View Full Version : Vortex Razor 1-10
Hey guys,
So I currently am running an older Vortex Viper 1-4 PST on my 16 inch middy that I’ve had on it for years, and now I want to upgrade now that the LPVO market has exploded and one that I really like is the Vortex Razor 1-10. I really like the capabilities of this optic. I LOVE the reticle and I think it gives you plenty of capability and I see it as a true 600 yard option for ARs in 5.56. The glass quality is excellent but that is what I would expect of an optic out of Vortex’s Razor line. My only question/concern is the eyebox…. Particularly on the higher magnification powers. I got to hold this scope at my local gun store yesterday and no I didn’t have a rifle to mount it on to look through it with a proper set cheek weld, but once you started to crank it up that eyebox did get considerably tighter. Yes I understand that 1-10 is a lot to ask out of a first focal plane optic but I was just wondering if you guys had any experience running this optic either on your work guns, SHTF setups, or competition rigs and had any feedback on it pertaining to the eyebox and how fast it is to get a good sight picture on the higher magnifications? A review I watched online by a competition shooter said that it was slightly slower to acquire targets on 10x but that once he did acquire the target, he was actually sending rounds faster than what he was able to on lower power optics because of being more confident with exactly where his optic was lined up. It’s one of those things that I am curious about especially when it comes to things like awkward shooting positions and things of that nature but I’m sure Vortex wouldn’t put a $2,000 optic out that was unusable at higher magnification ranges, because let’s be honest, people want this scope for its 1-10 capabilities. Any feedback you guys have on how fast this optic is to acquire the reticle with the eyebox, sight picture, and engaging targets at distance is greatly appreciated thank you!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
IKnowNotEverything
12-16-21, 12:57
I got to play around with one a while back and I prefer good optic from 3-12/ 4-16. You can get a lot more for the money.
If you NEED the 1x though, the Razor is the way to go for max magnification. I’m looking at the Primary Arms PLX 1-8 pretty hard. If you can snag it on sale I think it’s a better value, but it’s resale will suck
I had one for a while and liked it, only ended up selling because I had the MOA and wanted MIL, just haven’t gotten around to buying the MIL as other things have come up.
The eye box on 10x is tight but I really have nothing else to compare it to other than various 1-4s and 1-6s. No time behind other 1-8s/1-10s or even 2.5-10s, 3-x, whatever. So it’s hard for me to say much.
I do know that many people will leave their Razor 1-6 on 6 and use another sighting system for 1x. I’m not sure that would be best with the 1-10. I could see leaving it on 6-8, and then throwing to 10 if needed, but going from a ready position to mounting the gun with it already at 10x would probably need a lot of practice to do well.
Despite that, I think it’s still worth the consideration over its peers. It’s most closely compared to the NX8 from what I’ve seen, so even if you’re starting at 8x, some of the increased cost and weight should be worth the option of being able to go up to 10. Plus the semi-transparent reticle and 1x on the Razor are often reported as pros over the NX8. Also, I’ve already seen used Razor 1-10s in the $1700-1800 range, I think I’ve even seen used mount and scope combos for sale that would put the scope’s value under $1700 so you can close the price difference gap without too much difficulty.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I had one for a while and liked it, only ended up selling because I had the MOA and wanted MIL, just haven’t gotten around to buying the MIL as other things have come up.
The eye box on 10x is tight but I really have nothing else to compare it to other than various 1-4s and 1-6s. No time behind other 1-8s/1-10s or even 2.5-10s, 3-x, whatever. So it’s hard for me to say much.
I do know that many people will leave their Razor 1-6 on 6 and use another sighting system for 1x. I’m not sure that would be best with the 1-10. I could see leaving it on 6-8, and then throwing to 10 if needed, but going from a ready position to mounting the gun with it already at 10x would probably need a lot of practice to do well.
Despite that, I think it’s still worth the consideration over its peers. It’s most closely compared to the NX8 from what I’ve seen, so even if you’re starting at 8x, some of the increased cost and weight should be worth the option of being able to go up to 10. Plus the semi-transparent reticle and 1x on the Razor are often reported as pros over the NX8. Also, I’ve already seen used Razor 1-10s in the $1700-1800 range, I think I’ve even seen used mount and scope combos for sale that would put the scope’s value under $1700 so you can close the price difference gap without too much difficulty.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I noticed it they eye box was tight on 10x too when I handled it at the gun store yesterday. I wasn’t able to get a cheek weld on a rifle it was just from picking it up. How was shooting it at 10x though? How was target acquisition and follow up shots with it on 10x? Was it still definitely a useable tool that gave you an advantage or did it slow you down?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I dont think it's fair to judge a scope at 10x comparing the eye box to lower powered LPVOs. In fact I dont think you could really call a scope with 10x a Low Power optic.
I think it should be viewed as a LPVO in 1-6 or MAYBE 1-8 but when you get up closer to 10x it's basically any other compact 10x scope. It's a trade off for sure but if you want a really good eye box at 10x you are going to need a bigger objective lens. But then you defeat the purpose of a compact scope.
I dont have a bunch of time behind one but it has a great eye box in the lower powers and it gets a bit more restrictive at 10x. Id say it's similar to the common 2-10 or 3-10 optics like the NXS or the Mk4. Basically, the 10x is for longer range shots but if you are shooting closer range movers or need to transition targets quickly, turn down the power.
I dont think it's fair to judge a scope at 10x comparing the eye box to lower powered LPVOs. In fact I dont think you could really call a scope with 10x a Low Power optic.
I think it should be viewed as a LPVO in 1-6 or MAYBE 1-8 but when you get up closer to 10x it's basically any other compact 10x scope. It's a trade off for sure but if you want a really good eye box at 10x you are going to need a bigger objective lens. But then you defeat the purpose of a compact scope.
I dont have a bunch of time behind one but it has a great eye box in the lower powers and it gets a bit more restrictive at 10x. Id say it's similar to the common 2-10 or 3-10 optics like the NXS or the Mk4. Basically, the 10x is for longer range shots but if you are shooting closer range movers or need to transition targets quickly, turn down the power.
I’m not really concerned about up close stuff I was more concerned about extended range shots that would really push out the effective range of my rifle say 400, 500, or even 600 yards. I was concerned about how easy it would be to get a proper sight picture (if the eyebox would slow me down) as well as if I could keep the full image in the glass when aiming down sight and taking follow up shots. Again, I was more so concerned about the 10x for extended range shooting and if it would be an asset or slow you down but I see your point how it’s not really fair to compare it since there aren’t really many other options that give such a wide range of magnifications like this one. What do you think about the eyebox for extended range target acquisition as well as follow up shots?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
gunnerblue
12-16-21, 14:57
The eyebrow is tight at 10x, no way around that. If you're concerned about shooting longer distances, you may be better served by a 2.5-10/3-9.
The real benefit to these scopes, in my opinion, is consistent ranging throughout ~5-10x with a bright dot at 1x and the higher magnification at the other end- though neither is as good as a traditional RDS or 10x scope with a larger objective.
I bought one to replace a VCOG 1-6 (Razor better in every way, btw) and ended up selling it in favor of a T2/6x magnifier combo
Yes, the eye box is tight at 10X, but you don't have to slap it all the way to 10. I own the 1-10 and the 1-6.
I’m not really concerned about up close stuff I was more concerned about extended range shots that would really push out the effective range of my rifle say 400, 500, or even 600 yards. I was concerned about how easy it would be to get a proper sight picture (if the eyebox would slow me down) as well as if I could keep the full image in the glass when aiming down sight and taking follow up shots. Again, I was more so concerned about the 10x for extended range shooting and if it would be an asset or slow you down but I see your point how it’s not really fair to compare it since there aren’t really many other options that give such a wide range of magnifications like this one. What do you think about the eyebox for extended range target acquisition as well as follow up shots?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like I said I dont have a bunch of time behind it but I dont THINK you will have issues at longer ranges. That being said, the eye box is definitely tighter than a 2-10 or 3-12 with a bigger objective lens. But for sitting or prone shots, I dont think you'll have an issue, especially on a semi auto rifle that is going to soak up much of the recoil.
Like I said I dont have a bunch of time behind it but I dont THINK you will have issues at longer ranges. That being said, the eye box is definitely tighter than a 2-10 or 3-12 with a bigger objective lens. But for sitting or prone shots, I dont think you'll have an issue, especially on a semi auto rifle that is going to soak up much of the recoil.
I know there is no DO ALL rifle. I’ve learned that. But this optic would be pretty hard to beat for that position by anything else we have yet. I guess I wanted something that I can use on 1x for up close (my 1-4 PST absolutely SHREDS at this) but wanted something that if I had to take a precision shot or shots at say 600 yards relatively quickly and feel confident about it I could. I really like this optic, and I’m probably going to buy it, but that is what I want to be able to do with it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know there is no DO ALL rifle. I’ve learned that. But this optic would be pretty hard to beat for that position by anything else we have yet. I guess I wanted something that I can use on 1x for up close (my 1-4 PST absolutely SHREDS at this) but wanted something that if I had to take a precision shot or shots at say 600 yards relatively quickly and feel confident about it I could. I really like this optic, and I’m probably going to buy it, but that is what I want to be able to do with it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think that it will be a fantastic option for that.
I think that it will be a fantastic option for that.
I think with proper cheek weld and a good stock that helps with getting a consistently good cheek weld with putting your face in the same place every time on the stock will help too. And the more I shoot with it the more consistent I will become with it anyways. I doubt Vortex puts out a $2,000 street price Razor and doesn’t attempt these things themselves to see how efficient they are. It’s tight but it should work.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tight eye box / eye relief at 10x complainers; try 10x and above on 3-15x optics and compare.
As magnification goes up, they all get tighter and while on smaller 1-X optics might be a tad worse, it's what happens.
Yes, shooting gear has improved and can help a shooter accept poor physical / mechanical execution - at least sometimes, but not all the time. Higher magnification use is one of those places you actually might need to get behind the optic properly <gasp> and use fundamentally correct techniques if you want correct results.
Tight eye box / eye relief at 10x complainers; try 10x and above on 3-15x optics and compare.
As magnification goes up, they all get tighter and while on smaller 1-X optics might be a tad worse, it's what happens.
Yes, shooting gear has improved and can help a shooter accept poor physical / mechanical execution - at least sometimes, but not all the time. Higher magnification use is one of those places you actually might need to get behind the optic properly <gasp> and use fundamentally correct techniques if you want correct results.
I was thinking this too. We don’t really have anything to compare this 1-10 first focal plane optic too. Every optic gets a tighter eyebox as you go up but this is a 1-10 first focal plane. And yes on 10x you should be using proper shooting techniques for the distances you are probably trying to shoot at anyways. I’m more concerned about things like target acquisition time through pulling the rifle up and not getting scope shadow as well as follow up shots on 10x, all from using the best shooting techniques whatever situation that is allows.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I love mine, but yes the eyebox is a little tight at 10x, but any of the 8/10x short body erectors are going to be tight at the top end of the magnification. My one request for vortex would be to add a side focus/parallax adjustment.
I’ve had the thought of switching the the Leupold MK5HD 3.6-18x with an offset rds instead of the razor Gen 3 on my Recce style rifle. I feel it’s a more versatile setup although slightly heavier.
gunnerblue
12-17-21, 08:55
[QUOTE=RHINOWSO;2998042]Tight eye box / eye relief at 10x complainers; try 10x and above on 3-15x optics and compare.
As magnification goes up, they all get tighter and while on smaller 1-X optics might be a tad worse, it's what happens.
Yes, shooting gear has improved and can help a shooter accept poor physical / mechanical execution - at least sometimes, but not all the time. Higher magnification use is one of those places you actually might need to get behind the optic properly <gasp> and use fundamentally correct techniques if you
Not an accurate comparison. 10x and above on scopes with higher magnification that are also longer and with larger objectives is not as tight as on these compact FFP LPVOS.
The Gen 3 Razor is by no means unusable at 10x, but it will be tight. Below is a good explanation of scope design as it pertains to the Gen 3
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/s-b-pmii-dual-cc-1-8x24-and-vortex-razor-gen3-1-10x24.7027593/
Tight eye box / eye relief at 10x complainers; try 10x and above on 3-15x optics and compare.
As magnification goes up, they all get tighter and while on smaller 1-X optics might be a tad worse, it's what happens.
At a given magnification eye box is strongly correlated to objective lens diameter, or entrance pupil more strictly, is it not? A 50mm MPVO at 10X should have twice the exit pupil diameter as the 24mm Razor also at 10X? From Swampfox (https://swampfoxoptics.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360046977632-Eye-Box-and-Exit-Pupil).
The closest measurement we can get to in terms of putting a NUMBER on eye box is exit pupil. Exit pupil is the diameter of the shaft of light that comes out the back of the scope. Exit pupil can be calculated at a basic level by a simple math formula: take the diameter of the objective lens and divide it by the magnification. As magnification goes up, the size of the exit pupil goes down.
So lets take a 4-16x44 Patriot scope. The objective lens diameter is 44mm. Divide by 4 at the lowest magnification and you get a theoretical exit pupil of 11mm. Divide by 16 at the highest magnification and you get a theoretical exit pupil of 2.75mm. So theoretically you have to place your eye inside an 11mm wide shaft of light at minimum magnification, and inside a 2.75mm shaft of light at full magnification.
In reality we have exit pupil on that scope calculated out to 11.6mm at 4x and 2.92mm at 16x, using more complicated math. The basic calculation breaks down at very low magnifications-- for example our 1x25 Blade Prism has an exit pupil of 13.5mm, not 25mm (wouldn't that be cool though). The maximum diameter of the human eye's pupil is about 4mm in daylight, and 5-9mm in low light as the pupil opens to take in more light.
So when we look through a Blade 1x25 prism scope in daytime, we have a 4mm wide hole in our eyeball that has to line up somewhere inside a 13.5mm shaft of light in order to get a sight picture. That's super easy, super fast. When we look through a Patriot at 16x magnification, now we have a 4mm wide eyeball that has to find a shaft of light measuring just 2.92mm across. Not as easy! When you get to the crazy high magnifications the situation gets worse-- Our Warhawk 5-25x56 has a minimum exit pupil of 2.2 mm at full magnification.
The Rzr Gen3 1-10 is by far my favorite LPVO.
I currently one attached do my DO all hunting bolt gun in 308, which some may think as odd but it works. I like it enough that I'm making plans for another on a DMR AR setup and potentially on my AR10.
At 1x I can see the tip of my 18" barrel so I usually keep it on 2x, this still allows fast snap shots, and with the hold overs I should be able to get to 800-900 yards.
2 things I would like to see changed is shrinking the size of the center dot, as it is you get to see the full segmented circle illuminated which is something like 4moa? Pretty good for those 25-75 yard shots. But as is the larger center dot didn't stop me from printing a 0.37" X3 shot group at 100yards last weekend.
2nd I'd like to see the thicker outter reticle lines extended all the way to the edge of the scope in 1x, that way its easy to bracket a target on low power unilluminated, without losing the reticle in shadows or failing light.
As it stands keeping the reticle around 2-3x the reticle pretty much runs edge to edge so even without the red dot on it functions similar to the sight picture of a low powered SFP scope
As to eye box and eye relief, it's better than a few night force scopes I've seen. From 1-6 it's solid. 8-10x it gets tighter but not unreasonable.
This scopes definitely a keeper.
Now they just need to make a gen 3, 2-20x50 for the LR guns with adjustable locking turrets in the 30oz range.
Shaw
Yes, I am aware that a 1-10x on 10x isn't the exact same as a 3-15x on 10x, but you should see the point; higher magnification typically leads to tighter eye-relief / eye-box.
People have gotten sloppy being able to throw the Razor II in front of their faces, see the dot / reticle and make hits. Now they expect it for all magnification ranges. And lots of ppl making the comparisons are using demo scopes in the store not mounted, which is always a poor reflection of what its like mounted on a rifle.
At a given magnification eye box is strongly correlated to objective lens diameter, or entrance pupil more strictly, is it not? A 50mm MPVO at 10X should have twice the exit pupil diameter as the 24mm Razor also at 10X? [/URL].
I've always understood this to be the case too, but I also don't have a large sample size of scopes to compare to.
From my own personal experience comparing my Accupoint 2-10x56mm to the RazorG3 the accupoint had the more forgiving eye box when set to 10x which tends to agree with the above theory.
However when comparing the RazorG3 to my NF NX8 2.5-20x50mm for whatever reason I found the eye box in that NX8 to be much more restrictive than both the Accupoint and the Razor G3 regardless of magnification.
On lower power settings the Razor smokes them both for quick acquisition, obviously, but I'd have to mount it to a gas gun to see how well it works for follow up shots/multiple target engagements.
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.