Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Q&A

[Ram94]

i'm in the market and was heavily leaning on that scope.... glad i didn't get antsy and go that route. now i'm heavily leaning on the 3-10shv. the reason i didn't just get the LHT when i decided i wanted a new scope is my previous experience with vortex and trying to squeeze too much into a 1k scope... just didn't trust it, but was seeing more good than bad.... but no type of abuse tests or reports, and i'm not easy on anything.

basically, a little voice kept me from ordering one... couldn't do it. last 2 Vortex items i bought, i told myself never again.... nothing really bad, they just seem underwhelming, over hyped/marketed, and too much emphasis on a kick ass warranty is never a good sign for reliablity..... if i have a big issue with normal use, a warranty is useless, i don't want another, and don't trust it

The 3-10SHV is a kick ass little scope. I’ve had one for a year now and it hasn’t disappointed. Had the rifle fall over from leaning on a tree and it held its zero. I would be interested to see one go through this same test though. I’d have a hard time purposely dropping my rifle from 3 feet haha

 

[roosiebull]

So you’re going to shoot at animals after a hard knock (which honestly barely happens btw while hunting) because a stranger on the internet said a certain scope “doesn’t lose zero”? Wow.

So let’s walk through the scenario…

“Hey man, you’re scope just fell hard onto a rock!” “Let’s head back towards camp and make sure your still dialed in.”

“No I’m good! Some nameless, faceless, complete stranger who drops scopes on the internet told me this certain scope will be fine.” “Let’s go shoot at a living creature with it!”

I can’t understand how many of you think this is acceptable. Blowing my mind seeing all of this nonsense on here the last couple weeks on multiple threads.

I appreciate the unbiased info that’s being provided on scopes. Love this kind of stuff, but I’m going to have to check out of these if the aforementioned rhetoric keeps coming up.

humor me here, and let's put out a scenario that fits the context better (as in this thread) let's use Form's example from earlier, but rather than dropping your rifle, you are getting setup behind the gun, bipod is up, and you tip the rifle over... just tips over on the bipod... you shooting? (same 467 or whatever yards)

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

@Formidilosus I genuinely appreciate what you're doing. It's selfless and helpful for people who are capable of accepting facts (minority these days).

For those of you that don't like his methods or what he has to say, what are YOU gaining from saying you disagree or questioning him? If it ain't for you, then move on! Nobody is making you sit here and read endless bullshit posts that don't contribute anything. Hell I'd love to just read the results without having to sort through all the whining from "adults."

Good on you form for sticking to your ways. Admirable

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

humor me here, and let's put out a scenario that fits the context better (as in this thread) let's use Form's example from earlier, but rather than dropping your rifle, you are getting setup behind the gun, bipod is up, and you tip the rifle over... just tips over on the bipod... you shooting? (same 467 or whatever yards)

Everyone that's capable of taking that shot normally, is still taking it regardless of his answer.

 

[roosiebull]

Based on this info I’m going to have to check out. These threads obviously aren’t for me then. If you’re reccomending taking shots on animals after dropping rifles (user error) And then not checking for zero retention after (user error) then I have nothing left to say.

I’d love unbiased scope tests but these are clearly aren’t that. These are guys latching onto someone’s very poor hunting habits. Can’t get behind that. Sure you respect it. I’ll shut up now sorry.

he literally posted data from his tests.... the hypothetical drama had nothing to do with Form's tests. literally data and no drama until it was introduced to the thread

 

[realunlucky]

humor me here, and let's put out a scenario that fits the context better (as in this thread) let's use Form's example from earlier, but rather than dropping your rifle, you are getting setup behind the gun, bipod is up, and you tip the rifle over... just tips over on the bipod... you shooting? (same 467 or whatever yards)

Have you thrown your current setup on the ground and tested how it shoots afterwards.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[roosiebull]

Have you thrown your current setup on the ground and tested how it shoots afterwards.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

i have bumped it and knocked it off the bipod setting up to shoot.... there are impacts i don't think much of, and there are impacts that would end that particular hunt, and everything between.... same stuff with my bow.... i also know what's realistic in the real world vs text on the internet.

i don't have the means to test like Form does, and appreciate he does it..... we all make our own conclusions and judgements, the internet hates that

 

[Dobermann]

I thought that he was talking about a different scope test. The one you linked to has been there a while, and as far as I know, hasn’t ever been taken down.

It’s basically a tracking test to see what the error in tracking is. It tells you nothing about how fragile a scope may, or may not be.

Agreed.

I was just wanting to link to that table in case anyone was thinking that's what was being referred to and/or found that info useful.

 

[Sako300]

I have a question for this test done on Snipers website. If 1/3 33% of scopes per class of the scopes come in to the class on rifles improperly mounted, and these rifles were fired before the testing, can’t that stress of improper ring or base balance cause stress and even scratches and dents of these improper scope mountings if fired? I understand you take them off and mount them properly and test them after. But can the damage already be done to the scope? Especially lightweight scopes that aren’t beefy like the ones you show that track well? I have even returned rifles back that weren’t drilled perfectly with base screws on certain rifles that caused issues with scopes? I’m just saying if you maybe used the same exact bases and rings on all 100 plus scopes and the same proven rifle. And maybe if these rifle scopes hadn’t been fired already, there good be different results on their tracking and dependability????

 

[prm]

Count me as a big fan of these evaluations. The manufacturers can build whatever they choose. I doubt the results surprise any manufacturer, they know their product. No reason customers can’t evaluate products and share the results. It’s one example of a scope, one evaluation process. Take it as a data point and decide for yourself what it means.

 

[Castle Rock]

If I was formidiliosus I would reject the idea of video testing on privacy grounds, knowing a very little bit about his background.
Hell, I am not even putting my ugly mug on the internet for all to see.

Believe him or don’t, I doubt he gives a shit

I personally appreciate the contribution he makes here

 

[Sako300]

I’m just confused on whoever made the comment, “you can drop a zeiss v4 on a blanket, and it will loose it’s track ability and rezeroing?????
I own 3 Zeiss V4, and have had them drop many times out in the field. Hell, I had one fall and slide down a rokslide 20 ft. All scratched up! Not only, was that rifle zeroed exactly the way it was before the fall and slide, i shot to 850 yards within 1/2 moa of my target. Just curious on the Zeiss V4 experience????

 

[prm]

I’m just confused on whoever made the comment, “you can drop a zeiss v4 on a blanket, and it will loose it’s track ability and rezeroing?????
I own 3 Zeiss V4, and have had them drop many times out in the field. Hell, I had one fall and slide down a rokslide 20 ft. All scratched up! Not only, was that rifle zeroed exactly the way it was before the fall and slide, i shot to 850 yards within 1/2 moa of my target. Just curious on the Zeiss V4 experience????

Then hunt with it and don‘t worry about what someone else says.

 

[CApighunter]

Like many I hoped to see the LHT pass but am not surprised by the results. Looks like my next scope is going to be an NXS or ATACR. That said my Mark 5 has been solid so far with a fair amount of rough use but not subjected to strict drop tests. Wouldn’t mind loaning it out if you need one to test.

 

[Sako300]

That’s just my evaluation prm! I do hunt hunt with it still and am not going to change! Just thought you would enjoy the different evaluations like you said above

 

[freddyG]

I don’t get the all of the butthurt here. If one is confident in their equipment(no matter who’s it is), then why the second guessing?

 

[Flyrodr]

Very interesting thread. I'm new to the forum, don't know any one here (to my knowledge), and thus don't have any preconceived bias. Retired now, but come from a scientific background, involving studies in areas with lots of inherent uncertainty, and thus requiring lots of rigorous study plans, lots of statistical analyses, and generating results that, many times, in the end still resulted in (to be kind) a lack of agreement among all involved.

So now, boldly attempting to objectively evaluate scopes (why not pick vehicles and really make people mad, i.e., Ford vs. Chevy vs. Toyota), Form is being savaged by some, and hugged by others. Let's not make it personal.

Clearly, as stated, these tests are based on a sample size of one. n=1. That is a data point, but that's a dot on a page. A larger sample size would fix that (so measures of dispersal could be calculated), but then, as pointed out, who's going to bankroll that for one scope model? And subsequent ones, to ultimately allow comparisons.

I can't really support or criticize the testing methods. In a good test, you want to analyze only one variable at a time, and I guess maintaining "design function" (RTZ, etc.) is just that. Can't recall if these functions were measured prior to the drop tests or not. Presume so; should have been.

Sorry for rambling. Bottom line, I think these trials are interesting. I'd think, and hope, that if people see shortcomings that can reasonably be addressed, they ought to make those suggestions. And maybe invite some of the scope mfgr's reps to chime in, with such suggestions. Optics are very precise mechanical devices, and scopes lead much harder lives than many others - - - used in heat & cold, wet & dry, subject to vibration and impacts (from shooting, if nothing else). But that's the environment they are expected to live in.

There's still going to be the n=1 problem, but Form is already investing plenty of money and his time (also=$).

 

[freddyG]

^^^ Interesting, but Form has done, and posted several of these tests here(albeit from different manufacturers), with the end result being the scope failing. The chances of him getting a bum scope from every one of these manufacturers is pretty low.

It’s basically a pattern that most likely points to the design goal being “having more fluff than the competition”, rather then making a robust scope. This would be fine, except the primary reason for a scope is to steer bullets. If it can’t do that reliably for more than a few hundred rounds, that’s really pathetic.

 

[Ucsdryder]

I’m just confused on whoever made the comment, “you can drop a zeiss v4 on a blanket, and it will loose it’s track ability and rezeroing?????
I own 3 Zeiss V4, and have had them drop many times out in the field. Hell, I had one fall and slide down a rokslide 20 ft. All scratched up! Not only, was that rifle zeroed exactly the way it was before the fall and slide, i shot to 850 yards within 1/2 moa of my target. Just curious on the Zeiss V4 experience????

Funny thing is this has been my experience with the LHT SFP. I’ve knock it over on the bipod at least a dozen times before I realized I should lock down the lever on my spartan bipod. One time I was moving from 500 to 600 yards and decided it was stable in the bed of my truck on the spartan bipod. Nope, tipped over and landed on the metal bed. My wife dropped it when she tried to lean it up against the side of the truck. Landed on the scope. I’ve banged it around so many times I can’t keep track. Somehow form gets one and drops it in the snow from 6” and it won’t hold a zero? Something isn’t adding up here. Maybe he got a lemon? Or maybe I got the only one they made that’s been 100% reliable on 4 hunts and a dozen or two trips to the range.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

So you’re going to shoot at animals after a hard knock (which honestly barely happens btw while hunting) because a stranger on the internet said a certain scope “doesn’t lose zero”? Wow.

So let’s walk through the scenario…

“Hey man, you’re scope just fell hard onto a rock!” “Let’s head back towards camp and make sure your still dialed in.”

“No I’m good! Some nameless, faceless, complete stranger who drops scopes on the internet told me this certain scope will be fine.” “Let’s go shoot at a living creature with it!”

I can’t understand how many of you think this is acceptable. Blowing my mind seeing all of this nonsense on here the last couple weeks on multiple threads.

I appreciate the unbiased info that’s being provided on scopes. Love this kind of stuff, but I’m going to have to check out of these if the aforementioned rhetoric keeps coming up.

Ha ha this is awesome
I know we've had a few playful spats but I like a guy who says it how it is

Funny thing is this has been my experience with the LHT SFP. I’ve knock it over on the bipod at least a dozen times before I realized I should lock down the lever on my spartan bipod. One time I was moving from 500 to 600 yards and decided it was stable in the bed of my truck on the spartan bipod. Nope, tipped over and landed on the metal bed. My wife dropped it when she tried to lean it up against the side of the truck. Landed on the scope. I’ve banged it around so many times I can’t keep track. Somehow form gets one and drops it in the snow from 6” and it won’t hold a zero? Something isn’t adding up here. Maybe he got a lemon? Or maybe I got the only one they made that’s been 100% reliable on 4 hunts and a dozen or two trips to the range.

I agree
It's laughable to take one test from one person and use that result to tarnish an entire product line.
I'll be honest this review is making me suspect of the LHTs durability, but I definitely want to hear from more guys before arriving at a conclusion.
Especially given some of the ridiculous stuff I've seen the OP post on other topics...