Well if they build a 28oz or less optic that's as reliable as irons I'm in. You reference the VX-5HD 2-10X42, are you alluding that they are as reliable as irons?
No. The VX5 is a poor aiming device.
All scope makes/models have a failure rate. But that failure rate varies considerably- and paying $3,000 does not necessarily get you a lower failure rate. Khales/Swarovski/S&B/TT/ZCO/Vortex/Zeiss/Leupold are not designing and building scopes with zero retention as the #1 priority. They are designing them for glass, features, and weights/size- roughly in that order. There was a noticeable shift in scope “tracking” when one person started putting scopes on a tracking board and showing the results online. It showed that there was no correlation between price and correct adjustments because most companies were not building or testing for it.
A sample of one with use that doesn’t even come close to “hard” does not give reliable enough info. I do not talk about one offs or light use. When I say that NF “tactical” scope lines have a lower failure rate than Leupold Mark 5’s I’m not speaking about one or two- I’m talking dozens, used heavily.
I am just some person on the internet, which is why I have state over and over what makes these scope fail. Don’t trust me- go check yours.
Oh, and for what I primarily do I want 18x or 20x please (I know you're going to tell me I'll be fine w/15x but I beg to differ

). I could care less about 2.5x at the low end so they can skip the big power multiplications and give me more reliability.
You (the market) has to start demanding it.
I will give an example from the AR15 world. Geissele MK16 handguards which had been selected for a buy from part of the military. A couple people got the bright idea to drop the rifle with laser aiming device and scope from shoulder height on concrete, from a leaked PP slide that said that handguard shifted from impacts. They cowitnessed the Optic and laser (means that’s they were both aiming at the same spot). Low and behold the laser did shift when dropped, which they took to mean the rail shifted, and it deformed the rail. This started a whole thing with people dropping rifles and breaking handguards and optics.
Now, there were some major issues with their test, #1 they believed that the optics would hold zero with the drops- they don’t. #2 they believed that the laser holds zero from drops- they don’t. BUT, what was found out was there are a lot (as in most) of handguards that are fragile as can be because the manufacturers had never considered durability in rough handling as a thing, and had certainly never actually conducted legitimate testing of their products. One year later there were rails coming out with mounting interfaces and durability signify improved, which needed to happen- all because people started dropping the things and seeing what would happen.
The key thing here is, even though their “testing” isn’t testing, and it certainly isn’t repeatable and isn’t “scientific” it exposed a serious weakness in products. That weakness had been known in small circles, but manufacturers wouldn’t listen to the few voices showing real problems because the market didn’t say it needed it.