Zeiss V4 vs Vortex Razor

[Mowy33]

Which has better glass and reliability for elk hunting? Use case is elk, and occasional long range shooting for fun.

 

[Kal-Elk]

How far is "occasional long range shooting for fun"? I run a V4 4-16 and have felt overmagnified in the field a few times, can't imagine running a 6-24

 

[Mowy33]

Well with the cost of 300wm ammo , potentially less often than I imagine

But preferably 1-2x per month

 

[Kal-Elk]

My mistake, I should've said what distances does that mean?

I've worked off the theory of 3x for every 100/yds. My 16 puts me out to 533 yards, which is farther than I probably would shoot. Those two options above would be 733-800 yards off my own formula.

If I had to pick to one of those two, I would choose the Vortex, based solely on the lower bottom magnification. I imagine both are good quality scopes otherwise.

 

[Mowy33]

I’d like to work up to be comfortable shooting elk out to 500-600.

LR would be at a local 1k yard range.

 

[pc3]

The LHT will have the better feature set....ffp, mil/mil I would think.

Neither gets favorable reviews for durability by one experienced poster here, although plenty are using them with reasonable success. I have the LHT mentioned on a CZ varmint .17 Hornet. But for an impending mountain rifle I want I have opted for a March 3-24, same weight as the LHT and "should" be next step for ruggedness.

I will say the glass on the LHT razor is nice and the reticle with floating dot makes for a great varmint reticle, it doesn't over power the little .17 hornet hence my interest in it.

 

[Novahunter]

My mistake, I should've said what distances does that mean?

I've worked off the theory of 3x for every 100/yds. My 16 puts me out to 533 yards, which is farther than I probably would shoot. Those two options above would be 733-800 yards off my own formula.

If I had to pick to one of those two, I would choose the Vortex, based solely on the lower bottom magnification. I imagine both are good quality scopes otherwise.

You certainly do not need 3x of magnification per 100 yards for shooting long range.

Out to 1200 yards yards, 90% of the time I am running 8x to 12x. Rarely do I go over that even with my main comp scope able to go to 25x. With practice I have found the increased FOV is more valuable than increased magnification.

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

Marketing has done an amazing job at having everyone buy features for the shot they will likely least need. For elk in particular shot presentation is often up close and with limited time. You will seldom need to shoot one at 600 yards so why pick a scope that won’t help you close the deal for the 99%?

For elk specifically I like simple. Something in the 2-10 range, no side focus or illumination, and duplex type crosshair in SFP that does not obstruct your vision. You need to know where you are shooting now and you need to see the reticle. I like field of view as elk are big and you need to be able to pick them out up close. A dial for shots that you need to stretch is nice as I prefer holding center rather than holding over.

 

[DangerRanger]

I’ve hunted with both the v4 and an lht and still have the lht, so preferred that

 

[StopMakingSense]

I use 10-12x at 1000+ to give you some insight. Any 3-15, 3.5-18, or 4-16 will be your wheelhouse.

 

[Gone4Days]

neither

 

[LightFoot]

I can't speak to the turrets but I've had both V4 and Razor. Both held zero and were bright and clear.

They aren't NF ruggedness.

They are both Japanese glass, so not German like Swaro or higher end Zeiss.

I still have the V4....

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Which has better glass and reliability for elk hunting? Use case is elk, and occasional long range shooting for fun.

I have owned both - I don’t have either of them any more. I would just save up a couple hundred more and get an NXS 3.5-15x50 or 5.5-22x50 and be done with it. If weight is an issue get the 2.5-10x42.

 

[Ucsdryder]

I have a couple LHT and a buddy has the v4. They’re very similar. I don’t think you can say one is better than the other. I can’t remember what the v4 weighs but the lht is under 20oz.

 

[norcan]

I’d like to work up to be comfortable shooting elk out to 500-600.

LR would be at a local 1k yard range.

As others have mentioned, these both seem less than optimal for a hunting rifle.

12X or even 10X at the top end will get you out to 1K just fine for target shooting, and I bet you'd be a lot happier with the advantages in hunting situations that lower magnification ranges give, such as a wider, brighter field of view and a bigger, more-forgiving exit pupil.

Also, 500 is what some of the very best LR shooters would consider as the absolute ethical maximum on game that's easier to put down than elk under the most ideal of conditions, and most would have a shorter limit yet. Even on a hypothetical perfect shot with complete ballistic, atmospheric-condition, range and wind knowledge, 600 is really pushing anyone's luck given factors like how long it takes for a bullet to travel that distance and the tendency of animals to move, not to mention how difficult ranges like that can make tracking.

Elk are big and notoriously-tough animals; also consider that you're down to less than a third of your muzzle energy at 600, so having to track a wounded animal would be a vastly-higher risk. I don't mean to scold, but it's important to know why long-range shots on any big game, and especially elk, are a very bad idea. Nobody should be comfortable attempting to take an elk at those kinds of distances.

Hunting is about how good you are at getting close to the animal, not about how far out you can shoot.