vortex razor Gen 2...weight worth it?

[SomeOtherGuy]

How would you compare the mk6 to the razor, overall?

Although I owned both I didn't use either one much, so take my comments with a big grain of salt. The Leupold is much lighter and feels it. The one I had with the CMR-W 7.62 also has an extremely complicated FFP reticle, although I liked it a lot. The Razor has an extremely simple reticle in the second focal plane. The Razor felt heavy and solid in all ways. I commented in another thread that the Mark 6 felt borderline delicate, but someone else who's used one extensively said it was in fact very rugged in use.

They have totally different methods of illumination:
-Mark 6 has a new version of conventional illumination - I think using a laser diode and/or some kind of special material for the illuminated part of the reticle. It was very sensitive to eye position, but it otherwise worked well. Brightest setting was quite bright, but not an Aimpoint on 11. Maybe like setting 9 or 10 of an Aimpoint. Visible in nearly all conditions but maybe not a glacier or desert at 12 noon.
-The Razor gen2 has a fiberoptic dot in the center and nothing else. It's a nice small dot, and simple, and the brightest setting is the same as an Aimpoint on 11 - i.e. extremely bright and enough for any possible lighting condition. (Well, excluding some short-term lighting conditions that you aren't likely to survive.)

I think both work well, but they are quite different.

My question is kindof "price doesn't matter", but I see a lot of "For the price...". I'm looking for a no-holds barred king of the heap 1-6 or 1-8. I will re-evaluate when my K16i is returned from service, whether I am still looking or not, though. Over-all thoughts with a re-frame of reference?

I have yet to see anything negative on the Leupold Mark 8 1.1-8x or the Bushnell 1-8.5x SMRS, other than the price. No hands on experience with the Leupold and nothing significant with the Bushnell (I got to look through a friend's Bushnell SMRS at the range one time). I have no hands on experience with scopes pricier than the Mark 6, so I can't offer a lot on this.

[SteveL]

-The Razor gen2 has a fiberoptic dot in the center and nothing else. It's a nice small dot, and simple, and the brightest setting is the same as an Aimpoint on 11 - i.e. extremely bright and enough for any possible lighting condition. (Well, excluding some short-term lighting conditions that you aren't likely to survive.)

There's no fiber optic. The dot is powered by a CR 2032 battery.

[SomeOtherGuy]

There's no fiber optic. The dot is powered by a CR 2032 battery.

You misunderstand. There is a battery powered LED, the light from which is taken to the center of the reticle by a fiberoptic. The same system is used by Leupold (the "Firedot" in the VX-R and VX-6 series) but not many others. This contrasts with conventional scope illumination where the lighted reticle is a reflection of light from an LED inside the scope tube. Conventional systems often leak light out the front, and many wash out when the brightness is turned up. The fiberoptic system doesn't do either one of these.

There is NOT an outside light-collecting fiberoptic as used with many Trijicon scopes (ACOG and TR series). But the method of internal illumination does use a fiberoptic to the reticle instead of reflection off of the reticle.

[SteveL]

You misunderstand. There is a battery powered LED, the light from which is taken to the center of the reticle by a fiberoptic. The same system is used by Leupold (the "Firedot" in the VX-R and VX-6 series) but not many others. This contrasts with conventional scope illumination where the lighted reticle is a reflection of light from an LED inside the scope tube. Conventional systems often leak light out the front, and many wash out when the brightness is turned up. The fiberoptic system doesn't do either one of these.

There is NOT an outside light-collecting fiberoptic as used with many Trijicon scopes (ACOG and TR series). But the method of internal illumination does use a fiberoptic to the reticle instead of reflection off of the reticle.

Ok gotcha. I thought you were referring to a fiber optic like the ACOG has.

[FrankW]

Does anyone know the battery life on the red dot?

[Hochsitz]

I've shot both the Razor and the Mark 6 1-6. If most of your shooting is going to be inside 200 yards then you don't need the FFP reticle because you won't be doing any elevation or wind holds that couldn't be done by holding left edge of target or top edge. If you want to be able to precisely hold wind and elevation at distance the CMR-W reticle is pretty sweet. However no FFP illumination will be as forgiving as a rear focal fiber dot since you can see the dot when you can't see an image through the scope. That is not the case with FFP for obvious reasons. To me the extra weight of the Razor was very noticeable on the gun and for whatever reason the brightness of the dot was not impressive. Also I hunt with my stuff which means I go out in cold weather and as someone else here mentioned the Razor power selector was surprisingly difficult to turn in those conditions. Certainly a throw lever would help but I never bothered to try one.

That said, I've ditched both scopes in favor of a D-EVO and have never been happier. Want a dot that's "Aimpoint bright"? Use an Aimpoint! Way more forgiving and faster on those quick close shots, plus the 6x is just a glance away. Add the two together and it weighs less than even the Mark 6 with a mount. Just my 2 cents.

[ballsout]

What is the best/lightest mount for your Razor that is available?

[Falar]

I've shot both the Razor and the Mark 6 1-6. If most of your shooting is going to be inside 200 yards then you don't need the FFP reticle because you won't be doing any elevation or wind holds that couldn't be done by holding left edge of target or top edge. If you want to be able to precisely hold wind and elevation at distance the CMR-W reticle is pretty sweet. However no FFP illumination will be as forgiving as a rear focal fiber dot since you can see the dot when you can't see an image through the scope. That is not the case with FFP for obvious reasons. To me the extra weight of the Razor was very noticeable on the gun and for whatever reason the brightness of the dot was not impressive. Also I hunt with my stuff which means I go out in cold weather and as someone else here mentioned the Razor power selector was surprisingly difficult to turn in those conditions. Certainly a throw lever would help but I never bothered to try one.

That said, I've ditched both scopes in favor of a D-EVO and have never been happier. Want a dot that's "Aimpoint bright"? Use an Aimpoint! Way more forgiving and faster on those quick close shots, plus the 6x is just a glance away. Add the two together and it weighs less than even the Mark 6 with a mount. Just my 2 cents.

People actually use those?

That package looks about as bulky and awkward as a PVS-4.

Debating between the Mark 6 1-6 and Razor 1-6 right now.....the weight on the Razor is a negative but I hear the eyebox and illumination are so much better that up close there is no comparison where as the Leupold has a more useful reticle for farther out.

[WS6]

People actually use those?

That package looks about as bulky and awkward as a PVS-4.

Debating between the Mark 6 1-6 and Razor 1-6 right now.....the weight on the Razor is a negative but I hear the eyebox and illumination are so much better that up close there is no comparison where as the Leupold has a more useful reticle for farther out.

Go on and throw the K16i/Z6i in there.

[Falar]

Go on and throw the K16i/Z6i in there.

I have been looking at those too. The only reticle of the 4 there I 100% don't like is the G4B.