View Full Version : NEW RAZOR HD GEN II 1-6X24 RIFLESCOPE
Click (http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3247760&gonew=1#UNREAD)
MOA based BDC reticle with capped turrets, and they advertise it " for short to medium-range tactical applications" :suicide:
This will make a great 3-Gun optic for sure (and I'm not surprised with Jerry Miculek driving the design), but they have successfully done everything wrong for the other side of the market. It's strange that they're advertising it as a tactical optic. Why not call it what it is, unless they're just out of touch?
Hopefully they introduce a non-BDC version with a MIL based reticle, MIL adjustments, and uncapped turrets.
I don't understand why they chose a BDC reticle. The SWFA 1-6 is looking really good.
Alaskapopo
04-11-12, 13:04
MOA based BDC reticle with capped turrets, and they advertise it " for short to medium-range tactical applications" :suicide:
This will make a great 3-Gun optic for sure (and I'm not surprised with Jerry Miculek driving the design), but they have successfully done everything wrong for the other side of the market. It's strange that they're advertising it as a tactical optic. Why not call it what it is, unless they're just out of touch?
Hopefully they introduce a non-BDC version with a MIL based reticle, MIL adjustments, and uncapped turrets.
Un capped turrets suck for this kind of optic as your adjustments will get knocked out of position its only a matter of time. On a full blown precision rig its fine but on a three gun rifle or a practical rifle for real life un capped turrets are a liability.
Pat
misanthropist
04-11-12, 13:57
My preference is definitely for capped turrets.
I actually don't mind BDC reticles as once I get my head around them, they allow me to do quick and dirty holds and I am all about quick and dirty.
I am not tasked with going places, finding people, and shooting them from a distance, so if for some reason (which I accept and believe is unlikely in the extreme) I had to take a shot at someone at further than point blank distance, my interest would be in torso hits to reduce their ability to present a threat to me.
However as I have tried always to point out, I am a construction worker who shoots a lot, not a professional shooter who occasionally builds things. My needs may differ radically from those who shoot people for a living. I do consider my defensive needs to technically be "tactical" requirements, though, and for my personal "tactical" needs, I would rather have a BDC reticle and capped turrets.
I think if I were on the offensive and hunting others from a distance, the ability to dial in very precisely might matter more to me and I would possibly have to engage in lower probability situations...but I am not sure if that is "more tactical" than making solid hits at 3-400m, fast, which I think this reticle/turret combo would probably do fine at.
Again I am not a professional shooter and do not pretend to be. But I do find that quick and dirty elevation and windage suit my needs better than precision dialing.
Guys, this is precisely the kind of optic that cries out for locking, exposed turrets, and at $1400, that seems reasonable. I don't understand why anyone would want to push the magnification of 1-X optics out to 6 and then handicap the shooter at extended range, especially when it comes to windage. The windage turret is capped, and the reticle does not offer a particularly useful tool-set to hold for wind. It's a simple drop reticle, and a needless handicap when locking turrets are a possibility. So when you talk about "real life" considerations, please consider real life factors like these. Also, aside from being a precision shooter, I've been behind an M4 w/ a 1-4X optic with exposed, non-locking turrets enough to know that a little diligence and SA is all you need to make sure the turrets are where they need to be. It's IMO/IME not that big of a deal.
Anyway, if these exposed, locking turrets adjust in a way that matches a flexible reticle that isn't designed around one particular ammunition / barrel length combination, even better. 0.1 MIL adjustments with a standard-ish MIL reticle with 0.5 MIL increments, or a Christmas Tree style MIL reticle for holding wind is ideal.
I mean really, how hard is to figure out holdovers on a reticle with consistent subtensions (read: non BDC), especially if small increments such as 0.5 MIL are etched in? Why choose to be locked in by a BDC? Obviously, you can figure out how the BDC's subtensions correspond to your setup, but the results are often less than ideal. Certainly, they are less ideal than the flexibility that 0.5 MIL increments offers. The BDC just seems lazy to me, although I can see the merit for a 3-gun rifle. As I said before, this would probably be a great 3 gun optic. But I'm not the one who's throwing around the word "tactical" in the advertising.
I get it...if you don't like it, don't buy it. I won't. But it's important to make it known what we're looking for (and to know what we should be looking for, and capped turrets aren't it), so that manufacturers supply innovative products that adapt to our needs.
misanthropist
04-11-12, 14:31
Well, again speaking only for myself, this kind of IS what I would be looking for. Since capped turrets and a simple BDC reticle suit me fine, I would much rather have the money go in to the glass etc.
Yes, at this price point, other features could have been included...but if it is built to a price point, and nearly everything is, then the question becomes, "to retain this price, and include feature X, Y, or Z, which features currently in place will we remove?"
So from my perspective, there is not NECESSARILY an advantage to demanding the inclusion of locking target turrets, say.
Just my opinion. If this thread ends up full of SMEs saying, "dude, you are doing it 100% wrong" I am absolutely prepared to hear how wrong I'm doing it, and work differently in the future.
But at the moment my goals are well served by this sort of scope. And my interest is primarily in equipment that helps me to achieve my personal shooting goals as quickly and efficiently as possible.
I generally do not shoot with the sort of precision that is probably popular on places like Sniper's Hide; I shoot (at most) mildly accurized carbines and my needs are therefore different from others'.
Up to this point I have not found target turrets to be particularly necessary FOR ME, and the scopes that I have had with that feature have now, I believe, all been sold off.
Therefore I conclude that there is at least a small market for a scope of this nature: me. Others may want different options and obviously there are places to go for those options, but for the moment I don't personally see a huge problem with a scope coming to the "tactical" market with this set of features.
Purely my personal take on the situation.
Yep, and that's fine. Optics selection is massively based on personal preference. Nobody is stupid or wrong for what they prefer as long as they know the system and are proficient with it (although I would argue that certain preferences can be, but are not always, good indicators of a certain level of skill or knowledge).
If you like the features on this optic, then have at it, but I'll keep airing my preferences and disagreements (as should anyone with credible opinion), in the hopes that the manufacturers can get a finger on the pulse of what various parts of the shooting community want. It seems that the chasm between what is being produced by optics makers, in particular, and what shooters want, is larger than in many other facets of this market. But in recent years that gap is starting to close, largely because of increased input from the people who buy the stuff.
Alaskapopo
04-11-12, 14:46
Guys, this is precisely the kind of optic that cries out for locking, exposed turrets, and at $1400, that seems reasonable. I don't understand why anyone would want to push the magnification of 1-X optics out to 6 and then handicap the shooter at extended range, especially when it comes to windage. The windage turret is capped, and the reticle does not offer a particularly useful tool-set to hold for wind. It's a simple drop reticle, and a needless handicap when locking turrets are a possibility. So when you talk about "real life" considerations, please consider real life factors like these. Also, aside from being a precision shooter, I've been behind an M4 w/ a 1-4X optic with exposed, non-locking turrets enough to know that a little diligence and SA is all you need to make sure the turrets are where they need to be. It's IMO/IME not that big of a deal.
Anyway, if these exposed, locking turrets adjust in a way that matches a flexible reticle that isn't designed around one particular ammunition / barrel length combination, even better. 0.1 MIL adjustments with a standard-ish MIL reticle with 0.5 MIL increments, or a Christmas Tree style MIL reticle for holding wind is ideal.
I mean really, how hard is to figure out holdovers on a reticle with consistent subtensions (read: non BDC), especially if small increments such as 0.5 MIL are etched in? Why choose to be locked in by a BDC? Obviously, you can figure out how the BDC's subtensions correspond to your setup, but the results are often less than ideal. Certainly, they are less ideal than the flexibility that 0.5 MIL increments offers. The BDC just seems lazy to me, although I can see the merit for a 3-gun rifle. As I said before, this would probably be a great 3 gun optic. But I'm not the one who's throwing around the word "tactical" in the advertising.
I get it...if you don't get, don't buy it. I won't. But it's important to make it known what we're looking for (and to know what we should be looking for, and capped turrets aren't it), so that manufacturers supply innovative products that adapt to our needs.
Who has time to dial wind. This is a 600 yard or less optic really its for three gun or on a general purpose rifle not a precision rifle. They things you are complaining about are not relevant to the purpose of this scope. Actually Vortex did listen to its customers and offered this scope with capped turrets after having problems with the target turrets on their PST scopes being easily moved out of adjustment during matches.
Pat
Who has time to dial wind. This is a 600 yard or less optic really its for three gun or on a general purpose rifle not a precision rifle. They things you are complaining about are not relevant to the purpose of this scope. Actually Vortex did listen to its customers and offered this scope with capped turrets after having problems with the target turrets on their PST scopes being easily moved out of adjustment during matches.
Pat
Dude, what the ??? You've dialed in on the turret issue, but don't you see that I'm indeed criticizing the entirety of the setup, and explicitly mentioned that there is no useful mechanism for dialing OR holding wind with this optic? I would argue that a 1-6X rifle-scope is a 0-700 (or even 800) optic in the right hands, and if you don't think a way to dial or consistently hold wind is important at these ranges (even 600), then all I can do is shake my head and chalk it up to the internet.
Also, dialing wind takes all of a few seconds if you are proficient...time that you often can, in fact, afford to take at ranges where wind matters. You can certainly afford to dial wind if the alternative is a missed shot.
Failure2Stop
04-11-12, 14:58
Personally, as far as my preferences go, I'm with a0cake here.
It's probably a very nice optic. I don't disagree with capping the turrets, but I definitely disagree with the calibrated BDC reticle in the SFP, especially when the trend in the market seems to show that most people desire a FFP mil-based reticle, be it simple mil-dots or some of the more elaborate christmas tree reticles.
Dialing wind sucks unless you're proned out shooting a precision gun with lots of time. I think seeing the market they're trying to capture, something with a decent wind hold ability built into the reticle would have been a far better, more lucrative, choice.
It's the same issue I have with the Leupold 1-6 with the CMR-W reticle. They hit a home run and then they put that damned BDC reticle in the thing instead of mil based.
I'm following this topic with quite a lot of interest myself. I've spoken extensively with a0cake and F2S via PM about the topic of glass for a mid-range AR.
Based on their input and my experience and observations, I'd have to say that there are two distinct factions who have a use for this type of optic. Unfortunately, their needs/requirements differ 180deg from each other. To further complicate the matter, there are members who feel that their status in one faction qualifies them to comment on the other.
Both a0cake and F2S have used mid-range optics on M4's in combat. They fall into what I'm going to call the MIL faction.
The other faction is the "gamer" faction. These guys shoot 3-gun, and some of them have the dillusion that because a certain piece of gear works well for 3-gun, it is good to go for MIL use. In some cases, there may be truth, but in others, no.
Case in point: a0's comments about usable wind holds:
When shooting at a piece of steel 300 or 400 yds away, it's ok if you miss it the first time and then hold off due to wind. The steel isn't going to run away or shoot back at you. However, in a MIL application, throwing rounds downrange and guessing about the wind or even elevation is not a good idea.
Alaska, you've told before about the guy popping off handgun rounds in a public park. Your point was that you guys needed magnified optics because he was too far away to shoot responsibly with a red dot. Well, what about guessing on windage? What if you had an optic such as the Vortex 1-6? You could maybe get close with elevation, but what if your first shot went wide? Where did that round just go? What did it hit?
I think it's a fair point that if you're going to shoot something living (hunting or otherwise) that you want every chance to make a first round hit to prevent the target from running/shooting back.
As a side note, I also find it interesting that both a0 and F2S are proponents of the SWFA 1-4 scope as the best currently available and the forthcoming 1-6 as the best on the horizon.
I really don't have a dog in the fight other than trying to gain knowledge in order to determine how to best spend my money. However, it seems that the guys that have "been there and done that" might have the best insight?
Also, I posted this yesterday in the Vortex MFR forum here:
So now that the first bit of info is out about the Razor 1-6, are there any more planned revisions? For instance, Mil turrets and an FFP reticle with mil substensions while maintaining the visible dot? That's really what most folks (other than 3-gun shooters) want.
See here:https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=103202
And here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=95771&highlight=leupold+1-6
Also, I posted this yesterday in the Vortex MFR forum here:
Somehow I missed your post yesterday. Sorry for the delayed response, but I just posted one in our forum: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=1280550#post1280550
Well, it says in the article that Jerry Micelek helped with the design of the scope which I assume includes the reticle. It is probably great for three gun and works for him. Besides, he is a world champion and that ought to say something.
kenken
Why not leave the caps off for windage correction?
I'm personally holding out for a 1-8x S&B or some other german made awesomeness. I am sure someone will come along in the near future and make one.
:D
Damn good points ASH556. After having BDC reticles and MIL based. I am trying to stay with all MIL based.
As to the capped problem, SWFA's answer is to have the same scope work equally well with caps or no caps. Problem solved.
Why not leave the caps off for windage correction?
The scope is still fully waterproof without caps and the turrets are finger adjustable, so you could certainly run it without caps if you want to dial.
The scope is still fully waterproof without caps and the turrets are finger adjustable, so you could certainly run it without caps if you want to dial.
Don't mean to be too harsh on this initial offering, and I am glad that you guys "may or may not" have other versions coming out as you alluded to in the other post in your industry forum. I'll definitely give it a shot if / when it is released. The Razor HD line is great glass and performs above its price point, so I'm looking forward to see what comes out.
But as far as this model goes, dialing on smaller capped-style turrets that weren't designed for it, is generally not ideal. But you guys are right, it is definitely possible.
Don't mean to be too harsh on this initial offering, and I am glad that you guys "may or may not" have other versions coming out as you alluded to in the other post in your industry forum. I'll definitely give it a shot if / when it is released. The Razor HD line is great glass and performs above its price point, so I'm looking forward to see what comes out.
But as far as this model goes, dialing on smaller capped-style turrets that weren't designed for it, is generally not ideal. But you guys are right, it is definitely possible.
No problem at all. Honest feedback is good and we definitely appreciate it and take it into consideration.
Why not leave the caps off for windage correction?
I'm personally holding out for a 1-8x S&B or some other german made awesomeness. I am sure someone will come along in the near future and make one.
:D
S&B has a 1-8 on the way...it's priced at $3500.
Alaskapopo
04-12-12, 01:02
Dude, what the ??? You've dialed in on the turret issue, but don't you see that I'm indeed criticizing the entirety of the setup, and explicitly mentioned that there is no useful mechanism for dialing OR holding wind with this optic? I would argue that a 1-6X rifle-scope is a 0-700 (or even 800) optic in the right hands, and if you don't think a way to dial or consistently hold wind is important at these ranges (even 600), then all I can do is shake my head and chalk it up to the internet.
Also, dialing wind takes all of a few seconds if you are proficient...time that you often can, in fact, afford to take at ranges where wind matters. You can certainly afford to dial wind if the alternative is a missed shot.
We are arguing different applications. Personally I believe in the general rule of 1x per 100 yards for magnificaiton and at 6x 600 would be the most I would attempt with it. As for wind I don't generally dial in for it but rather hold off for it and that is even with my precision rifle set up. winds change fast and its easier to hold off than to dial it. Your right I did mainly dial in on the turret issue as that is where I had my disagreement with your stance. I like exposed turrents on a precision rifle set up. (ie sniper type rifle) However I don't see a low power 1-6 optic as a sniper type optic. Its a short to medium range set up meaning 0 to 600 yards tops. Basically a designated marksman type of optic.
Pat
Alaskapopo
04-12-12, 01:07
I'm following this topic with quite a lot of interest myself. I've spoken extensively with a0cake and F2S via PM about the topic of glass for a mid-range AR.
Based on their input and my experience and observations, I'd have to say that there are two distinct factions who have a use for this type of optic. Unfortunately, their needs/requirements differ 180deg from each other. To further complicate the matter, there are members who feel that their status in one faction qualifies them to comment on the other.
Both a0cake and F2S have used mid-range optics on M4's in combat. They fall into what I'm going to call the MIL faction.
The other faction is the "gamer" faction. These guys shoot 3-gun, and some of them have the dillusion that because a certain piece of gear works well for 3-gun, it is good to go for MIL use. In some cases, there may be truth, but in others, no.
Case in point: a0's comments about usable wind holds:
When shooting at a piece of steel 300 or 400 yds away, it's ok if you miss it the first time and then hold off due to wind. The steel isn't going to run away or shoot back at you. However, in a MIL application, throwing rounds downrange and guessing about the wind or even elevation is not a good idea.
Alaska, you've told before about the guy popping off handgun rounds in a public park. Your point was that you guys needed magnified optics because he was too far away to shoot responsibly with a red dot. Well, what about guessing on windage? What if you had an optic such as the Vortex 1-6? You could maybe get close with elevation, but what if your first shot went wide? Where did that round just go? What did it hit?
I think it's a fair point that if you're going to shoot something living (hunting or otherwise) that you want every chance to make a first round hit to prevent the target from running/shooting back.
As a side note, I also find it interesting that both a0 and F2S are proponents of the SWFA 1-4 scope as the best currently available and the forthcoming 1-6 as the best on the horizon.
I really don't have a dog in the fight other than trying to gain knowledge in order to determine how to best spend my money. However, it seems that the guys that have "been there and done that" might have the best insight?
I have to admit I spoke too soon on this I assumed this scope had windage marks similar to my Swarovski Z6i on the various hold over points. If this scope does not that is something that should be added.
However I much prefer holding off vs dialing in for wind.
Pat
S&B has a 1-8 on the way...it's priced at $3500.
Holy crap.
I didn't need to go on vacation this year... or next year. :p
I'm in the same boat as F2S and A0cake. I think this will make for a very good 3 gun scope, but once you come off the range it will have issues.
I'm OK with SFO reticle if it means I can have better glass and rugged construction at a decent price. I've used SFP reticles most of my shooting life and so long as you dont mind remembering your math for hold overs or windage holds they can work FFP is definitely easier though, but in this fans where there is a good chance that the use will end up being a 1 or 6 power I can make the sacrifice.
I can deal with capped turrets as well, so long as the scope remains sealed and rugged with the caps off AND the covered turrets are clearly visible and usable from behind the scope. I dont want to have to crane my head or rely on counting click or turn the weapon when dialing either elevation or windage. A0cake is right, in that this application screams for locking turrets. Offers protection during rough handling, yet gives immediate dialing ability. Here again, I'm willing to accept some personal respond ability and discipline for the sale of better pricing (I'm not shooting at things that shoot back so I have more leeway the sacrifices I can make). If you have the discipline to return to zero EVERY time the caps go back on, covered turrets can be make to work.
The reticle on the other hand needs serious improvement. I'd like to see a donut or horse shoe for using the thing at low power fast, but it must have some form of ranging so I can use something other than Kentucky windage to engage targets at odd range intervals. If you want some kind of tree under the cross hairs put in a generic mil or moa tree that i can use to range and hold if I'm in a hurry and don't want to dial.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.