Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Q&A

[Dobermann]

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

Yep, and Form has just commented on that exact issue here: https://www.rokslide.com/forums/thr...top-does-it-exist.150421/page-13#post-2492880

Personally, I'm not impressed Vortex's scopes, their bombastic marketing, or their (frankly, embarrassing) podcast.

But I had some Swaro RF binos that I felt I couldn't trust the reliability on, and didn't want the possible long-distance warranty hassles. Sold them and got some Vortex Fury 5000 ABs at Form's suggestion, and happy so far.

In an age of likes and dislikes, "following" companies and the influencers they give free stuff to, being part of the "Brand X" Club, Vortex Nation, and so on ... I think this is what keeps getting missed. Some of us couldn't really care less about brand names; we just want stuff that works.

 

[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. "

Update: I had a long conversation with a rep from Vortex this evening. Main take-away was, this particular rep believes in the vortex products, and I was encouraged by the lengths it sounds like Vortex goes through on a regular basis to stand by their products and keep their customers satisfied. I truly appreciated how open he was to my questions and suggestions. I hope this leads to Vortex developing a testing system that can identify areas for improvement that traditional collimator or other testing may not catch. Specifically, I hope to see real world testing of scopes mounted on rifles, using a variety of ring setups, shot for groups, and then put through various drops and vibrations to mimic the types of impacts and abuse that scopes used by hunters or servicemen are likely to experience. Then, shot for groups again, monitored for zero shifts, and so on.

Whether Vortex initiates the testing or it is done independently, I trust that if there is a company out there who is willing to learn from the data obtained, then at least based on my conversation tonight, the folks at Vortex can be that company.

It really sounds like they are taking this issue seriously, so if anyone here has some constructive criticism or feedback on how they (vortex) could proceed... or specific improvements or testing you think would be helpful, I would encourage you to reach out to them via email asap. At the end of this, you may not care how a particular company like Vortex fares... but I for one hope that discussions like this will lead to product innovation that will ultimately yield better options for consumers in the future.

 

[sndmn11]

Update: I had a long conversation with a rep from Vortex this evening. Main take-away was, this particular rep believes in the vortex products, and I was encouraged by the lengths it sounds like Vortex goes through on a regular basis to stand by their products and keep their customers satisfied. I truly appreciated how open he was to my questions and suggestions. I hope this leads to Vortex developing a testing system that can identify areas for improvement that traditional collimator or other testing may not catch. Specifically, I hope to see real world testing of scopes mounted on rifles, using a variety of ring setups, shot for groups, and then put through various drops and vibrations to mimic the types of impacts and abuse that scopes used by hunters or servicemen are likely to experience. Then, shot for groups again, monitored for zero shifts, and so on.

Whether Vortex initiates the testing or it is done independently, I trust that if there is a company out there who is willing to learn from the data obtained, then at least based on my conversation tonight, the folks at Vortex can be that company.

It really sounds like they are taking this issue seriously, so if anyone here has some constructive criticism or feedback on how they (vortex) could proceed... or specific improvements or testing you think would be helpful, I would encourage you to reach out to them via email asap. At the end of this, you may not care how a particular company like Vortex fares... but I for one hope that discussions like this will lead to product innovation that will ultimately yield better options for consumers in the future.

At any point did he say that the scopes they brand needed improvement in return to zero and internal durability? (However one wants to phrase it)

 

[prm]

I don’t feel developing a series of repeatable tests would be that difficult. There are existing testing standards for equipment, but I can’t say exactly how they apply to scopes. Each company can show initiative and knowledge and establish their own standards.
First, establish design objectives for what the scope should stand up to by developing a range of use cases for each particular scope. A capped dials set and forget scope for use in a blind or treestand will be different than one intended to dial elevation and windage repeatedly while shooting Russians in the Ukraine. Develop repeatable tests that emulate field conditions identified in the use cases and establish the performance standards for each test. Conduct testing on designs, identify failure points, redesign, repeat testing until the design functions and aims correctly to the design objective. Basically, demonstrate to the consumers that the scope will stand up to a certain amount of wear and tear appropriate to the intended use and continue to function and aim correctly.

Temp: ensure all adjustments function from hot to cold (pick your desired numbers) and that reticle position remains constant. Likely similar across all designs.

Shooting: use a device to accurately simulate recoil (lightweight rifle with larger cartridge) and check functionality and reticle position every xxx shots for 10,000 shots (or 100,000 whatever…). Higher end (priced) scopes perhaps last longer or have a little less variation.

Dials: repeatedly run the dials end to end and check tracking at pre set intervals. Do this for intended lifetime of use. Certainly different for a capped set and forget vs. a scope designed for extensive dialing.

Impact: develop a series of repeatable impacts that simulate likely events in the field. This could vary by the design intent for individual models. Test all functionality and reticle position across the series of impacts. There needs to be a minimum for any hunting scope, but there are use cases that demand a very high standard both as a result of actual use and consequence of failing.

Vibration: Simulate extensive planes, trains, automobiles, atvs, and horses. Check all functionality and reticle position over a simulated lifetime of rattling around. May vary similar to impact.

Once you have a design that performs in testing across the design objective, do real-world field testing to validate.

This type of testing and the related follow-on marketing won’t impact much of the buying public, but it would influence some. As the game of oneupmanship continues this will become a selling point. There have been elements of this in the past such as Leupold’s punisher testing. What they don’t do to my knowledge is pull the thread through to indicate that the scope will continue to point correctly. It would be very easy to connect the use cases to some great marketing! Bouncing along on 4-wheeler and falling off on a big bump, then shooting a nice buck. Rattling around in the bed of a truck over miles of washboards, rocks and river crossings and then shooting a nice mule deer. Banging into trees in a scabbard, hunter then slipping while climbing steep, rocky slope then ranges, dials, and makes shot on a big bull.

 

[roosiebull]

Update: I had a long conversation with a rep from Vortex this evening. Main take-away was, this particular rep believes in the vortex products, and I was encouraged by the lengths it sounds like Vortex goes through on a regular basis to stand by their products and keep their customers satisfied. I truly appreciated how open he was to my questions and suggestions. I hope this leads to Vortex developing a testing system that can identify areas for improvement that traditional collimator or other testing may not catch. Specifically, I hope to see real world testing of scopes mounted on rifles, using a variety of ring setups, shot for groups, and then put through various drops and vibrations to mimic the types of impacts and abuse that scopes used by hunters or servicemen are likely to experience. Then, shot for groups again, monitored for zero shifts, and so on.

Whether Vortex initiates the testing or it is done independently, I trust that if there is a company out there who is willing to learn from the data obtained, then at least based on my conversation tonight, the folks at Vortex can be that company.

It really sounds like they are taking this issue seriously, so if anyone here has some constructive criticism or feedback on how they (vortex) could proceed... or specific improvements or testing you think would be helpful, I would encourage you to reach out to them via email asap. At the end of this, you may not care how a particular company like Vortex fares... but I for one hope that discussions like this will lead to product innovation that will ultimately yield better options for consumers in the future.

I think your conversation was an extension of their great marketing team, they have all of the right answers, gives the consumer confidence, leaving you feel like they truly care…. Smooth talkers are great for a company in regards to their main goal (sell products) but in the end, time will tell if they actually care… build a reliable scope!

I think they are so used to interacting with customers questioning their products that they have all of the right answers to put their customers at peace and keep them happy until the next issue

 

[packgoatguy]

I don’t feel developing a series of repeatable tests would be that difficult. There are existing testing standards for equipment, but I can’t say exactly how they apply to scopes. Each company can show initiative and knowledge and establish their own standards.
First, establish design objectives for what the scope should stand up to by developing a range of use cases for each particular scope. A capped dials set and forget scope for use in a blind or treestand will be different than one intended to dial elevation and windage repeatedly while shooting Russians in the Ukraine. Develop repeatable tests that emulate field conditions identified in the use cases and establish the performance standards for each test. Conduct testing on designs, identify failure points, redesign, repeat testing until the design functions and aims correctly to the design objective. Basically, demonstrate to the consumers that the scope will stand up to a certain amount of wear and tear appropriate to the intended use and continue to function and aim correctly.

Temp: ensure all adjustments function from hot to cold (pick your desired numbers) and that reticle position remains constant. Likely similar across all designs.

Shooting: use a device to accurately simulate recoil (lightweight rifle with larger cartridge) and check functionality and reticle position every xxx shots for 10,000 shots (or 100,000 whatever…). Higher end (priced) scopes perhaps last longer or have a little less variation.

Dials: repeatedly run the dials end to end and check tracking at pre set intervals. Do this for intended lifetime of use. Certainly different for a capped set and forget vs. a scope designed for extensive dialing.

Impact: develop a series of repeatable impacts that simulate likely events in the field. This could vary by the design intent for individual models. Test all functionality and reticle position across the series of impacts. There needs to be a minimum for any hunting scope, but there are use cases that demand a very high standard both as a result of actual use and consequence of failing.

Vibration: Simulate extensive planes, trains, automobiles, atvs, and horses. Check all functionality and reticle position over a simulated lifetime of rattling around. May vary similar to impact.

Once you have a design that performs in testing across the design objective, do real-world field testing to validate.

This type of testing and the related follow-on marketing won’t impact much of the buying public, but it would influence some. As the game of oneupmanship continues this will become a selling point. There have been elements of this in the past such as Leupold’s punisher testing. What they don’t do to my knowledge is pull the thread through to indicate that the scope will continue to point correctly. It would be very easy to connect the use cases to some great marketing! Bouncing along on 4-wheeler and falling off on a big bump, then shooting a nice buck. Rattling around in the bed of a truck over miles of washboards, rocks and river crossings and then shooting a nice mule deer. Banging into trees in a scabbard, hunter then slipping while climbing steep, rocky slope then ranges, dials, and makes shot on a big bull.

In my conversation last night, which lasted over 2 hours BTW... I brought up all of those points, except for the temperature testing, which I agree would certainly be useful. Please share your insights with these Vortex guys directly, the more of us they hear from, the more I hope they will take this seriously. PM me if you want the guy's name, email, and phone that reached out to me.

As for a couple other points you brought up; if I heard correctly last night, the one thing that the industry does already do in their testing... is to shoot lots of rounds. Modern scopes are expected to hold zero under repeated recoil impulses I suppose. Could they or should they do more recoil testing than they do to vet a particulsr design?? Sure I suppose. But I think the main durability issues that are lacking lie in testing what will happen if you trip and bump your rifle on a log, or toss it in the backseat of your truck for a few hundred washboard miles... etc. I feel like testing the durability of all scopes under those conditions would be necessary. Not so much because I think all scopes need to be "bombproof " but rather so that the scope manufacturers could tell us, perhaps on a quantifiable scale... the level of durability and reliability under less-than ideal conditions that we could expect from a particular model. Perhaps establish a baseline test that all scopes must pass to be "certified" by some sort of independent organization, and then have various higher levels of stress testing that a scope could also pass to be given a higher ranking. I would love to see this sort of testing model come from within the industry, but such would likely require cooperation and transparency among competitors that might be difficult to achieve... so perhaps it needs to come from us.

I will also add, that one of the issues that the gentleman from Vortex seems a bit hung up on is, how to test scopes for failure when other failure points like the rifle and rings could be a contributing factor?? I suggested they implement their testing with a variety of common rings, bases, rifles, etc all from different companies, then ensure that all action screws are torqued properly, rings are set to manufacture recommended specs, etc. Then test them side by side against their own and even competitors scopes. Hopefully that would give enough data points to be statistically relevant. It also might produce information regarding the levels of stress we as consumers can expect from other parts of the rifle system. For example, if a particular scope passes drop tests on a tikka rifle with nightforce base and rings, but sees zero shifts from a set of Talley lightweights... then it would give an indication that there is something else to test and consider, depending on the level of stress the customer intends to apply. (Nothing against talley here, just making an example because of their relative popularity). All which would be valuable information for the consumer.

 

[brn2hnt]

I will also add, that one of the issues that the gentleman from Vortex seems a bit hung up on is, how to test scopes for failure when other failure points like the rifle and rings could be a contributing factor?? I suggested they implement their testing with a variety of common rings, bases, rifles, etc all from different companies, then ensure that all action screws are torqued properly, rings are set to manufacture recommended specs, etc. Then test them side by side against their own and even competitors scopes. Hopefully that would give enough data points to be statistically relevant. It also might produce information regarding the levels of stress we as consumers can expect from other parts of the rifle system. For example, if a particular scope passes drop tests on a tikka rifle with nightforce base and rings, but sees zero shifts from a set of Talley lightweights... then it would give an indication that there is something else to test and consider, depending on the level of stress the customer intends to apply. (Nothing against talley here, just making an example because of their relative popularity). All which would be valuable information for the consumer.

Smart a$$ answer?

Tell them to run an NF through the same test. NF doesn't fail and the vortex does? Problem verrrrrrry likely isn't the mounting environment...

 

[packgoatguy]

Smart a$$ answer?

Tell them to run an NF through the same test. NF doesn't fail and the vortex does? Problem verrrrrrry likely isn't the mounting environment...

My point was more that he is not sure yet how they could make a scientificly relevant and repeatable test for a scope specifically, when there are other points of weakness in a rifle system. I see his concern, as like many of you I've had rings slip before. However, I don't see it as a reason to not do the testing, and I expressed my interest to see testing done that even quantified the contribution of failure rates from other sources like rifle and rings as well as the scope itself.

 

[brn2hnt]

I understand that, but like has been mentioned before, the statistical value of a pass is very different from that of a failure.

ie sure there are other points of potential failure, but as has been shown with multiple scopes now, when you repeat the same test on the same rifle (within minutes no less) after swapping out the scope...

 

[packgoatguy]

I think your conversation was an extension of their great marketing team, they have all of the right answers, gives the consumer confidence, leaving you feel like they truly care…. Smooth talkers are great for a company in regards to their main goal (sell products) but in the end, time will tell if they actually care… build a reliable scope!

I think they are so used to interacting with customers questioning their products that they have all of the right answers to put their customers at peace and keep them happy until the next issue

Perhaps... but I did not get that impression personally. As I tried to convey, I came away with the belief that they (at least this particular guy) cares about seeing vortex products performing as advertised, and then some... and that they are open to suggestions and help in how they can continue to improve.

Bear in mind here, my only dog in this fight is to have products on the market that meet my objectives. In a perfect world, there would be a bombproof 3-18 ffp scope with great reticle choices, illumination, capped windage, great glass, and only weigh 16oz... thats my dream. I don't care if it says vortex or nightforce on the label. More power to the company who makes it first. But, Until technology and demand allows that to come to market, I would like to see manufacturers of the products I buy being pushed to exceed their own and my expectations in a respectful and transparent manner.

 

[packgoatguy]

I understand that, but like has been mentioned before, the statistical value of a pass is very different from that of a failure.

ie sure there are other points of potential failure, but as has been shown with multiple scopes now, when you repeat the same test on the same rifle (within minutes no less) after swapping out the scope...

My point exactly... and this was the issue he and I discussed at length... how does one scope pass and one scope fail using the same rifle and rings? He didn't have a good answer, which led to our discussion about how to create a testing system that could be repeated and provide quantifiable data, while assessing and controlling affecting variables. Then, I suggest they use it and test scopes, rings, and rifles to their breaking points so they can improve their products and we can know with more certainty what to expect out of our equipment.

 

[Formidilosus]

if I heard correctly last night, the one thing that the industry does already do in their testing... is to shoot lots of rounds.

No. Unless their version of “a lot” is a few hundred.

 

[prm]

Scope testing should be done in a testing environment. Temp, vibration, recoil, and impact can all be applied to the scope and then the position of the reticle measured using testing equipment. Shooting as a means to evaluate a scope introduces other variables. The added variables that introduces should only be done after the scope design itself has passed controlled testing. Honestly, the rifle system is a separate problem. Form attempts to isolate the scope by using a well tested system that is bonded together.

 

[packgoatguy]

Scope testing should be done in a testing environment. Temp, vibration, recoil, and impact can all be applied to the scope and then the position of the reticle measured using testing equipment. Shooting as a means to evaluate a scope introduces other variables. The added variables that introduces should only be done after the scope design itself has passed controlled testing. Honestly, the rifle system is a separate problem. Form attempts to isolate the scope by using a well tested system that is bonded together.

Well... there-in lies the problem... that IS what they currently test for, and yet there is still some disconnect between the testing done on an actual rifle and what is being done in the lab on the collimator. Somehow a scope can pass the controlled lab testing but fail Form's or other real world tests... thus the real world testing should be incorporated into the factory testing to find where this disconnect is. Somehow the factory testing needs to include testing that will catch the issues being manifested in Form's type of testing.

 

[roosiebull]

My point was more that he is not sure yet how they could make a scientificly relevant and repeatable test for a scope specifically, when there are other points of weakness in a rifle system. I see his concern, as like many of you I've had rings slip before. However, I don't see it as a reason to not do the testing, and I expressed my interest to see testing done that even quantified the contribution of failure rates from other sources like rifle and rings as well as the scope itself.

I could see them riding that excuse forever claiming they can’t do drop tests for that reason… maybe they could ask nightforce how they test

There are ways, if they wanted to, they easily could, but if they sell well, they won’t be too inclined to completely rebuild their design… way easier to give a bunch to yes men influencers who will proclaim how awesome they are…. It’s just the way of the world these days.

A lot of people aren’t going to personally reach out to vortex either, just buy something else and don’t worry about vortex is what most will do who aren’t happy with vortex

Combine that customer service you experienced yesterday with a solid product and they would be tough to beat, but they are already very popular, so I don’t see vortex going out of their way to completely redesign all of their optics… it doesn’t make sense in business terms

 

[I hunt_dm3]

Update: I had a long conversation with a rep from Vortex this evening. Main take-away was, this particular rep believes in the vortex products, and I was encouraged by the lengths it sounds like Vortex goes through on a regular basis to stand by their products and keep their customers satisfied. I truly appreciated how open he was to my questions and suggestions. I hope this leads to Vortex developing a testing system that can identify areas for improvement that traditional collimator or other testing may not catch. Specifically, I hope to see real world testing of scopes mounted on rifles, using a variety of ring setups, shot for groups, and then put through various drops and vibrations to mimic the types of impacts and abuse that scopes used by hunters or servicemen are likely to experience. Then, shot for groups again, monitored for zero shifts, and so on.

Whether Vortex initiates the testing or it is done independently, I trust that if there is a company out there who is willing to learn from the data obtained, then at least based on my conversation tonight, the folks at Vortex can be that company.

It really sounds like they are taking this issue seriously, so if anyone here has some constructive criticism or feedback on how they (vortex) could proceed... or specific improvements or testing you think would be helpful, I would encourage you to reach out to them via email asap. At the end of this, you may not care how a particular company like Vortex fares... but I for one hope that discussions like this will lead to product innovation that will ultimately yield better options for consumers in the future.

Sounds like you talked to a Vortex sales guy, someone who can make all the promises in the world but has no actual input in the company. Makes you feel good about their product but the issues remain.

 

[freddyG]

These companies that make subpar scopes will tell you whatever you want to hear. They will then do nothing about it. This it nothing new.

The cost required to revamp their entire line, while charging more for their products, doesn’t make financial sense. The money required to silence the few squeeky wheels, is fractions of a penny on the dollar comparatively.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

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.

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

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”.

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)?

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.

 

[prm]

Well... there-in lies the problem... that IS what they currently test for, and yet there is still some disconnect between the testing done on an actual rifle and what is being done in the lab on the collimator. Somehow a scope can pass the controlled lab testing but fail Form's or other real world tests... thus the real world testing should be incorporated into the factory testing to find where this disconnect is. Somehow the factory testing needs to include testing that will catch the issues being manifested in Form's type of testing.

I am guessing they are not testing it very robustly. Did they actually state that they ensure the scope retains zero after impact and vibration testing? My guess is they are not. Not coming apart mechanically is not the same as retaining zero. Either way, I am suggesting they test to a criteria that matches real world use cases and that the scope continue to point correctly throughout testing.

edit: there are countless tests out there, whether military, or internally developed. Unless you know the specifics of the test you won’t know how applicable it is to your intent.