A look through the Primary Arms GLX 2.5-10 and Vortex Razor 1-10
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- This video has three primary goals:
1) Demonstrate the capabilities and limitations of 10x magnification at 600 yards
2) Compare the clarity of two 10x scopes
3) Compare 10x with 22x for better perspective
Secondary goal: Discuss the importance of positive ID and the limitations you may encounter at different magnifications levels.
#guns #scopes #longrange #primaryarms #vortex
Music:
Dobro Mashup by Jason Shaw
freemusicarchi...
Rain On Me by JBlanked
freemusicarchi...
Great job on the video! You did a great job comparing them and showing their advantages and disadvantages. Surprised how the multicam looked, did it look too light to your eye or was it the camera?
-Dimitri
Thanks for watching! The multicam shirt was really a crye precision G4 combat shirt, so only multicam on the sleeves, and light fde in the middle.
@@compulsivegunbuyer Ah.. ok that makes sense, it looked so off to me
At LAX AMMO, they ha an ar15 with this vortex 1-10.
Salesnan tried to sell it to me.
Honestly, the eyebox was so small at 6x, i said let ne see glx 2.5-10,
He looked at me fukd up, and said whatever.man , not going to lie, it b I ew me out the water!
Im saving up in 2023 for my glx axss griffin mil 2.5-10.
Sorry vortex!
I’ve got two GLX ACSS scopes, the 2.5-10x and the 4-16x. They are very impressive for the money. I appreciate the veterans discount. I do agree that the parallax adjustment doesn’t seem to make the much of a difference or maybe I’m misunderstanding it.
@@wisco_guyyou prefear?
Thank you for not beginning this with a 2 min shooting montage, like so many new TH-camrs do.
Ha, I kinda like those...but yeah
Might have to though, people attention span is so short nowadays you have to keep zomer attention lol
That larger objective lens really shows… as does the quality of the glx glass. I have both a glx and a mark 6 leupold and there ain’t much difference with both set to 6x. The mark 6 costs 3x as much.
A comparison in lowlight would be very helpful as well.
I guess, there´s where you see the real difference.
Of the hundreds of gun tuber reviews, channels, and videos I have seen this is by far the best format I've seen. Very helpful and informative. Thank you.
Love to hear that. Thank you!
Great video. This showed me the importance of magnification and clarity to identify whether a target is friendly or not and if they are holding a rifle. Also shows the effectiveness of camouflaging clothing and being prone to hide the silhouette. Convinced me to paint my guns and get camouflage in the future
That's awesome. Thanks for commenting!
The PA Glx is a fantastic scope for $700. Translating image quality through a camera lens is difficult, but it looks like it holds its own against the Razor. I have this exact model on my Aero Precision M5. Both the rifle and the optic are more budget minded, but I can hit 4" clay pigeons on a berm at 400 yards and hit a 12" gong at 800 yards running 178 gr ELD-X. This setup has taken deer out to a quarter mile and has never failed me in several thousand rounds.
According to everyone on the internet, you can use a 1x optic to shoot 600 yds. lol. And you can easily use the PA micro reticles to do all you range estimates.
MPVO's need to focus on MUCH more compact turrets.
Offset red dots are very common with MPVOs if you are building an SPR or Recce rifle and beefy turrets get in the way of that red dot. Push button illumination needs to become the standard.
For this reason, along with everything discussed in this video....the NF NX8 2.5-20 VERY hard to beat. Amazing magnification range, reticle is nice (yet think at low mag), good high end at 20x. Killer MPVO scope
The change to parallax adjustment should show up as you move your eye relative to the center side to side a little. The focus shouldn't really change but the movement of the cross hair on the target as you move your eye will. There should be virtually no cross hair movement with correct parallax dialed in.
This is true, but there is also an image sharpness component to parallax that shows up a longer distances. It just didn't seem to show here.
@@compulsivegunbuyer I do agree that the image should have been clearer with the correct parallax setting. You should also see a huge difference at close up targets as well. That is why a lot of NRL22 scopes have a minimum parallax setting of 10 yards. I also suspect that a scope with a higher magnification might show a more defined difference between a fixed parallax and an adjustable one.
@@Quality_Guru yep, I think my big takeaway from this is that if parallax matters for a scope like this at 10x (which I think it does), it's more about shot placement than PID.
@compulsivegunbuyer do you think you camera could have been compensating at all? Have your tried adjusting parallax on the glx at distance with your eye and observed a focus change? I ask because my leupold vx3hd 4.5-14 shows a noticeable change from 100 yards out any time I adjust parallax.
@@jonathanno5264 it's a good question. I'm not sure at the moment.
More scope comparisons please. I like this type of comparisons.
Will do. Stay tuned...
@@compulsivegunbuyerplease 2.
5-10x44 vs new pa 3-18x44 athena bpr
Parallax does not change the image quality, it changes the image to the reticle, basically when you move your eye side to side or up and down when the parallax is adjusted correctly the center aiming point of the reticle will stay on target and not wander off. With the parallax out of adjustment if your not looking through the scope with your eye lined up perfectly centered you would see the aiming point of the reticle as being on target but that is not really where you are aiming and will not hit the center of the target. With parallax adjusted correctly and your rifle in a vise you should be able to move your eye all around and the crosshairs will not move around on the image and you should be able to accurately shoot with your eye position not in the direct axis of the scope. At closer ranges the parallax isn't as important but at extended ranges such as 500 yards and more it can make a difference on accuracy, the farther the target the more critical it becomes.
Appreciate the comment, but this is an incomplete understanding of parallax. A bit of research and I think you will find that adjusting the parallax does bring the target into sharper view. Your explanation is also correct, but there is more to it.
“This video is going to be awesome”. That is an understatement! Thanks for all your hard work. I have the PA 2.5-10x scope with griffin mil reticle. It does have its limitations (illumination sucks, turrets May get frozen) , but I love it for the money spent and realistic capabilities (good Eyebox & eye relief, good turret tracking, awesome reticle, decent glass, etc.) I added a piggyback Holosun 508T circle ⭕️ dot RDS cuz that 2.5x just Didn’t cut it for 15 yards and in. Very satisfied with it. 😊
I got mine recently so I'm looking forward to putting more time on it.
The illumination is for low light in daytime you should run it black like the video
@@PrimaryArmsOptics have no other choice but to use the etched reticle. If I need illumination for close up shots, I added that holosun 508T @ 12 o’clock piggyback. Love the set up 👊
*Me*
Orders $3,600 scope
*Also Me*
Immediately starts down a rabbit hole of videos bashing said scope lol
While the GLx4 2.5-10x44mm is a very nice optic for the money l, this is a bit of a lopsided comparison. As I’d be like comparing the 600$ vortex pst 1-6x to the $2,500 razor. They reside from Two different world’s quality wise.
Glass clarity, tracking precision, and how thin the reticle is matters more than magnification. I use an SWFA fixed 10x at a mile. Certainly not ideal, but people get so caught up in magnification but they forget at the lower price ranges you aren't going to get it all. If you have illumination, zero stops, etched reticles, etc, you're likely not getting HD glass. I forfeited a few of those to get reticle and glass with the swfa.
Holy crap! I'm gonna do the Sniper Adventure Challenge again this year and I'm trying to shave weight on the optic cause I've done it everywhere else on the gun. I really needed this!!!
A lot of people overlook binoculars for PID. I’ve seen dudes who would carry half a bino on their kit and ran the EOTech. Get an optic that’s going to work best for your weapon and your skill set.
An excellent point
This is a great video. The important question is, is it worth giving up the One X magnification where somebody is a greater threat to you at closer distance.
Why go 2.5 to 10 when you can go 1 to 10?
That's kinda where I've landed as well. I like the razor 1-10 despite its drawbacks. I think its greatest drawback is price.
@@compulsivegunbuyer try the Primary Arms 1-10#28 m10s. 34mm tube.
Only $450.
I have done a number of reviews on it in my channel.
It probably makes more sense to go to a 3 to 18 and then piggyback or offset a Red Dot.
That way you have the best option for up close and something really good for Far Away.
That GLX glass clarity was very impressive! My last three scope purchases have been Primary Arms. I love the ACSS reticle!…Never bought a GLX, but I may have to give it a shot.
Which ones have u bought bro? Ive been thinking about the raptor but im not sure, i love the nova but i not sure for which one to go
@@hectorgalvan9046 I have used the Raptor and the 308 HUD. Any of their ACSS reticle are nice. I prefer the chevron as an aiming point vs. a dot, simply because a dot can sometimes cover up the target whereas the chevron does not.
@@keithwray9942how does the 308 HUD reticles BDC line up with your rifle?
@@austenzacca2878I normally have a 300 yard max range to shoot, but I can say it’s really good to that distance. I can’t verify any longer than that, but others swear by it
Great comparison! I like to practice long range shooting and holding techniques with .22lr rifle and lower power optics, this is a great method for better marksmanship in general.
as an MPVO+dot propagator, that you for your service
great video, would love to see Eotech voodo 1-10 vs Vortex razor 1-10, Trying to decide what 1-10 i should get for my .308 rifle or if i should just get a 1-6 Razor hd II
I'm curious to see that too. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a vudu at the moment. I'm partial to first focal plane so I don't care much for the razor 1-6, but I don't have much time on it at all.
From an optics perspective the zoom ratio isn't really the biggest factor affecting the highest mag performance. These two scope has very different obj size which the glx let in about 3.3 times more light ( surface area difference ) than the razor which reflected on the test that it has much better image. If the light transmission rate are same.
But the objective lense size is directly related to the zoom ratio in this case. The 1-10 must have a small objective because of 1x.
Today I learned that someone with light skin without gloves on is more noticeable under 10x magnification than a black rifle.
It does make a case for gloves and a balaclava (or face paint).
Definitely shows how much the larger objective lens allows for more light gathering.
Badass vid… will def be checking out your others.
Excellent job! Relevant information demonstrated in an ideal format, side by side. If you can continue in this way your channel will become the reference for practical optics review.
Really appreciate that. Thanks for watching!
Blue jeans really stand out, good to know.
You can’t compare a MPVO to an LPVO. 10x was used for 30 years on our sniper rifles and we still shot out to 1000 with them
Precision hits vs. misses with 10X @1000 yds. ? Spray and pray.
@@billbbobby2889 not hardly, decent, direct hits at 1000. Even with a 7.62 which is inferior at 1000. You shoot what you’ve got pal…
@@billbbobby2889the 10 power Leupold M4 Mk3 proved itself magnificent for understanding where the barrel was pointed on the M24 and also was ideal for ranging and bullet drop compensation functions. At any rate, your comment of spray and prey is an insult to a trained marksman who can easily hit Long-Range Targets even from iron sights as proven in Long-Range US Service Rifle Competition, where highly skilled shooters commonly keep a preponderance of hits inside the target’s 10 inch X-Ring, even in non-prevailing wind. My Creds: Military Rifle Instructor assisting the USAMU deliver SDM, TTT, and SAFS Training, US Distinguished Rifleman, and American High Power Rifleman in Long-Range.
Could the GLX perform CQB, or would one need a secondary optic for that?
I'd want a secondary.
Shows the limitation of the Lpvo quite plainly. This is why I bought a high tier (not elite level) 1x8 ffp scope with the full intention of rarely going over 6x magnification. Sfp scope may be a little faster at under 25 yards....but you pay for it with a reticle that us accurate only at full magnification...which is a lpvo's Achilles heel
Your look through reviews are amazing man. This channel is gonna take off soon. How do you get your camera to focus on both the reticle and the glass and make them both equally look clear?
I guess it's just the camera (DJI Osmo Action). I simply have to keep it steady within the exit pupil and it does a great job of showcasing the glass. To hold it steady, I've been experimenting with makeshift cardboard rigs, but I'd love to 3D prints something tailored for my needs. Appreciate your kind words.
Good video. Drop the sound track. People are good with silence.
@jonathanbrookshire4915 Thanks! I've fixed/removed the music in my newer content.
Great video! Been looking at the 2.5-10. Thanks for the added info, well laid out video!
Glad I could help!
Really like mine, 4-16glx is great too. That’s what I have on my Mock12.
What's the best magnification level on an LPVO for a 16" AR16 using 55-62 grain? Om wondering what is too much.
Rifle length is less important than purpose when picking an optic. That said, I'd probably go with a 1-6, 1-8, or 1-10, depending on weight requirement and intended use.
An mpvo on a 16 inch gun seems like overkill to me unless you have a niche reason for it.
Quality of the Glass.
10x means enhancing target size at 1000 yards to be the same size as at 100. Cheap means 10 times bigger but blurry. So we often buy 10x for 500 yard carbines.
Crappola!
No power is needed at 600 yards when target is big enough for the shooter to understand a consistent sight picture. This is proven in the 600 yard stage of US Service Rifle Competition where shooters fire at a 36 inch diameter bullseye with the desire to place all rounds in the target’s 6 inch X-Ring from an iron sight AR-15, which is doable. In fact the same iron sights are effective on the 1000 yard NRA target, which has a 44 inch aiming bullseye and 10 inch X-Ring. For me, I shoot better using irons than optic in NRA Long-Range Competition, for too many reasons to list here but the take away should be too much power thwarts accuracy because it introduces: impression of rifle unsteadiness, mirage, making target appear to dance, and poor comprehension for aim, because reticle has too little contrast to target.
you need a 4.5 to 25 (or similar) and an offset dot for that long boi.
Also immediately remove the LMT style stock from that build, the big and easy to accidentally actuate stock adjustment is AWFUL for precision rigs, every precision class ive seen goes over how guys constantly move the stock or get a scope to the face during firing because a rear bag or rest depressed the adjustment...
10x with no parallax adjustment - no thank you. Even 8x gets iffy
Excellent video. Do the same type video with 3 different magnification scopes hiting a coke soda can circle @ that 600 yd. point. Close to the limit of any precision shot hunter. The "Tactical Rifleman" YT link, Retired Green Beret, shows shooting .30 Cal. Barrett MRAD (Multi change rifle barrel) rifle, shooting 4 shot 2 to 3 inch groups @ 500 meters. Supreme Performance.
First video I've seen of yours. Earned a subscribe
Thanks, boss! Love to hear it.
I learned that blue jeans are not good camo😁
And flannel is surprisingly good
Yup glare from a scope is not super obvious. Alos i believe the 2.5 to 10 has a much larger objective lens. This will give you better detail but 10x is still short for that range
Dope vid
Thanks!
Great stuff man
Appreciate it
Awesome info and great video. Needed that thanks!!!
Happy to help. Trying to provide interesting and opinion-limited information to the community.
I'm sorry, but I had to stop watching. The bad elevator porn music annoyed me to no end. It needed dialed way down.
Fair enough. I've gotten better at mixing the sound since this video. In my defense, I actually recorded the voiceover next door to an elevator porn shoot, so not entirely my fault.
Well played sir! 🤣 Good content regardless. I enjoyed the comparison.
Thumbs up
Wow, very useful video. Thanks a lot.
I have a Weaver 1-5x and I do just fine with it out long distance. Farthest has been ~500 yards. 3 mil holdover for me with the ammunition and zero I have.
Vortex was an option but the prices have increased quite a bit to the point of being to expensive.
Cool video, what was the distance ?
@@AboHashem515 about 600 yards (timestamp 1:40)
@@compulsivegunbuyer thats a good distance , i have a G3 rifle in 308 and shoot it using a 1x H2 Aimpoint and wanna upgrade to an lpvo , its just the big price diffrence on the Vortex that makes you wonder if its worth it , ive shot 600m with the original G3 Scope but its a low quality scope to me
Thanks. I enjoy this video. Very well done.
Really great info in this video! I wish we could see more of this type of testing/comparison between scopes. I’d love to see something like an Arken 24x compared with a vortex or something similar in the same mag range.
Working on bringing more of these to TH-cam. Thanks for watching!
I’d say 5X is good enough with the right target size and color
Is this recorded in mo?
Mo?
Missouri? No east coast
Eye box forgiveness at 10x or full zoom along with glass clarity is most important thing with scopes .. I haven’t used these two interesting to try them that 2.5-10 is a big ass scope Jesus Christ. I figured it was a 5-25 haha
Ya no one in their right mind would want that on anything but a hunting or sniper rifle. The bulk and weight is just stupid. Scopes need to get trimmer, and less bulky. The razor 1-10 is a good example. I hope they make it with turrets so low the are almost flush with the round tube because no one actually dials with an lpvo. We can see here you can barely see shit by 600 yards any you don't need to dial at those distances anyways.
The weight is very similar between the glx and razor. Bulk and weight distribution isn't ideal but not terrible in my opinion.
Any people's experiences with Vortex Viper PST glass vs Glx glass? PST 2-10 and Glx 2.5-10 are probably the most popular 2-10 scopes on the market
I'd like to see that too. I don't have access to a pst atthe moment unfortunately.
I have a Viper PST II 5-25. It's pretty awesome. Don't have a Glx, but I do have an Slx 1-6. Awesome as well. The PA glass may not be as nice as the Vortex, but it cost six times less, and the reticle cannot be beat. Each one is for a completely different purpose though. The 1-6 is for CQB, and the 5-25 is for reaching out to longer distance. The purpose should be the main consideration. Keep in mind having an lpvo allows you to see the world as it is at 1X while looking through the scope with both eyes open. If that's not something you need or want then go for the highest magnification you can afford. You may not always need it, but it's there if you want. Just don't expect it to perform like an lpvo for CQB where 1X is King.
Great video man, subbed
Thanks for the video
Very helpful
Very enlightening content thanks👍
I would like a 1-10 lpvo with parallax. Something that could lock (at 100) like a leupold elevation turret (zero lock).
Check out the March shorty 1-10 dual focal plane. It has adjustable parallax. It's expensive too. ILya Koshkin has reviewed it at the Sniper Hide.
@@philipa9890 I'll take a look. I dont have the budget by now... For sure lol
So just to note, parallax adjustment doesn’t make much sense on an LPVO. It has to do with how trade offs are in optical design. To get the low 1x power, you have to have a smaller objective (aperture). That’s why you don’t see LPVO’s with 44mm objectives. A smaller aperture has greater depth of field. The larger depth of field, the less parallax adjustment matters. So basically an LPVO by design has to trade light gathering but gains the advantage of parallax not making much difference. Parallax on an LPVO would basically adjust nothing until the target is too far for where you’d actually use an LPVO.
@@sethrich5998 you can shoot a 20 inch target, 1km away at 10x... How far is too far exactly with a 1-10 scope? I usually use 12-15 with my NX8. Anyway, I ask my distributor for a Leupold Mark v 2-10. I wont have 1x but I'll have parallax.
I'm torn on running an lpvo or a higher magnification scope on a possible hog rig, even though the particular rifle is a supposed 1.5 moa rig.
I have a pa glx 2.5-10x. How i see it is if u need a quick shot u need a forgiving eyes box. To get a forgiving eyes box u kinda need a big objective lens. And u need enough magnification to positive id be4 taking a shot
Probably would come down to cost. You'll get similar performance but a 2.5-10 will cost less for similar performance.
@@compulsivegunbuyer You’re missing the point. I’d assume a hog rig is running low light. You’d be better served with the larger objective than an LPVO. LPVO only makes sense for a hog gun if you’re running clip on thermals.
@@sethrich5998 I'm curious how significant that difference is. I might do some low light/nv testing with 1-10 vs 2.5-10.
USMC snipers had Unertl 10X scopes on their M40A1 platforms and capably shot out to 1,000 yards. So ya, 10X is enough.
Sure! But I will take 6-24x optic for long range.
thr problem with any actual long range optic is have close targets 6 times too close.
2x-10x doesnt do anything amazing, eye relief is crap at 2x, and it's not as nice at 10x at 100 yards.
For a comfort shooting x24 setting is so good, you will never miss at 100 yards
it’s a give and take, multiple target engagements 0-300 the 2.5x will come in handy
@@PrimaryArmsOptics I'd go with the 4-16x GLx with Athena reticle and throw on a Larue RDS mount with a holosun 407c
I noticed some comments below about the size difference between the PA GLx and the Razor. There is less of a difference between them than is apparent visually.
Razor RAZOR® HD GEN III
1-10X24 FFP = 34mm Tube, 10.1" Long, 21.5 OZ, MSRP $3,599.99
Primary Arms GLx 2.5-10x44 = 30mm Tube, 12.5" Long, 22.5 OZ, MSRP $749.99
My thoughts as well
Paint your black guns kings 👑
Love your name.
RIP Norm
Well what do you consider "long range"? 600 yards at 10x is pretty shitty imo. I would at least go 24 power for that range. 10x is fine for around 200 yards, again imo
Iv witnessed my hunting partner take a deer at 1008 yards with a 3x9x40 Nikon, shoulder shot with a 7mag , dropped right there. It was 88 clicks up on the 1/4 moa at 100yds dials that most 3x9 hunting Scopes have
Lucky shot not repeatable.
you might not need tons of power to shoot , but it's nice to have my 5x50 has a 10 and 40 more to use if I want it , your 2 x10 10x is all it will ever have . Getting in close enough to see the impact holes on that target as compared to just the target is also pretty nice .
Yep, that's certainly true. It's all tradeoffs.
Parallax adjustment is not for quality of image bud.
Not sure I understand this comment, but I think you'll want to check your research.
Pretty sure some the first “sniper” scopes were 8x and that was pretty effective . 10x is more than enough for me personally , I don’t have anywhere to shoot past 400.
it was actually like 3x lmao
@@lithium1770 ww2 didn’t have “snipers” in the sense we see them today . The first Army sniper school didn’t open until 1987 they didn’t use 3x optics. Just because the first scoped rifles used low power doesn’t make them “sniper” weapons . Read a book.
I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.
can you pls next time record it on land instead on boat ?
This video is going to be... for J Crew catalog recipients that recently "got into guns" and think memorizing features and being able to argue featues on the internet makes them "a gun guy." /sarcasm
Honestly I have a hard time listening to your talking style, which seems for memorizers and not users. I don't understand that perspective. But the ideas you want to convey here are decent ones. I just couldn't keep listening. Features comparisons are for bench racers.
Nice
My goal is to add value in whatever limited way I can. If my videos benefit noobs mostly, I'm good with that, but I believe footage like this can help anyone, especially if interested in purchasing one of the optics I show.
@@compulsivegunbuyer I get it. As I said, this subject is a good one. It's just that I don't understand the presentation choices -- but I'm just some guy on the sidelines. The point I was caboose-ing onto the sarcasm was more about seeing if the audience even needs the info presented. This topic, in practice, has to do with more than the average curious person's attention to "features" and most yt folks (by number) are doing more selling than informing, across the spectrum of yt vid makers.
Some of that is just the crazy era we're in, where everyone wants a piece of the pie because the pie looks filling and eternally replenishing.
Take a look at the P&S ModCast 326, and go to about 24:45 on the clock, where Steve Fisher is talking. Or go look for Steve's comments about problems with instructors and with the students one sees as an instructor. I'm not saying you're trying to be like Steve, just that good information-sharing is the same at every tier.
@@seanoneil277 I'm not sure I understand, but I am genuinely curious, what is your issue with the presentation? I don't get your point about "features". Or wait...are you saying I did not fully answer the question asked in the thumbnail?
@@compulsivegunbuyer You're asking me to explain why I'd prefer vanilla ice cream rather than chocolate.
I don't understand your target audience. So I don't understand the presentation.
Maybe it's just a very dry satire and I'm not clever enough to "get it." If you listen to the Steve Fisher remarks I directed you to, that may help explain.
Great video. I have a 6 - 26x50. I can see PID at a great distance.
No parallax adjustment on the most expensive lpvo? AND poor eye relief? AND low light? I wonder where the 3k investment is going then?..
To be fair, I've never seen an lpvo with parallax adjustment.
Ya no one in their right mind would want that on anything but a hunting or sniper rifle. The bulk and weight is just stupid. Scopes need to get trimmer, and less bulky. The razor 1-10 is a good example. I hope they make it with turrets so low the are almost flush with the round tube because no one actually dials with an lpvo. We can see here you can barely see shit by 600 yards any you don't need to dial at those distances anyways.
In terms of weight, the GLX is advertised as 22.2 oz to the vortex 21.5 oz.
I'm really like the way you did this this this is a great way to review scopes and optics