Vortex Razor HD LHT Riflescope Review, By Jared Bloomgren

[Justin Crossley]

Are you thinking about a new scope for one of your hunting rifles? Take a look at @Jared Bloomgren's review of the Vortex Razor HD LHT. It looks like a sweet scope that may be a great option for you.

Vortex Razor HD LHT Riflesope Review

 

[gcronin]

@Jared Bloomgren Thanks for the review, man! We really appreciate your honest feedback on the Razor HD LHT!

 

[Jstevens]

Great review - thanks!

 

[duckhunter175]

Solid review!! Just got my LHT 50mm MOA version in yesterday-- did a brief comparison with my VX6HD 3-18x44 and x50mm.

I no longer have my VX5HDs, which is where I think the LHT stacks up most favorably given the same magnification range, close OBJ lens diameter and weight. The plus goes to LHT for having illumination AND a useful reticle in one package.

Here are my thoughts-- I should also have them all at the range next week for more testing and some actual shooting.

WEIGHT
Razor LHT 50mm-- 20.4oz without scope caps or a throw lever.
VX6HD 44mm-- 21.6oz with Alumina covers and throw lever
VX6HD 50mm-- 23oz with Alumina covers and throw lever

TURRETS
Razor LHT- Elevation turret is awesome, pulls up easily, noticeable clicks and the hash marks are nicely spaced and easily visible. BIG FAN! The windage turret is capped and the dial feels similar to the capped Zeiss V4 I had... mushy, hard to line up. BUT- I don't dial windage except for establishing my zero so this isn't a big markdown for me.

VX6HD- Love the low profile locking turret, good clicks. However the size and spacing isn't quite as good and the LHT rev-stop system for zeroing will be slightly easier.

RETICLE
Razor LHT- THICK! Compared to the Leupold Impact 29-- the LHT lines are .2MOA and center dot is .35MOA. Which means the lines are double the .1MOA Leupold lines and the LHT dot is 40% larger than the .25MOA dots in the Impact.

The LHT reticle stands out more pronounced with a wooded and dark background compared to the VX6HD but on a less cluttered background it looks bulky. Could be an issue depending on how much precision you are looking for and at what distance. For a 600 yard, ultralight rifle that will go deep woods and open above timber I think the reticle will be fine. I do like the center dot only illumination as opposed to the illuminated cross the Leupold.

PARALLAX
Razor LHT- The 50mm MOA version is made special for Euro Optic apparently-- there are no yardage markings for the Parallax which is lazy IMO. I've heard the Vortex 42mm versions are marked. The LHT has more real estate for adjustment-- I guess it allows for more fine adjustment. It certainly was a large maybe 1/3 rotation to get from 20yd to 200yd. It was smooth, just feels like a long way to turn it. The VX6HD is marked, covers less real estate, definitely a bit more finicky but I'm more used to it as I have 2 of them and had several VX5s previously.

GLASS
Once focused and parallax adjusted I couldn't give an edge either way in just a brief handheld outdoor test. I knew how good my Leupolds are and there was not an immediately noticeable detraction in image going to the LHT. I would like to get them all out next to my Razor AMG and look at some 800y white targets and really test em.

COST
Razor LHT @ euro $899
Leupolds @ midway $1199

For the cost the LHT is a dang nice scope-- the reticle was a little thick for my preference so I may end up putting it on my Model 70 .270 for more of an all purpose rifle 0-500 yards and then put the Leupold on my 7saum for running to 800 and beyond.

 

[.308]

Thanks for the review.

 

[chindits]

So you like the defined clicks on the turrets, but I don’t recall any review on the accuracy of the turret adjustments and their repeatability. That alone suggests this scope is not really meant to be a dial up scope or am I reading into something that is just missing from this review. There are a number of simple tests that can illustrate this.

 

[7layerburrito]

Pretty sure they're 1/4 MOA clicks. Cant attest that they nailed the usability of the top turret.

 

[gcronin]

So you like the defined clicks on the turrets, but I don’t recall any review on the accuracy of the turret adjustments and their repeatability. That alone suggests this scope is not really meant to be a dial up scope or am I reading into something that is just missing from this review. There are a number of simple tests that can illustrate this.

Hey there - thanks for bringing this up! All of our scopes are designed and engineered to track true. Don't take it from me though - there are plenty of reviews and videos of tracking tests done with the LHT on the web. If you get your hands on one I would highly encourage you to do a tracking test - we would love to hear what you think!

 

[handwerk]

Graham will they ever put a 4a reticle in this scope? that's when I would give it a look.

 

[Jared Bloomgren]

So you like the defined clicks on the turrets, but I don’t recall any review on the accuracy of the turret adjustments and their repeatability. That alone suggests this scope is not really meant to be a dial up scope or am I reading into something that is just missing from this review. There are a number of simple tests that can illustrate this.

I have been confident in the accuracy of these scopes since I first reviewed them a couple of years ago. I did perform my own tests at the range to verify that the tracking was true. That included turning the turrets all the way out and then back to their original setting with bullet impact maintaining accuracy. I also have tested them by shooting point of impact, moving desired MOA and shooting (Ladder shooting) and measuring and comparing point of impact to the MOA adjustment. All have remained accurate. I will be sure to include this in future reviews!

 

[gcronin]

Graham will they ever put a 4a reticle in this scope? that's when I would give it a look.

I am not aware of any plans for that at this time as the focus of the optic is for hunters to be able to reach out with the holds on the reticle and the exposed turret. I will certainly pass the request along though!

 

[hereinaz]

Make a FFP version! I can deal with SFP, but prefer FFP for sure.

 

[gcronin]

Make a FFP version! I can deal with SFP, but prefer FFP for sure.

That would be a pretty sweet option to have in the LHT lineup. I'll certainly pass the request along - thanks for the feedback!

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Tibasaurus Rex of YouTube fame does a video where a guy buys an SHV to bring to one of his classes and it fails pretty quickly. Tracking issue/zero if I remember..

Besides one loudmouth from Alaska the internets pretty quiet about bushnell lrhs problems.

It's way long in the tooth scope design wise, but the swfa 5-20 is probably a sweet option for ya.

That would be a pretty sweet option to have in the LHT lineup. I'll certainly pass the request along - thanks for the feedback!

Mornin' Graham. I have scoured the market for an illuminated reticle hunting scope in the 1K range. This scope appealed to me based on size, weight, magnification and price. I was concerned about the reticle though. I went to Cabelas to see if they had one I could piddle with.

They had one. In as much as I could evaluate the scope inside a store, I gave it a once over. The reticle just didn't work for me. It didn't naturally draw my eye to the center and overall it was a bit too busy. What was the reason for not putting a top "crosshair" in the scope. Not only do hey help draw the eye to center, they also help "bracket" an animal during the first and last possible shooting light.

Have you done the market research to determine how your buyers are actually using their scopes? It seems to me that if you dial, you don't need the reticle subtensions. I consume volumes of information on forums and I have never encountered anyone who both dials and uses subtensions. If those shooters are out there, then you have the scope for them.

This "hunting" scope would have been a win for me if it had a simpler plex style reticle option. There are an abundance of options out there for those who want busier reticles. For us hunters, a simpler reticle on an quality dialing SFP hunting scope is a unicorn.

 

[slingerHB]

Can anyone give a comparison of the glass of the LHT vs a zeiss v4?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Can anyone give a comparison of the glass of the LHT vs a zeiss v4?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Always remember that there is a degree of subjectivity relative to "glass" and also remember that all of our eyes are different. I also suspect that there is some variance from one scope to another in the same model.

 

[gcronin]

Mornin' Graham. I have scoured the market for an illuminated reticle hunting scope in the 1K range. This scope appealed to me based on size, weight, magnification and price. I was concerned about the reticle though. I went to Cabelas to see if they had one I could piddle with.

They had one. In as much as I could evaluate the scope inside a store, I gave it a once over. The reticle just didn't work for me. It didn't naturally draw my eye to the center and overall it was a bit too busy. What was the reason for not putting a top "crosshair" in the scope. Not only do hey help draw the eye to center, they also help "bracket" an animal during the first and last possible shooting light.

Have you done the market research to determine how your buyers are actually using their scopes? It seems to me that if you dial, you don't need the reticle subtensions. I consume volumes of information on forums and I have never encountered anyone who both dials and uses subtensions. If those shooters are out there, then you have the scope for them.

This "hunting" scope would have been a win for me if it had a simpler plex style reticle option. There are an abundance of options out there for those who want busier reticles. For us hunters, a simpler reticle on an quality dialing SFP hunting scope is a unicorn.

Appreciate the feedback! This reticle was actually designed by hunters for hunters. The reason there is no top crosshair is to free up the field of view. Most hunters are never go to use the top portion of the vertical stadia line as if you are going to be holding for a shot it will be holding under. This is why you'll notice the amount of graduate lines underneath the center dot.

We found that the center dot actually helped most shooters draw their eye into it, especially when the illumination is on. I'm sorry hear that this wasn't your cup of tea. We designed the center dot to only be the illuminated part of the reticle as this will help on dark targets, especially in low-light conditions.

The LHT gives the user the option to dial or hold depending on the situation. As we all know, shots in hunting situations don't always provide enough time to dial which is where the graduated subtensions come into play. However, dialing is always more accurate, so if you do have the opportunity to dial I would always recommend taking that approach.

We certainly do appreciate the feedback though! I'll certainly pass along your comments to our NPD team. If you are ever looking for a recommendation for a different scope, don't hesitate to reach out!

 

[hereinaz]

Mornin' Graham. I have scoured the market for an illuminated reticle hunting scope in the 1K range. This scope appealed to me based on size, weight, magnification and price. I was concerned about the reticle though. I went to Cabelas to see if they had one I could piddle with.

They had one. In as much as I could evaluate the scope inside a store, I gave it a once over. The reticle just didn't work for me. It didn't naturally draw my eye to the center and overall it was a bit too busy. What was the reason for not putting a top "crosshair" in the scope. Not only do hey help draw the eye to center, they also help "bracket" an animal during the first and last possible shooting light.

Have you done the market research to determine how your buyers are actually using their scopes? It seems to me that if you dial, you don't need the reticle subtensions. I consume volumes of information on forums and I have never encountered anyone who both dials and uses subtensions. If those shooters are out there, then you have the scope for them.

This "hunting" scope would have been a win for me if it had a simpler plex style reticle option. There are an abundance of options out there for those who want busier reticles. For us hunters, a simpler reticle on an quality dialing SFP hunting scope is a unicorn.

Interesting, I would have said the exact opposite about reticle preference and market demand, lol. My preferences are to make the LHT MORE "tactical".

Perhaps the forums you frequent are focused or limited in preferences, because in my world, almost every person I know that is serious about long range dials and uses holdovers. I am certainly coming from a more "tactical/hunting" crossover found in the precision rifle community. I do know some hunters going to long range hold your preferences and don't have a need for a busy reticle. Because of the world I live in, I thought that most hunters shooting long range also would want subtensions.

I absolutely dial AND use subtensions. The LHT barely meets my minimal requirements for a scope and I want FFP and a tree reticle. In fact, I have an LHT, but would prefer it with an EBR7. I won't buy a scope without subtensions for long range.

 

[gcronin]

Interesting, I would have said the exact opposite about reticle preference and market demand, lol. My preferences are to make the LHT MORE "tactical".

Perhaps the forums you frequent are focused or limited in preferences, because almost every person I know that is serious about long range dials and uses holdovers. I am certainly coming from a more "tactical/hunting" crossover found in the precision rifle community. I do know some hunters going to long range hold your preferences and don't have a need for a busy reticle. Because of the world I live in, I thought that most hunters shooting long range also would want subtensions.

I absolutely dial AND use subtensions. The LHT barely meets my minimal requirements for a scope and I want FFP and a tree reticle. In fact, I have an LHT, but would prefer it with an EBR7. I won't buy a scope without subtensions for long range.

Offering a FFP in the LHT would be a pretty sweet addition and feedback that we get quite a bit. I'll definitely let our NPD team know that there is more interest! Thanks for the feedback, my friend!

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Interesting, I would have said the exact opposite about reticle preference and market demand, lol. My preferences are to make the LHT MORE "tactical".

Perhaps the forums you frequent are focused or limited in preferences, because in my world, almost every person I know that is serious about long range dials and uses holdovers. I am certainly coming from a more "tactical/hunting" crossover found in the precision rifle community. I do know some hunters going to long range hold your preferences and don't have a need for a busy reticle. Because of the world I live in, I thought that most hunters shooting long range also would want subtensions.

I absolutely dial AND use subtensions. The LHT barely meets my minimal requirements for a scope and I want FFP and a tree reticle. In fact, I have an LHT, but would prefer it with an EBR7. I won't buy a scope without subtensions for long range.

I frequent a lot of forums, and they all have their own flavor. This one is Western Hunter flavored. Sniper's Hide is tacticool. 24 hour campfire is highly varied.

Can you give me examples of when you have used subtensions and dialing on the same scope?