Am I the only one who wishes there was a Razor HD Gen II 1-4x24?

[MWAG19919]

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]

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.

[Mustang31]

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.

[joffe]

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.

[soulezoo]

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.

[boomer223]

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...

[boomer223]

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]

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.

[ggammell]

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/a...13054187470911

[Rayrevolver]

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