Lightweight scope that dials with zero stop, does it exist?

[KHNC]

Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Rifle Scope, 30mm Tube, First Focal Plane, Color: Black, Tube Diameter: 30 mm, Up to 33% Off w/ Free S&H — 3 models

Shop Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Rifle Scope, 30mm Tube, First Focal Plane | Up to 33% Off Be The First To Review Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Rifle Scope, 30mm Tube, First...

www.opticsplanet.com

This scope fits the bill seems to me. Of course, if you dont count the 50% that are Vortex haters. 21 oz with Turret

 

[BjornF16]

Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Rifle Scope, 30mm Tube, First Focal Plane, Color: Black, Tube Diameter: 30 mm, Up to 33% Off w/ Free S&H — 3 models

Shop Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Rifle Scope, 30mm Tube, First Focal Plane | Up to 33% Off Be The First To Review Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Rifle Scope, 30mm Tube, First...

www.opticsplanet.com

This scope fits the bill seems to me. Of course, if you dont count the 50% that are Vortex haters. 21 oz with Turret

You mean this one?

Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Field Eval

Ryan Avery asked if I would review this scope in the same vein as the Meopta Optika 6 and Tanget Theta evaluations and I agreed. I get queried about these scopes almost as much as any, and even though I have seen poor performance from the prior LHT’s, this is a different design and will be...

www.rokslide.com

 

[KHNC]

You mean this one?

Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Field Eval

Ryan Avery asked if I would review this scope in the same vein as the Meopta Optika 6 and Tanget Theta evaluations and I agreed. I get queried about these scopes almost as much as any, and even though I have seen poor performance from the prior LHT’s, this is a different design and will be...

www.rokslide.com

YEp , i guess its a shit box. Also, I wont ever put any stock in the scope reviews from the "other" guy. I guess his results were unicornish at best.

Vortex Razor HD LHT Review

Review Vortex Razor HD LHT. Jared Bloomgren Vortex Razor HD LHT review. Testing at the range and in the field on a successful whitetail hunt.

www.rokslide.com

Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Review

Vortex Razor HD LHT Review. Jared tests the new Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm riflescope on a South Dakota antelope hunt.

www.rokslide.com

 

[deadwolf]

Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Rifle Scope, 30mm Tube, First Focal Plane, Color: Black, Tube Diameter: 30 mm, Up to 33% Off w/ Free S&H — 3 models

Shop Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Rifle Scope, 30mm Tube, First Focal Plane | Up to 33% Off Be The First To Review Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Rifle Scope, 30mm Tube, First...

www.opticsplanet.com

This scope fits the bill seems to me. Of course, if you dont count the 50% that are Vortex haters. 21 oz with Turret

I think it’s probably a lot more than 50%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

YEp , i guess its a shit box. Also, I wont ever put any stock in the scope reviews from the "other" guy. I guess his results were unicornish at best.

Vortex Razor HD LHT Review

Review Vortex Razor HD LHT. Jared Bloomgren Vortex Razor HD LHT review. Testing at the range and in the field on a successful whitetail hunt.

www.rokslide.com

Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Review

Vortex Razor HD LHT Review. Jared tests the new Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm riflescope on a South Dakota antelope hunt.

www.rokslide.com

You are using false equivalencies and fallacies. Neither of those reviews, nor the discussion threads had anything like the eval that I have done. They literally have nothing in common. This is absolutely nothing against Jared, and his review is better than most “reviews” online, however in no way shows anything related to zero retention, or actually measured “tracking”, or return to zero, and only peripherally hits on maintaining zero through use. And while it’s great that a scope fell on rocks and was “still on” whatever that means, that’s not “testing” or even evaluating zero retention. Only some, if any, of what Jerad wrote could be replicated because there isn’t information- “it’s zeroed”- ok, what does that mean? Was that three shots hit close to center? Was that I fired four, but two didn’t look good so I ignored them”, etc. Despite popular opinion shooting an elk/deer/goat/etc. at normal ranges is not a “test”. Those animals by definition are large animals. They are big targets and your zero can be measurably off and you still fringe hit them. And when you have a miss- was it due to excitement, the animal moving, the position, etc? Mostly no one knows why, and they chalk it up to “hunting”.
In one of those review threads on individual shot an animal at range and hit it in the heart- was he aiming at the heart? If not, did he hit the heart by probability? Did he miss the center lungs due to wind, position, or loss of zero? Another one dropped an animal in its tracks- ok, did he hit spine or high shoulders? Was he aiming there? If not why did the round hit were it did? If they weren’t aiming for the heart and spine- what would happen if the animals were facing the other direction? Etc, etc, etc. It’s why “field” results are by themselves nearly useless, they must be accompanied by static range “testing” that is replicated over and over on demand. And if something goes wrong (and if I were aiming “behind the shoulder” and bullet struck the heart or high shoulder at mid ranges- something went wrong) then it needs to be discovered as soon as possible.

Again- none of this is me saying something negative against Jerad. It is simply that those reviews are more about “I like, I think, I feel” rather than trying to make data. Every single part of the evals I have done can be, and I would encourage everyone to replicate them. The standards, grouping, targets, rifle, everything is there. And its interesting that the only two people online that have attempted to replicate that I know of, have had nearly identical results.

 

[Dobermann]

And its interesting that the only two people online that have attempted to replicate that I know of, have had nearly identical results.

And while formalised testing, exc;luding as many variables as possible, is crucial, we should also ignore that on the Hide thread where someone asked if anyone had "tested" their LHT, something like four failures were reported on the first page alone.

I know that takes us back into the territory of anecdote, and we don't have all of the details, but it is relevant context.

That, and all of the Vortex supporters who then pages later said things like "If it was such as bad scope, there'd be lots of people here complaining about it". Well, while that's not completely the case, it seemed like these folks had ignored those four failures that were right in front of them.

 

[KHNC]

You are using false equivalencies and fallacies. Neither of those reviews, nor the discussion threads had anything like the eval that I have done. They literally have nothing in common. This is absolutely nothing against Jared, and his review is better than most “reviews” online, however in no way shows anything related to zero retention, or actually measured “tracking”, or return to zero, and only peripherally hits on maintaining zero through use. And while it’s great that a scope fell on rocks and was “still on” whatever that means, that’s not “testing” or even evaluating zero retention. Only some, if any, of what Jerad wrote could be replicated because there isn’t information- “it’s zeroed”- ok, what does that mean? Was that three shots hit close to center? Was that I fired four, but two didn’t look good so I ignored them”, etc. Despite popular opinion shooting an elk/deer/goat/etc. at normal ranges is not a “test”. Those animals by definition are large animals. They are big targets and your zero can be measurably off and you still fringe hit them. And when you have a miss- was it due to excitement, the animal moving, the position, etc? Mostly no one knows why, and they chalk it up to “hunting”.
In one of those review threads on individual shot an animal at range and hit it in the heart- was he aiming at the heart? If not, did he hit the heart by probability? Did he miss the center lungs due to wind, position, or loss of zero? Another one dropped an animal in its tracks- ok, did he hit spine or high shoulders? Was he aiming there? If not why did the round hit were it did? If they weren’t aiming for the heart and spine- what would happen if the animals were facing the other direction? Etc, etc, etc. It’s why “field” results are by themselves nearly useless, they must be accompanied by static range “testing” that is replicated over and over on demand. And if something goes wrong (and if I were aiming “behind the shoulder” and bullet struck the heart or high shoulder at mid ranges- something went wrong) then it needs to be discovered as soon as possible.

Again- none of this is me saying something negative against Jerad. It is simply that those reviews are more about “I like, I think, I feel” rather than trying to make data. Every single part of the evals I have done can be, and I would encourage everyone to replicate them. The standards, grouping, targets, rifle, everything is there. And its interesting that the only two people online that have attempted to replicate that I know of, have had nearly identical results.

I have absolutely nothing at all against Jared either. However, after seeing your reviews, I wont ever have any confidence in his or any other persons scope "review". Yours has the information people need. In fact, I wanted your review of Vortex to be positive, to prove you wrong, as you are a known hater of vortex products. All the Vortex scopes i own have been very reliable for my own personal use. I am more of any archery guy so the range finders and binos get the hard use from me. They have proven reliable to me. After your results on the LHT, i will be cancelling my order i am waiting to be fulfilled. Still looking into another option, but ill likely go with a Nightforce NXS.

 

[Formidilosus]

I have absolutely nothing at all against Jared either. However, after seeing your reviews, I wont ever have any confidence in his or any other persons scope "review". Yours has the information people need. In fact, I wanted your review of Vortex to be positive, to prove you wrong, as you are a known hater of vortex products. All the Vortex scopes i own have been very reliable for my own personal use. I am more of any archery guy so the range finders and binos get the hard use from me. They have proven reliable to me. After your results on the LHT, i will be cancelling my order i am waiting to be fulfilled. Still looking into another option, but ill likely go with a Nightforce NXS.

His review offers something- I don’t know him, but I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water.


As for me being a known hater of Vortex…. Ehh… The only RF that I have that I have paid for in the last decade is a Vortex, and if someone is looking for a Bino LRF and can not or will not pay for Alphas, the Fury 5000 HD AB is clearly the one to get. I am not in any way a hater of Vortex, but I will not, nor can I lie about what I see and have seen- their scopes have not been good in the ones I have used, and I have used a lot. The durability of the binoculars has been relatively poor as well. But, so are Swarovski binos and Spotters, and just because I use them does not mean I will downplay their durability problems- I average two seasons between repair work for Swarovski binoculars and spotters.

 

[Dobermann]

I have absolutely nothing at all against Jared either. However, after seeing your reviews, I wont ever have any confidence in his or any other persons scope "review".

Just to expand on what Form said above, and in Jared's defense - let's bring a bit of nuance to this.

Each are reviewing/reporting on what they find. If someone's review tells me a lot about features, including aspects I hadn't thought of, or details about glass that I can't tell as there's not multiples in a local gun shop, there's some value there. If that review isn't testing for some or all aspects of reliability, then that is what it is. It's not about having "confidence", it's just about accepting what is being discussed and what isn't.

However, like you, I'm more interested in tests of reliability, than reviews of features - so I don't usually read or watch reviews that focus more on features and user experience until I've heard good reports about reliability.

 

[Stu]

I bought the Fury II AB in June '21. I can report that mine has been fine for my use in temperatures as low as about 20 degrees (full cold soak). However, i rarely am ranging more than 800 yards and haven't done a formal test. It has lived in my truck on most weekends this winter (day and night when not in use), and so far works everytime I grab it in the early morning before warming. I've been shooting some practically every weekend in that time.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

My perfect scope doesn't quite exist yet either. I need sub-1lb, 0-600 yards, illuminated reticle without batteries in green and zero stop 1" cds-zl turret preferably with 1/3 or 1/2 moa per click on elevation turret only.

That makes my perfect scope a blend between the Trijicon Accuppoint 3-9x40 green dot duplex and a Leupold cds-zl exposed 1" zero stop turret and maybe a little huskemaw action with that 1/3 moa per click dial up.

As it stands I run the Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x40 at 13.4 oz with a Kenton Industries Speed Dial turret installed and it's pretty dang close to perfect. Sits in 1" low talley's for a sub-1lb scope and rings package (15.5 oz total). It dials my slow azz 16" 6.5 Grendel 123gr eld-m's to a little over 500 from a 200 yard zero in one rotation (these have 12 moa per rotation vs leupolds 15 moa fyi). The dot covers about 5" at 425 yards, still easy to center on coyotes way out there past where most can hit em and even more wonderful on deer on up. It's what meets my needs the best at this point in time.

Will keep watching, Leupold seems to dance all over getting it right but Trijicon is closest, proven, rock solid track record for reliability/quality/zero hold/tracking etc. So a 2022 upgrade to that accupoint and it could be the ultimate hunting scope, come on Trijicon...throw a zero lock exposed turret on that bad boy and give those elevation clicks 1/3 moa per click and it would be perfect. Oh, and I believer merican made to as well.

Took me a good amount of effort to transition my diehard for life Leupold self over to these accupoints but glad I did and won't give them up now, awesome glass and that reticle is a rockstar for hunting. Ps, for those needing sunshade the vortex 40mm sunshade screws right onto these accupoints.

 

[ElkPRC]

Interesting to see the "hate" on Vortex as I have always thought very highly of them and have not heard many bad things. With that said sounds like the OP and what my pick would be is the VX-5 3-15.

 

[Dobermann]

Interesting to see the "hate" on Vortex as I have always thought very highly of them and have not heard many bad things. With that said sounds like the OP and what my pick would be is the VX-5 3-15.

Welcome Creed guy!

Stick around here for long enough, keep an open yet critical mind, and read a lot ... and you might just end up having a new opinion on both Vortex and Leupold.

 

[ElPollo]

My perfect scope doesn't quite exist yet either. I need sub-1lb, 0-600 yards, illuminated reticle without batteries in green and zero stop 1" cds-zl turret preferably with 1/3 or 1/2 moa per click on elevation turret only.

That makes my perfect scope a blend between the Trijicon Accuppoint 3-9x40 green dot duplex and a Leupold cds-zl exposed 1" zero stop turret and maybe a little huskemaw action with that 1/3 moa per click dial up.

As it stands I run the Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x40 at 13.4 oz with a Kenton Industries Speed Dial turret installed and it's pretty dang close to perfect. Sits in 1" low talley's for a sub-1lb scope and rings package (15.5 oz total). It dials my slow azz 16" 6.5 Grendel 123gr eld-m's to a little over 500 from a 200 yard zero in one rotation (these have 12 moa per rotation vs leupolds 15 moa fyi). The dot covers about 5" at 425 yards, still easy to center on coyotes way out there past where most can hit em and even more wonderful on deer on up. It's what meets my needs the best at this point in time.

Will keep watching, Leupold seems to dance all over getting it right but Trijicon is closest, proven, rock solid track record for reliability/quality/zero hold/tracking etc. So a 2022 upgrade to that accupoint and it could be the ultimate hunting scope, come on Trijicon...throw a zero lock exposed turret on that bad boy and give those elevation clicks 1/3 moa per click and it would be perfect. Oh, and I believer merican made to as well.

Took me a good amount of effort to transition my diehard for life Leupold self over to these accupoints but glad I did and won't give them up now, awesome glass and that reticle is a rockstar for hunting. Ps, for those needing sunshade the vortex 40mm sunshade screws right onto these accupoints.

How long have you been dialing that accupoint? Have you done any tests on it to assess it’s reliability under that sort of use? I agree that a setup like this would be great for cutting weight and would cover most people’s hunting needs, but I would be wary about dialing a scope that wasn’t designed for it. I’d love to hear more about how it’s going for you.

 

[MTNHUNTER76]

Vortex razor amg 28.8oz
Leupold mark 5 3.5-18 26oz

I have an amg and it's been trouble free for several years. Looking at the Leupold mark 5 for another rifle.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

How long have you been dialing that accupoint? Have you done any tests on it to assess it’s reliability under that sort of use? I agree that a setup like this would be great for cutting weight and would cover most people’s hunting needs, but I would be wary about dialing a scope that wasn’t designed for it. I’d love to hear more about how it’s going for you.

not long at all, just did a bunch of research on them before I bought the first one to test out, then bought two more for the kids rifles once I knew I could give up on Leupold, all three of us dialled up our deer this year, 300, 355 and 420...and when I was collecting drop data everything was bang on to the printed chart I brought to get me on steel after the zero, and tracked in perfectly from there, both zeroing at 200 and on steel at 425 getting the precise data needed to send for matching speed dial turrets from Kenton (at my preferred elevation/temp range of course), anyway, there were zero surprises and I have no concerns, the research I do beforehand won't let me make too many mistakes and these scopes fair well under a gear junkies obsessive research skills

 

[chocolab]

wow good read. i remember this thread from a few years ago and it aged well. I think it's probably why I have a SWFA 3x9-42. nothing but positive things to say about the SWFA after years of hard use.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

My $0.02 for a light(ish), reliable dialer. Decide what's most important to you. For my hunting use and preferences, I like the following.....listed in order of my personal preference:

1. S&B PMII 6x42 - ~19 oz, simple P3 (mildot) reticle, zero-stop single turn (13 mil limit), no parallax adjustment, no variable adjustments, no illumination.

2. SWFA 3-9x42 - ~19 oz, mil-quad ffp reticle, no zero stop, no parallax adjustment, no illumination

3. NXS 2.5-10x42 - ~19 oz, various sfp reticles, zero stop, parallax (much needed on this one due to design), illumination

4. SWFA 6x42 - ~20 oz, mil-quad reticle, no zero stop, parallax adjustment, no illumination

 

[gtriple]

My $0.02 for a light(ish), reliable dialer. Decide what's most important to you. For my hunting use and preferences, I like the following.....listed in order of my personal preference:

1. S&B PMII 6x42 - ~19 oz, simple P3 (mildot) reticle, zero-stop single turn (13 mil limit), no parallax adjustment, no variable adjustments, no illumination.

2. SWFA 3-9x42 - ~19 oz, mil-quad ffp reticle, no zero stop, no parallax adjustment, no illumination

3. NXS 2.5-10x42 - ~19 oz, various sfp reticles, zero stop, parallax (much needed on this one due to design), illumination

4. SWFA 6x42 - ~20 oz, mil-quad reticle, no zero stop, parallax adjustment, no illumination

You can add a zero stop to SWFA scopes.

SWFA zero stop

https://www.ebay.com/itm/333341640806 I just recieved a set of these. So simple, so effective! They take all the questioning out of things if you dial. Windage turret's getting the chop next.

www.rokslide.com

 

[buzzy]

Maybe I’m missing something but if someone were to use this method wouldn’t it be a fair process to compare scopes? Seems like you could shoot a minimum number of rounds and then run this test to see if the scope is as advertised??