Rifle Scopes Razor HD Gen 3 - what’s next?
- Thread starter JC0352
- Start date
I'D like to see something in the 3x18 range for a hunting optic. I thought really hard about the 1x10 but not sure it will pull enough light in the 30 min windows before and after sunset.
Hmmmm, maybe... The Razor line has never seemed to be geared towards hunting.
Hopefully better mag ranges, better glass and lighter weight.
I needed to scope my SBR in a pinch this year and grabbed a 1-8 strike eagle to get it in the woods for deer season and i can see late enough to get myself into trouble if I wanted, would think the 1-10 would be tons better.
think you’ll be waiting awhile as the Gen 2s have only been around a couple years
Right... Except the Gen 3 is a 10x zoom. Where as the Gen 2 was 6x
I’m down!Fair assessment.
Then I want a 5-50 at the same weight or less than the 4.5-27. ?
So funny when people complain about the Gen II weight, about 10 OUNCES more than similar scopes, and then add weight kits and tons of ARCA to their chassied match rifles and use MTU/Heavy Varmint weight barrels for more weight to tame recoil. LOL If 10 ounces takes you down then I don't know what to say. 
I would like to see a digital scope like the digital cameras but a scope and for it to always need new batteries .
Maybe we can mount solar panels on top of the scope or maybe a special hat the shooter wears with solar panels and wire running to the scope?
∆∆∆∆Exactly!So funny when people complain about the Gen II weight, about 10 OUNCES more than similar scopes, and then add weight kits and tons of ARCA to their chassied match rifles and use MTU/Heavy Varmint weight barrels for more weight to tame recoil. LOL If 10 ounces takes you down then I don't know what to say.
I’m with @Mr. Zick and would vote for the solar panel hat or vest on the shooter. Wouldn’t want to add weight to the scope and make it almost unusable like those gen 2 razors. ?Maybe we can mount solar panels on top of the scope or maybe a special hat the shooter wears with solar panels and wire running to the scope?
I will gladly have a 10 oz heavier scope and the extra $500 to $1000 compared to many competitive scopes with similar specs & pedigree. This was especially true when the R2 was the new hotness, (although the pedigree wasn't established at this time).
So funny when people complain about the Gen II weight, about 10 OUNCES more than similar scopes, and then add weight kits and tons of ARCA to their chassied match rifles and use MTU/Heavy Varmint weight barrels for more weight to tame recoil. LOL If 10 ounces takes you down then I don't know what to say.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the people complaining about weight don't shoot prs, or they have other non-prs guns they would like glass for.
They are a minimum of 10oz heavier than similar scopes but in the case of the AMG, MK5/MK6, XTR3, Kahles etc they are upwards of 20oz heavier.So funny when people complain about the Gen II weight, about 10 OUNCES more than similar scopes, and then add weight kits and tons of ARCA to their chassied match rifles and use MTU/Heavy Varmint weight barrels for more weight to tame recoil. LOL If 10 ounces takes you down then I don't know what to say.
While that might not matter to your PRS rifle is does make a difference to a hunting rifle, cross over rifle, Tactical type rifle you carry more than 100 meters from your car to the bench.
I think it's pretty self explanatory that folks adding weight to their PRS rifles are not the same ones complaining about the weight of the G2 Razor........
Actually it's not self explanatory as there are PRS shooters that complain. It's crazy.
And if you need less weight then the AMG is there. You need to pick the right tool for the job. The Razor II was not made for a mountain gun.
And if you need less weight then the AMG is there. You need to pick the right tool for the job. The Razor II was not made for a mountain gun.
The AMG might be a replacement for the 4.5-27 but 6x magnification on the low end is too much for many people.
Hence why every thread about the AMG has folk begging for a 4-16/3-18ish magnification scope.
I agree that you should pick the right tool for the job, unfortunately the weight of the Razor G2 makes it the wrong tool for many uses, which is a shame as it ticks every other box (glass, turrets, reticle, FOV, illumination) and comes in at a great price.
The weight is the only thing holding it back which is my many folk (myself included) have said the only thing that needs changing is the weight and it'll be perfect.
My problem with the low end on FFP scopes like the 3x in your wished for AMG is that the reticle is too small to be much use unless there is good lighting and a good backdrop. I couldn’t imagine a 3x ffp scope with the .03 mil thick reticle that Vortex uses would be much good for anything.
Now the discontinued gen ii pst 3-15 ebr2c and 2d reticle with its .06 mil reticle is still small at 3x but actually useable under less than ideal conditions. The AMG reticle in this new scope would need to change as well to accommodate that low 3-4x range. Oh boy. It’s hard to make everybody happy isn’t it. ?
These are the reasons I am dropping ffp scopes from my hunting rifles. The benefits of FFP do not outweigh the negatives on a hunting or all around use crossover rifle in my opinion. I am hoping the new Razor line of hunting scopes is offered in SFP and with a mill reticle. Two will be coming my way for sure if they are.
Last edited:
Lol you might be able to sell that BS to some but saying you bought a high end FFP optic and you will be worried about 1.5x on the low end is ridiculous. On those scopes the low end is very rarely used and the difference will not be seen by anyone using it.
The weight is fine for many uses also. As I said compared to similar scopes it's 10 ounces. The NF atacr scopes are ~39 ounces, the S&B 5-25 is 38.5, TT 5-25 is 40.5 ounces. Should I go on? Yes there are other lighter scopes and that is why the AMG is there. For what it was designed for the Razor II weight is not an issue and actually a pro to some. And even with its weight it doesn't mean the rifle has to be a 20+ pound set up. My 27" 6.5 Creedmoor with a 4.5-27 in it is 15.5 pounds. Nice package for moving around with.
The ebr2 in moa on the gen2 razor is just fine for use on 3x on a hunting gun in my opinion. I like that mag range and would like to see a lower powered amg also. Razor for the game guns and amg for the others
threw together my new lightweight comp rifle
28" heavy palma 6xc
TL3
Manners PRS
A419 Arcalok rail
razor gen2
16.2 pounds without a mag or bipod
when the NX8 goes on it it'll be sub 15
6 - 3 = 3 not 1.5
The difference between the 3-18 and 6-24 on the low end is substatial.
You can go on as much as you like, there are many people on this forum and many others who would buy a lighter Gen 2 Razor.
Last edited:
Apples to apples. A 3-18 is not a comparison to a 4.5-27 or 6-24. Hey a 1-6x give you better low end. Why not get that? And again if you are that worried about low end you need to buy the right scope from the get go.
Yeah I want a 2 ounce 1-100x FFP scope with 300 mils of internal adjustment but just isn't going to happen.
Yeah I want a 2 ounce 1-100x FFP scope with 300 mils of internal adjustment but just isn't going to happen.
This is apples to apples the 3-18 still weighs 46oz and you are the one who said just get an AMG instead.
This whole thread is a wish list for a Gen 3 Razor and the same as the Gen 2 minus 10oz would be near perfect.
A magnification bump to 3-21x50 and a 5-35x56 weight 30oz and 35oz respectively would be awesome.
Oh and a options for a back colour too........
or keep the Gen 3 the same and expand AMG? best of both worlds? you know the reason there are two separate lines in the first place
It wouldnt be a Gen 3 if it was kept the same now would it?
Expanding the AMG would be great and folk have been asking for a lower magnification AMG for a long time.
But this thread is about the future Gen3 razor line not the AMG line....
While we are at it a a 4-16x44 AMG and a 4-20x50 Viper PST would be on my wishlist. A PST 2-10x32 with the EBR9 reticle would also be a great addition.
right. so why do you want it to weigh the same as the AMG? that defeats the point
gen 3. maybe upgraded glass, turrets (capped wind), new reticle maybe. with biggest change being the mag range going 5-35
yeah 4-20 AMG and PST would be nice too and 5x seems like a reasonable jump for the AMG line with 7/10x for razor g3
It would be nice to see a basic reticle with .2 mil subtensions. Not just tree or Horus reticles
I think most long range hunters would disagree that it's "BS".
The thing with big game is, you never know what range you'll have to shoot. You may intend to stalk a distant herd of elk from a treeline 800 yds. away, carefully select the best bull from the herd, and wait for your shot opportunity. And on some hunts, you may get to take an animal from that distance using your dedicated long range rig with 6-36 scope. But other times, while your stalking, a nice bull might suddenly appear 50 yds. away in the shadows. If you went with a 6-36, optic, you might have a hard time picking him up before he bolts. Now that long range hunting is popular, many need magnification that goes up to 18 while STILL needing a low end around 3. And if you have to do much hiking in steep terrain, you'll want it to be light. Leupold's Mark 5HD 3.8-18 is very popular among this group of shooters for these reasons. Is it so preposterous to think that Vortex could do something slightly better in their gen 3 line?
Also, 1.5x magnification is less useful to hunters than open sights.
No it's not preposterous and I hope they do come out with a lower powdered AMG but you can't hit a bull at 50 yards on 6x? Why is that a difficult thing?
It's not that you "can't", it's that picking up something very close on 6x can be difficult, poor lighting compounds this. And with animals that are close enough for this to be a problem, they often sense danger and flee only a moment after presenting themselves, which may not be enough time for you to place an ethical shot.
Maybe you should just strap a red dot on the side if it's that common. Would be better than any scope at that short range.
FFP scopes are not ideal for low power close range shooting period. In fact they absolutely suck at it. Even more so in poor lighting or inside timber. This is why low end on an FFP doesnt make since to me anyhow.
They aren’t ideal for anyone under those conditions described. It would be dishonest to say otherwise.
Get any FFP scope you choose and turn it down to 4x. Now get a Leupold or similar duplex reticle SFP and turn it down to 4x. The SFP duplex reticle blows the FFP scope out the water as far as usability goes. The FFP would be crushed in poor lighting. These types of scopes are superior out to 300 yards.
Get on past that to where the magnification can be cranked up and wind holds become important than yes the FFP scopes are superior. My point is not to discount either. My point is that there are tradeoffs inherent in both designs.
That 1-10 you pointed me to would be a worse choice yet on a hunting rifle.
