Rifle Scopes Will Vortex update the Razor Gen 2 1-6?

[verdugo60]

Love me the JM-1 reticle, the glass, pretty much everything but the weight. The E model is a bit better.

I'm curious if Vortex will be updating it to a 1-8 or maybe add the JM-1 to the PST 2 1-6.

 

[koshkin]

I do not think anyone knows yet.

I do not doubt that they have a couple of interesting new things up their sleeve for the SHOT show next month. I can probably make some educated guesses, but I will refrain since I really do not have anything more concrete.

This coming year, I should be able to get my take on things out a bit more quickly. I am taking a friend of mine with me to SHOT who will be manning the camera and helping me process images and video clips.

ILya

 

[withoutwarning]

I don’t think so but we will see what happens. If they did update it to a sfp 1-8 with the same reticle options and weight I’d buy one in a heart beat.

 

[SFree]

If they would transition to a first focal plane 1-8 they would secure a huge portion of the market...

 

[CSTactical]

I honestly like how it is overall, especially at its price point but if they made it even lighter with no other sacrifices I wouldn't be mad...

 

[Qazwsx]

considering some were out there at the big retailers for 950 new recently seems like something is afoot.

 

[CSTactical]

considering some were out there at the big retailers for 950 new recently seems like something is afoot.

Those are the older discontinued models

 

[verdugo60]

I don’t think so but we will see what happens. If they did update it to a sfp 1-8 with the same reticle options and weight I’d buy one in a heart beat.

I think above 6 power I would probably want FFP if, and it's a big if, they can do the reticle right. I don't like the reticle on the NF NXS. But vortex has always done reticles better than NF. I say that as a fan of both brands.

If they did a 1-8 without adding weight they would sell a ton if it performs through the magnification like the 1-6.

If they just keep all the features of the gen 2 "E" and just lighten it to the 15 oz zone I would be pumped too. That's hard to do though. So a 1-8 may be more likely but I'm not sure anyone has mastered a 1-8, especially an American company. Hoping to be wowed since the NX8 was so disappointing for distance work with it's huge center dot.

 

[verdugo60]

I honestly like how it is overall, especially at its price point but if they made it even lighter with no other sacrifices I wouldn't be mad...

Agreed

 

[mgrs]

I honestly like how it is overall, especially at its price point but if they made it even lighter with no other sacrifices I wouldn't be mad...

That's really all they need. Get it into the 16-17oz zone and they'd own the market more than they already do.

I see so many of them compared to other high-end LPVs that it does not seem like they are hurting.

 

[withoutwarning]

I think above 6 power I would probably want FFP if, and it's a big if, they can do the reticle right. I don't like the reticle on the NF NXS. But vortex has always done reticles better than NF. I say that as a fan of both brands.

If they did a 1-8 without adding weight they would sell a ton if it performs through the magnification like the 1-6.

If they just keep all the features of the gen 2 "E" and just lighten it to the 15 oz zone I would be pumped too. That's hard to do though. So a 1-8 may be more likely but I'm not sure anyone has mastered a 1-8, especially an American company. Hoping to be wowed since the NX8 was so disappointing for distance work with it's huge center dot.

I don’t see why you’d bother making it ffp. The reticle is the best part of the optic at the moment and changing it would require a sfp flash dot and ffp reticle. All so on the rare occasions you use x2-x4 on a 200m target your holdovers change even though you don’t need them at that range? Pointless.

 

[skatz11]

I would like to see the JM1 reticle updated to be just a little bit mote thin on the cross hair and bdc stadia lines. I like mine a lot, but feel than a I could use some more precise aiming point on smaller targets.

But then again I’ve never felt limited by the current reticle, so maybe I’m over thinking it.

 

[verdugo60]

I don’t see why you’d bother making it ffp. The reticle is the best part of the optic at the moment and changing it would require a sfp flash dot and ffp reticle. All so on the rare occasions you use x2-x4 on a 200m target your holdovers change even though you don’t need them at that range? Pointless.

Because on a 1-6 the likelyhood of using the bullet drop reticle on anything but 6 are lower. Once you start creeping up to 8x it would be easier to run it on anything between 4-8x, but with sfp you would have to think "will my drops be right?" because your BDC will be off unless cranked up to 8. I have never ran a 1-8x but that was my thinking. I prefer sfp on the 1-6x.

 

[hgr2]

Never understood the fascination of FFP in a low powered optic. I would be in for a Vortex Razor 1-8 SFP with the JM reticule.

 

[verdugo60]

I don’t see why you’d bother making it ffp. The reticle is the best part of the optic at the moment and changing it would require a sfp flash dot and ffp reticle. All so on the rare occasions you use x2-x4 on a 200m target your holdovers change even though you don’t need them at that range? Pointless.

I'm not worried about a 200 meter shot on any power, the gun/optic shoots to point of aim at that distance. I shoot to 600 meters plus with my lpvo on a 223/556 AR.

Imagine you're looking at about a 430 meter shot with 2 suspects that you have to find and ID which means you're on maybe 5x for the field of view. But then you realize you don't know the range because you're on 5x and your reticle only subtends and acts as a rangefinder at 8x because it's sfp. So you crank it up to 8x but can only see one of them at a time now and you realize that the target is more like 500 meters because now your reticle subtends correctly on an 18" torso and you would have hit low using a hash mark for 400 meters.

That's why past 5-6x the focal plane DOES start to matter. I think that's about the threshold for a sfp making sense.

As I said, I love the Razor in it's current form. I think the got everything right and set the benchmark, except in weight.

I personally would rather see a lighter Razor 1-6 with the current features, than a 1-8. That being said if Vortex or someone else pulled off a dual focal plane with the optical clarity at both ends that the 1-6 has, AND daylight bright red dot, AND a reticle fast on 1x but small and precise enough at 5-8x they would kill it. We haven't seen one yet. From what I hear, the Swarovski and Khales are both close but they are $1000 more than the Razor.

 

[Primus]

This is what the mouthbreathers will never get through their thick skull about why SFP sucks asshole.

Targets in the real world aren't IPSC silhouettes. Anyone who has actually been in combat and fired a rifle in anger understands this. Being able to make positive ID while making a shot at a head or limb is why FFP is king. Any power setting and your holds will be correct. Reducing the time to calculate the "firing solution" in your brain to put lead on heads.

Running around like a faggot in a jersey with a bunch of sponsers plastered all over it shooting known distance targets where you can plan out your course of action is about as real as the love a hooker has for you.

In the real world shit changes constantly and you need to adapt, adjust and drive on. The less variables you introduce into the situation results in quicker and more correct reactions that are more likely to help you prevail.

Translate that to hunting, defense or even just shooting at rocks. FFP is king and for good reason. Some of you may not be able to grasp this concept but this is reality.

I can tell you I would have sold my left nut to replace my cco with a shortdot or ATACR while in country. Not being able to see much less ID the assholes shooting at you is a really shitty feeling. It's fantastic that dod is finally figuring out the value of a quality ffp lpv. For a guy on the ground its a massive advantage over what we currently use.

 

[withoutwarning]

This is what the mouthbreathers will never get through their thick skull about why SFP sucks asshole.

Targets in the real world aren't IPSC silhouettes. Anyone who has actually been in combat and fired a rifle in anger understands this. Being able to make positive ID while making a shot at a head or limb is why FFP is king. Any power setting and your holds will be correct. Reducing the time to calculate the "firing solution" in your brain to put lead on heads.

Running around like a faggot in a jersey with a bunch of sponsers plastered all over it shooting known distance targets where you can plan out your course of action is about as real as the love a hooker has for you.

In the real world shit changes constantly and you need to adapt, adjust and drive on. The less variables you introduce into the situation results in quicker and more correct reactions that are more likely to help you prevail.

Translate that to hunting, defense or even just shooting at rocks. FFP is king and for good reason. Some of you may not be able to grasp this concept but this is reality.

I can tell you I would have sold my left nut to replace my cco with a shortdot or ATACR while in country. Not being able to see much less ID the assholes shooting at you is a really shitty feeling. It's fantastic that dod is finally figuring out the value of a quality ffp lpv. For a guy on the ground its a massive advantage over what we currently use.

If something is close enough that you can’t range it on x8 then it’s close enough to just shoot ie 200m and in. If something is far enough away to require ranging, then you’ll want to do it on x8.

There no ifs or butts about it.

Your rant is pointless and stupid because despite the fact ffp is superior in every way forgetting reticle design, it’s just simply not needed in a x1-8 or less. Would I prefer a ffp. Sure. But that’s not what we are talking about.

 

[verdugo60]

If something is close enough that you can’t range it on x8 then it’s close enough to just shoot ie 200m and in. If something is far enough away to require ranging, then you’ll want to do it on x8.

There no ifs or butts about it.

Your rant is pointless and stupid because despite the fact ffp is superior in every way forgetting reticle design, it’s just simply not needed in a x1-8 or less. Would I prefer a ffp. Sure. But that’s not what we are talking about.

Wasn't really a rant, just an example. I'm not the first to come up with this idea, NF and most scope manufacturers have tended to go FFP over 6x for good reason. It's not that you CAN'T range it at 8X, it's that having to zoom to 8X compromises other things, like field of view. That may not matter for some but it does in my profession and many others who are transitioning to LPVO's. I was more looking for a discussion on it. If you just want to bluster your opinion and say how everyone else is stupid then go start your own thread or write a letter to Vortex.

 

[withoutwarning]

Wasn't really a rant, just an example. I'm not the first to come up with this idea, NF and most scope manufacturers have tended to go FFP over 6x for good reason. It's not that you CAN'T range it at 8X, it's that having to zoom to 8X compromises other things, like field of view. That may not matter for some but it does in my profession and many others who are transitioning to LPVO's. I was more looking for a discussion on it. If you just want to bluster your opinion and say how everyone else is stupid then go start your own thread or write a letter to Vortex.

My comment wasn’t directed at you. If it was my tone would have been different.

I agree with both of you about everything but if you ask me would the cost justify the added negligable benefits. No.

 

[*AimSmall*]

Id like to see a larger objective lense, Or use a 34mm tube. 1-8x34 ffp

 

[verdugo60]

My comment wasn’t directed at you. If it was my tone would have been different.

I agree with both of you about everything but if you ask me would the cost justify the added negligable benefits. No.

Ok, I just assumed it was, since it came after my post but I think there is an "ignored by me" member posting in the thread now. Disregard, sorry.

 

[Primus]

If something is close enough that you can’t range it on x8 then it’s close enough to just shoot ie 200m and in. If something is far enough away to require ranging, then you’ll want to do it on x8.

There no ifs or butts about it.

Your rant is pointless and stupid because despite the fact ffp is superior in every way forgetting reticle design, it’s just simply not needed in a x1-8 or less. Would I prefer a ffp. Sure. But that’s not what we are talking about.

Wrong. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

 

[withoutwarning]

Wrong. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Your arrogence is laughable.
You might be able to push your opinion and superiority complex on others around here but that ain’t me.

 

[trob_205]

This is what the mouthbreathers will never get through their thick skull about why SFP sucks asshole.

Targets in the real world aren't IPSC silhouettes. Anyone who has actually been in combat and fired a rifle in anger understands this. Being able to make positive ID while making a shot at a head or limb is why FFP is king. Any power setting and your holds will be correct. Reducing the time to calculate the "firing solution" in your brain to put lead on heads.

Running around like a faggot in a jersey with a bunch of sponsers plastered all over it shooting known distance targets where you can plan out your course of action is about as real as the love a hooker has for you.

In the real world shit changes constantly and you need to adapt, adjust and drive on. The less variables you introduce into the situation results in quicker and more correct reactions that are more likely to help you prevail.

Translate that to hunting, defense or even just shooting at rocks. FFP is king and for good reason. Some of you may not be able to grasp this concept but this is reality.

I can tell you I would have sold my left nut to replace my cco with a shortdot or ATACR while in country. Not being able to see much less ID the assholes shooting at you is a really shitty feeling. It's fantastic that dod is finally figuring out the value of a quality ffp lpv. For a guy on the ground its a massive advantage over what we currently use.

If you’re buying a LPV for hunting I think the majority of people would rather have SFP. You gotta be able to have a clear reticle at the low end and still have a thick enough reticle to see for the low light opening and closing legal shooting times.

 

[Pointman308]

This thread became bullshit real fast.

 

[Srikaleak]

This thread became bullshit real fast.

Welcome to the internet? Lol. I enjoy the bickering on this site.

 

[koshkin]

If you’re buying a LPV for hunting I think the majority of people would rather have SFP. You gotta be able to have a clear reticle at the low end and still have a thick enough reticle to see for the low light opening and closing legal shooting times.

There is no reason why you can't have a very nicely visible reticle on 1x with a well thought out FFP design while maintaining precision on higher power. Given a reasonable illumination control, low light is a much easier problem to solve than bright light.

I'll give an example of the reasonable affordable Burris XTR II 1-8x24 that I happen to like. There is a 10mrad circle that disappears from view on 8x, but makes for a clear and fast aiming aid on 1x. The BDC in the center of the circle is not really visible on 1x instead looking like a good size illuminated dot in the center of illuminated circle. The illumination easily goes low enough to work beautifully in low light, but even without illumination, the circle is very visible.

In bright light, the illumination is day-visible, but not day bright. Still very usable though.

ILya

 

[withoutwarning]

There is no reason why you can't have a very nicely visible reticle on 1x with a well thought out FFP design while maintaining precision on higher power. Given a reasonable illumination control, low light is a much easier problem to solve than bright light.

I'll give an example of the reasonable affordable Burris XTR II 1-8x24 that I happen to like. There is a 10mrad circle that disappears from view on 8x, but makes for a clear and fast aiming aid on 1x. The BDC in the center of the circle is not really visible on 1x instead looking like a good size illuminated dot in the center of illuminated circle. The illumination easily goes low enough to work beautifully in low light, but even without illumination, the circle is very visible.

In bright light, the illumination is day-visible, but not day bright. Still very usable though.

ILya

Obviously it’s all opinion and nobody is right and wrong but I think the best reticle for a 1-8 or 1-10 in the ffp would be a 1/2 moa short dot in the sfp and then a simple thin cross hair with 8mils of hash marks in the ffp. As you zoomed in and out you’d simply see the hash marks move and that’s it. Quick, simple and very similar to the razor 1-6 and Schmidt and benders 1-8 reticles.

 

[koshkin]

Obviously it’s all opinion and nobody is right and wrong but I think the best reticle for a 1-8 or 1-10 in the ffp would be a 1/2 moa short dot in the sfp and then a simple thin cross hair with 8mils of hash marks in the ffp. As you zoomed in and out you’d simply see the hash marks move and that’s it. Quick, simple and very similar to the razor 1-6 and Schmidt and benders 1-8 reticles.

That requires two reticles: over in FFP and another in SFP. While doable, it is difficult in a scope that goes down to 1x, especially on a budget.

ILya

 

[withoutwarning]

That requires two reticles: over in FFP and another in SFP. While doable, it is difficult in a scope that goes down to 1x, especially on a budget.

ILya

Correct.
Which is why I advocate companies just sticking with sfp designs to make the reticle as simple and fast as possible in the 1-8 and 1-10 categories. I think reticle simplicity, speed and importance far outweighs the ffp benefit of in between Mina nd max magnification with such low magnification. Razor 1-6 reticle is money.

 

[koshkin]

Correct.
Which is why I advocate companies just sticking with sfp designs to make the reticle as simple and fast as possible in the 1-8 and 1-10 categories. I think reticle simplicity, speed and importance far outweighs the ffp benefit of in between Mina nd max magnification with such low magnification. Razor 1-6 reticle is money.

I agree on the Razor and disagree with the rest of it. There are enough examples already of well designed FFP reticles to clearly demonstrate that both approaches are viable depending on personal preferences.

ILya

 

[Pointman308]

I think trijicon nailed the ffp reticle.

 

[winniedonkey]

Dual focal plane everything!!!

 

[verdugo60]

There is no reason why you can't have a very nicely visible reticle on 1x with a well thought out FFP design while maintaining precision on higher power. Given a reasonable illumination control, low light is a much easier problem to solve than bright light.

I'll give an example of the reasonable affordable Burris XTR II 1-8x24 that I happen to like. There is a 10mrad circle that disappears from view on 8x, but makes for a clear and fast aiming aid on 1x. The BDC in the center of the circle is not really visible on 1x instead looking like a good size illuminated dot in the center of illuminated circle. The illumination easily goes low enough to work beautifully in low light, but even without illumination, the circle is very visible.

In bright light, the illumination is day-visible, but not day bright. Still very usable though.

ILya

Ilya, I have been evaluating the above Burris and was interested in the reticle design. It also did very well on 1X, especially for the price. My issue was that both XTR lpvo's I've used have had the fishbowl look pretty badly at magnification. It's decent in the center but further out is very distorted. Even my Strikeagle had better edge to edge glass quality and the Razor 1-6 blows it away. I would like to play with the Swarovski and Kahles but for a duty gun the Razor may be as spendy as we get.

 

[withoutwarning]

I agree on the Razor and disagree with the rest of it. There are enough examples already of well designed FFP reticles to clearly demonstrate that both approaches are viable depending on personal preferences.

ILya

Agree to disagree.
I just don’t like these rings and circles they use that obstructs the target and clutters your view when zoomed in.
Merry Xmas guys.

 

[koshkin]

Agree to disagree.
I just don’t like these rings and circles they use that obstructs the target and clutters your view when zoomed in.
Merry Xmas guys.

Merry Christmas to you too!

If everyone always agreed on everything the world would be a poorer place.

ILya

 

[koshkin]

Ilya, I have been evaluating the above Burris and was interested in the reticle design. It also did very well on 1X, especially for the price. My issue was that both XTR lpvo's I've used have had the fishbowl look pretty badly at magnification. It's decent in the center but further out is very distorted. Even my Strikeagle had better edge to edge glass quality and the Razor 1-6 blows it away. I would like to play with the Swarovski and Kahles but for a duty gun the Razor may be as spendy as we get.

Did you mess with the eyepiece? For LPVOs you really ahve to get it adjsuted on 1x. Mine has very well controlled distortion, comparatively speaking while Strike Eagles I have seen are barely usable.

Razor is better corrected at 1x than XTR II, but it is not a huge difference.

ILya

 

[verdugo60]

Did you mess with the eyepiece? For LPVOs you really ahve to get it adjsuted on 1x. Mine has very well controlled distortion, comparatively speaking while Strike Eagles I have seen are barely usable.

Razor is better corrected at 1x than XTR II, but it is not a huge difference.

ILya

They were not my scopes so I didn't mess with the eyepiece too much. Maybe I should. On 1x the Burris looked really good so that's why I was bummed with the magnification being turned up and seeing the fishbowl. Maybe it will get better.