Razor LH & Crossfire 2 6-18 review

Pembykid

Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Location
BC
Hey all,

I wanted to open the can of worms surrounding Vortex. I hear some people with bad experiences, but I also see them being run by a ####load of people. (including me). So might as well see what people think about them other than just about their warrenty, maybe product review as best you can about what you run and how it has held up.

So I have a Razor Spotting scope 20-60x85. Bought used, seems to have taken some tumbles from previous owner. There is the faintest black spec in the glass if you look hard enough, so you never notice it unless you look for it. The scope is crisp as all heck. The glass seems great, when i have a steady tripod set up i can zoom in on mulies at 900+ yards and count points all day long. The two stage focus is really just a one stage as you never use the coarse knob, but who really cares. I know it is a fairly decent step up from the Viper HD, but even the Viper HD I have used quite a bit was a treat to use.. cant complain about watching sheep wiskers wiggle at over 500.

I also have a Razor HD LH 3-15x42 scope on my 7mm tikka. I can only really say good things about it aswell. I have had to use the warrenty once though. My side parallax became slight chunky on a cold BC Region 2 sleet/snow day (a day like this killed a burris E1 on my 243 this year.. Alot of water in the scope). Still worked fine, but they got me to send it back and replaced the whole scope. Ive found the eye box very forgiving, huge eye relief (scope is as far forward as it can go). The sight picture is full and glass is comparable to anything I've compared it to. (the nicest being a big bell swaro something or other). So one warranty, but other than that no complaints

And last but not least i have recently picked up Crossfire 2 for a target 223 we have. I did notice eye fatigue pretty quickly on highest power but will try to mitigate that with both eyes open, cheek pad and double checking my eye piece focus (that i never really seem to be able to nail). Before my eye fatigue set in I was able to crisp it up pretty good to view the target at 100. The turrets (if they track true and i will test this) are re-zeroable and present wonderfully crisp clicks... so so far seems pretty good. We're going to be clicking this scope around like mad, doing long range shooting as far as we can push it so it should get a pretty good working over under me (and my hunting partner-shared gun).

Anyways if anyone wants to chime in on their experiences feel free too about rifle scopes or anything else
 
Last edited:
My vortex experiences

I had scoped a CZ 452 Varmint with a cross fire 2.
Scope was blurry shooting at 50 yards.
It was the rimfire edition so parallax was set to 50 yards

Sold it and switched to diamondback HD 4-16 side parallax.
When comparing glass with friends regular viper, image quality looked the same.
This one felt nice and solid, just poor turrets (i wouldn't dial anything in on these)

Also tried a PST gen 1 1-4 on an ar15 set up for 3 gun.
Don't know why once again i wasn't impressed with glass.

And lastly, now currently own razor hd gen 2.
Other than being a mule to carry around, the brightess and clearest scope i have eyeballed yet.
The other and only higher end comparison is recently looking into a NF NXS, also previously owned a trijicon acog.

For a future BCL in the weeks (or months with delays) to come, vortex is strongly considered.
Will debate between trijicon acog and vortex pst gen ll low power scope
 
Have worked in the Croosfire 2 6-18 a fari bit now, probably 120 rounds with it so far. I did some long range stuff, and took the 223 out to 500 with no issues dialing it up and back down to zero. It seemed to track good, mind you i wasnt shooting precise enough to find any flaws. I also was working it around paper at 100, seeing how it would #### and return to zero. It did that well too.

The scope at higher magnification does put quite a bit of strain on your eye, but i was able to keep my eye from getting fatigued by really working to tune the front objective right right and also shooting with both eyes open.

The 18 times does sort of blur out on it, with 15 being the nicest to look through, but it is usable for sure on 18, esp if you tune the objective right and have both eyes open.

So, so far so good for this cheapie
 
I have the Razor HD LH 3-15x42 HSR-4 reticle. Meh.... they gave it a good effort but it's not perfect.

Positives; Excellent glass. Excellent reticle. Lightweight. Smooth side parallax adjustment.

Negatives; Stiff magnification adjustment. VERY poor windage and elevation turrets.

This scope HATES cold weather. The magnification adjustment is stiff to begin with and once the temp gets cold it's hard to move especially when you're wearing gloves.

The windage and elevation turrets are VERY mushy with almost no audible "click". Once again, in colder temps this problem worsens to the point where the turrets are unusable. They become stiffer and have virtually no pronounced feeling.

This is basically a set your zero, leave it alone and use the reticle, kind of scope. To some this may be a non issue but I'm one who actually uses the turrets to make adjustments in the field. I can't with this scope.

I've talked to Vortex about the turret issue and was told that's the way they are but I can still send it in for them to take a look at. I've tried the turrets on two other scopes of the exact model and they are the same as mine. Not going to accomplish much by sending it back if that's the way they're made.

To sum it up the only thing this scope has going for it is the glass quality and it's weight.

If someone wants to set the scope up and leave it alone they will probably be happy with it. If you actually want to use the features on it you won't be impressed.

I'll keep the one I have but I won't buy another.

I was truly expecting something better for my 1200 bucks. But then again it's a Vortex.
 
I can second the mushy turrets, but for me that’s really the only let down on the Razor. They are still marked and I usually just go off the numbering? Perhaps that could lead to error?
 
Back
Top Bottom