New Vortex Gen III 4-24x44 has landed!

[Rob01]

The new addition to the Gen III line has dropped today. It’s a 4-24x44 scope in a small 12.5” package weighing just 32.3 ounces! The scope also has an amazing 46 mils or 158 moa of elevation. This scope will be great for many uses from hunting or gas guns to PRS to .22 NRL/PRS to ELR in both centerfire or rimfire. Check it out at the link below.

Razor HD Gen III 4-24x44 FFP

Please Select Reticle | 34mm Tube

vortexoptics.com

 

[ballisticdaddy]

With a MSRP of $4,199.99 that is laughable, Sport Optics has them already listed for $$2,799.00. Kinda crazy Vortex is now almost ZCO and/or Tangent money but still made in China, Philippines or Japan but just as good!

 

[Rob01]

With a MSRP of $4,199.99 that is laughable, Sport Optics has them already listed for $$2,799.00. Kinda crazy Vortex is now almost ZCO and/or Tangent money but still made in China but just as good!

First it’s not made in China. lol The MSRP is just that. Street price will be about that $2700 range which for what it is is pretty good.

 

[drop_point]

With a MSRP of $4,199.99 that is laughable, Sport Optics has them already listed for $$2,799.00. Kinda crazy Vortex is now almost ZCO and/or Tangent money but still made in China but just as good!

Not made in China. Its made in Japan.

 

[shoot4fun]

Not made in China. Its made in Japan.

So are a lot of other great optics (and cameras).
Most of the parts in the car you drive come from China, Mexico and other points on the map outside the USA.
Maybe that isn't the best analogy for you if you happen to drive a F**d?

 

[Rob01]

So are a lot of other great optics (and cameras).
Most of the parts in the car you drive come from China, Mexico and other points on the map outside the USA.
Maybe that isn't the best analogy for you if you happen to drive a F**d?

He was just clarifying the incorrect statement that the new Vortex is made in china. It’s not.

 

[shoot4fun]

He was just clarifying the incorrect statement that the new Vortex is made in china. It’s not.

I'm old enough to remember when made in Japan was hated as badly as made in China.
I own a bunch of GenII 4.5-27 and several GenIII 6-36. To me the 6-36 is the ideal optic.
The glass is superb and parallax is always spot-on with all of mine.
My old eyes have gotten "needy" for the higher magnification.

 

[Rob01]

I'm old enough to remember when made in Japan was hated as badly as made in China.
I own a bunch of GenII 4.5-27 and several GenIII 6-36. To me the 6-36 is the ideal optic.
The glass is superb and parallax is always spot-on with all of mine.
My old eyes have gotten "needy" for the higher magnification.

Yup times change but clarity is key.

 

[X-Caveman]

I really like the specs. Be interested to hear how the glass is up in the top of the mag range and how functional the reticle is down low. Thanks for posting.

 

[shoot4fun]

I really like the specs. Be interested to hear how the glass is up in the top of the mag range and how functional the reticle is down low. Thanks for posting.

A functional, readable reticle at low mag for FFP is nonexistent for me now. I normally don't get below 20X on any FFP these days because I can't see what it's telling me.
Illumination doesn't help much either due to the fact I am color weak and red washes out in sunlight.
With the 4.5-27 and 6-26 I get edge to edge sharpness at all power range I use and, as @Rob01 says, that clarity is everything to me.

 

[Kracken McGraw]

I haven’t looked through a 34mm tube, but there must be a lot of gain to it.
Didn’t Vortex assemble the higher end Razor’s in the USA in the past?

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I haven’t looked through a 34mm tube, but there must be a lot of gain to it.
Didn’t Vortex assemble the higher end Razor’s in the USA in the past?

I have to ask. Why would there beca difference looking through a 34mm tube. What is there to gain?

 

[Kracken McGraw]

I have to ask. Why would there beca difference looking through a 34mm tube. What is there to gain?

I assumed it would gather more light over the 30mm tube.
Please give your thoughts on the subject.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I assumed it would gather more light over the 30mm tube.
Please give your thoughts on the subject.

Yeah, that's a pretty common mistake. You need to remember that there's a tube inside the main tube called the erector tube. The inner diameter of that tube is fairly consistent across riflescopes especially within a brand. Going from 1inch to 30mm is almost always for increased adjustment range. Going from 30mm to 34mm is either for more adjustment range, as in this case probably, but I do not know Vortex, or, it's to have thicker main tube walls and retain the same adjustments range as a 30mm tube.

 

[Tangent]

Agree with the above, the larger diameter enables more adjustment range. A larger objective makes a lot of difference in lower light conditions.

 

[Rob01]

Agree with the above, the larger diameter enables more adjustment range. A larger objective makes a lot of difference in lower light conditions.

Usually the case with the objective but according to a user at SH the new Razor 4-24 does very well in lowlight. This is what he wrote:

“In low light testing the RG3 4-24x44 knocked it out of the park, I don't know what pixie dust Vortex is using in their optical formula but to my eye, this 44mm scope felt brighter than the 50mm and 52mm scopes I was comparing it side by side to - I had to keep going back and forth because I thought my eyes were deceiving me. This was between 15-25 minutes after sunset.”

So seems like this scope will do quite well in lowlight.

 

[209jones]

As I understand it, shorter tube will deliver better light, at 32oz on a 12.5" scope, seems like they went with an HD tube body, short with the smaller objective, supposed is to work better than big objective, long body. Your eyeball can only handle so much anyway, there is a formula for that. Seems heavy for a short scope like that, same range as a lot of longer 30 & 34mm x 50 and 56mm.

 

[Rob01]

32 ounces isn’t heavy at all for this package. It’s not built as an ultra lightweight hunter scope but a good crossover. Comes in weight wise with a lot of the lower power scopes. Only 2 ounces heavier than the NF 4-16 and gives you more top end.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

As I understand it, shorter tube will deliver better light, at 32oz on a 12.5" scope, seems like they went with an HD tube body, short with the smaller objective, supposed is to work better than big objective, long body. Your eyeball can only handle so much anyway, there is a formula for that. Seems heavy for a short scope like that, same range as a lot of longer 30 & 34mm x 50 and 56mm.

You are going in the right direction but it's not the main tube that influences this, it's the distance from the objective lenses to the FFP (objective focal length) . In that scope, I would estimate this distance to be about 5 inches or 127mm. If you divide this focal length by the diameter of the objective, you get 2.88. This ratio is also known as an F-number, so essentially you have an f/2.8 lens. That's pretty fast, as we say in photography circles. If you compare this to a longer objective focal length like the bigger scopes have, they will have a bigger F-number meaning they are "slower". Consider an 8 inch focal length or 200mm. With a 50mm lens, you're talking F/4.

The issue with wider aperture, smaller F number is that you reduce the depth of field.

 

[Steve Donlon]

I like the reticle with the open center and dot. Seems like more scopes are getting that right.