VORTEX: Razor HD Gen II-E 1-6 v. Razor HD Gen III 1-10

[Wake27]

Tube diameter has virtually nothing to due with light transmission.

https://www.bushnell.com/through-the...in-optics.html

I'm anxiously awaiting my own Gen III Razor to go atop a Colt 901 for many of the points you listed above. Namely, the usability at 1x and the reticle subtensions remaining consistent across the higher magnification range.

Tube diameter would directly correspond to lens size wouldn’t it? Lens size is the first consideration on that list…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Disciple]

Not for the objective lens. Is the size of intermediate lenses as important?

[gunnerblue]

Tube diameter would directly correspond to lens size wouldn’t it? Lens size is the first consideration on that list…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not necessarily, no. At any rate, both the Gen 2 and 3 have the same size objective.

There's an excellent YouTube video by Ilya Koshkin (The Dark Lord of Optics from snipershide) detailing why LPVO's are made the way they are (specs like length, objective size, mag ratio, etc).

[Wake27]

Not necessarily, no. At any rate, both the Gen 2 and 3 have the same size objective.

There's an excellent YouTube video by Ilya Koshkin (The Dark Lord of Optics from snipershide) detailing why LPVO's are made the way they are (specs like length, objective size, mag ratio, etc).

Huh, you’re right. I really thought the lens was larger on the 1-10.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Disciple]

There's an excellent YouTube video by Ilya Koshkin (The Dark Lord of Optics from snipershide) detailing why LPVO's are made the way they are (specs like length, objective size, mag ratio, etc).

Would you link it, please?

[gunnerblue]

Would you link it, please?

Pretty sure this is it, the first video where he's talking about scopes in general.

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting...10x24.7027593/

[voiceofreason]

Neither of them is a bad choice.

What are your needs for magnification at what distance?

How much is $1k worth to you?

If it's worth very little, get the 1-10x.


If it's a significant amount of $$, then get the 1-6x and shoot $1k worth of ammo training, practicing, working with the 1-6x.

More practice with great equipment > less practice with top of the line equipment.

Your skills and practice will transfer over to any scope you use.

1-6x is already in the buy once/cry once category in terms of quality. Darn proven optic.


I've owned the older heavier 1-6x and the PST gen2. I haven't even held the 1-10x.

For my $, I'd find a good deal on the PST gen 2 at 1/2 the price and call it a day until you're using it for duty purposes overseas.

$1500 worth of ammo practicing with the PST gen 2 makes for a good chunk of progress in ability.



$500+tax...

https://www.eurooptic.com/Vortex-Vip...-PST-1607.aspx

[vicious_cb]

If all you do is gaming, sure, you can game the game and know what you’re going to shoot. I live in an area that has several miles of visibility on a normal day though and just completed a couple weeks of special reconnaissance training with many more miles of training area. 4x optics were terribly inadequate in PID and while unlikely for a civilian in CONUS, if you do have the financial ability, seems prudent to prepare for the unexpected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, I dont care what silky shirt shooters do. What I do know is that the Gen 3 is far better for glassing the landscape. More magnification allows you see better, not shoot better. I dont care if you can make hits with a 4x as well as a 6x but there is enough difference at max magnification between a 6x and a 10x to know if thats a cellphone or a pistol at that dudes side at 200m.

[ExplorinInTheWoods]

Tube diameter has virtually nothing to due with light transmission.

https://www.bushnell.com/through-the...in-optics.html

I'm anxiously awaiting my own Gen III Razor to go atop a Colt 901 for many of the points you listed above. Namely, the usability at 1x and the reticle subtensions remaining consistent across the higher magnification range.

I thought briefly about replacing my 1-8 accupower for the 1-10 razor on my 901. The 1-10 I think is like 2oz lighter and having a grid would let me dot more precise work at distance but then I remembered I rarely shoot it past 3-400 and I really don’t need to spend the money on the 1-10.

[gunnerblue]

It'll definitely be an experiment. I grew weary of reading reviews and comparing paper specs as to whether these optics perform better than a traditional scope (in my case a NXS 2.5-10x32) with piggyback red dot that I finally just spent the money to find out for myself