Vortex Razor HD Light Weight Offering

[Rich Coyle]

When I compared my Nightforce 12-42X56 with my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 side by side looking at pine needles and twigs about 150 yards away I couldn't tell any difference. Then I purchased a Swarovski z5 5-25X52. At that time I made a line "chart" with about 1/4" lines and spaces. There is a world of difference in the lines and the twigs. Since the Nightforce glass is so much better I had to go over 500 yards before I had to move the magnification off 12X. At 521 yards the Swarovski was on 16 1/2X, the Bushnell was on 15 1/2X and the Nightforce was on 12 1/4X.

I returned the Swarovski for a refund and purchased another. It was not as good as the first and the same with the third one. The forth was about the same as the first one so I kept it because it is four ounces lighter than the Bushnell. I bought a Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 and discovered it was about the same as the Bushnell which made it barely better than the Swarovski. But it weighs more than the Bushnell so I sold it.

For low light testing I set some antlers in the woods about 131 yards away. When I could not longer distinguish them well enough to fire if they were attached to a deer I called the time. All though the Nightforce blew them all away for low light performance, the other three were about the same and very good.

 

[yawn]

I really need to figure out a way to compare directly and not be biased, but to have concrete evidence on the glass.

But then I look through the Swaro. I turned it down to 15x for similar comparison. It literally looks brighter than the setting sun dusk. And the needles are very crisp. I can count them on each bough. At 25 I can see texture on them. At dusk!!
Lindell

Really there is no concrete evidence on glass, its all just opinion. People often see things differently.
Yes the 52mm objective set on 15x will give a 30% gain in exit pupil over a 42mm obj so it will undoubtedly be brighter.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Really there is no concrete evidence on glass, its all just opinion. People often see things differently.
Yes the 52mm objective set on 15x will give a 30% gain in exit pupil over a 42mm obj so it will undoubtedly be brighter.

When everyone who looks through the optic comes up with the same opinion others can pretty much figure they will see the same thing if they get to look though the optics. Everyone except one person who looked through the Nightforce, Swarovski and Bushnell agreed with the order above in ability to resolve the lines. There were four individuals from may old man age to my adult grandson age and two others in between. It took about a second for my son-in-law to say, "This one is the best," referring to the Bushnell when the Nightforce was not included.

 

[yawn]

When everyone who looks through the optic comes up with the same opinion others can pretty much figure they will see the same thing if they get to look though the optics. Everyone except one person who looked through the Nightforce, Swarovski and Bushnell agreed with the order above in ability to resolve the lines. There were four individuals from may old man age to my adult grandson age and two others in between. It took about a second for my son-in-law to say, "This one is the best," referring to the Bushnell when the Nightforce was not included.

Thats 4 out of the tens of thousands that might use optics like these, barely even the beginning of a trend. Google will give you examples of Swaro glass being rated higher than NSX. Im one, I didnt keep the NXS and my 6500 was poor, it wasnt even close to my Z3 4-12. so it went as well. No wrong decision or opinion, just different.

I do find it takes a little time to adjust a scope to get the best out of it.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Thats 4 out of the tens of thousands that might use optics like these, barely even the beginning of a trend. Google will give you examples of Swaro glass being rated higher than NSX. Im one, I didnt keep the NXS and my 6500 was poor, it wasnt even close to my Z3 4-12. so it went as well. No wrong decision or opinion, just different.

I do find it takes a little time to adjust a scope to get the best out of it.

I purchased three 6500 4 1/2-30X and and three 2 1/2-16X. All three glass in all three of the 2 1/2-16X were not as the first and fourth Swarovskis. They are also gone.

 

[Pdvdh]

I've noticed a subtle difference in the quality of the sight picture between the three Sightron SIII 6-24x50mm scope I have also. One is just a little sharper and clearer than the other two. All three are nice enough. One just a tad above the other two.

The level of precision in the manufacture of the lenses or the alignment of lenses within the scope body must be "loose" enough that the end result is apparent to the human eye.

 

[Litehiker]

Vortex AMG (Advanced Manufacturing Group) makes ALL components including the glass. Thus the price being a bit higher.

Also the AMG scopes will have Vortex's new reticle/zoom lens holder that is larger, lighter and very different from other scope's traditional lens holders. So with the AMG 30 mm tube you get almost the same optics and range of adjustment as a 34 mm tube.

THIS line of scopes may challenge much more expensive scopes if Vortex can keep its tolerances very close. Quality of components looks to be world class.

I'm now thinking of this scope for my hunting rifle.

Eric B.

 

[Timber338]

...

 

[yawn]

I purchased three 6500 4 1/2-30X and and three 2 1/2-16X. All three glass in all three of the 2 1/2-16X were not as the first and fourth Swarovskis. They are also gone.

Yes I mentioned the unit to unit variances back in post 107. I have 2 March 2.5-25 one from back in 2008 whwich is very very good and a much latter one which is not quite as nice glass wise.

 

[yawn]

Guys
We have been discussing the Razor HD LH , not the AMG. The AMG looks very good though

 

[drkemmet]

Guys
We have been discussing the Razor HD LH , not the AMG. The AMG looks very good though

The last run of scopes mentioned talk only about glass. I believe vortex introduced the razor HD LH to compete in a certain class, and that is based on weight. On my rifle, I wanted glass that will not only be lightweight (I have a Cooper 92 in 6.5-284 weighing 5 lbs 12 oz) but since it is a long range cartridge (and a Cooper) I wanted long range glass. To fit that bill, very few scopes were available. Basically anything past the 18 oz range and certainly anything past 20 oz was out of the question. Why put a 30 oz NF on a sub 6 lb gun?

My opinion after seeing through the glass on both Swarovski and Razor HD LH (none others outside my other "expensive" scopes, which I compared them to only because I had them to compare to.

The posts earlier, (I forget by whom now and I'm too lazy to go back and check for a name) agree with my opinion perfectly. The Swarovski is a better scope. But the Razor HD LH is also a good scope for the money and for me will stay in my collection for a while. It is on a custom rem700 223 I use for thinning prairie dogs by the hundreds.

I appreciate everyone's opinions, but it seems as if there is a lot of bias out there and people surely love their favorites. Interesting thread and thank you.
Lindell

 

[drkemmet]

...I forgot to ask:

IS there any other scopes to compare to the Z3 and Z5 in terms of glass quality, weight, and eye box? I was hoping the HD LH was, but it really only is on paper. Close, but not the same.
Lindell

 

[WRO]

Thats 4 out of the tens of thousands that might use optics like these, barely even the beginning of a trend. Google will give you examples of Swaro glass being rated higher than NSX. Im one, I didnt keep the NXS and my 6500 was poor, it wasnt even close to my Z3 4-12. so it went as well. No wrong decision or opinion, just different.

I do find it takes a little time to adjust a scope to get the best out of it.

The OP in this situation wears Coke bottle glasses (seen his picture on 24 hour campfire) and has an Axe to grind, he post the same crap on every forum about how is bushnell is better glassed than the swaro.

I've never seen a piece of Bushnell glass that even holds up to good japanese glass, and none that is in the same category as the Europeans..

 

[Rich Coyle]

The OP in this situation wears Coke bottle glasses (seen his picture on 24 hour campfire) and has an Axe to grind, he post the same crap on every forum about how is bushnell is better glassed than the swaro.

I've never seen a piece of Bushnell glass that even holds up to good japanese glass, and none that is in the same category as the Europeans..

I'm not the original poster but I am sure calling BS on your post. I have compared lots of scopes side by side and know you lack experience in side by side comparisons. The Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 in side by side comparison beat the Swarovski every time. By the way my vision is 20/20 in one eye and slightly better than that in the other.