It’s still chubby at 31oz. Lighter than the 10# razor brothers sure. But still overweight imo. Woulda been nice to see it come in around 25-27oz.
"Chubby" is relative in this case. Compared to the LHT 4.5-22 which was designed to be a super lightweight FFP option, yes, but compared to the rest of the market it is about on par and maybe a wee bit lighter than most for a 34mm tube, 44mm objective and 6x erector (assuming all those hold true). The Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42 weighs in at 29.8oz and is long considered to be one of the "lightweight" options in the crossover class. To get good glass with a high erector you have to "correct" and that correction usually adds weight to the assembly. The current RG3 6-36 represents (IMO) the best glass coming out of Japan today (yes the March (5-42 Gen2) is very close, but their high erector and short body design introduce compromises that some don't care for). If this rumored RG3 4-24 lives up to similar billing optically then I will gladly give up an ounce compared to the ATACR 4-16. I will also go out on a limb and assume this new RG3 will also incorporate the wide angle eyepiece of its big brother 6-36 and if that is the case then I expect really good FOV at 4x likely outdoing some 3.5x scopes in that regard.
Come on! You seriously worried about a few ounces in this style scope? It’s not a light weight hunting scope. The Bushnell DMR 3.5-21 is 35.5 ounces but never hear anyone complaining about it. At that 31 ounce mark it’s in a great weight range for a bolt gun or AR. Hardly chubby.
Actually, I complained about the DMR being a chonky beast for quite some time
That was the scope I really wanted to love but couldn't, the weight and the limited FOV kept taking it off my list and then they finally corrected IQ but never offered illumination in that version
And that speaks volumes doesn’t it?
Agreed, the market (or maybe better put the perceived market) is what drives this.
Not necessarily, but that’s what’s being produced by and large. Remember comp shooters are a tiny fraction compared to hunters. Mavens seem to be selling very well. I think the bushy was before its time, how long does a 3-12 G2H last for IF it even pops up on the for sale section? Less than an hour. A good crossover scope by a vortex or Nightforce type company I’d bet would do very well.
And they tend to do very well currently. I would agree that the "ideal" crossover may be hard to find for some - you and me included, but that doesn't mean there's not a market for what is already out there. For me personally a "better" reticle in a lot of the current scopes would change my mind and while I'd love to see some of the bigger companies focus more attention on making a FFP reticle usable at both low and high mag, the fact is that we have little sway in their decisions. "Did you see that Glassaholic doesn't like our new reticle, I guess we should scrap this scope..." said no one at a sport optics company ever! But if we get enough within the industry singing the same tune, then maybe just maybe someone will take notice and deliver, making a new reticle is much more cost effective than making a new scope but they have to be convinced that it will sell.
I didn’t pick the mag range in the baby razor
I would have picked 2.5 if it was up to me. Yes I’d like it lighter, I’m not sure why that’s a bad thing.
I would have preferred this as well, but a 4-24 is "not bad" in a crossover design, especially if it offers wide FOV at 4x.
Correct by usable I mean able to easily see it for closer shots like the G2H donut of death. No not for wind holds at low power, that wouldn’t make any sense. Most MPVO/HPVO don’t have daylight bright illumination, although vortex does a good job mostly with illumination. I’d still argue make a better reticle that doesn’t use illumination as a crutch, it’s really not that difficult.
Vortex has one of the brightest illumination units on the market in their RG3 line, maybe we'll see some kind of hybrid (reticle) with this new RG3? But if not, I am confident this new RG3 will have a usable reticle on 4x with illumination. Would I prefer a reticle that did not need illumination at bottom mag, yes, but again - trying to convince the industry that this would sell is the bigger challenge.
This rumored RG3 4-24x44 fills a gap in Vortex's lineup. Let's be honest, the downfall of the RG2 3-18x50 was not its glass quality because it had some of the best IQ of any scope in that range at the time (and still to this day in many respects) but the downfall was the weight - nobody is going to put a 40+ ounce scope on their DMR or crossover rig. I think Vortex went back to the drawing board to make sure this 4-24 came in at a specific weight class while offering the top tier glass the RG3 is known for, that was likely the design intent.
I still think there is opportunity for Vortex to make a true MPVO and would love to see something like a 2-12x42 in the RG3 series and, of course, there is always the anticipation of the next generation AMG - we know Vortex's new AMG team has been brewing something up, but exactly what nobody knows. Maybe Vortex chose 4-24 magnification for this RG3 so it didn't encroach on sales of an upcoming AMG or vice versa.
