I'm pretty sure I'm the friend Koshkin is referring to. I had the Razor HD LH 1.5-8X32 for a couple months and used it a bit on my .300BLK Kimber Adirondack.
I didn't compare it to a Leica ER5, and have never tested the ER5 series. However I did compare it head to head with my all time favorite "tweener" scope, the Kahles 2-7X36 CL. As much as it pains me to say, I thought the Razor HD LH was every bit as good optically as the Kahles, and in some ways, I thought the Razor was the better scope.
At the same magnification, I couldn't say one was better than the other in terms of resolution and low light performance, except that the Razor's excellent G4 reticle is a tad bolder and stands out more against a dark background in low light than either the plex or 4A reticles I have in my Kahles 2-7s. Being a midrange magnification, lightweight traditional hunting scope, I didn't do a tall target or box test to evaluate the Razor HD LH's tracking precision, but there were no surprises during initial zero and POI shifts equaled turret adjustment inputs pretty precisely. I don't think micrometer-like tracking precision is a necessity on this type of scope, as it wasn't designed to be a turret twisting, LR precision scope. That's not intended to imply it doesn't track well, it may very well do so; I just don't know. If it has maintained POI on Ilya's 458 SOCOM, it's accomplished the most important aspect of its design intent. Of course, any rifle scope that doesn't maintain POI is useless for its intended purpose.
I thought the G4 is an outstanding "set and forget" hunting reticle! That reticle combines very bold posts with thin central crosshairs and a floating dot. It's similar to a #4, and offers the main advantages of a #4, except it's an improved version. The horizontal bars extend close to center, so you can bracket an animal's vitals with them in low light even when it might be difficult to see the fine crosshairs and dot in the center. It also includes BDC holdover marks, which could be useful when used within its limitations. This is one aspect where the Razor was clearly superior to the Kahles CL, or most traditional plex or #4 reticles, for that matter. It's simply an outstanding, well-designed hunting reticle.
I loved the scope's compact size and light weight. This scope would be an excellent choice for a lightweight rifle! I appreciate compact, light scopes, which is why I've always been a fan of midrange variables ("tweeners"), though I'm obviously in the minority, given today's rifle scope offerings.
My only real complaint of the scope is it has the fine thread diopter adjustment, and I prefer the coarse pitch "fast focus" style diopter. Not a huge deal, as you typically don't mess with diopter adjustment very often.
Otherwise, I thought it held its own against the excellent Kahles 2-7X36 CL, with a better reticle and a little more zoom range, while still having the exact same length and weight. From my point of view, what's not to like?
------------- Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.
|