View Full Version : Am I the only one who wishes there was a Razor HD Gen II 1-4x24?
I’m saving my pennies for an optic and I’ve watched pretty much every YouTube video, lurked in hundreds of threads, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the ideal optic would be something as crystal clear, durable, and forgiving (eyebox/eye relief) as the Razor Gen 2 1-6x. However, even the E model of that optic is pretty heavy.
Am I the only one who would gladly sacrifice 2x zoom for 3-5 oz of weight savings (and potentially even better 1x performance).
gunnerblue
03-21-19, 10:47
I doubt that you’re alone but buyers want increased zoom range so that what the manufacturers will continue to create. FWIW, I was shooting my old NXS 1-4 and SR4C at 385 yesterday and didn’t feel that they were lacking.
No you are not alone! Most of my shooting is 200yds and in. At that distance, the max zoom I use is 3.5x.
I’ve been eyeing the Steiner 1-4x for the very reasons you mentioned.
Yes.
I love my 1-6 to bits, but I want more PID range, especially on a .308. Anxiously awaiting any future 1-8 and perhaps even 1-10 options.
Yes.
I love my 1-6 to bits, but I want more PID range, especially on a .308. Anxiously awaiting any future 1-8 and perhaps even 1-10 options.
1-10 won't happen. Engineering obstacles... and physics of how scopes work/are built. There's a reason why 1x scopes have a small objective.
Am I the only one who would gladly sacrifice 2x zoom for 3-5 oz of weight savings (and potentially even better 1x performance).
Although probably not as clear and forgiving (from what I've read), I recently ordered a Steiner P4XI 1-4 for that very same reason...
No you are not alone! Most of my shooting is 200yds and in. At that distance, the max zoom I use is 3.5x.
I’ve been eyeing the Steiner 1-4x for the very reasons you mentioned.
I'm away on business - but just received delivery notification on the P4XI I ordered. I'll post an update once I get some time behind it.
VortexOptics
03-21-19, 16:37
I’m saving my pennies for an optic and I’ve watched pretty much every YouTube video, lurked in hundreds of threads, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the ideal optic would be something as crystal clear, durable, and forgiving (eyebox/eye relief) as the Razor Gen 2 1-6x. However, even the E model of that optic is pretty heavy.
Am I the only one who would gladly sacrifice 2x zoom for 3-5 oz of weight savings (and potentially even better 1x performance).
If you're looking to shave weight, decreasing the magnification is about the last way to go about doing it. Mostly on account of the fact that it would literally do nothing to the weight at all. In fact - there's really no gain to be had by going to a lower magnification in an LPVO aside from maybe the fact that your subtensions in a 1-4x SFP optic would be correct in relation to target size at 4x rather than 6x. Weight, length, shape, size, optical quality, etc would really not be affected at all if we're talking about making a scope with the same level of optical quality, build quality and features.
Edit - we'll keep going since it's almost closing time and this is a fun topic. Optical performance on 1x wouldn't magically get better by lopping off 2x on the high end either. At least... Not in a way that's worth it. The Razor 1-6 already has some crazy good 1x performance and has widely been regarded as one of the best. One could make it even better, but there would be no reason to lose magnification in order to do it - you could get better 1x performance with a 1-6x or a 1-8x or if you really go nuts and start designing some optical systems with lens elements and curvatures that would make a lens-grinder's mind melt, a 1-10x. You could also get lighter too if you start using some more expensive materials and manufacturing methods. Sure, the Razor isn't the lightest LPVO out there, but it's a damn good one and comes in at a great price as-is for what it does performance-wise.
Bottom line - a 1-4x Razor with all else being the same level of quality and same features would still be expensive and still be just as heavy and still look just as nice. Don't hamstring yourself :)
We get it, though - people want lighter and that's something we've been listening to for a long time. The other thing people need to consider is that optics take a long ass time to develop. 3-5 years isn't out of the ordinary at all, especially when it's at such a high end. Rest assured - there are professionals here who went to school for this stuff that are working full time to make our optics better in every way and in ways that customers request (Unless they start trying to request Band-aid solutions that won't work and will just create more issues!) ;) lol Keep your eyes peeled!
Thanks as always to everyone who keeps us working on new stuff all the time. Keeps this job interesting.
1-10 won't happen. Engineering obstacles... and physics of how scopes work/are built. There's a reason why 1x scopes have a small objective.
https://atibal-optics.com/products/atibal-x-1-10x35-ffp?variant=13054187470911
Rayrevolver
03-21-19, 21:21
I had a March 1-10x and it was really nice glass. Eye box was small at 10x. It was a lot of money to be tied up into a scope and I sold/traded it.
http://marchscopes.com/tactical-1-10-x-24t.html
If you're looking to shave weight, decreasing the magnification is about the last way to go about doing it. Mostly on account of the fact that it would literally do nothing to the weight at all. In fact - there's really no gain to be had by going to a lower magnification in an LPVO aside from maybe the fact that your subtensions in a 1-4x SFP optic would be correct in relation to target size at 4x rather than 6x. Weight, length, shape, size, optical quality, etc would really not be affected at all if we're talking about making a scope with the same level of optical quality, build quality and features.
Edit - we'll keep going since it's almost closing time and this is a fun topic. Optical performance on 1x wouldn't magically get better by lopping off 2x on the high end either. At least... Not in a way that's worth it. The Razor 1-6 already has some crazy good 1x performance and has widely been regarded as one of the best. One could make it even better, but there would be no reason to lose magnification in order to do it - you could get better 1x performance with a 1-6x or a 1-8x or if you really go nuts and start designing some optical systems with lens elements and curvatures that would make a lens-grinder's mind melt, a 1-10x. You could also get lighter too if you start using some more expensive materials and manufacturing methods. Sure, the Razor isn't the lightest LPVO out there, but it's a damn good one and comes in at a great price as-is for what it does performance-wise.
Bottom line - a 1-4x Razor with all else being the same level of quality and same features would still be expensive and still be just as heavy and still look just as nice. Don't hamstring yourself :)
We get it, though - people want lighter and that's something we've been listening to for a long time. The other thing people need to consider is that optics take a long ass time to develop. 3-5 years isn't out of the ordinary at all, especially when it's at such a high end. Rest assured - there are professionals here who went to school for this stuff that are working full time to make our optics better in every way and in ways that customers request (Unless they start trying to request Band-aid solutions that won't work and will just create more issues!) ;) lol Keep your eyes peeled!
Thanks as always to everyone who keeps us working on new stuff all the time. Keeps this job interesting.
Thank you for the info. I agree, the performance at 1x is absolutely unbelievable. Best I have ever seen. I’m going on four years and feel the Razor JM pro has made me a better shooter. The razor is at 1x 90% of the time I shoot, and the image feels enhanced at that level compared to a red dot. I keep winning matches, and the razor keeps performing flawlessly.
you could get better 1x performance with a 1-6x or a 1-8x or if you really go nuts and start designing some optical systems with lens elements and curvatures that would make a lens-grinder's mind melt, a 1-10x.
Please make some poor Japanese (or Wisconsinite..) lens grinder's mind melt with a 1-10x. I will buy it on launch and so will everyone else!
VortexOptics
03-22-19, 10:24
Please make some poor Japanese (or Wisconsinite..) lens grinder's mind melt with a 1-10x. I will buy it on launch and so will everyone else!
It's not so much just making a 1-10x - that's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination and is already being done as a few have mentioned here already. The mind bending lenses we spoke of were what would be necessary if you were actually making something that would be an improvement upon the current Razor 1-6x and not just a means of getting bigger numbers. Still not impossible but not easy... Like we said - keep your eyes peeled! (No, this is not a teaser, just saying - some day the Gen II will have to be replaced with a Gen III right? It's just physics... I don't know anything about that stuff - I'm just the guy on the forums.)
I don’t want a 1-10 on an AR, there’s no point IMO. I love my Razor 1-6. Sure, if all other things (including price) could be equal, I’d be happy with it being lighter, but the -E really isn’t as heavy as I feared. Again, maybe if all other things are equal I’d do a 1-8, but even 8 starts seeming unnecessary IMO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
VortexOptics
03-22-19, 10:45
I don’t want a 1-10 on an AR, there’s no point IMO. I love my Razor 1-6. Sure, if all other things (including price) could be equal, I’d be happy with it being lighter, but the -E really isn’t as heavy as I feared. Again, maybe if all other things are equal I’d do a 1-8, but even 8 starts seeming unnecessary IMO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1-8's and 1-10's can be sweet, but you definitely start wanting FFP at those points because now your reticle is going to be a lot more usable in the mid ranges. 1-6x and below, SFP really is the only way to go (Many will disagree), 1-8x is the gray area for SFP vs. FFP and 1-10x FFP is really the only way to go and then it could be useful.
There are the dual plane reticles starting to come out that appear useful. Illuminated circle at 1x and ffp reticle for 8x.
I don't want to muck up this thread on the very excellent Vortex product.
So I will bow out with a direction to YT and search Dark Lord of Optics. He's and engineer that does a good job of explaining things. Look for the video on why lpvo's have small objectives.
VortexOptics
03-22-19, 12:26
There are the dual plane reticles starting to come out that appear useful. Illuminated circle at 1x and ffp reticle for 8x.
I don't want to muck up this thread on the very excellent Vortex product.
So I will bow out with a direction to YT and search Dark Lord of Optics. He's and engineer that does a good job of explaining things. Look for the video on why lpvo's have small objectives.
Well the FFP reticle wouldn't be for 8x - it would be for all the powers other than 8x, otherwise you'd just be better off saving a ton of money and avoiding the issue dual focal plane scopes can have which is not having the reticles perfectly aligned to one another and just get an SFP scope.
No muck at all - these are all great talking points and things we ourselves talk about every single day throughout or continual product development and listening to customer feedback. There aren't a whole lot of ideas out there we haven't seen or thought of ourselves (Though we'll never claim to be perfect so keep the thoughts and feedback coming). It's just that often times folks jump out at companies saying "Why haven't you guys ever thought of this?" when they don't realize that the company actually has thought of it to such a degree that they either determined it wasn't doable within reason, wasn't sellable in a way that would actually make business sense, or the really fun one - is possible but they just haven't come out with it yet because stuff takes a ton of time to make and then scale to production levels.
I don’t think they’re in production anymore, but the original razor lpvo was a 1-4x.
https://vortexoptics.com/media/uploads/web_man_rfl_razor_1-4x24-cqmr-1_2.pdf
Well the FFP reticle wouldn't be for 8x - it would be for all the powers other than 8x, otherwise you'd just be better off saving a ton of money and avoiding the issue dual focal plane scopes can have which is not having the reticles perfectly aligned to one another and just get an SFP scope.
No muck at all - these are all great talking points and things we ourselves talk about every single day throughout or continual product development and listening to customer feedback. There aren't a whole lot of ideas out there we haven't seen or thought of ourselves (Though we'll never claim to be perfect so keep the thoughts and feedback coming). It's just that often times folks jump out at companies saying "Why haven't you guys ever thought of this?" when they don't realize that the company actually has thought of it to such a degree that they either determined it wasn't doable within reason, wasn't sellable in a way that would actually make business sense, or the really fun one - is possible but they just haven't come out with it yet because stuff takes a ton of time to make and then scale to production levels.
I don't disagree with you. For me, personal opinion only, I think the lpvo is best served with sfp for the most part. On FFP, even with the best of reticles, they are close to useless except at the highest magnification. But, I do understand that you have many clamoring for them as such. I take no offense at those that want or prefer it. I just think that if you're trying to get an optic that does everything, then it's mediocre in everything as well. Compromise has its drawbacks. And if you're trying to take a weapon platform optimized to 1-300 yards with effective use out to 600 and use a reticle good to 1000.... you're doing it wrong. With increasing magnification, weight and complexity of the erectors and mechanicals increase. With 8x, the exit pupil is small, light at dusk is poor. So increase objective? More weight and bulk. It just seems to move in the opposite direction of what is really needed with 5.56. Ok, a DMR in 7.62? Well, that's a different kettle of fish.
On top of all of that, is there enough true sales demand to make the investment worth it. That's the question not for you as you get it. That's the reality for everyone else out there dreaming big at your expense.
VortexOptics
03-25-19, 10:10
I don't disagree with you. For me, personal opinion only, I think the lpvo is best served with sfp for the most part. On FFP, even with the best of reticles, they are close to useless except at the highest magnification. But, I do understand that you have many clamoring for them as such. I take no offense at those that want or prefer it. I just think that if you're trying to get an optic that does everything, then it's mediocre in everything as well. Compromise has its drawbacks. And if you're trying to take a weapon platform optimized to 1-300 yards with effective use out to 600 and use a reticle good to 1000.... you're doing it wrong. With increasing magnification, weight and complexity of the erectors and mechanicals increase. With 8x, the exit pupil is small, light at dusk is poor. So increase objective? More weight and bulk. It just seems to move in the opposite direction of what is really needed with 5.56. Ok, a DMR in 7.62? Well, that's a different kettle of fish.
On top of all of that, is there enough true sales demand to make the investment worth it. That's the question not for you as you get it. That's the reality for everyone else out there dreaming big at your expense.
Now this is the kind of thinking we go through every day! :)
I used to own a Razor 1-6 Gen II. Looking through it was a pleasure, but the weight was an issue. Not because it was heavy to lug around, but because it threw off the balance of the carbine. I like high mounts for my optics and that only exacerbated the handling issue. My go to/training carbine is a Steiner PX4i. It’s not perfect but, but it is a good compromise of weight, clarity, magnification and cost. Personally, I like the Steiner reticle a lot.
I replaced my Razor with a NF NX8 which I think is awesome, but the two optics are hard to compare because they are so different. All of that said I have other Vortex optics and am a big fan of Vortex in general. If they released a Razor 1-4 or a 1-6 that weighted less than 19 oz I’d be the first in line to purchase one.
I used to own a Razor 1-6 Gen II. Looking through it was a pleasure, but the weight was an issue. Not because it was heavy to lug around, but because it threw off the balance of the carbine. I like high mounts for my optics and that only exacerbated the handling issue. My go to/training carbine is a Steiner PX4i...
Yes Sir! There's nothing spectacular about the P4Xi, but the combination of what it does have makes it a great little scope...
https://i.imgur.com/2RGGm51.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/8Fuc4Do.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.