Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Q&A

[SDHNTR]

Salad? That’s what food eats!

 

[packgoatguy]

Eat more salads and then the 10oz's wont matter.

In my experience, it's not so much about that particular 10oz, it's about a principled approach to saving ounces on every piece of gear, because that adds up. If one tent option weighs 2lbs and another weighs 5lbs, or one pack weighs 4lbs and another weighs 8, or one coat weighs 12oz more than another... and so on with a couple dozen more pieces of kit in your bag. My pack and total gear weigh including rifle might weigh as much as 30-60 pounds less than if I wasn't looking for lighter weight options overall. It's also easy to justify a 10oz penalty on one piece of gear, as in and of itself it is inconsequential... but if you let yourself rationalize the same way with that, then what other piece of kit would you also need to rationalize... and so on.

However, I will say, the weight of my "ultralight pack" has definitely grown over the years. There was a time when micro weight was the pinnacle of success in and of itself. However, as ive experienced times when more effective gear options would have made a difference over their lighter weight cousin... I've modified my theory to weigh in the effectiveness of the particular piece of gear against its sheer weightloss. I've found for a lot of gear, there is a point of diminished returns in the debate of effectiveness vs lightweight. The way I see it, if a heavy gear item has all the functionality and represents 10 on a scale of effectiveness in its intended use, but weighs 3 pounds... and an ultralight version only weighs 1lb but only represents a 4 on scale for effectiveness (because presumably it leaves something on the table to shave weight, ie durability, fancy features, conveniece add-ons, etc)... then bring in a third option that only weighs 2lbs, but is an 8 or a 9 on the effectiveness scale. I'd probably lean towards the 1lb weight savings to get an 8-9 effectiveness, rather than try to save another pound and only get less than half of overall function and utility. It's a trade off.

 

[nobody]

In my experience, it's not so much about that particular 10oz, it's about a principled approach to saving ounces on every piece of gear, because that adds up. If one tent option weighs 2lbs and another weighs 5lbs, or one pack weighs 4lbs and another weighs 8, or one coat weighs 12oz more than another... and so on with a couple dozen more pieces of kit in your bag. My pack and total gear weigh including rifle might weigh as much as 30-60 pounds less than if I wasn't looking for lighter weight options overall. It's also easy to justify a 10oz penalty on one piece of gear, as in and of itself it is inconsequential... but if you let yourself rationalize the same way with that, then what other piece of kit would you also need to rationalize... and so on.

However, I will say, the weight of my "ultralight pack" has definitely grown over the years. There was a time when micro weight was the pinnacle of success in and of itself. However, as ive experienced times when more effective gear options would have made a difference over their lighter weight cousin... I've modified my theory to weigh in the effectiveness of the particular piece of gear against its sheer weightloss. I've found for a lot of gear, there is a point of diminished returns in the debate of effectiveness vs lightweight. The way I see it, if a heavy gear item has all the functionality and represents 10 on a scale of effectiveness in its intended use, but weighs 3 pounds... and an ultralight version only weighs 1lb but only represents a 4 on scale for effectiveness (because presumably it leaves something on the table to shave weight, ie durability, fancy features, conveniece add-ons, etc)... then bring in a third option that only weighs 2lbs, but is an 8 or a 9 on the effectiveness scale. I'd probably lean towards the 1lb weight savings to get an 8-9 effectiveness, rather than try to save another pound and only get less than half of overall function and utility. It's a trade off.

Not to derail this thread entirely, but to me, I pack as much ultralight gear as I can so that I have extra weight to allocate to my weapon and optics. I'll NEVER skimp on optics or weapons just to save a couple of pounds. I'll shave the weight elsewhere in my gear if I need to, but my weapon and my optics are non-negotiable. They weigh what I need them to in order to be confident and comfortable, and if that means a ten pound rifle and another 7 pounds of optics, so be it. I'll spend more on a lighter sleeping bag and tent and food.

But hey, I'm just some random guy on the internet...

 

[packgoatguy]

Not to derail this thread entirely, but to me, I pack as much ultralight gear as I can so that I have extra weight to allocate to my weapon and optics. I'll NEVER skimp on optics or weapons just to save a couple of pounds. I'll shave the weight elsewhere in my gear if I need to, but my weapon and my optics are non-negotiable. They weigh what I need them to in order to be confident and comfortable, and if that means a ten pound rifle and another 7 pounds of optics, so be it. I'll spend more on a lighter sleeping bag and tent and food.

But hey, I'm just some random guy on the internet...

But at some point it's enough right? Why not a 12lb rifle? Or a 20lb rifle? At some point most of us choose a rifle that gets the job done, but doesn't add unnecessary lbs.

 

[Dioni A]

But at some point it's enough right? Why not a 12lb rifle? Or a 20lb rifle? At some point most of us choose a rifle that gets the job done, but doesn't add unnecessary lbs.

This is a straw man argument for anyone not familiar with political theater. Counter argument-Why not carry no optics! That's even lighter!

 

[nobody]

But at some point it's enough right? Why not a 12lb rifle? Or a 20lb rifle? At some point most of us choose a rifle that gets the job done, but doesn't add unnecessary lbs.

Yes, at some point it's enough. But that threshold is up to each person to set. I'm not advocating a 20 lb rifle, what I AM advocating is that people figure out what their weapon needs to weigh in order to be effective. Personally, that's about 8-9 lbs. Any lighter and I don't feel steady and I feel like I'm giving up effective range and functionality. Much above 11 lbs and it's too much. But I doubt anybody would argue a 9 lb rifle is "ultralight." I'm advocating that people not give up functionality in the name of chasing the lowest pack weight possible. Same with their optics. I could carry a pair of 6 power plastic binoculars from Amazon that weigh less than 8 ounces. ULTRALIGHT!!!!! But they have zero functional benefit. My 10x50's are large, but I'm not going any smaller or lighter because I'm not willing to give up the functionality. I could cut 3 lbs by not carrying a tripod to glass with, but I'm not going to give up the functionality and benefits of having a tripod.

At the end of the day, all of us have to perform a cost-benefit analysis and find out own "sweet spot". I found it differently than lots of guys, but for me, it works.

 

[packgoatguy]

Yes, at some point it's enough. But that threshold is up to each person to set. I'm not advocating a 20 lb rifle, what I AM advocating is that people figure out what their weapon needs to weigh in order to be effective. Personally, that's about 8-9 lbs. Any lighter and I don't feel steady and I feel like I'm giving up effective range and functionality. Much above 11 lbs and it's too much. But I doubt anybody would argue a 9 lb rifle is "ultralight." I'm advocating that people not give up functionality in the name of chasing the lowest pack weight possible. Same with their optics. I could carry a pair of 6 power plastic binoculars from Amazon that weigh less than 8 ounces. ULTRALIGHT!!!!! But they have zero functional benefit. My 10x50's are large, but I'm not going any smaller or lighter because I'm not willing to give up the functionality. I could cut 3 lbs by not carrying a tripod to glass with, but I'm not going to give up the functionality and benefits of having a tripod.

At the end of the day, all of us have to perform a cost-benefit analysis and find out own "sweet spot". I found it differently than lots of guys, but for me, it works.

I think we are essentially saying the same thing. I used to be in the camp of shaving every ounce regardless of the loss of function. But I have since evolved to the mentality that I still need to be conscious about shaving weight where possible, but also balancing the functionality of the gear I carry. But for me, that means a tiny pair of Amazon binos aren't good enough like you point out, but my bushnell legend ultra hd 10x25 binos, which are also 8oz, are perfect for my eyes, and I'd put the glass against most swaros and Leicas I've looked through... so at least in that regard, I can have my cake and eat it to. I also can justify that I don't need to haul my 15x56 binos on the hill, when I have my little kowa spotter in my pack as well. Between my bushnells and the kowa, I weigh in at not much more than most guys carry in just binos... but I get as much or more function. For my purposes, I'll leave my big swaro spotter in the truck and save a few pounds, because performance-wise, the smaller kowa does just as good of a job for 90-95% of the glassing I do, but I save several pounds of weight for the 10% loss of comfort. Likewise, if I can haul a 2lb tripod rather than a 3lb or a 5lb tripod... I'll do that, but not leave the tripod home entirely. To your point that an 8-9lb rifle is a sweet spot, I agree there as well, but if you are suggesting that number as an all-in scoped weight, then that is still pretty lightweight. I've got a seekins havak element topped with nf ultralight rings and an nx8 I just weighed... a 10th of an ounce under 8lbs. Adding a titanium suppressor, bipod, sling, scope cover, bullet holder sleeve and an srs arca rail... I'm over 9lbs at that point... not the absolute lightest options, but the lightest weight for the most function for each add on in its own right.

 

[nobody]

I think we are essentially saying the same thing. I used to be in the camp of shaving every ounce regardless of the loss of function. But I have since evolved to the mentality that I still need to be conscious about shaving weight where possible, but also balancing the functionality of the gear I carry. But for me, that means a tiny pair of Amazon binos aren't good enough like you point out, but my bushnell legend ultra hd 10x25 binos, which are also 8oz, are perfect for my eyes, and I'd put the glass against most swaros and Leicas I've looked through... so at least in that regard, I can have my cake and eat it to. I also can justify that I don't need to haul my 15x56 binos on the hill, when I have my little kowa spotter in my pack as well. Between my bushnells and the kowa, I weigh in at not much more than most guys carry in just binos... but I get as much or more function. For my purposes, I'll leave my big swaro spotter in the truck and save a few pounds, because performance-wise, the smaller kowa does just as good of a job for 90-95% of the glassing I do, but I save several pounds of weight for the 10% loss of comfort. Likewise, if I can haul a 2lb tripod rather than a 3lb or a 5lb tripod... I'll do that, but not leave the tripod home entirely. To your point that an 8-9lb rifle is a sweet spot, I agree there as well, but if you are suggesting that number as an all-in scoped weight, then that is still pretty lightweight. I've got a seekins havak element topped with nf ultralight rings and an nx8 I just weighed... a 10th of an ounce under 8lbs. Adding a titanium suppressor, bipod, sling, scope cover, bullet holder sleeve and an srs arca rail... I'm over 9lbs at that point... not the absolute lightest options, but the lightest weight for the most function for each add on in its own right.

Yes I'm with you, I think we are saying the same thing. The important thing is that everybody's threshold for everything is different.

What I'm trying to say is that I think most people go about things the wrong way by packing a 5 lb rifle that has a 12 oz scope on it, because at that point you're giving up reliability and shootability. Instead, I think people should do everything they can to pack the best, most functional, and most reliable rifle system and optics system they can and then cut their weight elsewhere. Just tying it into the original thread, you can cut a pound by changing out the scope, but you also slash your reliability. I'm just advocating that people cut that pound in their sleep system or their "extra niceties" or their gut before giving up a reliable weapon system.

Again, it sounds like we are advocating the exact same thing!

 

[roosiebull]

In my experience, it's not so much about that particular 10oz, it's about a principled approach to saving ounces on every piece of gear, because that adds up. If one tent option weighs 2lbs and another weighs 5lbs, or one pack weighs 4lbs and another weighs 8, or one coat weighs 12oz more than another... and so on with a couple dozen more pieces of kit in your bag. My pack and total gear weigh including rifle might weigh as much as 30-60 pounds less than if I wasn't looking for lighter weight options overall. It's also easy to justify a 10oz penalty on one piece of gear, as in and of itself it is inconsequential... but if you let yourself rationalize the same way with that, then what other piece of kit would you also need to rationalize... and so on

you have to have the ability to juggle compromise for everything you buy.... some things UL is just added cost, other things UL means you compromise effectiveness or reliability. shopping based on weight alone is a fairly common one tracked minded mistake. i do understand the accumulation of weight over multiple items, but some things just weigh what they weigh if function and reliability is important.

if you want an ultralight scope that's extremely reliable, it seems like the best option to lighten your setup is to focus on the firearm. i think having a upper end weight limit on your rifle/scope combo, buy a reliable optic, and figure out a rifle to keep the system weight where you want it.

i think a rifle scope is the wrong place to shave weight, especially when people want huge mag ranges and big objectives. there is a reason semi trucks don't weigh 5k pounds... they weigh what they weigh because they have to

 

[packgoatguy]

you have to have the ability to juggle compromise for everything you buy.... some things UL is just added cost, other things UL means you compromise effectiveness or reliability. shopping based on weight alone is a fairly common one tracked minded mistake. i do understand the accumulation of weight over multiple items, but some things just weigh what they weigh if function and reliability is important.

if you want an ultralight scope that's extremely reliable, it seems like the best option to lighten your setup is to focus on the firearm. i think having a upper end weight limit on your rifle/scope combo, buy a reliable optic, and figure out a rifle to keep the system weight where you want it.

i think a rifle scope is the wrong place to shave weight, especially when people want huge mag ranges and big objectives. there is a reason semi trucks don't weigh 5k pounds... they weigh what they weigh because they have to

Well, thank goodness we have choices then... if I want a large zoom range, ffp, and reliability... I can pick the nx8 4-32 over the ATACR 7-35. Not only do I save myself nearly $2 grand, but I also shave nearly 11oz off my gear weight between the two.

That's just an example of course. Intending to not sacrifice reliability over weight savings does not mean you have to live with a 40oz scope. There are several reliable feature packed options out there under 30 oz. If someone truly doesn't care about oz adding up to lbs, then more power to them... and they are welcome to pack the extra weight if they so choose.

For me though, every piece of gear gets evaluated for its weight AND utility/effectiveness. It really doesn't have to be one or the other... However, I do agree that I am more aggressive with some weight cutting options than I am with my rifle or scope. But that is part of the fun and challenge, which has lead me to some creative diy gear options over the years, many of which have shaved a lot more ounces and added a lot more utility than I would ever get out of merely picking an ultralight scope for the sake of it... I'm loving my latest gear mod... under 2lbs all in; includes my shooting sticks, full height to sitting adjustable glassing tripod with ball head, rifle mounted bipod with pan and tilt, trekking poles, trekking staff, and tent/shelter poles. What used to add up to nearly 8lbs of gear, now only weighs 2lbs total. That leaves me a bit of room if I need a more reliable 20-28oz scope instead of a 12-16oz scope on my rifle.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Back to the LHT…

 

[Castle Rock]

Why?

 

[K2e2vin]

I found out Primary Arms has their GLX 4-16x50 in ffp with their Athena reticle(basically mrad tree with a range finder). About 24-25oz and also illuminated like the LHT. For $750 I might give it a try...

 

[ianpadron]

All these posts of guys dropping rifles and taking compromised shots is such BS lol. This is just getting ridiculous.

I would like to think this forum makes up experienced back country men and women. Not Elmer Fudds clunking around dropping rifles all the time and then shooting at animals. Hint. It’s just not happening on a measurable scale!

Like I’ve said many times here. 30 plus years backpacking, hunting, shooting competitively, teaching shooting, the list goes on. Never have I heard of so many people suddenly dropping their only way of killing the animal they worked so hard to get to.

Shit happens out there for sure, but to sit here on the internet and say you are “clumsy” and “I drop my rifle this one time blah blah…” to justify some guys “drop tests” is ridiculous. And then to add onto it by saying you’d shoot at the animal because of these “tests”? It’s just laughable.

Dude...

Honest question, do you know who you are talking to?

That's the only laughable part of this thread.

 

[ElPollo]

I found out Primary Arms has their GLX 4-16x50 in ffp with their Athena reticle(basically mrad tree with a range finder). About 24-25oz and also illuminated like the LHT. For $750 I might give it a try...

I have not had this specific PA scope, but the one I had lost zero repeatedly without Form’s optics calisthenics. One time the rifle fell over on not so packed dirt when it was sitting against a truck tire and was off 3.5” at the 100. Also had it lose zero multiple times just from riding in a truck on washboarded desert roads. This wasn’t on a 12# gun either. It was a 5.2# AR.

 

[K2e2vin]

I have not had this specific PA scope, but the one I had lost zero repeatedly without Form’s optics calisthenics. One time the rifle fell over on not so packed dirt when it was sitting against a truck tire and was off 3.5” at the 100. Also had it lose zero multiple times just from riding in a truck on washboarded desert roads. This wasn’t on a 12# gun either. It was a 5.2# AR.

That sucks to hear. I've never used any of their stuff either but looks like they have a ton of advertisement via YouTubers.

 

[ElPollo]

I think the whole point of this forum is that there are currently only a handful of scopes that are likely to maintain zero if they encounter shock or vibration. If that is important to you, buy one of those, or take your chances and test what you buy yourself, or just maybe muff a shot on game when it counts.

 

[Will83]

In fairness, the Gen 2 razor is an outstanding optic, but a lot of the cheaper stuff historically has qd problems.

I love the razor line of glass, but I’m not sure if I would trust the other lines.

 

[Hawkeye29]

What is the "TLDR" version of this thread? lol

 

[nobody]

What is the "TLDR" version of this thread? lol

Didn't work, failed miserably on even the shortest of drops (like 8" onto snow, IIRC). Re-Mounted multiple times, multiple ways, using Vortex's method as well as Form's method and everything in between, nothing made it work. Sent back to Vortex, they went through it and said all was good, sent it back. Retested it, same issues. Wandered zero from riding in the truck on forest service roads, cold weather made all controls hard to manipulate and turret clicks disappeared in cold.

If you wanna read just the eval and not the commentary, here's a link to just the eval portion:

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...

rokslide.com