Nightforce vs Vortex Razor

[spdrman]

Wondering if any one has done any side by side comparison of these scopes, really like my NF but would like to give a FFP reticle a try

 

[Broz]

I have. I still shoot NF. But I am a MOA shooter too and do not warm up to a mil scope easily. As far as the FFP I don't need it and even after trying more than a few of them I still laugh when I look through one. You know how the FFP guys talk about the importance of the reticle being equally calibrated on ANY power? Well they fail to mention that on many of the FFP's when you go below 10X the reticle is so small you can not even see the sub-tension lines. Yeah that is a great advantage right there. And if you want to shoot ELR count on the FFP reticle at max power covering up a small aim point. Do yourself a favor and go to a long distance range and compare before yo buy to see if this will work for you.

Just my personal experience and what works for me from 50 yards to 3000.

Jeff

 

[sneek-ee]

Just my personal experience and what works for me from 50 yards to 3000.

Jeff

3000 yards? Wow! What setup are you running to shoot at that distance?
That would be cool to see you shoot that far..

 

[Broz]

3000 yards? Wow! What setup are you running to shoot at that distance?
That would be cool to see you shoot that far..

I have the first LRKM built in 338 Terminator +P. Using a 65 moa rail and the NF ATACR I can dial for a dead center hold to 3000 yards. I have about 125 moa of elevation dial and recently shot a group at 2971 yards holding 1 moa accuracy and was dialed at 119 minutes up. The Terminator in a 32" tube sends 300 gr Bergers at 3200 fps.

Jeff

 

[spdrman]

Your a lot better shooter than I'll probably ever be! I thought I was doing good when I started shooting 1400 this summer, not even half way too where you are LoL ... I've had 2 lower end FFP scopes that I wasn't a big fan of one was a 4-16 on my coyote rifle and on 4x the reticle pretty much disappeared! I don't know anyone local that has a Razor to look through wish I did, I prefer MOA as well and will be getting one with the MOA turrets and reticle. My plan was order a Razor do a side by side comparison and sell whichever I didn't like, Vortex said the one I wanted was 5-6 months back ordered but Vortex called yesterday said it showed up and my wife says one has too go ...

 

[Broz]

You should draw your own conclusions as you are the one that will be using it. Is your Razor in moa?

If the wait is that long you may be able to sell the razor and recap funds. But the NF will be an easy sell as they sell used very well.

If you now have both I would go out someplace where you can compare at distance on small targets or up closer on low powers and see which pleases you most. In the end you need to have what will complement your shooting style most. I just wanted to bring up where I see FFP's falling short for my needs. So you don't run into this later and have it be a surprise.

Let us know what you think after you compare. I would like to hear your opinions.

Jeff

 

[KMD]

I have. I still shoot NF. But I am a MOA shooter too and do not warm up to a mil scope easily. As far as the FFP I don't need it and even after trying more than a few of them I still laugh when I look through one.

You know how the FFP guys talk about the importance of the reticle being equally calibrated on ANY power? Well they fail to mention that on many of the FFP's when you go below 10X the reticle is so small you can not even see the sub-tension lines. Yeah that is a great advantage right there.

Common sense would tell you that, in real world shooting, reticle subtensions aren't necessary on close in shots, or those requiring lower power setting. Look at a Gen II mildot on low power, it mimicks a standard duplex with thick outer posts that center your eye for fast shooting.

Ask yourself this... is 4wd capacity in a vehicle any less advantageous if you only used when needed??? Of course not. However, when conditions dictate, the ability is right there to use. Same goes for a FFP reticle. The subtensions are is there to be used at any power, without fear of blowing a wind hold due to the mag not being set on "ranging power" that a SFP scope mandates. Better to have and not need, than to need and not have, IMHO...

And if you want to shoot ELR count on the FFP reticle at max power covering up a small aim point. Do yourself a favor and go to a long distance range and compare before yo buy to see if this will work for you.

Don't shoot ELR, only to about 1400yds, but an appropriate FFP reticle (like a Gen IIXR) @ 25x is PLENTY useable at that range.
Again, look at how things are in the real world of ELR. Are you shooting at Dinty Moore stew cans @ 3000yds, or barn door sized steel? What is the average size of your 3000 yd targets?
I can tell ya an 18x24" plate is perfectly visible @ 1400yds behind a FFP Gen IIXR @ 25x. And excellent LR shooter would be THRILLED to holda consistent 2moa group @ 1400yds in the real world, which translates into almost 29" of shot to shot dispersion. So, unless your skills are consistently well above world class average, a FFP reticle will NEVER be the limiting factor in the equation. Shooter skill, load stability, and atmospheric conditions will wreck your ELR shooting day quicker than a FFP reticle will.

Also, the notion that FFPs cover 'more' of the target at distance is a crock, anyway. By design, they cover THE SAME amount of the target throughout their power range.

Just my personal experience and what works for me from 50 yards to 3000.

Jeff

I respect that opinion, but respectfully disagree. A FFP is infinitley more useable for the average shooter to employ. As is, mrad. But if a shooter were to belly up to lob VLDs at known distance ELR ranges, then a SFP cranked to max (ranging power) will work just fine. Different strokes, different folks...

 

[Sam Millard]

I respect that opinion, but respectfully disagree. A FFP is infinitley more useable for the average shooter to employ. As is, mrad. But if a shooter were to belly up to lob VLDs at known distance ELR ranges, then a SFP cranked to max (ranging power) will work just fine. Different strokes, different folks...

How exactly are they more "infinitely more useable" for the average shooter to employ? We don't belly up to any known distance ranges and "lob" bullets. The most useful feature of a FFP scope is the ability to use the sub-tensions at any power to range an object, but in the real world of long range hunting, we use LRFs, kestrels, and ballistic computers. I would like to hear from someone who actually uses a mildot FFP scope for ranging a bear, elk, deer, etc. at 800-1500 yards, and then makes a clean kill that way...

Don't shoot ELR, only to about 1400yds, but an appropriate FFP reticle (like a Gen IIXR) @ 25x is PLENTY useable at that range.
Again, look at how things are in the real world of ELR. Are you shooting at Dinty Moore stew cans @ 3000yds, or barn door sized steel? What is the average size of your 3000 yd targets?
I can tell ya an 18x24" plate is perfectly visible @ 1400yds behind a FFP Gen IIXR @ 25x. And excellent LR shooter would be THRILLED to holda consistent 2moa group @ 1400yds in the real world, which translates into almost 29" of shot to shot dispersion. So, unless your skills are consistently well above world class average, a FFP reticle will NEVER be the limiting factor in the equation. Shooter skill, load stability, and atmospheric conditions will wreck your ELR shooting day quicker than a FFP reticle will.

I agree on the reticle not holding you back, but 2MOA at 1400 yards is not even close to acceptable as far as we are concerned for ELR hunting. The rifles with SFP Nightforce scopes, sporting NPR1 reticles, driven by experienced real world shooters, easily hold 1 MOA or better at that distance...under field conditions.

 

[spdrman]

Vortex Razor Should be here any day now, I'm excited to give it a try

 

[Matt Cashell]

I have used the NXS and Gen 1 Razor quite a bit, but not side by side. I haven't used the NF BEAST.

I liked the glass and reticles in the Razor a bit better.

Nightforce has set the standard for durability and reliability for years.

Both are fantastic scopes, IMO.

On FFP and SFP, both styles have their die hard fans. I can get along with either, but still prefer SFP for general use. I have never found it to be too much trouble to set the scope to the calibrated magnification setting. I see how some guys like FFP though, especially when you want to use your reticle for a hold in dim conditions.

 

[Ryan Avery]

FFP scopes are worthless to me in the timber on there lower settings!

KMD, I am far from a World Class Shooter. But 2 MOA is not hard to obtain at 1400 yards. I can usually stay under a minute pretty easy.

 

[Whisky]

How exactly are they more "infinitely more useable" for the average shooter to employ? We don't belly up to any known distance ranges and "lob" bullets. The most useful feature of a FFP scope is the ability to use the sub-tensions at any power to range an object, but in the real world of long range hunting, we use LRFs, kestrels, and ballistic computers.

And turrets.

I don't know about you guys, but if given the choice (and generally you are) I would dial in my corrections any day over holding off.

I like SFP scopes for longer range stuff.

Now, where I, me personally, could see some practical advantages of a FFP over a SFP would in the shorter shots. The quicker shots, where holding over is more ideal. The shots where the target is changing distances quite rapidly.......Ie coyote hunting.

 

[Broz]

I wont even comment on the 2 moa target at 1400 yards. I do shoot at 1 moa targets past a mile though. Have you heard the phrase "aim small miss small" I use very fine aim points on what ever I shoot. I never shoot at an elk. I shoot a very small spot on the elk. At ELR if you are just slinging "VLD's" as you insinuated you do the FFP will be fine for you. Go for it. But try to bracket shots on a target past a mile, 2000, 2500??? you will get the results you speak of and the reason for the need of your huge targets.

You are correct that the FFP reticle stays the same size in relation to the target through the magnification range. Thus the reason it is so tiny and impossible to see on low power and is useless. Oh by the way, it is a common use of the reticle on low power to use for quicker hold over in competition, or on game ready to flee up close, so you do need to see it on lower power settings. Guess you never thought of that. So my friend, this is indeed real world useage. Just like when in the middle of the day when that Bull elk I saw on the edge of the timber beds in where it is cool and dark, and I go in after him. If I turn down the FFP to lower power it is so small I will not be able to see it. Been there!!! So now I will expect you to come up with the proper FFP fan boy quote " turn on the illuminated reticle" Yeah, that glaring blurry thing is just what I want when trying to aim small on a bedded elk between tree limbs. If you disagree it only shows your lack of real world hunting experience with the scopes you favor.

Yet in reality the SFP reticle stays the same size in moa thickness, but the target grown in size, as magnification is increased, making the reticle appear smaller and covering less area on a larger appearing target. Sounds like the better option to me. This is a huge advantage in aiming small without looking at the target behind a fence post sized reticle. That is no exaggeration. many FFP reticles cover 5" or more on a ELR shot. It's a fact.

The fact is the FFP's are just backwards to what a true hunter needs. The too small to use reticle on low power and too large reticle on max power. "Common sense" to use your own words, would be a reticle that grew in visibility on low power for quick a acquisition in dark areas, or in close, where time is not a luxury, but yet a thin reticle on max power for fine aim points at long range where every inch is very important. The FFP is opposite of this, reticle appearing small on low power and appearing large reticle on high power. The SFP is way closer to what we need for long range hunting and ELR work. But go ahead, use the FFP until it bights you. Then remember what I offered here from real experience in both long range hunting and ELR target shooting. This is the Long range forum correct?

And for the record. We took 8 Bull elk this season plus over a dozen cows. At all distances all the bulls and a good portion on the cows were taken with my rigs while I dialed in for the hunter. My knives get washed daily, freezer is full. Yours?

Love
Broz

 

[Broz]

And excellent LR shooter would be THRILLED to holda consistent 2moa group @ 1400yds in the real world, which translates into almost 29" of shot to shot dispersion..

This is a typo correct? You can not be serious.

Jeff

 

[spdrman]

I wont even comment on the 2 moa target at 1400 yards. I do shoot at 1 moa targets past a mile though. Have you heard the phrase "aim small miss small" I use very fine aim points on what ever I shoot. I never shoot at an elk. I shoot a very small spot on the elk. At ELR if you are just slinging "VLD's" as you insinuated you do the FFP will be fine for you. Go for it. But try to bracket shots on a target past a mile, 2000, 2500??? you will get the results you speak of and the reason for the need of your huge targets.

You are correct that the FFP reticle stays the same size in relation to the target through the magnification range. Thus the reason it is so tiny and impossible to see on low power and is useless. Oh by the way, it is a common use of the reticle on low power to use for quicker hold over in competition, or on game ready to flee up close, so you do need to see it on lower power settings. Guess you never thought of that. So my friend, this is indeed real world useage. Just like when in the middle of the day when that Bull elk I saw on the edge of the timber beds in where it is cool and dark, and I go in after him. If I turn down the FFP to lower power it is so small I will not be able to see it. Been there!!! So now I will expect you to come up with the proper FFP fan boy quote " turn on the illuminated reticle" Yeah, that glaring blurry thing is just what I want when trying to aim small on a bedded elk between tree limbs. If you disagree it only shows your lack of real world hunting experience with the scopes you favor.

Yet in reality the SFP reticle stays the same size in moa thickness, but the target grown in size, as magnification is increased, making the reticle appear smaller and covering less area on a larger appearing target. Sounds like the better option to me. This is a huge advantage in aiming small without looking at the target behind a fence post sized reticle. That is no exaggeration. many FFP reticles cover 5" or more on a ELR shot. It's a fact.

The fact is the FFP's are just backwards to what a true hunter needs. The too small to use reticle on low power and too large reticle on max power. "Common sense" to use your own words, would be a reticle that grew in visibility on low power for quick a acquisition in dark areas, or in close, where time is not a luxury, but yet a thin reticle on max power for fine aim points at long range where every inch is very important. The FFP is opposite of this, reticle appearing small on low power and appearing large reticle on high power. The SFP is way closer to what we need for long range hunting and ELR work. But go ahead, use the FFP until it bights you. Then remember what I offered here from real experience in both long range hunting and ELR target shooting. This is the Long range forum correct?

And for the record. We took 8 Bull elk this season plus over a dozen cows. At all distances all the bulls and a good portion on the cows were taken with my rigs while I dialed in for the hunter. My knives get washed daily, freezer is full. Yours?

Love
Broz

Hope this wasn't all directed at me I can shoot well under sub moa at 1400 yards (pending wind conditions)

The one and only thing that interest me about FFP reticles is to be able to use it for windage hold at any power range. I shoot hundreds of rounds a year preparing to take a long shot but that doesn't always happen like this year when I shot my buck at 70-80 yards

 

[Broz]

Hope this wasn't all directed at me I can shoot well under sub moa at 1400 yards (pending wind conditions)

The one and only thing that interest me about FFP reticles is to be able to use it for windage hold at any power range. I shoot hundreds of rounds a year preparing to take a long shot but that doesn't always happen like this year when I shot my buck at 70-80 yards

No Sir, it was not directed at you. It was in reply to the post quoting and directed to me.

That's fine just observe the reticle on lower powers and see if you feel it is large enough to see properly, and make a good hold off. For me It is just as easy to reduce power to 1/2 magnification and double the reticle calibration on my SFP. So instead of the lines being 1 moa they are 2 moa. Its that easy. The big plus is the reticle looks the same and and I get quick accurate acquisition on any power. I also just hate a reticle that shrinks to only be a little cross in a huge field of view. I like them to be full sized on all power settings. But again, have a look for yourself and see what you think. No one knows your needs better than you yourself.

Jeff

 

[spdrman]

I'm going to give it a try spring bear season ... if I dont totally love it there will be a nightforce back on it for fall, speaking of nightforce local gun shop just told me about a new one coming out if all the specs are what they say I'll definitely be getting one

 

[Broz]

The SHV for just over a grand? 100 MOA and capped turrets. 4.5 ~14x56

I am still waiting to see what the turrets look like under the cap. With 100 MOA of elevation it surely is designed to be dialed in.

They are releasing a new thinner version of the MOAR reticle too. I am thinking there must be more shooter than than just me that prefers a fine aim point.

Jeff

 

[KMD]

FFP scopes are worthless to me in the timber on there lower settings!

KMD, I am far from a World Class Shooter. But 2 MOA is not hard to obtain at 1400 yards. I can usually stay under a minute pretty easy.

You're saying that you can consistently make a first shot wind call at an unfamiliar location within 7.5" either side of the center of a target @ 1400 yds from an improvised field position?
That is the skill level it would take to hold a 1moa group at that distance, and I'd consider that extremely difficult with a basic LR hunting rig. 2moa is likely more the 'average' for group size at that distance, hence my statement above.
Go over to a site like Snipers Hide and post up in the ELR forum that you can easily hold 1moa @ 1400 and you'll get your head handed to ya by shooters who've been there and done that.
We all like to remember our best groups at distance when the stars align and wind cooperate. But changing conditions make holding a consistent group exponentially more difficult with increasing range. And group size suffers exponentially, as a result.

Doping elevation is EASY with a proven load and DA reading, the wind is what eats a shooter's lunch at distance. It takes a serious amount of voodoo skill to read wind to that precision at that distance. Not saying that it's not possible, but it is a heckuva lot harder that you guys are making it seem. Again, that why I gave a conservative estimate above.

Also, research the aggregate group sizes of F-class shooters and you'll see that world class shooters have a heckuva time keeping under moa with the finest shooting equipment on this planet. Look it up...

My point above was, that a FFP scope is not a limiting factor when shooting long range.

 

[KMD]

Broz, are you stalking elk in the timber with 3000yd capable ELR rig?
It's all about using the right tool for the task at hand. If you can't see your FFP reticle enough to use it, you messed up and picked the wrong one for the job...