Vortex 1x10 experiences

[RadarLuv]

Now that the vortex 1x10s are out and being ran how are they? any buyers remorse? does the 10 power help the long range game?, is ffp all it's cracked up to be? Getting ready to make the jump from my 1x8 strike eagle just need to hear the opinions of some mortal men that have one.

[TonytheTiger]

I don't own one but I've spent a little time behind one. It's a great scope. Reticle is well designed to be fast and simple at 1x and very usable for holdovers at any power above 4x, something that I haven't seen another FFP LPVO do nearly as well. Dot is bright. Eyebox and eye relief is very flexible, similar to the Gen 2. 

All that said, I'm mostly shooting matches at 400yds or less, and the extra magnification doesn't really pay for itself. In fact, the owners of the two Gen 3's I've looked through also own Gen 2's and say the same thing, they'll stick with the 1-6x for typical 3 gun matches and put the 1-10x on 18" rifles geared towards natural terrain matches that are more common further southwest.

One other thing a Gen 3 owner told me was that you can focus it perfectly for 1x or 10x, not both. You can find a middle ground though. To be fair his focus looked to me like I was in a fishbowl, so maybe he just has unusual eyes.

[RadarLuv]

That's interesting they would still use a 1x6 over 1x10 I wonder if it's because they feel more comfortable on the 1x6 because they are used to it or 1x10 just not that much better

Edited June 23, 2020 by RadarLuv

[EaZeNuTZ33]

I was lucky enough to be one of the first people to get hands on the 1-10x Razor.

 

Value between the 1-6x (Gen2) and the 1-10x (Gen3) is going to be perceived and based upon where you typically shoot. If all you shoot is bays, you’ll be hard pressed to see a big advantage of one over the other.... I did not say the 1-10X over the 1-6x, that goes both ways for shorter ranges. The illumination in both is daylight bright, plus some, and shooting the 1-10x on 1x has the reticle shrink to a minimal aspect where you’re effectively shooting it like a red dot. The 1-6x at 1x has heavier reticle lines that do not shrink or disappear, so the advantage there would be if your battery died or you didn’t like shooting with illumination.

 

Inside of 300 yards, you won’t notice a massive difference between the two, depending upon target size. With typical 4moa targets with either scope, you aren’t going to max the magnification. If the target is smaller than 4 moa or harder to see, you’ll be maxing the 1-6x out to use the reticle accurately, but you can shoot the 1-10x on anything from 3x to 10x with an accurate reticle.

 

Past 400 yards, the 1-10x and FFP reticle start to shine more. You don’t have to max the magnification out, but you can zoom in/out before the stage to set a magnification where you’re zoomed in on the targets but still keeping the next target within your field of view so you don’t have to prairie dog off the scope to find the next target.

 

Missouri 3-Gun this year was a good initial test for the 1-10x and I found myself at a little under 4x on one stage that went to 400 yards, around 7-8x on the stage that went to 600 yards, around 6x on another stage with 450ish yards, and lastly running 1x on a hoser paper on other stages. 
F The Rona match at USSA was a different test for it, as the furthest shot was 50 yards in a bay match that was reminiscent of the old pro series stages. I ran 1x for 80% of the match and 1.5-2.5x for some offhand shots, which effectively made the 1-10x’s bright center dot illumination more like a magnified red dot for those off hand shots.

 

 

As someone who has SIX Razor 1-6x scopes and ONE Razor 1-10x scope......my opinion is this:

If I had to choose ONE scope that would go on every centerfire rifle I own, from .223 to 6.5, it would be the Razor 1-10x! For bay matches, I believe it’s an improvement and is closer to shooting a red dot or magnified red dot on low power. For natural terrain matches, the extra magnification comes in handy, but I have yet to use over 8-9x in a match setting. I’ve used 10x in practice and when zeroing my rifle, but could see using 10x at a match like Fallen Brethren was.

 

I’ve put my request in to buy another Razor 1-10x

[RadarLuv]

Thanks EaZeNuTZ33 that is the kind of honest opinion I was looking for.

[mpeltier]

Does the dot get bigger and smaller when magnification changes or does it stay the same size?

[TonytheTiger]

47 minutes ago, mpeltier said:

Does the dot get bigger and smaller when magnification changes or does it stay the same size?

Its FFP, so it changes size relative to your eyes but stays the same relative to the target. Its designed well enough to look like a dot at 1x but its actually an unobtrusive semi transparent segmented circle dot as you turn it up.

[EaZeNuTZ33]

1 hour ago, TonytheTiger said:

Its FFP, so it changes size relative to your eyes but stays the same relative to the target. Its designed well enough to look like a dot at 1x but its actually an unobtrusive semi transparent segmented circle dot as you turn it up.

Tony is spot on!

 

I actually found it relatively easy to zero the optic, as my aiming point at 50 yards could be seen through the center dot and aligning it in the center was easy. 

[mpeltier]

Thanks guys, that's what I thought. I really wish they would make a second focal plane version. Guess I will just stick to my 1-6 for now.

[TonytheTiger]

4 hours ago, mpeltier said:

Thanks guys, that's what I thought. I really wish they would make a second focal plane version. Guess I will just stick to my 1-6 for now.

Definitely check it out before you pass judgement. Its very intuitive, and while I have yet to see a FFP 4x or 6x scope I liked, in 10x it's really the better option. Reason being is that the BDC is typically calibrated for maximum magnification. In a 4x or 6x by the time you need the BDC for holdovers you're usually at max mag. already so it works out. In a 10x scope you may very well decide you'd like to use 5x for an array at 350yds and 8x for the 550yd target. In a SFP scope your BDC is next to worthless in that situation while a FFP's holdovers remain the same regardless of magnification setting.

[GorillaTactical]

We did a review on the Razor (I tagged it here with a time stamp to show 6x vs 10x):

 

 

 

[mpeltier]

3 hours ago, TonytheTiger said:

Definitely check it out before you pass judgement. Its very intuitive, and while I have yet to see a FFP 4x or 6x scope I liked, in 10x it's really the better option. Reason being is that the BDC is typically calibrated for maximum magnification. In a 4x or 6x by the time you need the BDC for holdovers you're usually at max mag. already so it works out. In a 10x scope you may very well decide you'd like to use 5x for an array at 350yds and 8x for the 550yd target. In a SFP scope your BDC is next to worthless in that situation while a FFP's holdovers remain the same regardless of magnification setting.

 

Thanks for the input. Im one of those anomalies who does not like or use any BDC (even though the EBR9 is really an MRAD for ranging). Out to as far as we go in 3-gun, I prefer a different method that has been faster and more foolproof for me. The FFP reticle I have used, I can not even see anything useful until it gets to about 6X anyway. I won't be spending that kind of money just to prove to myself what I already know. I was just hoping the illuminated dot might have somehow been a separate dot, even though Im not sure a FFP scope could be made that way. This Razor 1-10 does look to me to be about the best designed FFP scope to date, just not for me. I really wish they would make a SFP version with a super simple reticle. I would even opt for a JM-1 reticle.

 

Thanks for posting that video Josh.

Edited June 26, 2020 by mpeltier

[TonytheTiger]

9 hours ago, mpeltier said:

 

 Out to as far as we go in 3-gun, I prefer a different method that has been faster and more foolproof for me. 

 

I was just hoping the illuminated dot might have somehow been a separate dot, even though Im not sure a FFP scope could be made that way.

Well now I'm kinda curious what your method is.

 

And Burris has done some stuff with dual focal plane reticles.

[mpeltier]

15 hours ago, TonytheTiger said:

Well now I'm kinda curious what your method is.

 

And Burris has done some stuff with dual focal plane reticles.

Not a fan of Burris. Been thru a few of them. 

 

My method is mostly in the pre stage planning. And range work at home. Which has proven the capabilities and accuracy of my scopes elevation turret. I know it matches my ballistic table in my phone (BulletflightM). Prior to shooting a stage I draw a roadmap of sorts that has the target distances and size noted and using my ballistic calculator find the optimum zero setting for the least amount of variation between closest and farthest targets. My goal is identifying a zero with no more than +8" to -8" bullet drop or rise. Most stages fall into that maximum, but occasionally I find one that is a little more. Thats ok as It just means I hold over or under slightly more. Knowing the target size makes it very easy to guesstimate this as it tells you its size. So if its a 10" plate, and your hold over/under is 10" its very easy to estimate 5" over a 10" plate for a center hit. For me this is much faster than trying to see, and remember witch stadia line is correct and its really doing the same thing , except often times your holding way over the target. or the stadia doesn't match the distance exactly and your guesstimating hold over/under anyway.

 

So what that looks like for instance. Lets say a stage has distant targets at 160 to 410 yds. checking my table with my standard 200yd zero I have a bullet drop of -25" @410 yds. Too much. So changing my zero in the table (by 25-50yd increments) I find that a 350yd zero has me exactly 8" high at 160 and 8" low at 410. My 200yd zero chart also told me it is 16 clicks to adjust to a 350 yd zero. Now I write on my roadmap each actual hold over/under on each target to see how much at each distance I need to adjust my aim. Also noted is how many clicks to adjust Before I walk up to the line for load and make ready. Most of the time this means on the close target I hold at the bottom and the far I hold at the top, for the rest dead on.

 

It sounds like a lot of work. It really isn't. Visually and on the clock, for me it has proven much faster than trying to get a bdc reticle to work.

Edited June 27, 2020 by mpeltier

[TonytheTiger]

@mpeltier I know some limited guys that use that method. Makes my head hurt a little but if it works it works..

[kurtm]

Well I'm a limited guy and that made my head hurt too! 300 yard zero with iron sights and just aim at the top of at the card from 400 on out. Oh sorry, I forgot we were talking about Intense magnification....carry on!

[mpeltier]

12 hours ago, TonytheTiger said:

@mpeltier I know some limited guys that use that method. Makes my head hurt a little but if it works it works..

 

Im assuming you use a BDC reticle and use the hash marks for distant shots. How do you prove and determine the value for each when the range of the targets don't match the hash marks? What do you do?

[kurtm]

Hold hard and favor the center

[outerlimits]

3 hours ago, mpeltier said:

 

Im assuming you use a BDC reticle and use the hash marks for distant shots. How do you prove and determine the value for each when the range of the targets don't match the hash marks? What do you do?

Change the zero

[MustangMan]

17 hours ago, TonytheTiger said:

@mpeltier I know some limited guys that use that method. Makes my head hurt a little but if it works it works..

 

I'm a pimited shooter and that is what I do. I use Strelok and dial so that I'm top edge of the furthest and the memorize my holds formal of the targets. If there is an extreme distance variation, yesterday we had targets ranging from 230-620, so I shot the first 4 and then dialed on the clock for the 2 furthest.

 

 

[TonytheTiger]

12 hours ago, mpeltier said:

 

Im assuming you use a BDC reticle and use the hash marks for distant shots. How do you prove and determine the value for each when the range of the targets don't match the hash marks? What do you do?

For starters I zero at a range that gets the BDC close. Then I verify every 50 yards out to 500 ish. And my reticle has hash marks in 50 yard increments, so I'm on a hash no matter the target distance.

[mrd]

 

18 hours ago, mpeltier said:

 

Im assuming you use a BDC reticle and use the hash marks for distant shots. How do you prove and determine the value for each when the range of the targets don't match the hash marks? What do you do?

 

I round off or hold between the hash marks. For A-zones inside 400 yards that is close enough for me, but I like to keep it simple. I'd dial if I was shooting golf balls or +400 yards.

 

I played around with the MRAD reticle and Strelok+. For my rifle and ammo, I think I would use a 65 meter zero with this reticle. Then it would shoot about two inches low from 5 to 15 meters and at most 0,6" high out to 150. Really no need to compensate from 40 to ~180 meters. Hold for A-mark/shoulder on target for 200 (where it shoots 1.8" low,) use start of lower hash cross for 250. Then 300, 400, 500, 550, 600, 650, 700 meters line up quite close with the full hash marks, the half hash marks are usable for the distances in between. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by mrd