Trijicon AccuPower vs Vortex Razor

Vortex razor 1-6 or Trijicon AccuPower 1-8

  • vortex

    Votes: 11 64.7%
  • Trijicon

    Votes: 4 23.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • Total voters
    17
I’m looking into jumping into the LPVO world. I just bought the Geissele 14.5 urgi on sale and am now looking at optics. My top two choices are the Vortex gen 2 e 1-6 and Trijicon AccuPower 1-8. I’ve made a pros and cons list based off objective data I could look up. I could use input on things like eye relieve, glass clarity, brightness, etc from people with experience behind the scopes.

Vortex- pros
More clone correct.(not a huge deal but kinda nice)
Battery life 150 hours vs 31 hours
Weight 21 oz vs 25 oz
Cons
More expensive than Trijicon ($1400 vs $1050)
Less magnification

I don’t know how much FFP vs SFP matters in LPVOs. It seems reticle design matters more. The vortex BDC reticle looks well matched to a SFP and Trijicons reticle looks well suited to a FFP. So having never used either, that’s pretty much a wash.

I should add that the rifle will primarily be used in classes, and as one more home defense rifle. The longest range a have access to is 600 meters, but 95% of my shooting will be inside of 100.

What does the P&S community have to say?
 

user12358

Regular Member
I currently own both optics and have a Vortex Razor Gen 2-E 1-6 VMR-2 (MRAD) in a Geissele 2.04 on my 14.5 URG-I. I would 100% recommend the Razor over the Accupower. Side note, get rail covers for your URG-I because that rail heats up like nobody's business.

As far as your objective pro and con list I can't find anything that you don't have straight. For the other things you asked about, I never really noticed any difference as far as eye relief between the two scope but from there on the Razor is just simply better glass wise. The eye box is far more generous and the tube really starts to disappear while having a bright and crisp picture that isn't far behind scopes costing north of $2k while the Trijicon has a much darker picture and a slight haze.

The SFP reticle is far more well thought out and is a true daylight bright versus the easily washed out Trijicon outer circle which still somehow manages to bleed out into other parts of the reticle like the elevation numbers. (For note, both of my Accupowers have been the Red/Mil variant and I have no time on the green scope.) The Razor has a simple but quite bright center dot with lightly marked crosshairs that give you just enough information to make good enough shots out to distance and play the wind a little (although the JM-1 reticle has no windage hashes if I remember correctly) while staying out of the way the rest of the time. The Accupower on the other hand has a broken donut of death at 1x which works well enough although I am not really a fan of my 7 yard hold over being in between two broken quarters of a circle. The center cross is large enough to be used as 1.5 MOA center dot at 1x just like an EOTech. The problem comes when you up the magnification and and you have .2 mil thick center cross hairs which is fine 2 MOA or bigger targets targets out to 600 but certainly doesn't give you the precision people seem to be looking for when the extol the virtues of FFP reticles in LPVOs and have exposed turrets. You also get the large ring in the optic view for the entire zoom range which isn't the end of the world but is certainly annoying when trying to observe something.

A quick little side note on FFP vs SFP for LPVOs, and with the full disclosure that I only use FFP full power scopes on my long range rigs and have seen the light a long time ago. With a 200 yard zero you only need to start worrying about drop past 250-300, up until that point you are just putting the dot on what you want to hit and punching tickets so your reticle doesn't really matter at all. Once I get past 300 I'm always at 6x or 8x to make good PID on what I am going to be shooting at so my reticle is going to be accurate at distance regardless of the focal plane the reticle lies upon. Once, we get into 10x and greater LPVOs I think this will start to shift to where we will be actually starting to run on a mid power like is done with 5-25 scopes usually being in the 12-15 range even for distance work. This means that the advantage of FFP is less important on the LPVOs but it forces a far more compromised reticle design because of the way that it has to scale from a usable 1x up which full power scopes do not have to worry about.

In my opinion, 1x performance is the most crucial aspect of an LPVO because it will spend the vast majority of its time at 1x and the Razor is hands down the champion there. The Trijicon is by no means an awful optic but it feels like a Beta version of the ATACR and doesn't bring anything to the table that the Razor doesn't for a 5.56 carbine while falling behind in critical areas.
 
Thank for the detailed response. Do you have any experience with the Nightforce NX8. It originally wasn’t on the list because it’s $200 over budget. Recently a friend told me that it’s the greatest thing ever under 2k. How does the MX8 compare to the vortex?
 

BooneGA

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
WARLORD
Thank for the detailed response. Do you have any experience with the Nightforce NX8. It originally wasn’t on the list because it’s $200 over budget. Recently a friend told me that it’s the greatest thing ever under 2k. How does the MX8 compare to the vortex?

I own both. They are not competitors and exist in a different market space in my experience. One is a long range capable scope that can do work up close if required (NX8) and the other is a highly capable short range optic that has the option for additional magnification for occasional use at range (Razor).

Rick
 

user12358

Regular Member
Thank for the detailed response. Do you have any experience with the Nightforce NX8. It originally wasn’t on the list because it’s $200 over budget. Recently a friend told me that it’s the greatest thing ever under 2k. How does the MX8 compare to the vortex?

I agree with everything that Rick said but I will add a little bit I case anyone wants to know why we think what we do about these optics instead of just what we think about them. I am going to pick up the NX8 soon and have less than a thousand rounds on one so take everything with a grain of salt. In my experience with the NX8 I found it to have the glass clarity and brightness that you would expect from a Nightforce but it definitely had a less generous eye box than a Razor or K16i/Z8i and a smaller FOV. As stated earlier it "is a long range capable scope that can do work up close" and benefits from the 8x magnification range and the FFP reticle which is truly daylight bright. They also got the weight right at 17 oz and the length is 2 to 3 inches shorter than everything else. This shorter lengths can be very beneficial when trying to run a clip on device in front of the optic on a shorter barreled/railed gun.

Right now we just lump all of these optics into the same category of LPVO but I believe we are going to see a strong divergence here shortly where we will still have the 6 power SFP FOV and eyebox monsters like the Kahles K16i and then a separate category that will be more along the lines of the ATACR 1-8 but in the 10x or 12x range that aren't as forgiving up close but have simplified H59/Tremor type reticles in the first focal plane for reaching out to distance. The SFP category, in my opinion, should have capped turrets and the FFP should be a locking elevation turret and capped windage turret.

As far as use cases I would run the SFP category on a 12.5" or 14.5" 5.56 carbine while the FFP category would go on things like a 16" 6.5 Creedmoor which with proper ammunition development won't hit 1350 FPS (beginning of transonic effects at STP) until 1100 to 1200 yards. This is slightly off topic but I always learned better when I knew the why instead of just the what so hopefully my rambling helps somebody when trying to find the right optic for them.
 
Thanks for th insight. The nx8 is very attractive because of the weight. But I really need to most Aimpoint like 1x performance I can get and magnification is a bonus. It doesn’t really matter if it’s 4x 6x or 8x. Obviously more magnification is better as long as I’m not sacrificing 1x performance. The next most important thing to me is weight, then illumination and battery life. I have almost zero experience with LPVOs, hence why I’m asking questions on the inter webs. I pretty much wrote them off due to weight, cost, and that fact that I rarely shoot anything farther than 200 yards. But recently my interest has been peaked again.
 

Oak City Tactics

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
I found three rifles at work this week sporting Trijicon Accupoints. The 1-4x flavors were all clear and pretty damn close to 1x. The 1-6x however had distinct distortion. It exhibited the fisheye effect and I certainly was surprised by it. Has anyone else experienced this?
 

Wake27

Regular Member
I didn’t look too much at any scopes that were more expensive than the Razor because that was at the top end of my budget, but the bottom line that I pulled from all of my research was that aside from maybe the Khales, the Razor owns 1x better than any other LPVO, which is exactly what I wanted. Plus it looks damn good on the URGI.

cd2db9cfc8c483def654192a4f1571f5.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Nate Osborne

NateMac
Staff member
Moderator
Between the two, for the ranges and intended use, I would go with the Razor. If you can deal with the extra weight, you can get the original 1-6 razor for under 1k all over the place now, and used for even cheaper. The new E model shaves a few ounces which is nice. For a 'carbine' that you are usually shooting at a closer distance, the 1X performance and making it seem as much like an Aimpoint as possible is one of the higher priorities for me, and the maginfication, reticle, etc. is secondary.

I personally have a Trijicon Accupoint 1-4 on my 13.7 gun (which has the 13" MK14, so a similar set-up to your URGI). I am really sold on both the 1-4 Accupoint and the 1-4 Steiner as my default recommendation for someone looking for a great general purpose optic on a rifle. Nowdays you can get either for under $500, both have a basic illuminated dot, and have proved to be fairly durable for me.

Re. FFP vs. SFP. For me personally, a SFP optic is more than sufficient for a carbine. It usually means a lower cost, less busy reticle, and still accomplishes everything I need for a carbine.

If you have the $$ for the Razor, I'd say go for it. The usability at 1X is phenomenal. The dot is bright, the glass is clear, it is durable, and has a track record of working well. If also has a very practical SFP reticle. If you wanted something a bit cheaper, but still very useable, I would like at the 1-4 Trijicon Accupoint or the Steiner 1-4.
 

Wake27

Regular Member
Between the two, for the ranges and intended use, I would go with the Razor. If you can deal with the extra weight, you can get the original 1-6 razor for under 1k all over the place now, and used for even cheaper. The new E model shaves a few ounces which is nice. For a 'carbine' that you are usually shooting at a closer distance, the 1X performance and making it seem as much like an Aimpoint as possible is one of the higher priorities for me, and the maginfication, reticle, etc. is secondary.

I personally have a Trijicon Accupoint 1-4 on my 13.7 gun (which has the 13" MK14, so a similar set-up to your URGI). I am really sold on both the 1-4 Accupoint and the 1-4 Steiner as my default recommendation for someone looking for a great general purpose optic on a rifle. Nowdays you can get either for under $500, both have a basic illuminated dot, and have proved to be fairly durable for me.

Re. FFP vs. SFP. For me personally, a SFP optic is more than sufficient for a carbine. It usually means a lower cost, less busy reticle, and still accomplishes everything I need for a carbine.

If you have the $$ for the Razor, I'd say go for it. The usability at 1X is phenomenal. The dot is bright, the glass is clear, it is durable, and has a track record of working well. If also has a very practical SFP reticle. If you wanted something a bit cheaper, but still very useable, I would like at the 1-4 Trijicon Accupoint or the Steiner 1-4.

SFP is typically also brighter, I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Dr. Cornwallis

Regular Member
The razor wins hands down in every category. FFP and 8x is a non issue with an LPV for a 5.56 rifle. 6x is more than enough to get you to max effective range and still
Be able to PID and FFP is completely unnecessary on an LPV.

At 300m I have absolutely no issue being able to PID a target at 6x.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

hile

Amateur
I don't own any NIghtforce optics, but I do own both the Razor HD II-E mentioned here and the Kahles. I've shot both side-by-side. I don't feel under-equipped with the vortex over the Kahles; I simply prefer the K16i with the SM1 reticle if available funding allows me a choice. I won't be divesting myself of the Vortex anytime soon, even if most of my rifles will get the K16i as funds allow.
 

JS1

Amateur
I'd like to add another aspect here.

I am putting together my own patrol rifle. I'm going the LPVO route as well. I have it down to the P4Xi and the Razor. From those with experience with both, it is worth almost doubling the price to get the Razor?
 
Top