I was able to test out the new DMRIIi against the ERS, T5xi 5-25X56, Gen 2 Razor 4.5-27X56, and March 3-24X42 today. Thanks to a friend who let me borrow the Bushnells.

When I left the house, it was nice and overcast, which I prefer for testing out scopes as it helps seperate performance, however by the time I had gotten to the range, everything cleared up and it was bright and sunny. I was able to test for Resolution with an Air Force 1951 target and CA with my white target board. I like to test contrast by looking at pine cones on a background of trees, but did not get a chance to do so. I will give my overall impressions of the image though.

All testing was at 100 yards (my limit for this range). Diopters were adjusted to my eye. The Parallax knob was used to bring the target into best focus. I should note parallax was dialed out in all scopes once the target was focused. All scopes except the Steiner ended up at or very near the 100 yard marking on the knob. The Steiner was just over 75.

My scopes (Razor, March, Steiner) were mounted on rifles. The Bushnells were not. However I was able to place them on sandbags and mold the bags until they viewed the target. I felt this was a very stable setup as I did not touch the table they were on.

All magnifications were set to 20X. I did test to see if I could see more by turning up the magnification on the Razor. I could resolve significantly more at 27X but when comparing to the other scopes I dropped it to 20X

Resolution:

March F: I was able to clearly see the "5" line on the -2 group of the 1951 target. I could start to make out the "6" lines
Gen 2 Razor: I was able to clearly see the "5" on the -2 group. I could not make out the "6"
Steiner T5xi: I was able to clearly see the "4" line on the -2 group. I could almost make out the "5"
DMRIIi: I was able to clearly see the "4" line on the -2 group. I could start to make out the "5"
ERS: I was able to see the "4" line. I could not make out the "5"

Basically for pure resolution:
March>Razor>T5xi>DMRIIi>=ERS

Chromatic Aberration:
March: None perceived at the very center of the image. A little bit would develop once I came off the center, about the same as the Razor.
Razor: Very little CA on the edges of the target.
Steiner: Significantly more than Razor and March this used to bother me until:
DMRIIi and ERS: much more CA on edges of target than even the Steiner. Compared to each other, they were about the same.

Controlling CA:
March >= Razor>>T5xi>>Bushnells

Eyebox:
I did not test the eyebox of mounted scopes vs unmounted. I did not feel that was a fair comparison. However I did test the two bushnells against each other.

The DMRIIi has a significantly tighter eyebox than the ERS. I found this surprising since they are supposed to be the same optical design. However I found it consistently more difficult to get behind.

Overall Image:
Gen 2 Razor: Even though it got edged out by the March in Resolution and CA, I felt I did not have to work as hard to get the best image. The image certainly "pops" more than any of the others and on a previous test against the March and Steiner, it had significantly better contrast. This is most comfortable scope to get behind. 

March F: I have used this scope for many years and competed with it in a DMR series last year. I think it's performance contributed in large part to how I did. On paper in today's test it did the best, however I left out contrast, which is an area where it struggles. 

Steiner: It outperformed the Bushnells today and it has decent contrast. However this is the most difficult scope to get behind. I think the diopter is very sensitive on this scope (like the March) and I don't have it set perfectly. Occasionally while looking through the scope, the clear image will suddenly get blurry and I will have to look away. I had the same problem on the March until I set aside a portion of a day looking through it and looking away to get the perfect diopter setting.

DMRIIi: The good news is that optically it does not feel the same as the ERS. The target certainly pops more than on the ERS and it edged out the ERS in the resolution test. The bad news is that the improvements are not significant enough to move it ahead of other optics that beat out the ERS. I will note I do not like the G3 reticle as much as the G2. The G2 has thinner stadia lines in the very center for precise shots. The G3 does not and I felt they were too thick at high magnification.

ERS: I really like this scope. I like the mag range (I rarely go over 20X, even in the Razor), I like the turrets, and the G2DMR reticle is my favorite. I used to own one but I sold it because I sometimes could not see small targets. I remember trying to hit a tomato paste can at 500 yards and I could see it with other optics, but could not with the ERS. 

Conclusions:

In my opinion I don't think anyone looking at the March 42mm objective is going to be considering any of the other scopes on this list. I run mine on a lightweight precision AR where size and weight are very important. I would consider the others to be too big for my purpose. 

The Razor feels like it's at a different level than the other three. The way the image pops out as soon as you get behind it is something you don't get with the others.

The Steiner vs DMRIIi is really the real competition here and its close. For competition shooting, both have good enough glass to make out the target. The eyebox on the DMRIIi was surprising compared to the ERS, but without it being mounted on a rifle, I can't say that its "bad", just "not as good as ERS". However it's simple and it just works with no oddities seen in the Steiner. I have tried multiple times to get the diopter right in the Steiner and I'm close but not perfect. If I had to choose between the two, I would say: For match shooting I would choose the DMRIIi, or shooting where I'm not on the clock: Steiner. 

Good post. Just got a razor II 4.5-27 mostly due to the reputation and 10 mil turrets. Plan to compare it against an HDMR I and Mark 6 in a couple weeks on the 800 and 1000 yard lines.

I think the bushnells are known for CA. Your description sounds like my HDMR I.

Thanks for the great info. I recently upgraded my gen i 5-20x razor to the gen ii and was blown away just like most everyone who has gotten behind it. The gen ii razor is such a great optic. Now my issue is do I save up and get another one for a build I'm just getting going, or do I give the Kahles that I'm hearing so many great things about a look. Might have a chance early next month to see one in person.

Thanks for the excellent write up. I spent alot of time trying to figure out if I was going to purchase the Steiner T5 or the DMRIIi. In the end I arbitrarily picked
Steiner because I couldn't find much in the way of side by side comparison of the 2.

Having spent time behind both now I would say you are spot on in your analysis of the pros and cons of both.

Great post, thanks. Really wanted a Razor Gen II

I really wish Bushnell had kept the G2 reticle. The thinner inner stadia lines were my favorite part about it. The G3 just seems too thick at high power.