I’m looking for a "no-compromise" scope for a 338 LM I just bought. The primary application is long distance hunting from 600-1,000 yards with a big premium on weight because I carry my guns for days up and down hills in Alaska and Montana. The 338 LM rifle is only 7.7 lbs and the goal is to stay under 10 lbs (+/-) including base and rings, so extra weight needs to be justified by a noticeable improvement in field condition results. The second use for the build is 12-24 inch iron targets from 800 to 1,700. I practice way more than hunt, so repeatable success well over 1,000 yards is also a priority.
I've purchased many scopes, but until now have always shot mil dots and rarely past 400 yards so we virtually never use turrets. My eyes are fairly good with glasses, but not what they used to be so I need all the help I can get from the scope and will spend what I need to spend.
Here are my application priorities:
(1) best available LR optical resolution, contrast and clarity - in sun, shade and low light,
(2) turrets: tracking, repeatability, and user friendliness, useful elevation adjustment range of 60 MOA minimum to get the 338 LM out to 1,500 and preferably more so it’s not bottoming out,
(3) lowest weight possible without significant trade-down in optics quality or mechanical quality,
(4) FFP,
(5) reticle performance, accuracy and ease of use,
(6) eye-box tolerance / forgiveness,
(7) MOA/MOA, or Mil/Mil,
(8) minimum useful magnification of 20X and would prefer higher (I know you often can’t use it, but my eyes are getting older and when I can use it I’ll gladly take it),
(9) holds up to abuse from recoil, field mishandling and the elements.
I’m down to a choice between five scopes and one is the Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50mm. The Razor HD is reported to be close to the higher end scopes I am considering (S&B, March, Premier) with slightly less optical performance, turrets that are slightly less precise and not quite as easy to use, and a reticle that is in the same ballpark but not quite as good as the best. In the class of scopes I am still considering, 31.5 oz is the lightest so it's the weight benchmark, so the Razor (35 oz) has a 3.5 oz penalty from the weight benchmark.
Every report I have read on the Razor HD is positive and they recommend the scope. Tons of elevation adjust (123 MOA) and the price ($2,000) is just over half the average of the other scopes still under consideration - and you get some rings and other stuff in the box. So the real question is what “slightly less performance/quality” means - would like to believe the Razor is in the same class and differences are not meaningful, but seems hard to believe.
Questions:
If you have shot the Razor HD 5-20 and the top LR scopes, is the Razor “virtually the same” in LR optical performance and turrets compared to S&B, March and Premier, or is the difference more like “very noticeable”?
Do you think there will be a meaningful difference in 1,000 to 1,500 yard target acquisition and accuracy performance for some “slightly aging eyes” with the Razor vs the top brand scopes?
Thanks for reading this post and thanks in advance if you can spare the time to respond.
I've purchased many scopes, but until now have always shot mil dots and rarely past 400 yards so we virtually never use turrets. My eyes are fairly good with glasses, but not what they used to be so I need all the help I can get from the scope and will spend what I need to spend.
Here are my application priorities:
(1) best available LR optical resolution, contrast and clarity - in sun, shade and low light,
(2) turrets: tracking, repeatability, and user friendliness, useful elevation adjustment range of 60 MOA minimum to get the 338 LM out to 1,500 and preferably more so it’s not bottoming out,
(3) lowest weight possible without significant trade-down in optics quality or mechanical quality,
(4) FFP,
(5) reticle performance, accuracy and ease of use,
(6) eye-box tolerance / forgiveness,
(7) MOA/MOA, or Mil/Mil,
(8) minimum useful magnification of 20X and would prefer higher (I know you often can’t use it, but my eyes are getting older and when I can use it I’ll gladly take it),
(9) holds up to abuse from recoil, field mishandling and the elements.
I’m down to a choice between five scopes and one is the Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50mm. The Razor HD is reported to be close to the higher end scopes I am considering (S&B, March, Premier) with slightly less optical performance, turrets that are slightly less precise and not quite as easy to use, and a reticle that is in the same ballpark but not quite as good as the best. In the class of scopes I am still considering, 31.5 oz is the lightest so it's the weight benchmark, so the Razor (35 oz) has a 3.5 oz penalty from the weight benchmark.
Every report I have read on the Razor HD is positive and they recommend the scope. Tons of elevation adjust (123 MOA) and the price ($2,000) is just over half the average of the other scopes still under consideration - and you get some rings and other stuff in the box. So the real question is what “slightly less performance/quality” means - would like to believe the Razor is in the same class and differences are not meaningful, but seems hard to believe.
Questions:
If you have shot the Razor HD 5-20 and the top LR scopes, is the Razor “virtually the same” in LR optical performance and turrets compared to S&B, March and Premier, or is the difference more like “very noticeable”?
Do you think there will be a meaningful difference in 1,000 to 1,500 yard target acquisition and accuracy performance for some “slightly aging eyes” with the Razor vs the top brand scopes?
Thanks for reading this post and thanks in advance if you can spare the time to respond.