Rifle Scopes Vortex Razor gen 2 3-18 and 4.5-27 reticle differences (Vortex responsded 2/6/20)

[wade2big]

The reticle is different between the two scopes. The reticle in the 3-18 is thicker and more usable on lower magnification than the 4.5-27. On the Vortex website, the reticles are shown to sub tend the same but they do not which is a plus for lots of guys including myself. The PST Gen2 scope do reflect the difference on Vortex’s website

I figured I would make people aware of the difference since the ongoing consensus is to buy the larger scope for the same weight plus the additional magnification. Well that doesn’t necessarily apply since there are advantages to a smaller footprint and more so with the slightly thicker reticle that many weren’t aware of.

This is with the EBR-2C reticle. I have been told that Vortex made the mistake of making the reticle the same thickness on the PST gen 2 3-15 and 5-25 with the EBR7-C reticle. I haven’t confirmed that myself but if that’s true they probably did the same for the Razor line. Maybe someone with both the 3-18 and 4.5-27 with the EBR7 reticle could clarify.

 

[JMGlasgow]

I have a 3-18 and don't think I need more.

 

[wade2big]

I have a 3-18 and don't think I need more.

For the reasons I described, the 3-18 could actually be “more” depending on the use.

 

[JMGlasgow]

I was agreeing with you.

 

[wade2big]

I was agreeing with you.

I know. Even if you weren’t, i wouldn’t argue it. ?

 

[beetroot]

Not saying you are wrong but the Vortex website lists both as the same thickness, this is was the case for the 2c and 7c.
I assume you have both scopes or have compared the two side by side?

I personally would prefer the 3-18 if it were a thicker reticle.

 

[wade2big]

Not saying you are wrong but the Vortex website lists both as the same thickness, this is was the case for the 2c and 7c.
I assume you have both scopes or have compared the two side by side?

I personally would prefer the 3-18 if it were a thicker reticle.

Thats the whole point of my thread. Vortex website does list them the same like I mentioned in my first post unlike the pst gen 2 where they list them differently. I do not know about the 7c reticle as I dont have that one. I sold four scopes with that reticle. It sucks.

I do have both. Just got the 3-18 a couple days ago. It is definitely thicker and bolder. Noticeably so. I like the 3-18 better myself.

 

[Secant]

What is the difference and how was it determined?

 

[wade2big]

What is the difference and how was it determined?

Holy crap, i couldn’t be more specific in my first post. Between you and @beetroot are there any more questions that are already answered and talked about in my first post. ?

 

[Secant]

Holy crap, i couldn’t be more specific in my first post. Between you and @beetroot are there any more questions that are already answered and talked about in my first post. ?

Look man, I was just curious what you’re getting at here and looking for details. I was simply asking for actual facts/numbers/etc.

I’ll give an example of what’s clear:

The 3-18 has a 0.035mil reticle thickness and the 4.5-27 has a 0.03mil reticle thickness, which is confirmed by ______ at vortex (see attached email screenshot)

Here’s an example of vagueness:

Stuff is different and I like things better on one.

Thanks for starting an informative thread.

 

[wade2big]

Look man, I was just curious what you’re getting at here and looking for details. I was simply asking for actual facts/numbers/etc.

I’ll give an example of what’s clear:

The 3-18 has a 0.35mil reticle thickness and the 4.5-27 has a 0.3mil reticle thickness, which is confirmed by ______ at vortex (see attached email screenshot)

Here’s an example of vagueness:

Stuff is different and I like things better on one.

Thanks for starting an informative thread.

Take it easy. I thought it was funny.

I went into full detail in my first post and do not know how to explain myself any better. It is all there In its entirety but I will say it again anyhow.

The reticle is thicker in the 3-18. Vortex website does not reflect this which once again is the reason for this thread. Some guys may want to know that. If this makes sense then the first post should have as well. Its all good. Relax.

 

[beetroot]

Thats the whole point of my thread. Vortex website does list them the same like I mentioned in my first post unlike the pst gen 2 where they list them differently. I do not know about the 7c reticle as I dont have that one. I sold four scopes with that reticle. It sucks.

I do have both. Just got the 3-18 a couple days ago. It is definitely thicker and bolder. Noticeably so. I like the 3-18 better myself.

Clearly when i read your post i shouldve read a little slower lol.

How thick do you think it is on the 3-18?
The 3-15 PST was .52mil from memory.

Any chance of some reticle pictures comparing the two?

 

[wade2big]

Clearly when i read your post i shouldve read a little slower lol.

How thick do you think it is on the 3-18?
The 3-15 PST was .52mil from memory.

Any chance of some reticle pictures comparing the two?

?
I will take a few pictures through the scopes when I get home this evening. I bet it is close to the .05 of the pst gen 2 3-15. I have a SWFA 5-20 that is .05 mil as well. I will post pics of all three for comparison since we know the 4.5-27 is .03 and the swfa is .05 for sure. That will give a better idea of where it falls. i bet a phone call to Vortex would give answer but what is the fun in that.

 

[wade2big]

@beetroot @Secant
Here is the through scope pictures. The zoom on my camera was the same between the two 10x pictures and was the same between the two 15x in order to keep the pictures on the same playing field. You will notice that I didn't zoom in enough when I took the 2 15x pics to keep them relative to the first group but you can still see the difference between the two scopes.
I used those powers because they were marked on both scopes.

4.5-27 10x

3-18 10x

4.5-27 15x

3-18 15x

 

[wade2big]

@Rob01
Do you have a 3-18 Razor with the Ebr7c reticle to compare with your 4.5-27? I have only used this reticle on the 4.5-27 and disliked it enough to sell two gen 2 razors and 2 AMG’s. And replace them with ebr2c scopes. If the 3-18 with this reticle is thicker like with the ebr2c then I may be willing to give it a go with this scope.

 

[Compooky]

I don’t know what I’m talking about but I just thought the reticle subtensions are supposed to be a little different at the same power because they’re at different points in the magnification range. Are the line thicknesses noticeably different when comparing both at maximum magnification?

 

[wade2big]

I don’t know what I’m talking about but I just thought the reticle subtensions are supposed to be a little different at the same power because they’re at different points in the magnification range. Are the line thicknesses noticeably different when comparing both at maximum magnification?

Only on Second focal plane scopes. They are calibrated on a certain magnification.

On FFP scopes, reticle thickness dictates how a reticle is perceived as they subtend on any magnification setting.

If you reread my post with the pictures, i had the scopes side by side on the same magnification 10x vs 10x and 15x vs 15x as this is the only way to directly compare them n

 

[Rob01]

@Rob01
Do you have a 3-18 Razor with the Ebr7c reticle to compare with your 4.5-27? I have only used this reticle on the 4.5-27 and disliked it enough to sell two gen 2 razors and 2 AMG’s. And replace them with ebr2c scopes. If the 3-18 with this reticle is thicker like with the ebr2c then I may be willing to give it a go with this scope.

No I don't have a 7C in a 3-18x. I do have it in the 4.5-27x and like it a lot. Have 2C in both and never really noticed a difference in use. Might have to set them side by side and look at a target.

Maybe @vortex.nick or @VortexSam can chime in with any info.

 

[1911hombre]

What way do you have of determining that perceived differences in reticle thickness on these two particular scopes isn't due to ocular adjustment differences? Even though they can both seem to be adjusted to your eye there is no good reference.... just thinking.....
Also, marked mag numbers are good guesses at best.... The combination of both these could stack up and lead to "differences" in reticle thickness. Maybe.

 

[wade2big]

What way do you have of determining that perceived differences in reticle thickness on these two particular scopes isn't due to ocular adjustment differences? Even though they can both seem to be adjusted to your eye there is no good reference.... just thinking.....
Also, marked mag numbers are good guesses at best.... The combination of both these could stack up and lead to "differences" in reticle thickness. Maybe.

There is a difference but let’s assume what you said is correct. If the reticle “looks” thicker but really isn’t, the benefits would still be the same.

The difference isn’t huge but is noticeable. If you have both scopes you would see it. I would guess it is a .04 mil thick reticle vs the .03. Thats still a 33% increase.

Its not worth a call to Vortex. I know what I see. I just want someone who has both to chime in.

 

[beetroot]

The difference isn’t huge but is noticeable. If you have both scopes you would see it. I would guess it is a .04 mil thick reticle vs the .03. Thats still a 33% increase.

Based on those images I would say the difference is huge.
To my eyes the 3-18 appears substantially thicker and looks a better size at 15x considering that's near max magnification.

I bought a PST 3-15 with the EBR 7c, not realising they had adjusted the reticle thicknesses from the EBR 2c models.
I had a 5-25 with the EBR 2c which I felt was sized well considering the max magnification, but on my 3-15 I'm left feeling like I need more magnification as the reticle looks too zoomed out.

 

[wade2big]

@beetroot
If you think that the 3-15 pst ebr7c reticle is too small then what I have been told is true. Vortex must have thinned down the reticle across the line due to the .2 hashes. That would make me believe they did the same to the razor as well. What a mistake. My favorite thing about the pst 3-15 with the ebr2c and d is the fact the reticle is much better tuned.

The 3-18 with the ebr2c is bolder for sure and I like it better than Its larger brother. I would prefer if Vortex would enlarge the reticle in the 4.5-27 as well. These are tactical scopes and usability under less than ideal conditions should be a priority. Steiner got it right in the m5xi series.

 

[MarinePMI]

There is a difference but let’s assume what you said is correct. If the reticle “looks” thicker but really isn’t, the benefits would still be the same.

The difference isn’t huge but is noticeable. If you have both scopes you would see it. I would guess it is a .04 mil thick reticle vs the .03. Thats still a 33% increase.

Its not worth a call to Vortex. I know what I see. I just want someone who has both to chime in.

Interesting. I have both. Both with EBR-2C's. And I don't notice much of a difference. <shrug> Who cares...

 

[b6graham]

Nightforce does this too

and it makes a lot of sense

listen to some of the Vortex Nation LPVO podcasts and they go into pretty decent detail about how it works one way versus another when discussing mag ranges and reticle design/thickness/possibilities

 

[b6graham]

we're also assuming that 10x as labeled on both is actually exactly 10.

make that 9.25 and 10.75 and how much does that change

 

[wade2big]

we're also assuming that 10x as labeled on both is actually exactly 10.

make that 9.25 and 10.75 and how much does that change

The difference is too much for that to be the case I would wager. They would have to be way off. Anyhow someone with both that will bother to take a look may chime in and give their opinion as they are sure to see a difference. Maybe they won’t notice for some reason. I went ahead and emailed Vortex just because.

 

[wade2big]

@beetroot
Vortex customer service got back with me today:


Good afternoon,

Thanks for reaching out!

A couple of us from Consumer Sales met with two of our top riflescope engineers to discuss your question. In digging through designs we found a discrepancy in what is published on our website today. In fact on the 3-18x50 EBR-2C MRAD, the vertical stadia thickness is .04 MRAD and on the 4.5-27x56 EBR-2C MRAD it is .03 MRAD. This is being validated by our engineering team but we're confident it is correct. Naturally, we're going to have to work with our website team to get this information updated.

As for the EBR-7C. Because the new reticle has a floating dot with a thickness that matches the width of the vertical stadia, we're pretty sure that this error did not carry over from the EBR-2C. Having said that, we're doing some additional cross checking. However in looking at the design drawings, some potential discrepancies were discovered with the stadia thicknesses as well so we're checking into that.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention! I would like to send you some swag out Wade...what size shirt do you wear? Can you pick a hat from our website - https://vortexoptics.com/more-products/apparel/mens.html

Please let me know!



I was correct and was spot on with the .04mil thickness in my observations.

Edited: The last statement I made was a jab. Deleted it this time.

 

[Northernjets]

Do you happen you happen to also have a picture comparing the reticles on their minimum magnification? Haven't had a chance to look through a 3-18 gen II but have been considering one for my 223 eventually. Mostly range work but might be out for gophers and coyotes.

 

[wade2big]

Do you happen you happen to also have a picture comparing the reticles on their minimum magnification? Haven't had a chance to look through a 3-18 gen II but have been considering one for my 223 eventually. Mostly range work but might be out for gophers and coyotes.

I didnt take one. It is very thin at 3x though.

 

[TheGerman]

Are we starting a pool? I'm in!!!! ? ? ?

Sure.

Every X you are under or over is 1 shot you have to drink.

 

[Rob01]

Cleaned up. No need for any posts off topic or just to argue. You all should have it out of your system by now. Only warning.

 

[vortex.nick]

No I don't have a 7C in a 3-18x. I do have it in the 4.5-27x and like it a lot. Have 2C in both and never really noticed a difference in use. Might have to set them side by side and look at a target.

Maybe @vortex.nick or @VortexSam can chime in with any info.

The EBR-7C reticle on both the Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27x56 as well as the 3-18x50 have a primary stadia weight of 0.03 MRAD thick. When compared to the EBR-2C reticle, the primary stadia also has the same weight of 0.03 MRAD thick. I have attached images to reference. Something to note is on the EBR-7C the vertical lines moving left and right of the primary vertical stadia at the bottom of the horizontal have slightly heavier subtensions every 0.5 MRAD out to 4 MRAD. This is to help retain viability at lower magnifications and is a useful aid when engaging moving targets. I hope this answers the question.

 

[1911hombre]

The EBR-7C reticle on both the Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27x56 as well as the 3-18x50 have a primary stadia weight of 0.03 MRAD thick. When compared to the EBR-2C reticle, the primary stadia also has the same weight of 0.03 MRAD thick. I have attached images to reference. Something to note is on the EBR-7C the vertical lines moving left and right of the primary vertical stadia at the bottom of the horizontal have slightly heavier subtensions every 0.5 MRAD out to 4 MRAD. This is to help retain viability at lower magnifications and is a useful aid when engaging moving targets. I hope this answers the question.

So to wrap it all up, do the EBR-2C reticles in fact have differing sub tensions between the 3-18x and the 4.5-27x?

 

[wade2big]

@1911hombre
According to the email I received and posted above, the EBR-2C reticles on the 3-18 and 4.5-27 are different and very much look like it to my eyes, but @vortex.nick is saying otherwise. Clear as mud

 

[vortex.nick]

So to wrap it all up, do the EBR-2C reticles in fact have differing sub tensions between the 3-18x and the 4.5-27x?

The weight of the primary stadia lines of the EBR-7C on the 3-18 and 4.5-27 are the same (0.03 MRAD). The only subtension lines with heavier are the hash marks described in my previous comment. The photos supplied in that comment should provide the info you are looking for.

 

[1911hombre]

The weight of the primary stadia lines of the EBR-7C on the 3-18 and 4.5-27 are the same (0.03 MRAD). The only subtension lines with heavier are the hash marks described in my previous comment. The photos supplied in that comment should provide the info you are looking for.

I was asking specifically about the EBR-2C. I give up.

 

[vortex.nick]

I was asking specifically about the EBR-2C. I give up.

My apologies. Please see attached. The line weight is still 0.03 MRAD on both. I hope this helps.

 

[wade2big]

My apologies. Please see attached. The line weight is still 0.03 MRAD on both. I hope this helps.

Are you sure? Did you read the email that was sent to me from Vortex customer service that in post#27? They sure look different my friend. If you are 100% let me know.

 

[MarinePMI]

Interesting. Very interesting.

 

[TheGerman]

Is this still available?

 

[MarinePMI]

Pretty sure the EBR-2C's are no longer available (maybe just now old stock). In fact, I'm almost positive Vortex stated that the EBR-2C was being discontinued (hence my previous comment).

 

[Rob01]

Yes the 2C and 1C reticles in the Razor II line are discontinued. There may still be some out there but not going to be anymore.

 

[chutinlead]

So I should be glad I just got a PST 3-15 EBR-2C? Is there something different with the 7C other than the center dot?

 

[wade2big]

So I should be glad I just got a PST 3-15 EBR-2C? Is there something different with the 7C other than the center dot?

Be glad unless you want a thin reticle that doesn’t have the top end magnifications to take advantage of the .2s

 

[IowaGeologist]

Pretty sure the EBR-2C's are no longer available (maybe just now old stock). In fact, I'm almost positive Vortex stated that the EBR-2C was being discontinued (hence my previous comment).

That is my understanding, now only 7C or Horus. Still nice to know since there is a ton of 2Cs floating around out there.

 

[DOA]

Have a 2C that I am never getting rid of. I'd like a center dot but the 7C just doesn't appeal to my eye for some reason.

 

[Sticks]

The windage subtensions on the 7c seem to be a little superfluous, to me anyhow.

If you are dialing all of your elevations and holding for wind, then maybe a little extra help. IMO, not much. It's not rocket science to visually split .5 into 2.5 by bracketing your target, then half that again if needed.

About the time you stop dialing and do nothing but holdovers out to 5mil, then I'd rather the extra subtensions on the elevation rather than wind since wind is WAG past 600 on your first round, but your elevation is generally pretty spot on.

 

[chutinlead]

Be glad unless you want a thin reticle that doesn’t have the top end magnifications to take advantage of the .2s

I think the center dot would be nice but I do like the 2c reticle.