New Razor from Vortex Optics.

[42769vette]

Introducing the brand new Razor LHT. This is one of the scopes I've been after them for years to make, so I'm pretty pumped about it. This scope has everything you could want in a long range hunting scope. Alpha level glass, light weight, appropriate zoom range, locking elevation turret, and illumination. We are building a page for it now, so if this link doesn't work right away give it an hour or so.

https://aaoptics.com/Razor-HD-LHT_c_199.html

Or go

https://vortexoptics.com/riflescopes/razor-hd-lht.html

 

[sheepdog697]

Having really only shot long rang with FFP optics, could you explain where the SFP is better?

 

[42769vette]

Having really only shot long rang with FFP optics, could you explain where the SFP is better?

I can not, because I don't believe that to be true. I understand the theory behind that line of thinking (the reticle would be to small when shooting on 3x in Midwest thick country), but I just don't buy it. I believe this scope would be better (all though slightly more expensive) as a FFP. That said, in this type scope I do not feel its a deal breaker as its a hunting scope, not a long range target scope.

Most hunters prefer SFP, that is a fact. That said I think they prefer SFP because that is what they were using in the 80's and don't understand the benifit's behind FFP. I firmly believe this scope was made to appeal to the mass's of hunter's that THINK SFP is better because thats what they have always used.

 

[jrh84]

I'll give my two cents.

If I was shooting unknown distance, or PRS type matches, I'd be 100% for FFP. However, for known distance high-power rifle matches, I prefer SFP (as do about 99% of other HP competitors that I'm aware of). I want the reticle (which is what I'm intently focusing on, just like the front sight on a pistol) to look the same every time, regardless of magnification. I usually run at max magnification if I'm past 300 yards. Otherwise I can't see my number board and I risk a crossfire.

I almost always dial my wind correction, with the rare exception being if I'm in the middle of a rapid fire string and the wind lets off or picks up. In that case, I might favor one side of the X-ring. In that instance, I'm pointing the center of the reticle to the left or right of the X-ring, not some other reticle subtension at the center of the target. It takes too much time and effort for me to make sure I'm on the right hash mark and then line that up with the center.

I realize that this may only apply to shooting at known distances at black targets with white scoring rings that are clearly visible above 6-8X or so, even out to 1000 yards. Each scoring ring is a known MOA value away from the center, so THAT's what we use for holding vs. a mark on the reticle. If I was shooting unknown distances or at targets of unknown size, FFP would be the way to go. You'd typically have more time to worry about sorting your reticle out if not being under the gun for 10 rounds in 70 seconds with a mag change in the middle like we see in high power.

I do have a Viper HSLR 4-16 (that I bought from Alan) that I use some....but at 4X the reticle would be far too small to use in a brushy/low light hunting situation. An illuminated reticle would solve that issue for me.

 

[42769vette]

I'll give my two cents.

If I was shooting unknown distance, or PRS type matches, I'd be 100% for FFP. However, for known distance high-power rifle matches, I prefer SFP (as do about 99% of other HP competitors that I'm aware of). I want the reticle (which is what I'm intently focusing on, just like the front sight on a pistol) to look the same every time, regardless of magnification. I usually run at max magnification if I'm past 300 yards. Otherwise I can't see my number board and I risk a crossfire.

I almost always dial my wind correction, with the rare exception being if I'm in the middle of a rapid fire string and the wind lets off or picks up. In that case, I might favor one side of the X-ring. In that instance, I'm pointing the center of the reticle to the left or right of the X-ring, not some other reticle subtension at the center of the target. It takes too much time and effort for me to make sure I'm on the right hash mark and then line that up with the center.

I realize that this may only apply to shooting at known distances at black targets with white scoring rings that are clearly visible above 6-8X or so, even out to 1000 yards. Each scoring ring is a known MOA value away from the center, so THAT's what we use for holding vs. a mark on the reticle. If I was shooting unknown distances or at targets of unknown size, FFP would be the way to go. You'd typically have more time to worry about sorting your reticle out if not being under the gun for 10 rounds in 70 seconds with a mag change in the middle like we see in high power.

I do have a Viper HSLR 4-16 (that I bought from Alan) that I use some....but at 4X the reticle would be far too small to use in a brushy/low light hunting situation. An illuminated reticle would solve that issue for me.

All correct. This scope is a hunting scope above all else, hunting situations are much more like PRS than F-class (IE, not exact distances with markers at 1 MOA, 2 MOA, etc.). With the push button illumination, the reticle would be easily used at 3x in brushy situations on FFP.

 

[sheepdog697]

I can not, because I don't believe that to be true. I understand the theory behind that line of thinking (the reticle would be to small when shooting on 3x in Midwest thick country), but I just don't buy it. I believe this scope would be better (all though slightly more expensive) as a FFP. That said, in this type scope I do not feel its a deal breaker as its a hunting scope, not a long range target scope.

Most hunters prefer SFP, that is a fact. That said I think they prefer SFP because that is what they were using in the 80's and don't understand the benifit's behind FFP. I firmly believe this scope was made to appeal to the mass's of hunter's that THINK SFP is better because thats what they have always used.

Right on. Thanks for the response. I could also definitely see why people use them in F class.