Hey, Macros.
I am now reading this. How do you think the glass on the LHT compares with the Leica and the Delta? Thanks. S7
Upvote 0
- The AGN App is ready! Search "Airgun Nation" in your App store. To compliment this new tech we've assigned the "Threads" Feed & "Dark" Mode. To revert back click HERE.
What Scopes is everyone Using?
- Thread starter FIDI_G
- Start date
I am now reading this. How do you think the glass on the LHT compares with the Leica and the Delta? Thanks. S7
It sits right in between.
It has overall similar qualities to the stryker however field of view at the higher mag limits is marginally better (identical at about 12x and below). Chromatic aberration is significantly better controlled at the edges. Resolution is similar but contrast is a tiny bit better on the vortex as you get to 18-22.5x. Both have similarly forgiving eyeboxes at the same mag ranges.
The image quality gap (brightness and contrast in particular) widens a bit in lower light however, maybe because of fewer lenses in the vortex design overall?
The Leica is a pretty significant jump up, with effectively no CA, wider FOV, better depth of field, the typical amazing 'Leica' contrast, better resolution etc etc. I have looked through a lot of very high end scopes and, to my eye at least, the Leica can stand toe to toe with any of them.
The mechanics on the vortex vs the stryker (and nexus) are as I mentioned on the Vortex lht thread
Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50??
I'm looking to buy a lightweight scope in this magnification range and this one seems like the one that suites me best at the moment as well as about the lightest that I've run across considering the feature set?? The March 3-24x42 is close to the same weight but much more expensive. I've owned...
www.airgunnation.com Upvote 0
I've been using a Athlon Argos 6-24X50 for a bit over a year on my Maverick..
I just added a Vortex Diamondback Tactical 6-24X50 for my M3.
I really like both and as far as differences........
Athlon has a bit thicker lined reticle. The Vortex has a bit clearer glass.
If I needed a scope immediately and went to the local store to pick one up I wouldn't hesitate to purchase whichever was in stock. If both were in stock I'd literally sit there for who knows how long trying to decide which to pick but would probably go with the Vortex 51 to 49.
I just added a Vortex Diamondback Tactical 6-24X50 for my M3.
I really like both and as far as differences........
Athlon has a bit thicker lined reticle. The Vortex has a bit clearer glass.
If I needed a scope immediately and went to the local store to pick one up I wouldn't hesitate to purchase whichever was in stock. If both were in stock I'd literally sit there for who knows how long trying to decide which to pick but would probably go with the Vortex 51 to 49.
Upvote 0
Thanks for that helpful reply, Macros.It sits right in between.
It has overall similar qualities to the stryker however field of view at the higher mag limits is marginally better (identical at about 12x and below). Chromatic aberration is significantly better controlled at the edges. Resolution is similar but contrast is a tiny bit better on the vortex as you get to 18-22.5x. Both have similarly forgiving eyeboxes at the same mag ranges.
The image quality gap (brightness and contrast in particular) widens a bit in lower light however, maybe because of fewer lenses in the vortex design overall?
The Leica is a pretty significant jump up, with effectively no CA, wider FOV, better depth of field, the typical amazing 'Leica' contrast, better resolution etc etc. I have looked through a lot of very high end scopes and, to my eye at least, the Leica can stand toe to toe with any of them.
The mechanics on the vortex vs the stryker (and nexus) are as I mentioned on the Vortex lht thread
Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50??
I'm looking to buy a lightweight scope in this magnification range and this one seems like the one that suites me best at the moment as well as about the lightest that I've run across considering the feature set?? The March 3-24x42 is close to the same weight but much more expensive. I've owned...
I bought the 3-15x50 a couple of days ago, and it has not arrived.
Yes, I have heard good things about the well-known Leica scopes in general, so there is no surprise there: Leica = quality. One reviewer on YouTube (I forgot the channel, but could get it if you wanted it) says the LHT is really comparable to the Viper in IQ and should not be called a Razor. I suspect he is correct. On the other hand, ILya has good things to say about the LHT.
I am assuming the IQ of the lower mag model I bought will be even par with its big brother?
Also, what do you think about the BDC reticle on the 3-15x50? Normally, it’s not my cup of tea, but we shall see. I do like the center dot. You won’t hurt my feelings, so fire away.
Thanks again. S7
Upvote 0
The 3-15 razor lht has been around for a bit longer than the 4.5-22x50, and I think was an older design? Of course the new ones may well have been updated to be the same internally to the 4.5-22.
Unfortunately I haven't looked through one to know for sure.
The 4.5-22x50 is significantly better than a viper. I was looking through a friend's PST gen2 last week when working on his uragan 2 and it's not a near thing.
Most youtube (and published) reviews are borderline worthless, I think. You can find reviewers that'll tell you anything. There is a reviewer on rokslide that will tell you that since a scope is only an aiming device, you are stupid if you care about glass any better than roughly a leupold mk3. Others will have you believe a vortex venom is 95% of a razor for a fraction of the price.
I place little to no faith in anyone's MK1 eyeballs but my own, with the exception of Ilya Koshkin. To a certain extent, I'll believe Richard Utting too, although despite a good track record overall he's said a couple of things that don't ring true of late, in particular about the Delta Javelin. That one is nowhere near as good as he made it sound, especially above 15x.
Of course you should also take my opinions in the same light as the youtubers and trust your eyes
The only person that has to like your scopes is you. That being said I really doubt you'll be anything but impressed by the glass in the razor.
P.s. I don't like BDC rets in general, and the vortex one is much the same. If you're going to dial with one, at least the relative lack of elevation holdover points (or the fact that they are normally for some random cartridge at a certain velocity, aiming for 'minute of large mammal vitals' accuracy) isn't a problem. Lack of windage reference points in these rets is however a more problematic thing for airguns...
Last edited:
Upvote 0
In the day I can get by with iron sights and red dots. I mostly do fairly short-range pesting with my airguns. At night I increasingly use a thermal scope. I tried an IR scope a couple years ago (really liked it), then bought a cheap "gateway" thermal unit. Shortly after I drained the koolaid from the pool, so to speak. Bought a thermal unit that's more expensive than my car.
Upvote 0
Macros,The 3-15 razor lht has been around for a bit longer than the 4.5-22x50, and I think was an older design? Of course the new ones may well have been updated to be the same internally to the 4.5-22.
Unfortunately I haven't looked through one to know for sure.
The 4.5-22x50 is significantly better than a viper. I was looking through a friend's PST gen2 last week when working on his uragan 2 and it's not a near thing.
Most youtube (and published) reviews are borderline worthless, I think. You can find reviewers that'll tell you anything. There is a reviewer on rokslide that will tell you that since a scope is only an aiming device, you are stupid if you care about glass any better than roughly a leupold mk3. Others will have you believe a vortex venom is 95% of a razor for a fraction of the price.
I place little to no faith in anyone's MK1 eyeballs but my own, with the exception of Ilya Koshkin. To a certain extent, I'll believe Richard Utting too, although despite a good track record overall he's said a couple of things that don't ring true of late, in particular about the Delta Javelin. That one is nowhere near as good as he made it sound, especially above 15x.
Of course you should also take my opinions in the same light as the youtubers and trust your eyes
The only person that has to like your scopes is you. That being said I really doubt you'll be anything but impressed by the glass in the razor.
P.s. I don't like BDC rets in general, and the vortex one is much the same. If you're going to dial with one, at least the relative lack of elevation holdover points (or the fact that they are normally for some random cartridge at a certain velocity, aiming for 'minute of large mammal vitals' accuracy) isn't a problem. Lack of windage reference points in these rets is however a more problematic thing for airguns...
It's nice to hear that the LHT 4.5-22 is well above the Viper in your experience.
And I copy on YouTube reviewers. The discerning ear (which I am acquiring for scopes, bit by bit) may enjoy some reviewers simply because scopes are being displayed. While there, and relevant to that previous comment, what do you think of C_Does as a reviewer? Perhaps you have already made this point clear by not listing him as a trusted source?
Yes, Ilya knows his stuff. I picked that up right away. And he really likes the LHT 4.5-22. Elaborating on a video by Ilya a bit, and bearing in mind that he has connections to March, I almost read between the lines that he may flat out prefer the LHT to the March 3-24 for a hunting rig. He seemed to be very subtle in his answer to someone during a live video, the question being, what was his preferred hunting scope. I believe he mentioned, that as a hunting rifle scope, the LHT was lighter than the March, which would make a difference in decision making and place the LHT as a first choice. But the LHT is a mere ounce or so lighter, which made me wonder if he was using that very small weight difference as a way to recommend the LHT over the March and mask the fact that the LHT is simply a better scope, especially for the buck. Maybe I am reading into things wrongly, and maybe I am not. And perhaps I am forgetting something.
I will not be able to compare the 3-15 LHT to the 4.5-22, but I can compare it to a few scopes, the Ares 3-18 ETR, in particular.
I am going to check out Richard Utting.
Yes, the BDC reticle on an airgun is not for all. But I have seen the guy on Wisconsin AirGunners use a BDC reticle with personal satisfaction for shots out to 100 yards or so, If I remember correctly.
Again, thanks for the assistance. S7
Edit: And one more thing which is relevant to the OP's concerns: the Element Nexus. I have heard so many different things about this scope on this Forum that it makes things really confusing. It is great, it is terrible, it is okay, and everything in between. Again, Ilya Koshkin speaks very well about it.
I also know that some scopes match different people's eyes better than they do other people's. This comes from Glassaholic, on Snipers Hide, and he knows his stuff. He also strongly insists that proper diopter focus is critical, and an improper adjustment here may make someone come to the wrong conclusion about a given scope.
Yes, as you and others have said, it is my eye that is the final determiner.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I'll have a look at C_Does. I admit I haven't heard about him at all to date.
With Ilya, one of the things I appreciate is he understands the level of subjectivity in all this stuff. You'll virtually never have him make broad statements. Everything is carefully considered and qualified, and never blown out of proportion.
The Nexus review he made for instance is pretty much spot on - regarding the optics he stated things along the lines of 'as good as you will get at this price level' with 'no glaring weaknesses'. Colour,contrast and resolution all 'quite good'. All very true. He made good constructive comments on the mechanical aspects and what he didn't like about the apr-1d ret. Absolutely nothing stating it's the greatest/ amazing etc, just that it's good and he feels comfortable recommending it.
Of course, depending on a person's perspective and expectations while watching or reading it, they could quite easily colour a lot of what he says with their bias for,or against, the scope.
I had a nexus for a long while and it's really a very good scope. Just not the S&B in sheep's clothing some would have you think, or genuinely punching above its price class.
Anyway glassaholic's opinions, along with BigJimFish and a couple of the other guys (mostly friends and acolytes of Ilya
) on snipershide, are generally good. Just don't get onto anything IOR/Valdada with them. The level of vitriol is comical, but mostly seems to stem from business practice and customer service they've experienced at the hands of Val himself.
He's right about diopter adjustment being much more important than people realize, but if you're cocking it up on one scope you are likely doing it on all the others... Enough at least that it would be odd for it to really be the deciding factor between say the Nexus vs other scopes.
Richard Utting has gone totally quiet for long periods recently. Almost like the Ted Bier of the scope world. Overall he tends to be more effusive and a little less methodical than Ilya but still very good. The main benefit is he tends to cover scopes that Ilya doesn't due to differing availability and relative pricing in the the UK/Europe vs the US (which is important to me in RSA as our market is in many things an extension of the UK)
Anyway, that as longer than intended and not at all on topic... Keep well and sorry to the OP!
With Ilya, one of the things I appreciate is he understands the level of subjectivity in all this stuff. You'll virtually never have him make broad statements. Everything is carefully considered and qualified, and never blown out of proportion.
The Nexus review he made for instance is pretty much spot on - regarding the optics he stated things along the lines of 'as good as you will get at this price level' with 'no glaring weaknesses'. Colour,contrast and resolution all 'quite good'. All very true. He made good constructive comments on the mechanical aspects and what he didn't like about the apr-1d ret. Absolutely nothing stating it's the greatest/ amazing etc, just that it's good and he feels comfortable recommending it.
Of course, depending on a person's perspective and expectations while watching or reading it, they could quite easily colour a lot of what he says with their bias for,or against, the scope.
I had a nexus for a long while and it's really a very good scope. Just not the S&B in sheep's clothing some would have you think, or genuinely punching above its price class.
Anyway glassaholic's opinions, along with BigJimFish and a couple of the other guys (mostly friends and acolytes of Ilya
) on snipershide, are generally good. Just don't get onto anything IOR/Valdada with them. The level of vitriol is comical, but mostly seems to stem from business practice and customer service they've experienced at the hands of Val himself.He's right about diopter adjustment being much more important than people realize, but if you're cocking it up on one scope you are likely doing it on all the others... Enough at least that it would be odd for it to really be the deciding factor between say the Nexus vs other scopes.
Richard Utting has gone totally quiet for long periods recently. Almost like the Ted Bier of the scope world. Overall he tends to be more effusive and a little less methodical than Ilya but still very good. The main benefit is he tends to cover scopes that Ilya doesn't due to differing availability and relative pricing in the the UK/Europe vs the US (which is important to me in RSA as our market is in many things an extension of the UK)
Anyway, that as longer than intended and not at all on topic... Keep well and sorry to the OP!
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Okay. I like C-Does a bit because of his video coverage. He is not at all in Ilya’s league, but how many are.I'll have a look at C_Does. I admit I haven't heard about him at all to date.
With Ilya, one of the things I appreciate is he understands the level of subjectivity in all this stuff. You'll virtually never have him make broad statements. Everything is carefully considered and qualified, and never blown out of proportion.
The Nexus review he made for instance is pretty much spot on - regarding the optics he stated things along the lines of 'as good as you will get at this price level' with 'no glaring weaknesses'. Colour,contrast and resolution all 'quite good'. All very true. He made good constructive comments on the mechanical aspects and what he didn't like about the apr-1d ret. Absolutely nothing stating it's the greatest/ amazing etc, just that it's good and he feels comfortable recommending it.
Of course, depending on a person's perspective and expectations while watching or reading it, they could quite easily colour a lot of what he says with their bias for,or against, the scope.
I had a nexus for a long while and it's really a very good scope. Just not the S&B in sheep's clothing some would have you think, or genuinely punching above its price class.
Anyway glassaholic's opinions, along with BigJimFish and a couple of the other guys (mostly friends and acolytes of Ilya
He's right about diopter adjustment being much more important than people realize, but if you're cocking it up on one scope you are likely doing it on all the others... Enough at least that it would be odd for it to really be the deciding factor between say the Nexus vs other scopes.
Richard Utting has gone totally quiet for long periods recently. Almost like the Ted Bier of the scope world. Overall he tends to be more effusive and a little less methodical than Ilya but still very good. The main benefit is he tends to cover scopes that Ilya doesn't due to differing availability and relative pricing in the the UK/Europe vs the US (which is important to me in RSA as our market is in many things an extension of the UK)
Anyway, that as longer than intended and not at all on topic... Keep well and sorry to the OP!
And, yes, Ilya is very measured in his comments. People doing his live videos cannot easily get him to commit in the way they want him too. I like that. It’s the way things should be. One learns to pick up what he seems to really like after watching hours of his videos. Of course, some condoning, or the lack thereof, is necessary.
What is IOR/Valada?
I copy on the diopter issue. What Glass says is that fine tuning the diopter may make a difference in a decision. I believe he thinks some people do not do it correctly enough to gain a true understanding of what a scope may be at its best. I will leave this there now. My experience is quite limited.
It turns out I had watched a bit of Utting but neither knew his name nor remembered his video. I am probably going to watch “The Clash of the Titans” now!
Take care. S7
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I have an ATN X-Sight 4K Pro 3-14x with ABL Laser Rangefinder, and I just bought and I just bought an ATN X-Sight 5 w/LRF 5-25x.
Upvote 0
I bought the new ATN scope as well, same one. Got on the phone with them earlier today to see what the deal was as I did t get a shipping confirmation. They estimate shipping won't happen until the 25th of this month, said they got a lot more orders than expected.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Cheers! You too.
P.s. IOR is a Romanian optics manufacturer. Brilliant optics but with a history of QC issue at one point. Valdada is the US importer/distributor who's after sales service is the source of the snipershide hate
they now also have their own scope called the Recon gen 2 (Japanese OEM with no actual relation to the original IOR recon apart from clever naming from the same distributor).Upvote 0
Cheers! You too.
P.s. IOR is a Romanian optics manufacturer. Brilliant optics but with a history of QC issue at one point. Valdada is the US importer/distributor who's after sales service is the source of the snipershide hate
Having the Recon G2 scope made(Japanese) was the best thing IOR could have done.
Around 14-15 years ago a friend bought a IOR scope. A short time later it broke, they sent him another one and it was faulty so he sent it back also. He demanded a different model IOR scope to replace it. This one lasted longer, like a few months, but broke too. He was sent a new one and sold it ASAP new in box.
A few years later when the IOR FFP 6-24x56 came out I bought one figuring IOR had overcome any issues by then and that it was among least expensive FFP scopes of its kind in that time period. It lasted about a year and broke on me during a long range match. I sent it back, received a new one back, and sold it new in box ASAP.
At least IOR stuck by their warranty so that was good. The glass was nice as well.
You might have seen my posts back then but that was a long time ago??
I steered clear of IOR afterwards.
Upvote 0
When I said brilliant optics I purely meant the actual optical performance. Sorry that was a bit ambiguous and easy to mistake for 'brilliant overall scopes'. Their QC and reliability issues were no doubt significant. By most accounts (mainly UK/Euro) they have improved in that regard, but who knows really...
I'm glad your warranty was honoured. It sounds like many got given a serious run around for whatever reason, earning the scopes more hate than their mechanical failings otherwise would have.
What I meant regarding the Recon g2 is that it isn't IOR themselves that commissioned it, but rather the US distributor, Valdada. Hence my comment that there isn't any real link between it and the gen 1 recon. The gen2 recon is relatively scarce in Europe or where I live, however the rest of IOR is easy. Often they are carried by separate retailers entirely too. That thing is a killer scope by all accounts.
I actually do recall coming across some of your posts about your experiences with IOR a long while back. They were more measured and less colourful than some if I remember right
I certainly don't blame you for avoiding them - I would too if I had such experiences, especially given the number of really good alternatives available. It's no different than how many members avoid the companies that produced whatever lemon rifle they happen to have bought, regardless of how good their usual product may be
Upvote 0
Quickly responding to this Recon/Valdada conversation, I now get it all, including the Snipers Hide part. I did watch about 30 minutes of Utting’s video on this matter, too. Macros, you beat me to the punch: with so many good options now, I am content to stay experience-less regarding this scope, my curiosity peaked notwithstanding.When I said brilliant optics I purely meant the actual optical performance. Sorry that was a bit ambiguous and easy to mistake for 'brilliant overall scopes'. Their QC and reliability issues were no doubt significant. By most accounts (mainly UK/Euro) they have improved in that regard, but who knows really...
I'm glad your warranty was honoured. It sounds like many got given a serious run around for whatever reason, earning the scopes more hate than their mechanical failings otherwise would have.
What I meant regarding the Recon g2 is that it isn't IOR themselves that commissioned it, but rather the US distributor, Valdada. Hence my comment that there isn't any real link between it and the gen 1 recon. The gen2 recon is relatively scarce in Europe or where I live, however the rest of IOR is easy. Often they are carried by separate retailers entirely too. That thing is a killer scope by all accounts.
I actually do recall coming across some of your posts about your experiences with IOR a long while back. They were more measured and less colourful than some if I remember right
I certainly don't blame you for avoiding them - I would too if I had such experiences, especially given the number of really good alternatives available. It's no different than how many members avoid the companies that produced whatever lemon rifle they happen to have bought, regardless of how good their usual product may be
One think I want to say to the OP’s question. From what I see, there is no one scope everyone is using. Some are more popular than others, but there are so many choices and so may users, unanimity is hard to come by, though near consent regarding some things isn’t. S7
Upvote 0
How's the parallax/side focus on the Optika6 3-18x50? I believe it focuses down to 25 yards. Is that correct? What's your experience with it if you don't mind me asking? I've been thinking about picking up one with the MRAD-1 reticle.
Upvote 0