Razor is not the best choice for NRL22. I already have a few so I will most likely be running one on the vudoo when it comes in.
A strike eagle or Bushnell HDMR CR would be better suited for the task.
Mostly parallax.
Strike eagle is nearly as clear and has very useable turrets.
Op also mentioned “dropping the money”SE is a better value for the .22 game.
You already know this though.
I was just wanting some opinion's on if the Vortex Razor Hd Gen 2 was a good choice for NRL22 shooting. I noticed it said Parallex down to 32 yards. Just looking for some advice before dropping the money. Thanks
I run the 3-18 razor gen 2 and love it. Didn’t want to spend the extra cash considering on most stages I don’t bring my magnification above 14, only use all of it sighting in. A little heavy but I find it to be a good thing for the style of shooting. Great glass, turrets, and overall ease of use under pressure. My personal favorite in the price range from what I’ve been able to try.I was just wanting some opinion's on if the Vortex Razor Hd Gen 2 was a good choice for NRL22 shooting. I noticed it said Parallex down to 32 yards. Just looking for some advice before dropping the money. Thanks
Funny. Guys buy pricey Eley, SK, RWS, and Lapua match ammo for 22lr comps. They buy a Vudoo rifle- in the same ballpark as a customCF rifle. But they want a "value" optic for shooting 1/2 MOA targets- because "it's just a 22..."
If you want to go out any play on the weekend, go for it. But, if you want to compete and be competitive, expect to pay for it- like as much as you would for your CF rifle setup.
And re weight. If you are considering adding weights to your rifle, then a "heavy" scope isn't a problem. You're not humping it 20 miles over mountains. You're moving a few inches/feet from obstacle to obstacle, and then a few feet/yards from stage to stage.
I don't think i said anything about wanting a cheap scope. I was asking for advice. If you don't like the question don't answer it. There is plenty of people here that are helpful. I don't need you being pissy about it. For clarity i was asking because i want a quality scope not a cheap scope. I CAN AFFORD ANYTHING THING I WANT. So thanks to all the helpful people here. Why does there there always have to be one person like this.Funny. Guys buy pricey Eley, SK, RWS, and Lapua match ammo for 22lr comps. They buy a Vudoo rifle- in the same ballpark as a customCF rifle. But they want a "value" optic for shooting 1/2 MOA targets- because "it's just a 22..."
If you want to go out any play on the weekend, go for it. But, if you want to compete and be competitive, expect to pay for it- like as much as you would for your CF rifle setup.
And re weight. If you are considering adding weights to your rifle, then a "heavy" scope isn't a problem. You're not humping it 20 miles over mountains. You're moving a few inches/feet from obstacle to obstacle, and then a few feet/yards from stage to stage.
I don't think i said anything about wanting a cheap scope. I was asking for advice. If you don't like the question don't answer it. There is plenty of people here that are helpful. I don't need you being pissy about it. For clarity i was asking because i want a quality scope not a cheap scope. I CAN AFFORD ANYTHING THING I WANT. So thanks to all the helpful people here. Why does there there always have to be one person like this.
depends on how heavy you want your rifle as well as others have said. lighter weight 13-14lb rig? NF NX or Razor AMG. if you want a heavier 15lb to 20+ lb rig then go with the heavier scope IMO.
i can the manners stock, what else are you using to cut weight? ive only been able to get down to ~13lbs ish even with a razor amg to save weight. im running an 18" kukri/XLR element/seekins rings on mine.The rifle I posted above with the Razor II is 11.4 pounds as it is shown so you can run a Razor and be lighter than 13-14 pounds.
i can the manners stock, what else are you using to cut weight? ive only been able to get down to ~13lbs ish even with a razor amg to save weight. im running an 18" kukri/XLR element/seekins rings on mine.
Parallax free and things being sharp are not the same. Yes you can have a clear image by adjusting your magnification down, but it doesn't mean that it's parallax free.
And at those short ranges it doesn’t matter if there is a tiny amount of parallax. It’s more of an arguing point than actual shooting issue.
What difference does that make in regards to the op’s question?Just curious, how many of you guys believe you could pick out which scopes you were looking thru on a clear day between a Razor, S&B, NF, ZC, or TT etc if each scope were camouflaged enough to not know the brand?
Any of you believe you could pick out what you believe to be the best from the worst?
Just curious, how many of you guys believe you could pick out which scopes you were looking thru on a clear day between a Razor, S&B, NF, ZC, or TT etc if each scope were camouflaged enough to not know the brand?
Any of you believe you could pick out what you believe to be the best from the worst?
Scope weight is high .....top....of the setup amplifying the effect.Nothing wrong with the Razor II on the Vudoo. Yes it's heavier than others but then you have people adding weights to their rifles as well so more weight isn't usually an issue. It does parallax down to 32 yards but you can dial power down and get below that. At about 20x you can get to 25 yards.
I have run a AMG, Strike Eagle, Razor II 3-18 and 4.5-27x on my Vudoo and never had any issues with balance with any of them.
48.5 ounce Razor II 4.5-27
View attachment 7633312
30.4 ounce Strike Eagle 5-25x56
View attachment 7633313
The OP asked the about the Razor directly so just weaving the web for him.What difference does that make in regards to the op’s question?
Scope weight is high .....top....of the setup amplifying the effect.
There is so much more to a scope than optical clarity. Covered or exposed turrets? Zero Stop? How does it function? How many Mil/MOA per revolution? Why 10.5 on the Leupold Mark V? Reticles are like women. Illuminated or not? You like your tubes thick or ThiCC? Are the clicks crisp and audible? Are they a mere suggestion? Loose, mushy, and indistinct? Does it track? And, then there is the real question of wheter or not the scope is right for what you are doing. The local 22lr match around here has a minimum range of 50 yards. That opens the arena up for a lot of scopes that won't parallax/focus down below that. Some people like the scope to "look right" on the rifle. It's a little rifle, it needs a little scope. I saw a guy hang a Mark V in a Spuhr mount from a Savage rascal at a match. Worked well enough for his 6yo daughter's first match.Just curious, how many of you guys believe you could pick out which scopes you were looking thru on a clear day between a Razor, S&B, NF, ZC, or TT etc if each scope were camouflaged enough to not know the brand?
Any of you believe you could pick out what you believe to be the best from the worst?
Great response.There is so much more to a scope than optical clarity. Covered or exposed turrets? Zero Stop? How does it function? How many Mil/MOA per revolution? Why 10.5 on the Leupold Mark V? Reticles are like women. Illuminated or not? You like your tubes thick or ThiCC? Are the clicks crisp and audible? Are they a mere suggestion? Loose, mushy, and indistinct? Does it track? And, then there is the real question of wheter or not the scope is right for what you are doing. The local 22lr match around here has a minimum range of 50 yards. That opens the arena up for a lot of scopes that won't parallax/focus down below that. Some people like the scope to "look right" on the rifle. It's a little rifle, it needs a little scope. I saw a guy hang a Mark V in a Spuhr mount from a Savage rascal at a match. Worked well enough for his 6yo daughter's first match.
While it often pulls double duty, a rifle scope is not an observation device. It is not for bird watching. It is not made for photography. It's sole reason for existing is to align the rifle and the target so that the bullet hits where the shooter intends. Full stop.
I may not be able to tell you what scope was made by who, but I could surely tell you which one I liked the best, and the one that worked the best for me. Most functional zero stop. Turrets with clicks that are positive but not difficult to move. The reticle that works for how I shoot. Let's shoot a tall target test, just to make sure they're good to go. The image that is the most "pleasing to MY eye..." And, the one I thought was best may not be the one that you thought was best. "Best" is subjective. There are a bunch of parameters that go into what you see as an image. Chromatic aberration, fisheye, shadowing, hew, color saturation, focus, etc. If I'm color blind, does color saturation mean the same to me as some one with full color vision? Then pile on all of the other stuff that actually matters for a rifle scope and you have a recipe for arguments that don't have a resolution. Most of us don't have the money to buy and sell scopes so we take there recommendation of others. Once you are sifting through the few scopes at the top of the heap, it probably doesn't matter- really. When you are talking ZCO and TT and S&B and NF, you are talking as much about brand loyalty as anything- and feature sets. I trust that they are all really good- optically.
How do you find the parallax at closer distances on the Minox LR? I tried mine yesterday for the first time and it seemed quite bad even at lower magnification inside of 50m.@hlee nailed it!
I like top tier optics for NRL22x type matches as it allows me to easier see plate reactions and bullet flight especially in poor conditions. Depending on your rifle the Razor could cause difficulty balancing. But the Razor is a very good value optic. It is to tier 1 what the strike eagle is to mid tier. Not the best at anything but close enough at a good price.
Consider also the Minox LR. I have one and prefer it over the Razor for most things. My only "complaint" is they have a tighter eyebox. Depends on what reticle you prefer of course.
I seldom if ever shoot less then 50m so I'm not sure. I do know the ZP5 will parallax closer then the LR but sample to sample can have variation depending on how it is set.How do you find the parallax at closer distances on the Minox LR? I tried mine yesterday for the first time and it seemed quite bad even at lower magnification inside of 50m.