Vortex Razor HD 1-6 VS Leupold Mk 6 1-6

[Arson8Ball]

I want to put a variable 1-6 power optic on a general purpose AR in 5.56 that I have built up. Im looking at the Vortex Razor and the Leupold Mk 6, I can get them for similar prices. I was hoping some of you had some experience with both of these optics. I pulled the specs from the manufacturer's websites and put them below.

Vortex-
Weight: 25.2 oz
Length: 10.1"
Eye Relief: 4"
FOV @ 100: 115.2'-20.5'

Leupold-
Weight: 17 oz
Length: 10.3"
Eye Relief: 3.7"
FOV @ 100: 105.8'-19.3'

They seem extremely similar on paper besides the Vortex being around 8oz heavier. Usually weight isnt a huge concern to me. I realize that a lot of this is very subjective, but I was hoping some of you would have some pros and cons of each, or any special considerations for one or the other (such as having to use an extended mount for one, no basis on anything here, just providing examples). I hope some of you can chime in, I appreciate it.

 

[Unity-Trent]

I have owned a MK6 - and have shot both. They are both really solid.

I currently use the Kahles K16i.

Weight 16.9
Length 10.9
Eye relief 3.74
FOV @ 100: 126.9 - 20.1

The glass is extremely clear and crisp. Reticle choices are great. Reticle Ilum is sunlight visible.

It has a built in throw level which I think is the perfect size. It's a really incredible optic. Not sure how price compares.

If you want some really technical info, call Sport Optics and ask for Chris. He is really knowledgeable, a great shooter, and likely has time behind all three to offer good comparisons.

 

[Arson8Ball]

I have owned a MK6 - and have shot both. They are both really solid.

I currently use the Kahles K16i.

Weight 16.9
Length 10.9
Eye relief 3.74
FOV @ 100: 126.9 - 20.1

The glass is extremely clear and crisp. Reticle choices are great. Reticle Ilum is sunlight visible.

It has a built in throw level which I think is the perfect size. It's a really incredible optic. Not sure how price compares.

If you want some really technical info, call Sport Optics and ask for Chris. He is really knowledgeable, a great shooter, and likely has time behind all three to offer good comparisons.

Thanks for the response! I looked up the Kahles and it seems like another great option, but I cant get the pricing on a Kahles that I can with Vortex or Leupold. Id feel bad calling and soliciting advice if I wont order this from them if that makes sense. What would you say the pros and cons are for the Mk 6 and K16i? The more info on 1-6s out there the better. I appreciate it!

 

[oalocke]

I've got both a razor gen2 mrad and a mk6 cmr2 (7.62). The razor lives on my primary 14.5" gun, and the mk6 is on my backup 5.56.

The weight difference is substantial but you already know that.

Durability of both is rated as excellent by people/organizations I trust. I've been down to Leupold's facility and talked to their dudes and the durability testing they do is insane, especially on the mil-focused optics. The Razor is being run by guys like Roland who Go Places and Do Stuff.

Clarity of the optics is great on both, but the Razor at 1x has some distinct advantages.

1) the 'tube effect' (i.e. the degree to which the scope body itself blocks your peripheral vision) is almost nil with the razor. I don't know what kind of optical voodoo shit they did, but it's almost like running an eotech. That said, I don't think that's probably that much of an advantage- more psychological than measurably better.

2) the dot in the razor is less susceptible to dimming if your head is off-axis than the cmr's reflective illum. The mk6 is plenty bright if you're dead on, but if you're shooting from a fucked up position it can dim. However, both have fairly tight eye boxes at 1x - WAY more so than an RDS- so consistency in cheek/chin weld is important for both.

3) the mk6 is first focal plane and the razor is 2nd focal. In theory, 1st focal is the way to go, since your holds are accurate at any magnification. For higher-mag optics I will go 1st focal all day long, because I'll frequently run a 3-18 in the middle of my mag range. But for a low-power variable, 2nd focal has advantages, mainly because it's still very prominent and usable even without illum in good light. The mk6 cmr is a pretty good compromise, and still works ok without illumination at 1x, but the razor is better.

4) personal preference but I prefer a straight mrad reticle to the bdc in the cmr. For example, even though it's on a 5.56 rifle, I run a 7.62 cmr rather than a 5.56 because the 7.62 reticle actually lines up better shooting mk262 than the 5.56 cmr reticle does. You can always figure out your drops and tape them to the side of your gun (e.g. your 500m mark is actually 435m, etc) but I've already memorized my holds in mils out to distance so it's just easier to run straight mils. Straight mils also makes it easier to communicate with a spotter, since you're both talking the same language.

5) the razor's turret arrangement is easier to use if you need to slip zero to compensate for shift with/without a can, or use inline NVG or thermal. The mk6 turrets lock at zero, so if you need to slip negative elevation regularly (i.e. can off and on) you will have to build that in when you zero, and potentially have to run your turrets unlocked on a regular basis. The razor just has simple caps.

6) I prefer the locking illum knob on the razor because it's the one turret that rides up against my body, and can get bumped easily.

7) both eat batteries. Carry spares.

 

[Arson8Ball]

Oalocke, thanks for the response, this is the sort of information I was looking for! Hopefully others can get good info out of this thread.

 

[oalocke]

No problem. Like you say, I hope others can get something out of it.

Just as a follow-up, Kyle and Roland speak much more eloquently to the 1st vs 2nd focal plane than I can in this modcast:

 

[Gringo_Latino_7]

Anybody considering the NXS 1-4 or have good/bad things to say about it?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[RangerRed]

Anybody considering the NXS 1-4 or have good/bad things to say about it?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I have owned a NF 1-4x for a few years now and I really like it. I purchased it directly from Nightforce through their MIL/LE program. It's a very compact, robust, and simple optic and the FC3G reticle is easy to acquire in most lighting conditions. It currently sits in a Larue 1.93" SPR mount on my Hodge Defense AU Mod 1. Since this is a thread about the Leupold vs Vortex, I wouldn't say the NF is in the same class as either scope since it's an older design and the MK6 and Razor both offer better illuminated reticles.

The FC3G reticle uses older illumination technology and is not daylight visible like a MK6, Vortex Razor, or S&B Short Dot. The center of the reticle consists of a 1.5 MOA dot surrounded by a 10 MOA segmented circle. In normal daylight conditions or when using a white light the etched portion of the reticle is easy to acquire. The illuminated center dot will pick up where the etched portion blends in with a dark background or in low light conditions. At its brightest setting, the illum is comparable to a T1 set 1-2 brightness settings below "optimal"; it's usable but it could be brighter. The FC3G also includes a BDC for use with specific 5.56 and .308 loads from 400m to 600m, however I haven't had a chance to verify this.

The NXS can be purchased with zero stop if you plan on dialing for elevation but that seemed unnecessary to me and I opted for the capped turret model and saved a little coin. The optic also includes a Power Throw Lever (PTL) which is a built in cat tail that screws into the magnifier ring for more rapid magnification adjustments. All in all, I really like the NXS, I keep trying to find something else to replace it but I haven't personally seen anything that offers what it does in the same size package. I'd like to see Nightforce offer a daylight visible version of this optic but I'm not sure if they will.

Pros
- Crystal clear glass
- Small/lightweight at 8" and 17 oz
- SFP reticle is easy to acquire in most lighting conditions and on any magnification
- Built in cat tail makes for fast transition between 1x and 4x

Cons
- Illumination only viable in low light conditions
- 1x is not true 1x, more like 1.1x, it's not really noticeable