visible in the 1x photos above are gone in this 3x photo.
Smae bright room and 7 illumination setting, now at 10x. Just like any other scope with a high illumination setting, crank this one up and the light will catch on all of the engraved reticle somewhat. On a lower setting that doesn't reflect off of everything, the illumination is lighting up the 6's like crazy. As before, this is far more noticeable in person, I'm just glad I caught something in a photo. Even at a lower illumination setting, like 4 out of 11, these 6's light up. Is there any rational reason for this? Is it just the way the 6's are engraved and catch light? I don't have any other scopes that do this stuff.
The Vortex lenses can reflect lights that are around you or that you're looking at, just like any other optic, but the red illumination is reflected/flared like crazy in the Vortex! Even down to the 4 or 5 illumination setting there's a halo of reflected red light going around the reticle, but far enough away from the reticle that it dissappears around the 2x magnification (zoom in until it's out of the field of view). With the illumination on and continuing to zoom in, especially at 10x, all of the number 6's in the reticle are lit up (noticeable down to the 4 illumination setting). Literally all the 6's are lit up. The number 6 in the range finder at the top of the reticle, the 6's on the main windage stadia line, and the 6's on the reticle tree. I have no idea why the number 6 everywhere lights up. I understand that the engraved reticle will reflect illumination, but this is so much more. It's really weird seeing those 5 dots of red light in those places. I can even see the 6's lit up down to the 3x magnification.
I'm mainly comparing the new Vortex to my new NF SU-294. Looking through the NF with the illumination on, there's no red halo or illuminated numbers. Of course the reticle will reflect very high illumination settings in the NF, but it's nothing like what's happening in the Vortex.
Here's the Vortex at 1x magnification and 7 illumination in a bright room, the red at the lower left in the image is the brightest part of the red halo from the illumination that is reflected inside the scope. It doesn't show up that well on camera (in person you can see the entire red halo ring, not just this little piece of it in the camera), but looking through the scope it's extremely noticeable. I set the illumination to 7 (out of 11 illumination settings), and like I said before, you can clearly see this red halo reflection down to a 4 illumination setting in a bright room. If you're using any illumination in the dark, it is even more noticeable/distracting.
Same bright room with 7 illumination setting, this time at 3x magnification. You can now start seeing the illuminated 6's, notice the 5 red dots around the main dot. You'll also notice that the piece of the red halo that was visible in the 1x photos above are gone in this 3x photo.
Smae bright room and 7 illumination setting, now at 10x. Just like any other scope with a high illumination setting, crank this one up and the light will catch on all of the engraved reticle somewhat. On a lower setting that doesn't reflect off of everything, the illumination is lighting up the 6's like crazy. As before, this is far more noticeable in person, I'm just glad I caught something in a photo. Even at a lower illumination setting, like 4 out of 11, these 6's light up. Is there any rational reason for this? Is it just the way the 6's are engraved and catch light? I don't have any other scopes that do this stuff.
Has someone written up a comparo between this AMG 1-10 and their Razor 1-10 that you could link to?
My google-fu is weak on this one and I feel rather dumb to ask the question.
My google-fu is weak on this one and I feel rather dumb to ask the question.
with all due respect, 2 mistakes do not equal to a correctionI recently bought the NightForce Mil-Spec ATACR 1-8x (SU-294/PVS) and the Vortex AMG 1-10x. I'm extremely impressed with the Vortex, it's an amazing LPVO. Pretty much everything about it is better than the NightForce SU-294 (and it was cheaper than the SU-294 after I consigned the DD rifle for sale at the FFL I had the rifle/scope transferred to). If the new Vortex scopes prove to be reliable and durable, and if they can offer them at a more competitive price point, they could sell a shitload of these things (that's if they decide to release more than 50 scopes to the public)! Even though it's nice to have a limited edition item in the collection, I truly hope that Vortex makes a ton of these scopes available to everyone!
But i have huge respect to you and your collection. I spent $7,500.00 on a vintage steering wheel who am i to judge.
Waiting someone to put it on a rifle then shoot a bunch and report back; and someone to explain how vortex made something that had terrible 1x and 10x even shorter and lighter while overcoming the previous compromises in scientific terms.
Im curious if you could compare eyebox like I did here:I've spent hours messing with the new Vortex 1-10x scope and it's an interesting optic. I've spent a lot of time with it at 1x, it looks absolutely amazing at that setting. At times it just seems like there's not even glass in it, it's extremely clear. To my eye, it's also like looking at a TV with a very thin bezel. I switched to other scopes to compare them, and to me the Vortex looked like it had a very thin ring going around the image (this is the edge of the ocular housing), if that makes any sense. I notice a scope's ocular housing around the lens a lot more with other scopes, even on the SU-294.
The Vortex lenses can reflect lights that are around you or that you're looking at, just like any other optic, but the red illumination is reflected/flared like crazy in the Vortex! Even down to the 4 or 5 illumination setting there's a halo of reflected red light going around the reticle, but far enough away from the reticle that it dissappears around the 2x magnification (zoom in until it's out of the field of view). With the illumination on and continuing to zoom in, especially at 10x, all of the number 6's in the reticle are lit up (noticeable down to the 4 illumination setting). Literally all the 6's are lit up. The number 6 in the range finder at the top of the reticle, the 6's on the main windage stadia line, and the 6's on the reticle tree. I have no idea why the number 6 everywhere lights up. I understand that the engraved reticle will reflect illumination, but this is so much more. It's really weird seeing those 5 dots of red light in those places. I can even see the 6's lit up down to the 3x magnification.
I'm mainly comparing the new Vortex to my new NF SU-294. Looking through the NF with the illumination on, there's no red halo or illuminated numbers. Of course the reticle will reflect very high illumination settings in the NF, but it's nothing like what's happening in the Vortex.
Here's the Vortex at 1x magnification and 7 illumination in a bright room, the red at the lower left in the image is the brightest part of the red halo from the illumination that is reflected inside the scope. It doesn't show up that well on camera (in person you can see the entire red halo ring, not just this little piece of it in the camera), but looking through the scope it's extremely noticeable. I set the illumination to 7 (out of 11 illumination settings), and like I said before, you can clearly see this red halo reflection down to a 4 illumination setting in a bright room. If you're using any illumination in the dark, it is even more noticeable/distracting.
Same bright room with 7 illumination setting, this time at 3x magnification. You can now start seeing the illuminated 6's, notice the 5 red dots around the main dot. You'll also notice that the piece of the red halo that was visible in the 1x photos above are gone in this 3x photo.
Smae bright room and 7 illumination setting, now at 10x. Just like any other scope with a high illumination setting, crank this one up and the light will catch on all of the engraved reticle somewhat. On a lower setting that doesn't reflect off of everything, the illumination is lighting up the 6's like crazy. As before, this is far more noticeable in person, I'm just glad I caught something in a photo. Even at a lower illumination setting, like 4 out of 11, these 6's light up. Is there any rational reason for this? Is it just the way the 6's are engraved and catch light? I don't have any other scopes that do this stuff.
I see comments like this, about the Razor Gen 3 1-10, from time to time and it leaves me a little puzzled. Can you please elaborate what you mean by this? An example and/or pics would also be great.
Sincerely
Scott
Dammed if I know what they are talking about. I love my Razor 1-10. It does all I wished for.
The number of LPVO's with poorly adjusted diopters is astounding to me. People don't understand what the adjustment does, how to adjust it, and how they can use it to clean up image and not just the reticle in LPVO's:
From the horses mouth:
Diopter adjustment is more, not less, crucial in LPVO's and it's nuanced.
From the horses mouth:
Diopter adjustment is more, not less, crucial in LPVO's and it's nuanced.
I’m not sending a dog into this fight one way or the other. With MY eyesight when I set the diopter (1-10 non AMG) so my 1x is perfect. No image size change what so ever, I see a double reticle when I get to about 6x.
I can change the diopter setting while at 6-10 and the reticle is perfect but the image (going from memory’s) appears slightly larger than 1x at 1x.
If figured my eyes are just fucked up and personally don’t care. I shoot an ACOG both eye open so this slight variation at 1x is nothing. Besides that, I run an RMR up top as well. I leave the scope at 6x so it’s really a non issue as I’m not using the LPVO unless I need so shoot something really small or far away and both of those situations are slow as compared to a red dot situation.
I can change the diopter setting while at 6-10 and the reticle is perfect but the image (going from memory’s) appears slightly larger than 1x at 1x.
If figured my eyes are just fucked up and personally don’t care. I shoot an ACOG both eye open so this slight variation at 1x is nothing. Besides that, I run an RMR up top as well. I leave the scope at 6x so it’s really a non issue as I’m not using the LPVO unless I need so shoot something really small or far away and both of those situations are slow as compared to a red dot situation.
You can't have an optically perfect 1x and 10x, and if you set the diopter image indoors at 3y and then go out to where even 15-25y is available it's going to be...uncomfortable. Basically the parallax is set at 100y and people end up using the diopter as a band aid, when really if the reticle is immediately viewable - you should make a best case of the IQ at distances that matter. Frankly inside 3y the IQ is less important as you're placing a blazing red slash on a target and burning it down.
Frankly I find the ATACR 1-8 fucking awful in this regard as it seems almost like the parallax distance is very compressed, but so many people are running around with unset diopters, peeking through optics others own that have diopters set up for their vision, and on and on it just gets ignored. I own a shitload of NF optics to include 2 separate ATACR 1-8 and find the 1-8 specifically so over hyped. Ironically the NX8 has a great 1x and is light and handy and people shit on its 8x IQ, when it's purpose is to be a better version of what is essentially an RDS and magnifier.
The Razor 1-10 is a truly phenomenal optic, and everyone that's ever complained about it I've sat with them helping them adjust their diopter and they're blown away by what they were missing. I had a friend looking to sell his optic as it was "unuseable." only to find his diopter was cranked all the way in. I'm very curious about how this AMG 1-10 compares to the Razor 1-10.
Frankly I find the ATACR 1-8 fucking awful in this regard as it seems almost like the parallax distance is very compressed, but so many people are running around with unset diopters, peeking through optics others own that have diopters set up for their vision, and on and on it just gets ignored. I own a shitload of NF optics to include 2 separate ATACR 1-8 and find the 1-8 specifically so over hyped. Ironically the NX8 has a great 1x and is light and handy and people shit on its 8x IQ, when it's purpose is to be a better version of what is essentially an RDS and magnifier.
The Razor 1-10 is a truly phenomenal optic, and everyone that's ever complained about it I've sat with them helping them adjust their diopter and they're blown away by what they were missing. I had a friend looking to sell his optic as it was "unuseable." only to find his diopter was cranked all the way in. I'm very curious about how this AMG 1-10 compares to the Razor 1-10.
I have nx8 and atacr. The nx8 has very short depth of field, compared to atacr. 1x is comparable on both. Eyebox makes the nx8 easier to use on 1x, and especially 8x. Glass quality and light gathering are impressive on the nx8 for its size, par for the atacr, at its. Clarity due to depth of field on the nx8 outside of center zone 1 at 8x is its downfall. I have 20/10 vision and NF sends their scopes out at -0.75 diopter from the factory. This is the same diopter I arrive at time and time again on NVDs that are correctly calibrated. Thank god for that, as NF diopters are...fun to set up.
Shot with mine at about 300y yesterday. Eyebox is restrictive but far from unusable; I was able to use it at 10x left and right handed. I also get a little bit of illumination reflection from the rest of the reticle if I have it turned high enough, but I had the illumination on 5 out of 11 yesterday and it was plenty bright with no reflection. It’s so short the skeet-ir mounts up in front of it with plenty of room left over for a laser and a switch. Now I just need an fde ACRO and a KAC 5.56 QDC PRT MCQ while I wait for the KS-1 to be sold to the general public.
Attachments
I have a 1-8x dual cc. I want a vortex amg like it’s nobody’s business.
As good as the s&b is, you need to use illumination on 1x. Reticle only at 1x is basically a no go.
And if you like footlongs from subway, you’ll love the s&b!
The reason I put March shorty’s on a few setup, warts and all, is that footprint. I also am not a huge fan of the nx8.
CANNOT wait for the AMG. That footprint, descent reticle, super bright dot, good enough 1x with no illumination is a damn good combo of attributes.
Also, I do like think the transparent center on the vortex reticle and making comparisons to the original nightforce nx8 reticle is pointless. So what if it covers some of the target, it’s transparent!!!! lol.
As good as the s&b is, you need to use illumination on 1x. Reticle only at 1x is basically a no go.
And if you like footlongs from subway, you’ll love the s&b!
The reason I put March shorty’s on a few setup, warts and all, is that footprint. I also am not a huge fan of the nx8.
CANNOT wait for the AMG. That footprint, descent reticle, super bright dot, good enough 1x with no illumination is a damn good combo of attributes.
Also, I do like think the transparent center on the vortex reticle and making comparisons to the original nightforce nx8 reticle is pointless. So what if it covers some of the target, it’s transparent!!!! lol.
Last edited:
@Scott_at_Vortex
Maybe I missed it, but how is this significantly different than the Razor Gen III 1-10? I haven’t found anything that really breaks it down beyond:
Maybe I missed it, but how is this significantly different than the Razor Gen III 1-10? I haven’t found anything that really breaks it down beyond:
- A little shorter
- A little lighter
If there was a "riflescopes designer Olympics", the difference between a 10" long scope and an 8" long scope if the performance of the shorter scope is as good or better is kinda like the difference between a two time gold medalist and the guy who could not qualify for the games in Kirgystan.
ILya
Oh, I get it. Technically impressive.
But for me, a guy who is not concerned with how long a scope is (or usually not worried even how heavy), I’m honestly just seeing if I missed something.
I’m not saying these characteristics are not important for others, or that it isn’t an engineering marvel.
If overall length and weight are not important for your application, you can save yourself a lot of money by going with something else.
If you need bright dot on 1x, Razor Gen3 is probably still my choice. If that is less critical, Delta Stryker 1-10x28 or PA PLxC 1-8x24. As a DMR scope, Stryker has a lot going for it.
ILya
What Ilya just said in his last post, imo, is correct.
This scope was designed for some very specific requirements/applications.
I also sent you a PM if you have a moment.
Best Regards
Scott
When any military sends out requirements for a new anything you need to design something that meets the requirements. So length and weight become important if they spec it so
My 1-10 Gen 3 Razor is one of the most optically-superb scopes I’ve ever owned. It feels like the scope disappears when I look through it and there’s just a reticle superimposed on the background, especially at 1x.
One of the first things I do with any scope is set my diopter for a clear and crisp reticle outside, not inside the house. I just went and checked my Razor 1-10 to make sure I wasn’t smoking crack, and if I turn down the diopter back to fully turned-in, that’s the only way to induce the fish eye effect. I think a lot of people don’t have much experience in how to inspect, mount, level, set-up eye relief, adjust diopter, etc. and those of us who have done it for so long take it for granted.
There’s plenty of info here on the site instructing people how to do it, but it all gets lost in the noise and a lot of new and even old shooters who have never heard of it just don’t know what they don’t know.
I've been very happy with my 2 gen lll 1-10x's, and still have yet to see what some are talking about on the internet about the fisheye and poor IQ.
I wear glasses and contacts and adjusted the diopter correctly to my vision. Have no problems at all magnifications. Yes the reticle hashes are non-usable on the lower mag, but I'm not using them there.
The video and pics by C_does do not at all represent what I see through the glass.
I wear glasses and contacts and adjusted the diopter correctly to my vision. Have no problems at all magnifications. Yes the reticle hashes are non-usable on the lower mag, but I'm not using them there.
The video and pics by C_does do not at all represent what I see through the glass.
It was fun talking to Scott. Class act.
Did you guys know Vortex is employee-owned? Pretty neat.
I didn’t mention that I already own a Razor 1-10x Gen III. Which I’m keeping, as I don’t need the AMG.
AMG is made in USA, that matters to some, it represents the pinnacle of Vortex engineering and manufacturing and likely has “better” glass and mechanics than their G3 scopes. Plus this is a mil spec scope which also has appeal for some.
Out of interest (if you are allowed/willing to say) how do you actually pull off a feat like this, especially when it's also lighter weight thanthe Razor G3?
Short, high erector ratio and great glass usually means more lens elements to correct aberrations, but that usually means more weight. (If this is all bollocks please let me know).
Is it just a case of specially designed/shaped lenses? Or just highest quality lenses and coatings?
That brings up a fascinating point. Could one not implement some of these magical new manufacturing techniques into a longer scope body and create a S&B CC killer?
We're likely far oversimplifying everything here.
Scott is a great guy. I teach and live in SW Florida. A vacation spot for many from eastern half of USA. Boss at shoot center has a saying “ Everyone from Wisconsin is nice”. Can’t say that about lots of states. lol
Opto-mechanical design is not really my field of expertise. I am fundamentally an electro-optic systems guy, so I touch on a little bit of everything. I am an SME on imaging, targeting systems, EO performance metrics, etc. With opto-mechanical stuff, I know enough about it to be impressed with what they pulled off with the AMG, but I do not know enough about the specifics to offer any details with certainty.
Sometimes it is more lens elements. Sometimes, it is lens elements of more complex shape (aspherics, free forms, etc). Sometimes both. All of those lens elements have to be held in place very precisely. The ones in the erector have to be moved very precisely.
Lens coatings are fairly commoditized these days. It is all about the optomechanical design.
ILya
I’ve had a couple opportunities to take mine out now. Today was fairly bright with some snow on the ground reflecting light, and I was shooting towards the sun. I have to say, with the illumination on the max setting, it was bright enough, but it wasn’t blooming out. I’m curious now if it will be bright enough for the desert in the summer with an orange tinted background in blazing sunlight.
I shot it some on 1x today. 1x performance isn’t my primary concern, but it performs very well in my opinion, with the diopter set correctly it feels perfectly natural to use it with both eyes open. It’s as if the reticle is on a single pane of glass. The more I’m messing around with mine the more I’m liking it. My only concern so far is if the illumination is bright enough for the brightest possible conditions I might experience which is the desert on a summer day.
I shot it some on 1x today. 1x performance isn’t my primary concern, but it performs very well in my opinion, with the diopter set correctly it feels perfectly natural to use it with both eyes open. It’s as if the reticle is on a single pane of glass. The more I’m messing around with mine the more I’m liking it. My only concern so far is if the illumination is bright enough for the brightest possible conditions I might experience which is the desert on a summer day.
Attachments
I wanted to add some other observations and comparisons.
- As already stated, the glass is very clear. The Razor 1-10 has noticable darkening from around 8-10x. The shorty is very clear and bright through the entire magnification range without the same darkening.
- I've noticed the illumination lock doesn't lock as smoothly as on the other razors. Tends to catch a bit on the way down. The other razors lock like butter. Not a huge deal but something I've noticed.
- The 1x is very flat with the diopter set correctly. Definitely as good as the razors, maybe a little better. Perhaps the shorter tube reduces the perception of magnification at shorter distances so it seems a little better.
- The zoom ring is very tight. Much tighter than the razor Gen 2 e 1-6. I was really hoping it would be like the Gen 3 1-10. Hopefully a longer throw lever can be provided aftermarket someday to help with this.
- The eye box is tighter but doesn't seem to be an issue yet. I haven't taken it out to shoot yet so that may change my opinion.
- The shorter size and weight is noticable after replacing a larger LPVO, the ATACR 1-8 in my case
Last edited:
What does it ACTUALLY weigh? I know the weight is published, but I've never had an optic that was close to published weight, lol! My ATACR was about 23oz for example, as I recall, with just the OEM scope caps.
Also, how's optical properties vs the ATACR and eyebox?
Mine are both already mounted and I'd rather not set them up again but hopefully I can give an idea for weight. I have both in Reptilia 1.54 AUS mounts with top mounted Acro p2s. The ATACR has Tenebraex flip covers and the AMG has the vortex flip covers that came with it. So mostly apples to apples in terms of configuration. On my scale the ATACR setup is 32.05 oz and the AMG is 29.15 oz. So not actually a huge difference in weight. I suppose the shorter length being farther back helps with the perceived weight benefits.
As for optical properties I'd say they are similar. Both are quite flat at 1x. No fish eye at normal distances. I think the ATACR MIGHT be ever so slighter better with color at max magnification. A more trained eye might pick up differences better than me. The eye box feels similar at 1x and maybe a bit tighter than the ATACR at max. I'm looking at one of these on a rifle and the other in hand so not a great test. At some point I'll put mount the ATACR on a different rifle and take them both out to shoot which should be a better comparison. If you have specific questions I can try to answer them. I have access to the ATACR, Razor Gen 3 1-10 and Razor Gen 2 e 1-6. I'd say the most noticeable differences are those I put in my original post.
As for optical properties I'd say they are similar. Both are quite flat at 1x. No fish eye at normal distances. I think the ATACR MIGHT be ever so slighter better with color at max magnification. A more trained eye might pick up differences better than me. The eye box feels similar at 1x and maybe a bit tighter than the ATACR at max. I'm looking at one of these on a rifle and the other in hand so not a great test. At some point I'll put mount the ATACR on a different rifle and take them both out to shoot which should be a better comparison. If you have specific questions I can try to answer them. I have access to the ATACR, Razor Gen 3 1-10 and Razor Gen 2 e 1-6. I'd say the most noticeable differences are those I put in my original post.
Last edited:
There was a small contract over run and they are selling them at Euro Optic as a package. Vortex has not started commercial sales yet from what I understand.
Daniel Defense M4A1 RIII 5.56mm NATO 14.5" P&W Bbl Rifle with Vortex AMG 1-10x24 FFP EBR-9 Super Short Scope & Reptilia Mount (EuroOptic Exclusive)
Daniel Defense M4A1 RIII 5.56mm NATO 14.5" P&W Bbl Rifle with Vortex AMG 1-10x24 FFP EBR-9 Super Short Scope & Reptilia Mount (EuroOptic Exclusive) For Sale
$5600 Holy crap.There was a small contract over run and they are selling them at Euro Optic as a package. Vortex has not started commercial sales yet from what I understand.
Daniel Defense M4A1 RIII 5.56mm NATO 14.5" P&W Bbl Rifle with Vortex AMG 1-10x24 FFP EBR-9 Super Short Scope & Reptilia Mount (EuroOptic Exclusive)
Daniel Defense M4A1 RIII 5.56mm NATO 14.5" P&W Bbl Rifle with Vortex AMG 1-10x24 FFP EBR-9 Super Short Scope & Reptilia Mount (EuroOptic Exclusive) For Salewww.eurooptic.com
I'll stick with my PLXC until they release them individually
Correction, perhaps my scale wasn't zeroed completely.
ATACR setup: 32.05oz
AMG setup: 29.15oz
ATACR setup: 32.05oz
AMG setup: 29.15oz
So I gave up 3oz weight savings, and added 1.5" in length and reduced from 10 to 8x in exchange for the color of my choice and a more fielded/tested product with a less finicky eyebox and brighter illumination, and not having to sell a rifle in the equation, is pretty much what I'm hearing? I can live with that, but I do wish the Vortex were available more commonly, I would have really mulled it over a fair bit.
Also...how does the diopter on the Vortex work? Whole eyepiece and that thin ring near the mag ring locks it, or what?
Last edited:
More or less. For me the killer feature of the AMG is more rail space on short guns. I have mine on a 12.5 so that 1.5" is a decent space savings. I do appreciate the weight savings as well, both having less of it and moving what is there farther back. I have the Razor Gen 3 on a 16" and will be moving the ATACR to a 14.5". If the AMG was more widely available I wouldn't be running out to replace them. If my choice was between the AMG and the Razor gen 3 I'd probably go with the AMG because of the darkening from 8-10 on the razor. With illumination on the AMG and the Razors give a more red dot like experience at 1x than the ATACR in my opinion. The ATACR is probably easier to use without illumination at 1x though. As I said above I prefer the thinner and darker reticle markings of the ATACR at 8x and that reticle in general. Since I have the AMG on a shorter rifle giving up some of what I like at the top end is an acceptable trade to me since I'm already giving up velocity. As you mentioned, the AMG is very much in the early adopter stage right now compared to the ATACR so who knows if issues will crop up.
I will say the eye box difference isn't massive to my eye. Still haven't taken it out so that might change after running it. I'll give the AMG a little break since it has a slightly tighter eyebox at 2x the magnification than the ATACR so not completely fair.
That's correct for the diopter, it's more like the ATACR. The thin ring behind the magnification ring is the lock and the entire rear portion of the housing rotates to to set the diopter. To lock, the locking ring is rotated back toward the end of the optic.
Similar threads
