Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Q&A

[packgoatguy]

You’re gonna wrap a scope in 1/2” foam? How will you access the turrets, or parallax knob, or power selector? Or is this some sort of cover that you take off when you’re ready to shoot? Why not just return or sell your scope and buy something that works?

I'm thinking of a cover of some sort that would be removed in the moments when I pull the rifle from my pack and get ready for a shot.

 

[Formidilosus]

I'm thinking of a cover of some sort that would be removed in the moments when I pull the rifle from my pack and get ready for a shot.

I’m not trying to say that you should or should not trust this scope, I’m just asking why, if you do not trust it would you choose to use it?

 

[packgoatguy]

Yes- sell it and buy something you trust.




That would be no different than the 1/2” pad that they are dropped on anyways. A scope that loses zero easily, is a scope that loses zero easily and there is nothing you can do to help it. Keep in mind, this specific scope has lost zero twice just riding the padded seat of a truck.

I see your point about the padding in a truck, however in regards to that particular issue, I've always felt it necessary with any scoped rifle to either have it secured in a padded case, or held in a passengers hands. Specifically not letting the scope rest against any part of the truck for any length of time, as I grew up being taught that the constant vibrations from the truck were especially hard on scope zeros. As far as the drop onto the pad goes, the physics of what goes into that type of strike is beyond my pay grade... and you would certainly be better at assessing that. However anecdotally, I feel that when I make contact with a hard surface, say my bare foot onto a padded floor, I feel more "pain" or impact than if my foot had a shoe on it with the padding affixed to my foot. Likenwise, ive heard stories of engineering student competitions where they devise padding around raw eggs to drop them from various heights to see if they can keep them intact. The same egg dropped from 3ft onto a padded floor might break, whereas if it were wrapped in padding instead, it might not break from the same height. Not sure if that correlates here, just curious if there would be something to the idea.

But to your other point;
Can you list out again the scopes you have found to pass your tests? At least the ones at 30oz or less... If I've read you correctly before, you've cleared all of the NF optics, including shv line. SWFA scopes i believe ??? S&b? Any of the leupolds? Any of the vortex, swaros, etc? Anything known for being particularly lightweight... like the z5, or the vx lines??

 

[packgoatguy]

I’m not trying to say that you should or should not trust this scope, I’m just asking why, if you do not trust it would you choose to use it?

That is a great question. But let's be clear, I think your test results are intended to convey your opinion that this particular model of scope should not be expected to hold zero if subjected to bumps, falls, or persistent vibration. Which is perfectly fine, and it's honestly why your opinion is so highly regarded on this site, because you do not form your opinions in a vacuum, but rather approach in a very analytical and scientific way that makes it difficult for others to argue with your results, or even disagree with your conclusions.

But my own personal lack of trust in this particular scope is derived solely from the information you have provided. If you had asked me prior to my reading about your testing, I would have had no objective reason to distrust this scope, as I have not even mounted it yet, and the other reviews online thus far have been overwhelmingly positive... Including some even on this site where the poster mentioned a hard fall where the scope hit a rock, but later testing showed it held zero in spite of the fall.

But your rigorous testing led me to not only creating this posting, but also to email vortex for some answers, and even ask them if they are going to be willing to buy back my (still as of yet unused) scope if they can't put out a "hunting" scope durable enough to hold zero throughout the minor bumps and tumbles that all mountain hunters experience at one time or another. I have not yet heard back from vortex.

So, at this point, I'm looking for honest advice and reasonable alternatives. If someone can point me to an equally lightweight and feature rich scope that is durable, then I would be a happy camper. If that doesn't exist, then I'm left with either looking for ways to make due with the scope I have (ie like the idea to pad it... ) or find an equally lightweight scope with less features, or find an equally feature rich scope that is heavier. For me, every ounce counts... so it probably means finding a lighter but less feature rich alternative... for which I'm all ears if you have a suggestion.

 

[Formidilosus]

But to your other point;
Can you list out again the scopes you have found to pass your tests? At least the ones at 30oz or less... If I've read you correctly before, you've cleared all of the NF optics, including shv line. SWFA scopes i believe ??? S&b? Any of the leupolds? Any of the vortex, swaros, etc? Anything known for being particularly lightweight... like the z5, or the vx lines??

NF, and generally SWFA, Bushnell LRTS/LRHS, some S&B’s, and looks like some Trijicons. The Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x44mm so far from the one, is everything that the HD LHT should be. It’s 24 ounces.

 

[Formidilosus]

But my own personal lack of trust in this particular scope is derived solely from the information you have provided. If you had asked me prior to my reading about your testing, I would have had no objective reason to distrust this scope, as I have not even mounted it yet

So what I would suggest, or what I would do is to go zero it, and the conduct the drop eval as laid out if you find it valuable, or if you have worries. No better way than to test your own system.

So, at this point, I'm looking for honest advice and reasonable alternatives. If someone can point me to an equally lightweight and feature rich scope that is durable, then I would be a happy camper.

As I posted above, the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x44mm is doing quite well. It is a sample of one, however historically Trijicons have been decent to very good scopes, and in the last couple of years they have been working to make them much better. I still would check/test my own Vortex HD LHT because I would want to know.

 

[packgoatguy]

So what I would suggest, or what I would do is to go zero it, and the conduct the drop eval as laid out if you find it valuable, or if you have worries. No better way than to test your own system.




As I posted above, the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x44mm is doing quite well. It is a sample of one, however historically Trijicons have been decent to very good scopes, and in the last couple of years they have been working to make them much better. I still would check/test my own Vortex HD LHT because I would want to know.

I agree that trijicon looks like it might be a good contender.

I can't find an exact reference, so I apologize if you've addressed it before; have you dropped tested either the swfa HD 3-9x42 30mm ffp tactical (19oz) or the ss 3-15x42 ffp 30mm (24oz)? And how did the vortex pst gen 1 2.5-10x32 ffp you had in a previous post end up faring in your testing?

Also, you've mentioned in your testing how you take great care to eliminate the possibility that the zero shift is due to the rifle, base, or rings... in your opinion and experience, for us ultralight sensitive guys... how does a lightweight 1 piece ring like the DNZ Gamereaper tend to fare? Instead of beefier 1 piece, or a pic base and say nightforce ultralight rings? Between the weight of the base and the rings, vs the weight of a 1 piece game reaper, there is like a 4oz difference... but are they less effective to a corresponding degree? Have you done any testing in this regard?

 

[Formidilosus]

I can't find an exact reference, so I apologize if you've addressed it before; have you dropped tested either the swfa HD 3-9x42 30mm ffp tactical (19oz) or the ss 3-15x42 ffp 30mm (24oz)?

As the eval is written out now- no. However lots and lots of drops with both. Really hard hits can bend the turret on the Classic models which can result in a shift up to .3 mil (1”). The is not normal, and I have never seen one lose zero in actual use. The 3-9x42mm had not had this happen, and I have two with more than 100,000 logged rounds on each without ever losing zero. Dozens and dozens more in very rough use with no issues. The 3-9x42mm SWFA is the best general purpose 0-600 yard scope on the market, and in the last couple of years alone I, or those I hunt with have killed elk and deer at 910, 735, 676, 666, 612, etc. and a whole bunch with the fixed 6x SS at some serous long ranges.

And how did the vortex pst gen 1 2.5-10x32 ffp you had in a previous post end up faring in your testing?

Mean point of impact remained center, but the group size opened up to 2’ish MOA, the diopter adjustment needs to be refocused after every couple of shots now, and the power ring is functionally frozen in cold temps. With that, it did better than any PST I’ve seen…. And I’ve seen a bunch.

Also, you've mentioned in your testing how you take great care to eliminate the possibility that the zero shift is due to the rifle, base, or rings... in your opinion and experience, for us ultralight sensitive guys... how does a lightweight 1 piece ring like the DNZ Gamereaper tend to fare? Instead of beefier 1 piece, or a pic base and say nightforce ultralight rings? Between the weight of the base and the rings, vs the weight of a 1 piece game reaper, there is like a 4oz difference... but are they less effective to a corresponding degree? Have you done any testing in this regard?

Yes. What action?

 

[packgoatguy]

As the eval is written out now- no. However lots and lots of drops with both. Really hard hits can bend the turret on the Classic models which can result in a shift up to .3 mil (1”). The is not normal, and I have never seen one lose zero in actual use. The 3-9x42mm had not had this happen, and I have two with more than 100,000 logged rounds on each without ever losing zero. Dozens and dozens more in very rough use with no issues. The 3-9x42mm SWFA is the best general purpose 0-600 yard scope on the market, and in the last couple of years alone I, or those I hunt with have killed elk and deer at 910, 735, 676, 666, 612, etc. and a whole bunch with the fixed 6x SS at some serous long ranges.




Mean point of impact remained center, but the group size opened up to 2’ish MOA, the diopter adjustment needs to be refocused after every couple of shots now, and the power ring is functionally frozen in cold temps. With that, it did better than any PST I’ve seen…. And I’ve seen a bunch.





Yes. What action?

Rem 700 long action and Savage long actions mostly, but also interested for my son's tikka.

Thanks again for all your patience and info.

 

[Formidilosus]

Rem 700 long action and Savage long actions mostly, but also interested for my son's tikka.

Thanks again for all your patience and info.

Two things, one- ring spacing is a thing. Getting the rings mounted on the tube as far from center as possible helps with zero retention. Two, on 700 and Savages, or any rifle without an integral rail; degreasing and bedding the base or one piece rings is the way to go for rugged use. Personally, I would go with as low a profile Pic rail as I could get and permanently bed them to the receiver.

 

[roosiebull]

Never going to happen. A few years ago Alex Wheeler was doing scope tests with competition scopes over on Accurate shooter. Using a scope checker- It holds 2 scopes including a mechanically frozen scope as the control. A large caliber handgun was fired next to the 2 scopes and the results noted. As I recall very few scopes held perfect POA, including some NF comps. Alex repeatedly said to check your own scope and send it back, if it wasn't holding zero. And that just because one particular scope he tested was bad didn't mean all of that model would be. He quit posting his results, I think, because of all the blowback from scope owners. And because most people were not learning what they should- test your own equipment. People get emotionally attached to things, and get upset if someone finds flaws. For example, you probably won't find someone that has purchased an AMP annealer, that is not absolutely positive it is the only way to prep brass. Even though they most likely have never done an honest side by side test with their rifle.

"A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way." Mark Twain

yeah, if people are going to get offended by the data, they need to not click on those threads.... tough concept for some to grasp.... if you have the same scope (or 79 of them) and never had a single problem, great... it should be enough to just be content if your scope handles what you put it through, no need for crying about it.... the data is what it is, and the sample size is what it is, people shouldn't get emotional about it or take it personally.....

 

[roosiebull]

I'll admit, I'm in the same boat as a few other posters here... I've got a new razor lht sitting in its box waiting for my new rifle I'm putting together. The drop testing (btw, thank you for your time Form!) does not inspire confidence... I bought the razor because it ticked all the boxes... under 22oz, FFP, illuminated reticle, capped windage, locking elevation turret, and wide zoom range. This situation leaves me wondering what my next best alternative will be, to get as close to the features I want to enjoy... but be reliable and hold zero under the normal wear and tear its likely to see during the many rough hunting miles I put on every year.

i was very close to buying the 3-15x LHT, same thing, checked a lot of boxes, Form's test was the beginning of me really looking into them, and there was a common theme... there were also some guys who do hunt hard and don't seem to baby their gear reporting no issues, but the ratio i was seeing from non bias reviews turned me away (or maybe saved me a headache) my last Leupold is my last Leupold, i completely lost any trust in that scope, none have been flawless, but my most recent was terrible... i don't purposely beat my gear up, but my rifle rides in the back seat, and i drive a lot of gravel, i also can't count how many times my rifle has been knocked off the bipod... it happens, but it seemed like if i didn't shoot that rifle for 2 weeks, when i did, my zero had shifted... not just once, and one time it was probably 5" low left with no notable impacts besides normal stuff.... that stuff bugs me bad.

for now, that rifle is wearing a swfa 3-9X, and my next glass will likely be the 2.5-10x NXS, i think that will be about perfect for me, though the March 1.5-15X42 is attractive too, but i'm leery of that huge zoom range, and don't know much about March scopes, but i like it on paper besides the big zoom range, which i assume will lead to some compromise.... it shouldn't be so limited in options for a no frills reliable hunting scope for moderate ranges, but it seems to be.... there are a few more options if you are ok with a 30+oz optic that's physically large, but i don't need a huge scope, doubt i'll ever own another long action unless the right rifle is built in 257wby, but besides that, short actions are my thing, and if i do a full custom build in the future, it will probably not be a 257wby, i'll stick with something in SA

it's tough, but seemingly shouldn't be

 

[roosiebull]

I see your point about the padding in a truck, however in regards to that particular issue, I've always felt it necessary with any scoped rifle to either have it secured in a padded case, or held in a passengers hands. Specifically not letting the scope rest against any part of the truck for any length of time, as I grew up being taught that the constant vibrations from the truck were especially hard on scope zeros. As far as the drop onto the pad goes, the physics of what goes into that type of strike is beyond my pay grade... and you would certainly be better at assessing that. However anecdotally, I feel that when I make contact with a hard surface, say my bare foot onto a padded floor, I feel more "pain" or impact than if my foot had a shoe on it with the padding affixed to my foot. Likenwise, ive heard stories of engineering student competitions where they devise padding around raw eggs to drop them from various heights to see if they can keep them intact. The same egg dropped from 3ft onto a padded floor might break, whereas if it were wrapped in padding instead, it might not break from the same height. Not sure if that correlates here, just curious if there would be something to the idea.

But to your other point;
Can you list out again the scopes you have found to pass your tests? At least the ones at 30oz or less... If I've read you correctly before, you've cleared all of the NF optics, including shv line. SWFA scopes i believe ??? S&b? Any of the leupolds? Any of the vortex, swaros, etc? Anything known for being particularly lightweight... like the z5, or the vx lines??

i know i will personally NEVER have any rifle i own in a padded case in my pickup, it's going to be on the back seat or wedged between my pack and back of seat, or leaned up on the seat with the butt on the floor... certainly not saying that's best, but i know myself.... same with my bows, none of them ever go in a case unless i'm driving a long ways with my pack of wild dogs running around my pickup, but during hunting season, any weapon i use is just riding in the rig.... my compound has never lost zero riding in my pickup, my stupidly expensive wooden recurves have never had an issue, and a rifle (every aspect) should be more durable and robust than any bow... if it loses zero in my pickup, there is no way it's holding zero in the mountains, it's going to get bumped around.... i likely won't drop it off a cliff or anything, but lots of small impacts no matter what.... no way around it

 

[Axlrod]

I'm thinking of a cover of some sort that would be removed in the moments when I pull the rifle from my pack and get ready for a shot.

If your scope will loose zero from some bumps or ridding around on a padded truck seat, I don't know how it will retain zero after the recoil of 100/200/300 or more rounds fired from your rifle.

 

[packgoatguy]

Im just providing information here. I heard back from Vortex about some of my questions regarding the LHT and its durability. Overall, I was impressed at the quick response time, and the detail put into the response. His answers were on point. I would say that he did not answer all of my questions as completely as would have liked, but I got a more complete answer than I was expecting. I wish I could have the confidence in this scope that I would like, and I have yet to decide whether I will do my own durability testing as suggested, or just send it back while it is still "new". I would also like to see a company like Vortex or Leupold include some real world testing (scopes on rifles getting bumped around) into their durability testing. I get the feeling from this email that they honestly believe that the testing done in the lab with a collimator is sufficient... as I am not an optics engineer, who am I to argue with their process. I just am having a hard time reconciling what I see in Form's drop testing (where other scopes pass using similar rings and rifle setups) and what im being told from Vortex about the rigors they put their scopes through in their own durability testing. Kudos to Vortex for their willingness to stand by their product and their intent to see that their customer (me) is satisfied, even if that requires giving me a refund. I wish all companies were this responsive with their customer service.

"Thank you for reaching out! Our Razor HD LHT's (and all of our other scopes) are durability tested and impact tested and have to survive those tests for us to be able to sell them to the public. I've personally ran an LHT on my coyote hunting rifle for the past 2 years and have not lost zero once with it.

Now the test I believe you saw online (Rokslide or SnipersHide) was with an LHT being mounted on a rifle and then dropped on the ground. This "holding zero test/durability" test is invalid and highly inaccurate as you are testing an entire rifle system. Not the scope. We pulled that exact scope in here and put it through an extensive multi-directional impact test and couldn't get it to shift even a quarter of an MOA on a collimator. So all other variables excluded, the scope performed flawlessly, tracking and holding zero as it should.

When I say variables, I am talking about rings, bases, action screws, torque values on rings, any moving or mechanical part on the firearm, and even the shooter themselves. If I were to drop a rifle and it lost zero, the first thing I would do is check all of those variables and re-sight the scope in. It is very easy to blame the scope for not holding zero as it is what the shooter looks through and usually takes the blame for that issue, when many times it is one of those other variables causing the problem. We are always willing to pull a scope in that you are suspecting of not holding zero and put it through our riflescope inspection checklist, which includes tracking tests, impact tests, optical tests, etc. and see if there is anything wrong with that optic."

In a follow up email this was the response I received after I pressed for more detail on a few points.


"If a scope comes in here for not holding zero or any issue for that matter it goes to our riflescope repair team and goes through our full warranty inspection checklist. That includes image quality testing, parallax correction, multi-direction axis impact testing, turret travel & accuracy, mechanical component function, and an environmental purge & seal check. The way we test and check the tracking and holding zero ability is on a collimator. Which is an extremely precise piece of equipment (designed specifically for testing scopes) that we can see the slightest of shifts during impact testing and make sure it is tracking properly as it has either a built in MOA or MRAD scale. I can learn more and see more about how a scope functions on a collimator than I can by mounting it on a rifle and simply shooting it. There are too many variables by just mounting it on a firearm, dropping it, then shooting it. By checking the scope on a collimator we can eliminate those variables and look simply just at the optic itself. And if we can't get a zero shift out of the optic, even as small as a quarter MOA, that would tell me that something else in the myriad of variables caused the loss of zero. If there was something wrong with the scope, we would have addressed it! We aren't going to send a scope back to a customer that doesn't hold zero because we are just going to leave them frustrated and not happy with our product and be back in the same situation in a couple weeks most likely.

We'd always be happy to get you set up to send your scope in and do a multi-directional axis impact testing and if you even wanted it live fired at our range we would be more than happy to do that for you. Even if you still didn't think you'd want the scope we can always get you set up for a refund as well!

The Razor HD LHT has had resounding success in the long range and hunting communities for many years now, and in many states and countries across the world. "

 

[BjornF16]

Seems to me that they could be a little more transparent about how they impact test and see the results on a collimator. Their response just raises more questions for me.

They've thrown darts at the rifle system yet don't address bonded action/chassis, bonded rail which leaves the scope and rings.

Nor do they address other scopes not being affected by the same setup.

Who knows...perhaps behind the scenes they are embracing this and adapting but don't want to admit it.

I want to lobby SWFA for an HD 3-15 with THLR hybrid reticle...that would be only scope I need.

 

[slowelk]

I want to lobby SWFA for an HD 3-15 with THLR hybrid reticle...that would be only scope I need.

I'd go for an HD 3-15 with their milquad, and at the same weight as the current 3-15 (24oz). Higher likelihood of happening IMO.

 

[I hunt_dm3]

I want to lobby SWFA for an HD 3-15 with THLR hybrid reticle...that would be only scope I need.

+1, and I wouldn’t be mad if they capped the windage turret.

 

[SDHNTR]

Nor do they address other scopes not being affected by the same setup.

This matter is the most critical omission. Why do other scopes repeatedly hold zero without issue, same system, and this one doesn’t?

 

[Dioni A]

Seems to me that they could be a little more transparent about how they impact test and see the results on a collimator. Their response just raises more questions for me.

They've thrown darts at the rifle system yet don't address bonded action/chassis, bonded rail which leaves the scope and rings.

Nor do they address other scopes not being affected by the same setup.

Who knows...perhaps behind the scenes they are embracing this and adapting but don't want to admit it.

I want to lobby SWFA for an HD 3-15 with THLR hybrid reticle...that would be only scope I need.

With capped windage!!!!