Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Q&A

[ElPollo]

470+ replies on this thread says people really want Vortex scopes to be reliable and robust. 2 hours on the phone with a company representative who is telling you about all the great things they already do says they aren’t listening and aren’t likely to change anything.

If you want to really get Vortex’s attention, it would be fun to drop test their new military contract LPVO scope and the previous versions that were used by the military.

 

[packgoatguy]

Honest question for Form.

With way too many scopes proven to fail due to a relatively minor bump (using your personal experience as well as recent testing), how is that an awful lot of game is successfully taken every year? Same question applies for non-game targets such as steel and paper.

You hear the phrases "I shot over his back", "I shot just in front of him", "I shot just behind him", and "I shot under him". How much is likely due to user error (I personally have gone "wide right" due to jerking the trigger)? How much is the shooter actually took a great shot but the scope issue caused the POI to be way off? For the "successful" shots, how much is due to folks not paying attention to actual POI as they're just happy to have an animal down (despite the scope being off but not enough to be a clean miss)?

I know that based upon your current testing, my purchasing plans have changed. I'll be grabbing an ATACR 4-16 or 4-20 for an upcoming build (cartridge TBD). I'm also toying with the idea of picking up a TenMile for an existing rifle.

This is what I'm talking about. We the consumers want scopes that are feature rich... but also hold zero, and are tested under conditions analogous to what we will experience in the field. When we see a test like Form performed, it matters to us. We just want to see scope makers applying similar methods to show us that we can rely on their products. I hope you all take a second to send Vortex an email to voice your own opinions and ideas about how testing could be done more effectively. Shame on them if they don't listen and make changes accordingly, and Shame on us if we don't let them know what we want and how we feel.

 

[sndmn11]

. I hope you all take a second to send Vortex an email to voice your own opinions and ideas about how testing could be done more effectively. Shame on them if they don't listen and make changes accordingly, and Shame on us if we don't let them know what we want and how we feel.

Why keep sticking with them? Sounds like you have nearly a full work day wrapped up with a Vortex employee telling you multi million dollar company can't TRY to replicate 7 shots in ten minutes. You gave him hours and he can't give you ten minutes? Vote with your wallet by being supportive of companies who are down to TRY improvement, or have been there done that, rather than tell you all the reasons why they can't.

Call Maven and see what they tell you their plan of improvement is.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Because big game is big and generally shot at closer ranges. Plenty are missed and/or poorly shot, but people just chalk it up to “hunting”.




This is it. Even when I and those I hunt with kill animals, if the shot is outside the cone of the gun, we will track down the reason why. For instance, this year a deer was killed at 402 yards very quickly after a first was shot, the bullet was about 4” high of center- which is outside that rifles true cone by several inches. The shooter is quite skilled, the position was prone, and his wobble zone was sub 2”. The reason was that he dialed 2 mils of elevation, when the gun was flatter than that, and needed 1.7 mils. This resulted in a high lung shot that clipped the bottom of the spine.

Gracias

 

[I hunt_dm3]

This is what I'm talking about. We the consumers want scopes that are feature rich... but also hold zero, and are tested under conditions analogous to what we will experience in the field. When we see a test like Form performed, it matters to us. We just want to see scope makers applying similar methods to show us that we can rely on their products. I hope you all take a second to send Vortex an email to voice your own opinions and ideas about how testing could be done more effectively. Shame on them if they don't listen and make changes accordingly, and Shame on us if we don't let them know what we want and how we feel.

They have been told, they would rather spend their money on marketing. Which is why I choose to spend my money elsewhere. If people started telling them their opinions by spending their money elsewhere maybe they would listen.

 

[mt100gr.]

This is what I'm talking about. We the consumers want scopes that are feature rich... but also hold zero, and are tested under conditions analogous to what we will experience in the field. When we see a test like Form performed, it matters to us. We just want to see scope makers applying similar methods to show us that we can rely on their products. I hope you all take a second to send Vortex an email to voice your own opinions and ideas about how testing could be done more effectively. Shame on them if they don't listen and make changes accordingly, and Shame on us if we don't let them know what we want and how we feel.

When a company has as many optics in the field as vortex has, and they continually perform as much warranty work as vortex does, it's pretty clear to me that they aren't concerned about any "disconnect". I believe that they've had every bit of data (returned scopes) to identify their weaknesses and develop testing protocols that they'd ever need for a long time. They don't care!!

I sold all of my vortex optics years ago and haven't given them a second thought. Nor will I be giving them a second of my time to do something they should have already done when there's already options on the market that work.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Formidilosus...

Have another potential ask for you.

Once this batch of testing is done, can you compile a list of key design components that folks should look at when looking at scopes in the future? Tons of new ones come out on a regular basis and it probably isn't feasible financially to test them all.

Borrowed snippets from NF for demonstration purposes:

• Tube made out of 6061-T6 aluminum
• Tube made from solid bar stock and not formed or extruded aluminum
• Springs made out of titanium and not steel
• etc

Hell, I have one more question. How much, if any, does temperature come into play? Is it possible to get a "pass" if you perform a drop test when it is 90* but get a "fail" when you perform a drop test at 20*F? Or is the expansion and contraction so minuscule that it pretty much does not mean poop? Am pretty sure of the answer but I figured I'd ask anyway.

 

[K2e2vin]

I've been interested in this optic, mainly because of the weight....but looks like it's not worth the trade off. What other alternatives are there that are under 25oz and around the same price?

 

[packgoatguy]

I've been interested in this optic, mainly because of the weight....but looks like it's not worth the trade off. What other alternatives are there that are under 25oz and around the same price?

I guess as I've seen other posters mention; some of the swfa scopes like the fixed power ones and the 3-15x42 are under 25oz. And the Trijicon Tenmile. I weighed one the other day at 24.9 oz... so barely meets your threshold.

 

[Shraggs]

When a company has as many optics in the field as vortex has, and they continually perform as much warranty work as vortex does, it's pretty clear to me that they aren't concerned about any "disconnect". I believe that they've had every bit of data (returned scopes) to identify their weaknesses and develop testing protocols that they'd ever need for a long time. They don't care!!

I sold all of my vortex optics years ago and haven't given them a second thought. Nor will I be giving them a second of my time to do something they should have already done when there's already options on the market that work.

as an "x" manugacutruing leader, and six sigma black belt responsible for continuous improvement - i agree with this. my caveat is, vortex has a business model that defies convention. it is my belief that from a actuarial standpoint, it is financially cheaper to produce a "standard" designed and manufactured product and offer a no limits warranty. the cost of replacement for each failure is still significantly cheaper than to re-engineer the product itself, including the plant tooling for any fabrication and assembly. not to mention the cost of new quality metrics that include this type of testing. based on current unit sales.

most durable products sold achieve a level of quality that will not loose customers, but when a significant warranty issue does happen, most products will suffer loss of consumer sales unless addressed and then fixed long term. vortex, markets the warranty on the same level as its product features. buyers are conditioned from the onset to accept a failure and get another one, freeeee!

statistically, those that actually shoot longer requiring absolute function, who are in rugged environments where bumps and falls is more likely is low based on total sales of scopes sold to customers. those general use hunters (i must know 20 guys that have vortex and love it), zero their rifle each fall and sometimes make adjustments to get back to zero. they kill stuff 150 yards and in often with multiple shots...

one friend has a vortex on his ML, one year put an epic stalk on a monster WT crawling on a very hilly cut corn field to miss and reload three times at less than a 100 yards. the only person in our "debriefing" that brought up the scope function was me and the scope is still on his gun.. one year he changed sabots, its was heavier and he didn't know why it shot low... im not making fun of him, a remarkable friend and very smart man. its out of his wheel house and has chosen to not self educate for what ever reason. so its know wonder to me that re zeroing a scope is not on the radar as a failure for a lot of hunters.

as many have stated, and myself on some of the early posts on scope reliability its become accepted that a scope needs to be re-zeroed each fall. its cultural, and because so few shoot only a handful of shots each fall its not critically assessed. right, if your brand x phone keeps screwing up you'll replace it cause you use it all the time.

i can't even begin to see why, why vortex would "fix" this. maybe mfg others might, but vortex has built a company image on a warranty and features and sell a ton of them. by fixing, they admit something that is difficult to market and is counter to their core marketing platform.

bla bla, im not busy this morning

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

From Rokslide hero (lots of positive reviews on this site with a full hunting season under its belt) to Rokslide zero (and whipping boy) at the drop of a rifle…

 

[KHNC]

My Guess is this test cost Vortex MANY 1000's in loss of sales. I canceled my backorder and bought a Zeiss V6 Conquest 3-18x50. 22oz and i havent found anything negative out there about it. Same price range as the LHT but SFP. If it gets tested and its a shitbox too, im still keeping it.

 

[KHNC]

I've been interested in this optic, mainly because of the weight....but looks like it's not worth the trade off. What other alternatives are there that are under 25oz and around the same price?

IF there is a test like this on a ZEISS V6 Conquest 3-18x50, i havent seen it. IF there is and if its bad, then i guess it is what it is. This one weighs 22oz , zero stop, easy to adjust and has every feature any hunter should need. If it doesnt fit the bill, not sure what will. Got mine in my hands today after canceling my LHT backorder due to the negative review. I have been a vortex fan for years.

 

[SDHNTR]

IF there is a test like this on a ZEISS V6 Conquest 3-18x50, i havent seen it. IF there is and if its bad, then i guess it is what it is. This one weighs 22oz , zero stop, easy to adjust and has every feature any hunter should need. If it doesnt fit the bill, not sure what will. Got mine in my hands today after canceling my LHT backorder due to the negative review. I have been a vortex fan for years.

I have the same Z6. Form has stated in comments essentially that it needs to be “wrapped in bubble wrap” and is made of eggshells, although I haven’t seen a formal test posted. He’s made it clear it doesn’t pass his test.

That said, it’s one data point. The VAST majority of other reviews out there are very positive including multiple reports of accidental drops and held zero. Mine fell off my shoulder while sitting down on a log and it held zero afterwards. Lots of truck and quad bouncing too. Additionally, a buddy’s fell off his pack, hit ground and went off a small 6-8’ cliff on a goat hunt and still held. And for what it’s worth (probably not much) Zeiss does make some pretty strong claims about their shock testing. So I’m keeping mine, but with the understanding that it’s no Nightforce, and I will keep a close eye on it. And I agree with you in that, for specs on a hunting scope, it ticks all the boxes nicely. Just about ideal.

 

[Dobermann]

I've been interested in this optic, mainly because of the weight....but looks like it's not worth the trade off. What other alternatives are there that are under 25oz and around the same price?

In addition to @packgoatguy's suggestions - SWFA 3-9, and if you can find a Bushnell LRHS 3-12x44, they're 25.75 oz.

LRHSs are now as rare as hen's teeth; there's an LRTS in the classifieds right now - different reticle, and just under an ounce heavier.

 

[Dobermann]

If it gets tested and its a shitbox too, im still keeping it.

And herein lies the problem!

Not meaning to hassle you at all Kenny - I've recently been wondering if I'd make exactly that same call if I ponied up for the ZP5 with THLR reticle, so I'm including myself in the same camp.

But if we see a failed drop test of another model, we might be remiss if we then don't test our own.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

And herein lies the problem!

Not meaning to hassle you at all Kenny - I've recently been wondering if I'd make exactly that same call if I ponied up for the ZP5 with THLR reticle, so I'm including myself in the same camp.

But if we see a failed drop test of another model, we might be remiss if we then don't test our own.

Am curious how many Rokslide members actually have removed all of their "questionable reliability" scopes from all of their firearms and have placed orders for "full confidence" scopes to replace them all.

I know that on my side I'd be parting ways with $10K-$30K depending on which scope model(s) I went with for each firearm. That's a tough pill to swallow and I'll unlikely replace all of them with the "full confidence" scopes; a few will be over a period of time. If I miss that Boone & Crockett squirrel or cottontail due to a faulty scope, then I'll just have to suck it up and cry a river.

But for "net new" builds, I will be going the "full confidence" route.

 

[SDHNTR]

Am curious how many Rokslide members actually have removed all of their "questionable reliability" scopes from all of their firearms and have placed orders for "full confidence" scopes to replace them all.

I know that on my side I'd be parting ways with $10K-$30K depending on which scope model(s) I went with for each firearm. That's a tough pill to swallow and I'll unlikely replace all of them with the "full confidence" scopes; a few will be over a period of time. If I miss that Boone & Crockett squirrel or cottontail due to a faulty scope, then I'll just have to suck it up and cry a river.

But for "net new" builds, I will be going the "full confidence" route.

I’ve sold off all my Swarovski scopes recently. Pushing $8k worth. I will admit, because of the excellent glass, specs on paper, and because I spent a mint on them, I used to think they were best in class rifle scopes. Yes these tests were one element in convincing me otherwise, but a sheared turret revealing the plastic internals was what really sealed their fate. They all got replaced with Nightforce.

 

[Flyrodr]

Apologies if I missed this earlier in this, or another, thread, but there are frequent comments about the number of Vortex scopes that are sent back for repair. I only own one Vortex scope that's only been through about 300 rounds, so it's sorta low mileage (but it has flown in the vibrating belly of an airplane, subject to the "tender touches" of baggage handlers and carried racked, but uncased, on a four-wheeler).

My question is, has anyone seen any actual numbers (from manufacturers) of the number of scopes sold, and the number returned for repair? So that we can see real numbers that Brand X has an annual return-for-warranty-service percentage of xx%, and compare that to Brand Y which has a return percentage of yy%. Specifically re: Vortex, along with, say, Nightforce (have one of those too, and it's not failed either ;~), Leupold, etc.

I don't doubt that there are differences between brands/models, and that those differences could be significant. Just interested to know if there are some "real" vs. speculative or anecdotal numbers.

Thanks.

 

[Ucsdryder]

From Rokslide hero (lots of positive reviews on this site with a full hunting season under its belt) to Rokslide zero (and whipping boy) at the drop of a rifle…

Ironic isn’t it…