Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Q&A

[Dos XX]

It is hard for a company to sell upper end stuff and lower end stuff with the same brand name and not have the low-end stuff taint the reputation of the high end stuff. It has been this way for a long time, nothing new. Maybe they should have named the low-end stuff something else to differentiate it, and maybe even use different distribution channels.

The Vortex Golden Eagle scope, which is 15-60, is performing well in bench rest and f class competition and has gained a reputation for reliable tracking and no zero shift in these competitions. They have been used on some national championship guns in f class and on some record setting guns in benchrest. That is a $2k scope, though.

 

[ETtikka]

It appears the impact testing performed by Vortex is not equivalent to real world testing by Form, since Vortex will not provide details.

If I was Vortex, i would blame the rifle, rings, torque, etc also

At some point we choose to trust Form, who is putting his time and money into these tests, or not.

Since Form has proven his Rifle with previous tests, and has had various scopes pass, while presenting a full disclosure to his test methods, it is an easy choice for me.

As with most manufactures, Vortex is trying to defend their methods in the interest of profit.

Form does not care about profit, obviously.

Thanks again Form for conducting these test.

 

[packgoatguy]

It is hard for a company to sell upper end stuff and lower end stuff with the same brand name and not have the low-end stuff poison the brand. It has been this way for a long long time, nothing new. Maybe they should have named the low-end stuff something else to differentiate it, and maybe even use different distribution channels.

The Vortex Golden Eagle scope, which is 15-60, is performing well in bench rest and f class competition and has gained a reputation for reliable tracking and no zero shift in these competitions. They have been used on some national championship guns in f class and on some record setting guns in benchrest. That is a $2k scope, though.

Are you saying the RAZOR HD lht line is lower end for vortex?

It's great if a scope performs well at bench rest competitions, but those guys have a chance to check zero before a match, whereas if I'm trekking up a mountain with a rifle on my back, I don't have the luxury of checking zero before I take a shot at a deer.

 

[I hunt_dm3]

It is hard for a company to sell upper end stuff and lower end stuff with the same brand name and not have the low-end stuff taint the reputation of the high end stuff. It has been this way for a long time, nothing new. Maybe they should have named the low-end stuff something else to differentiate it, and maybe even use different distribution channels.

The Vortex Golden Eagle scope, which is 15-60, is performing well in bench rest and f class competition and has gained a reputation for reliable tracking and no zero shift in these competitions. They have been used on some national championship guns in f class and on some record setting guns in benchrest. That is a $2k scope, though.

The scope being evaluated has a msrp from vortex of $1,999.99, this is not a crossfire tainting their brand name. This is their high end scope that is failing tests that scopes under $700 have passed.

 

[Dos XX]

Are you saying the RAZOR HD lht line is lower end for vortex?

It's great if a scope performs well at bench rest competitions, but those guys have a chance to check zero before a match, whereas if I'm trekking up a mountain with a rifle on my back, I don't have the luxury of checking zero before I take a shot at a deer.

No. I am not saying it is the lower end of their line. I was replying to the post right above mine.

The BR and F class testing is about testing to see if the reticle moves under recoil, which you don't want. A surprising number of scopes fail these tests. The Vortex Golden Eagle I mentioned is getting a reputation as solid in this regard. It is one model of scope. More similar to what is being experienced with the tests being done here than you may initially think.

 

[Dos XX]

The scope being evaluated has a msrp from vortex of $1,999.99, this is not a crossfire tainting their brand name. This is their high end scope that is failing tests that scopes under $700 have passed.

Yes, I know that. I'm not defending them. This isn't a new revelation with their scopes. They have been failing for years. Their claim to fame is that they have a great warranty, and you will probably need it. I don't own any of their scopes and likely won't.

My post about the cheaper scopes tainting their brand was a reply to the post directly above mine.

 

[roosiebull]

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. "

They are still in denial in response… when several scopes do hold zero on that rifle system (which Form accounts for the variables and proofs the rifle system with proven optics and they say nothing is wrong but obviously there is

The first step to improve is to accept there is an issue, until that, nothing will change… was a very professional reply, but that doesn’t make their optics function well

I really want to see that line work, i would be a fan if they were like the trijicon credo in testing… not NF tough, but pretty good.

Form’s results aren’t isolated to his testing (or his history with them) there is plenty of similar experiences, they seem to be about like leupold VX in durability, which I don’t want

If they could beef up their internals, even if it added a few ounces, I would buy one tomorrow, until then, I won’t buy anything vortex, their scopes are the only thing that interests me, but there is no way unless they change design…

 

[freddyG]

I currently own zero Vortex scopes, and have no dog in this fight. However, I’ve owned several of the original LH HD’s, original PST, a cheap HST, a couple Gen 2 Razors, and an AMG. Their cheap stuff sucks - it’s why it’s cheap. The Razor line is generally good. Lots of people fail to understand that a $300 Chinese OEM optic is not comparable to a $2k+ LOW built scope, and so you’ll see a lot of ignorant discussions about Vortex as a whole. This isn’t really directed at anyone, but seems like it needs to be said in every single Vortex thread. Again, I’m not a fanboy, and don’t even own any Vortex scopes currently.

In regards to their warranty and those pretending that this is some sort of cover up, I’ve sent in a $2,500 scope to Vortex that was bad, and they quickly and openly admitted it was bad. I had a replacement in hand within a week or two along with a written statement of what was wrong. There was no weird double talk, simply ‘it was checked and found to have a defective [blank], here’s your new scope’. Some guys need to loosen up their tin foil hats.

Vortex cheap scopes scopes suck, expensive ones are good, but you had to send a $2500 Vortex scope that failed? Did I just read that right?

 

[BjornF16]

Vortex cheap scopes scopes suck, expensive ones are good, but you had to send a $2500 Vortex scope that failed? Did I just read that right?

They have a great warranty

 

[ElPollo]

A single scope means nothing. I know that’s a tough concept for some here.

If you actually get outside and use enough gear and/or the same gear enough, you’ll have to use a warranty at some point. But if your “experience” consists of reading what other people say on the internet, I could see how my previous post could be hard for you to understand, LOL.

I think we are well past the “single scope means nothing” point with Vortex as a brand. The question should be, given the hundred of threads all over the internet on Vortex scope failures and the fact that most of us have either seen a Vortex scope fail or know someone personally who’s had one fail, why would we expect Vortex to make one that ISN’T likely to fail?

 

[freddyG]

A single scope means nothing. I know that’s a tough concept for some here.

If you actually get outside and use enough gear and/or the same gear enough, you’ll have to use a warranty at some point. But if your “experience” consists of reading what other people say on the internet, I could see how my previous post could be hard for you to understand, LOL.

Slamming me isn’t going to make your contradicting statement sound any better.

I have used scopes to the point of failure, without even dropping them. Thats why I use Nightforce exclusively now, and have for 10+ years. Have yet to send one in. They have failures like any other manufacturer, but I bet it’s much lower than any competitor.

 

[freddyG]

This makes total sense. You have EXCLUSIVE experience with Nightforce for the last ten years, yet here you are on all these optics threads giving your opinion on gear that you have ZERO experience with.

I don’t know how to break the common sense news to you, but just because I’m smart enough to use Nightforce, doesn’t mean my neighbors and pals are. I’ve been a part of scopes puking many times, even recently. Don’t have to own them to see disasters. It’s kind of sad.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

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.

Hey Form - can we assume that other Trijicon’s in the same Tenmile line up would be equally tough and reliable? I am liking the 4-24x50. Seems like the drop tests should test the manufacturers design and components which should apply across an entire line of scopes.

 

[Formidilosus]

Hey Form - can we assume that other Trijicon’s in the same Tenmile line up would be equally tough and reliable? I am liking the 4-24x50. Seems like the drop tests should test the manufacturers design and components which should apply across an entire line of scopes.

I would not. I’ve seen one Tenmile, and it hasn’t even been used hard or for very long. While one would think they would generally be the same or similar, I would not assume so. The 4-24x is probably and good scope- but that is a guess.

 

[BjornF16]

Clearly that’s how some on here are gaining experience. Call me crazy, but I like to buy gear, use gear, then make up my mind .

TK-421, these are not the scopes you are looking for. Please go find Admiral Tarkin and play with him

J/K…

On a more serious note…TK, do you ever read reviews at all? Consumer Reports, Rokslide, SH?

Form poses the most important question: Is any particular scope a reliable aiming device? I don’t understand why everyone gets their panties in a wad over this.

OTOH, perhaps Form is a Russian troll trying to foment dissent amongst the hunting/shooting community…who knows?

 

[roosiebull]

I think we are well past the “single scope means nothing” point with Vortex as a brand. The question should be, given the hundred of threads all over the internet on Vortex scope failures and the fact that most of us have either seen a Vortex scope fail or know someone personally who’s had one fail, why would we expect Vortex to make one that ISN’T likely to fail?

Vortex scope issues are like Covid… at this point you have either had or know a lot of people personally that have

 

[ElPollo]

Clearly that’s not the case.


Clearly that’s how some on here are gaining experience. Call me crazy, but I like to buy gear, use gear, then make up my mind .

Great, then you have no reason to gain from reading this forum or any reason to share any knowledge you might gain from you use of said gear on this forum. And I have nothing to gain from reading your posts. Cool. I’m glad we agree on something.

 

[BjornF16]

That said, there’s obviously a discrepancy between Vortex’s evaluation of the LHT in question and what’s been stated in this thread. Going back to my previous post, my real world experience is that Vortex is open and admits when there’s a problem.

Well, let’s think critically.

1. Does Vortex have any reason to dispute allegations of lack of durability?

2. What motive does Form have to allege lack of durability?

3. Have others witnessed Form’s testing and substantiated his method and findings?

4. Has Vortex filmed/released/revealed their method of verifying their scopes hold zero?

I mean at some point you have to acknowledge that Vortex has a significant financial investment at stake.

I’ve owned an LHT. I was unimpressed with its’ build. I bought a Trijicon Credo HX at the same time. I kept the Trijicon and bought another (2-10x36). I’ve got three other PSTs, all Gen 1. They feel sturdier than the LHT did imo.

Yes, Vortex has a great warranty. I’ve used it once.

 

[Dobermann]

Maybe they should have named the low-end stuff something else to differentiate it, and maybe even use different distribution channels.

What would they call them?

Poortex?

 

[BjornF16]

Was just reviewing some optics threads and found this one from last year. And here I thought Form had it out for Vortex…

Fury 5000 HD AB or Geovid?

Wanting a bino/rf unit to primarily hunt open country mule deer and whitetail. My main criteria is accurate RF readings and holdover outputs. I realize Geovid 2700/3200 is far superior optically, but will a guy be happy enough with the adequate Fury glass? I understand RF capabilities and...

www.rokslide.com