Ordered mine today.
I'm told by Cameraland that they had 2 in stock, I bought the second.
Hopefully it all goes as they told me.
I'm told by Cameraland that they had 2 in stock, I bought the second.
Hopefully it all goes as they told me.
Rifle Scopes Full day with the Vortex 4.5-27x - Initial Impressions
Ok here are some pics of the new 4.5-27x next to the S&B 5-25 and original Razor 5-20x. Figured I would put all three together for people to see size comparisons. The Razor II has the 4" sunshade on it and the S&B has the 2.5" sunshade. After mounting and looking through my window at some trees about 100 yards away, I was amazed at how clear the new Razor II was. Honestly both being set on 15x it was as clear as the S&B. A fellow Hide member came over and looked through both and said the same thing. He can chime in if he sees this and wants to.
This production scope gives me the same feelings and feedback as the one that sold me at SHOT. It has the EBR-1C reticle. Illumination is very good and easy to see. Knobs are tactile and audible in their clicks and everything has the feeling of a very well put together scope. As mentioned glass is amazing and no tunneling at lower power.
Hopefully I will get out on Saturday and get it zeroed and put it through it's paces. That is if i don't get stuck on overtime at work
Will try and get some through the scope pics too although my skill at those pics is well known as not good at best LOL
This production scope gives me the same feelings and feedback as the one that sold me at SHOT. It has the EBR-1C reticle. Illumination is very good and easy to see. Knobs are tactile and audible in their clicks and everything has the feeling of a very well put together scope. As mentioned glass is amazing and no tunneling at lower power.
Hopefully I will get out on Saturday and get it zeroed and put it through it's paces. That is if i don't get stuck on overtime at work
Will try and get some through the scope pics too although my skill at those pics is well known as not good at best LOLThat's a heck of a lineup there
Just had my first real life sighting of these. I stopped in A&A Optics in Liberty, IN They had a 4.5-27 and a 3-18 in stock and on display...dang they are nice. Soon one will be sitting on my TRG!!
Last edited:
I'm that guy
At 15X, we could easily make out the veins and details in the leaves at those trees 100 yards away with both scopes. I was in no way able to tell the difference in clarity, brightness, and color fullness between the two; and the Gen II's competition was the S&B 5-25 flagship! The only way I could tell the difference between the two when looking through them was (1) the reticle and (2) the S&B tunnels at the lowest power. Putting these two scopes against each other is like pairing up Olympic athletes at the games.
I will eagerly read any review of someone that actually puts it through the paces (low light, night, etc.), but I won't be surprised if there are no real perceptible differences. People that don't opt for this new Gen II are probably going to have reasons like they want a different reticle or don't want to have to deal with locking turrets, etc.
Rob:
Did they include that throw lever and sun shade?
Did they include that throw lever and sun shade?
The sunshade is included with the scope. The throw lever is extra. It's nice but not a needed option if you didn't want it.
Got mine today!! 4.5-27X56 EBR 2C MOA mounted on my TRG 42 300 win mag with a Spuhr Mount. This was a pre-order from A&A Optics in Liberty, IN.
I tried to get a photo through the scope, but its a lot tougher to do than it seems and I suck at it. Maybe I'll try again later to show the reticle.
[/URL]
[/URL]
I tried to get a photo through the scope, but its a lot tougher to do than it seems and I suck at it. Maybe I'll try again later to show the reticle.
How high is that mount? Looks awesome
Rob,
The throw lever is the SV-3 correct?
The throw lever is the SV-3 correct?
That's the Spuhr ST 4701; 7 mil/24 MOA. It's 1.38" high.
Will have to check tomorrow when I get home for sure but the SV-3 is the only one listed for the Razor IIs so I am guessing it is.
Through the scope pics aren't as easy as they sound huh rw496? LOL
Rob -Definitely not easy..lol. Plus, you gotta look through this in person to appreciate it. You said back when I pre-ordered this thing I'd be thanking you, you were right. This thing is outstanding.
Nice to see that they are trickling out!!!!
I own a Gen I 5-20. It is a good scope. The Gen II is a different league. If you have the extra money, go with the Gen II, but if your budget forces you to go with the Gen I you won't be disappointed.
Shot my video, just have to edit it ... short and too the point, needless the say, you would be well served getting the new 4.5-27x.
If the question is, do I spend $3900+ or get the Vortex @ $2500 what do I give up, the answer is nothing.
You get all the same features, you get a well built, robust scope that is practical and accurate, with HD glass if you're into that.
This can easily be your favorite scope
If the question is, do I spend $3900+ or get the Vortex @ $2500 what do I give up, the answer is nothing.
You get all the same features, you get a well built, robust scope that is practical and accurate, with HD glass if you're into that.
This can easily be your favorite scope
A lot of people are going to have a hard time justifying buying a $4k+ scope when you can almost get two of these for the same price.
two of these for almost the same price... now that you mention it...
Shot my video, just have to edit it ... short and too the point, needless the say, you would be well served getting the new 4.5-27x.
If the question is, do I spend $3900+ or get the Vortex @ $2500 what do I give up, the answer is nothing.
You get all the same features, you get a well built, robust scope that is practical and accurate, with HD glass if you're into that.
This can easily be your favorite scope
Not that I could add much more to any of the comments already out about this scope.
The low post count doesn't give much credibility either.
I put my order in at CameraLand/SportOptics on Thursday 6/27/14. It's in my hand on 7/3/14. Pretty good for free shipping and a price lower than what I saw the "street price" was going to be by more than a few dollars.
I ordered MOA, but received MRAD. Nothing to complain about there. Just something I need to adjust to.
I will say this about the color in person. It looks exactly like the color of a Hershey's Chocolate Bar. It doesn't look anything like any of the photos I've seen of it here on The Hide.
It is a really nice scope.
Too bad it will be sitting in the safe until I get the call from GA Precision. I'm 10 months into the 10 month waiting period. Hoping to get a pm soon with an update as to where I am, on the waiting list.
Attachments
Last edited:
Weird that it is poop brown.
Was your's like this Frank?
Was your's like this Frank?
Same here. I love both colors.
Here is the video
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BWzolCEilTQ?list=UUwHsnyWOaQNtrGjJKsTgegg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BWzolCEilTQ?list=UUwHsnyWOaQNtrGjJKsTgegg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
A little Frank wiggle
Thanks Frank! Looks good!
Thanks Frank! Looks good!
Thanks Frank. Cant wait to get mine
has anyone looked through the new razor 4.5-27x56 and the bushnell xrs 4.5-30x50 ffp model? i sold my razor 5-20x50 and figured id get the new one but the little ive read on the Bushnell has me wondering how they stack up to one another
I have both, and like the Vortex over the Bushnell, the Bushnell is a good scope, but the Vortex to me is more pleasing esthetically and a bit more user friendly.
Either are a good choice, but if I was buying them, the Vortex is the pound for pound winner when it comes to Dollars and Features.
I think the NF ATACR is the best SFP out there, (tactically speaking) and right now bang for the Buck, the Vortex is its equal in FFP.
Either are a good choice, but if I was buying them, the Vortex is the pound for pound winner when it comes to Dollars and Features.
I think the NF ATACR is the best SFP out there, (tactically speaking) and right now bang for the Buck, the Vortex is its equal in FFP.
thanks! maybe ill save up for the vortex then. i can get the bushnell for around $1550, only reason im really considering it. appreciate you taking the time to reply
Not hating the color.
It is just so different than any other scope I've seen before.
I believe EuroOptics has it listed on it's web page as matte black. (see example)
Looking at most pictures and on line listings, the color seems more metallic (think luxury car color in the champagne range) At least to me.
It falls well within a tactical pallet, don't get me wrong.
Attachments
I wanted to cerakote my rifle to match the scope so I called Vortex to get their take on the color. Of course cerakoting to match an anodized finish is hard onto itself but they also said that batches will differ in shade so some will be darker or lighter than others. Clearly the picture you posted of yours looks like a darker brown than Rob01 has on his video. I guess untill you have it in front of you it difficult to be sure. Thanks for posting. Hopefully I'll have mine by the end of this month.
Tell you the truth I like your color. Congrats!!
Scope looks great (if a little heavy for what I am going for). If I wasn't already waiting on a Steiner I would snap one up asap. I need to hurry up and win the lottery.
just out of curiosity, how does the nightforce atacr stack up against the razor glass wise? low light performance is important to me. scope mainly will be used for hunting.
This should help answer your question. Pretty good info here based on how they set up the testing.
Tactical Scopes: Optical Performance Field Test Results ? Part 1 | PrecisionRifleBlog.com
Hey Frank, pretty pretty please can you blow it up? Lets test that ruggedness for real...
Thanks Frank. One of the best scope reviews to date. I have this on Preorder through EuroOptic and can't wait to get it. Sold my Gen1 Vortex after months of dependable use and picked up an S&B 5-25X DT with MSR reticle, which has been great, but this new 4.5-27X really looks like a "game changer" as expected. Also waiting for my Steiner T5Xi, which so far sounds like another great LR budget option. As always, great up to date information here on the Hide.
This is one of the best objective scientific reviews on LR scopes I've seen. Click on this link and you'll finds some surprising results!!!
I was surprised by the results in that test.. I knew Henny would be somewhere up top but also figured that new Schmidt would be up top as well as March but the 5-40x56 wasn't used. I do find it interesting that the 8 year old S&B I have is still up around the top spot
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
That's the original 5-20x Razor. Not the new 4.5-27x Razor II. Just so no one is confused. I wish he did have a Razor II there as I am sure it would have done well.
Here's a pic of the 2C reticle through the scope with my phone (best I could do). This deer was at about 450-ish yds. Still doesn't do it justice. She had a baby with her and I could count its spots at that distance easy.
**No animals were harmed during filming
**No animals were harmed during filming
Here's a pic of the 2C reticle through the scope with my phone (best I could do). This deer was at about 450-ish yds. Still doesn't do it justice. She had a baby with her and I could count its spots at that distance easy.
**No animals were harmed during filming
Is that about 18x? The ebr2c looks unobtrusive
So, after the Sniper's Hide Cup, Vortex sent over a 4.5-27x Razor HD II and I have to say I am liking this scope.
So after mounting it on my MCM Alias (6.5CM) I took it out to a precision rifle class for Trigger Time Gun Club.
First off the down side, yes it's as heavy as it says in the specs. There is no misprint, it's solid scope.
I like the reticle, it was simple and not overly complex while still being thin enough for precision accuracy. This version has the EBR-1C reticle, and it's the type of reticle that suits me very well.
Zeroing,
I liked zeroing this scope. I like the adjustments under the cap, and I liked the ease of zeroing.
Using it, it's got very good glass, the Razor HD line is very good, the glass has the right amount of resolution and pop without running into a lot of Chromatic Aberrations like a few others out there. I found it very good, so good in fact I was actually using it around 15x much more than any other power because it was that easy to see and gave me a great balance of FOV and clarity of target.
It's definitely the best scope Vortex has put out, and I am a Super Fan of 1-6x Razor which this expands on.
Frank please don't take this the wrong way (as in I'm just trying to start an argument). I assure you that is not my intent. But in the above initial impression on the vortex SCOPE you spent one sentence talking about weight. Two sentences each about reticle and zeroing. And a whole paragraph about glass, yet in the SCOPE shootout you continually discount the relevance of said glass.
I try and read and understand what you say because you are the man no doubt about it,but on this subject you have me a bit confused.
The color is not as green as the original Razor, which some complained about. It does have a browner tone to it. You can see both here
Does the color of the new Razor II match the shade used for their 1-6x?
[MENTION=102665]Dead Nutz[/MENTION]
Cause you're not too smart... Not trying to start an argument but you don't understand the audience or what an initial impression tells you.
i could be confused, but 99% of people's question about an initial impression is what it looks like, the sight picture. I never commented on the glass, but balanced my observation to mention, clarity, FOV, and how that combined with its magnification gave me a very good initial impression.
Because of people like you, who, no offense, might be reading challenged, at least when it comes to comprehension I stopped going into any details on the glass. Watch the video, 10 minutes worth. How many of those minutes was spent on glass? So in my initial impression, I gave you 3 sentences, maybe four and painted a picture of the overall "look" of the scope, you feel I weighted that portion. Once again you prove my point.... People read into what is said according to their bias and not what is actually discussed.
there is a reason I tell companies a minimum of 45 days for a review. Sure I gave my initial impression, and it was quick, but after I box test or actually tall target it it every single time I take it out. I shoot my range from 100 to at least 1250 and back, then next trip out I start all over again. It's actually quite boring. I confirm zero, every time, run the 7 mils then hit steel out and back, recheck zero, and repeat. I fire than no less than 1000 rounds with any given scope. You'll see me do lessons with it, and since I usually do a monthly class, I let them get behind it and sample opinions.
So, how a person can get the impression I put more effort into the glass, above anything else is beyond me. No argument from me, I expect misunderstandings which is why over the years I have dumbed it down. I used to print test targets, I invested in optical targets of every type and had an account with Edmunds, I own all sorts of optical charts which now collect dust, still it appears I have fallen short in making any kind of point.
With the fundamentals of marksmanship, Sight Picture is important, but sight picture is a combination of factors to give the shooter edge to edge clarity. So touching on the FOV, the clarity and resolution is necessary. But only to the degree needed to make the shot. Can I see, can I dial out the parallax, is there too much CA which may distract the shooter on brightly lit targets, it all has value, but I weight it far below the function. Because of this, you 3 lines in my initial impression, and 10 minutes everywhere else.
With the new March 3-24x52 in my possession I will try to satisfy your curiosity and strive to clarify my position better.
Apologies for contradicting myself in such a manner to confuse.
Cause you're not too smart... Not trying to start an argument but you don't understand the audience or what an initial impression tells you.
i could be confused, but 99% of people's question about an initial impression is what it looks like, the sight picture. I never commented on the glass, but balanced my observation to mention, clarity, FOV, and how that combined with its magnification gave me a very good initial impression.
Because of people like you, who, no offense, might be reading challenged, at least when it comes to comprehension I stopped going into any details on the glass. Watch the video, 10 minutes worth. How many of those minutes was spent on glass? So in my initial impression, I gave you 3 sentences, maybe four and painted a picture of the overall "look" of the scope, you feel I weighted that portion. Once again you prove my point.... People read into what is said according to their bias and not what is actually discussed.
there is a reason I tell companies a minimum of 45 days for a review. Sure I gave my initial impression, and it was quick, but after I box test or actually tall target it it every single time I take it out. I shoot my range from 100 to at least 1250 and back, then next trip out I start all over again. It's actually quite boring. I confirm zero, every time, run the 7 mils then hit steel out and back, recheck zero, and repeat. I fire than no less than 1000 rounds with any given scope. You'll see me do lessons with it, and since I usually do a monthly class, I let them get behind it and sample opinions.
So, how a person can get the impression I put more effort into the glass, above anything else is beyond me. No argument from me, I expect misunderstandings which is why over the years I have dumbed it down. I used to print test targets, I invested in optical targets of every type and had an account with Edmunds, I own all sorts of optical charts which now collect dust, still it appears I have fallen short in making any kind of point.
With the fundamentals of marksmanship, Sight Picture is important, but sight picture is a combination of factors to give the shooter edge to edge clarity. So touching on the FOV, the clarity and resolution is necessary. But only to the degree needed to make the shot. Can I see, can I dial out the parallax, is there too much CA which may distract the shooter on brightly lit targets, it all has value, but I weight it far below the function. Because of this, you 3 lines in my initial impression, and 10 minutes everywhere else.
With the new March 3-24x52 in my possession I will try to satisfy your curiosity and strive to clarify my position better.
Apologies for contradicting myself in such a manner to confuse.
Similar threads
