Vortex

[tradman]

Looks like Vortex will be supplying the US Army with a new generation squad optic.

 

[BCsteve]

Link? Source?

 

[Touchdown88]

www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2022/01/07/vortex-win-us-army-next-generation-squad-weapons-fire-control-contract/amp/

 

[Deadfall]

Yuck

 

[ODB]

Ah yes, the much, much sought after military contract...

 

[Dobermann]

Seeing as Form's thread about the LHT eval has been closed, might as well add this here ...

In that thread, someone posted something along the lines that 'Vortex was a marketing company'. Like many, I had a chuckle ... but then wondered if that was a little unfair. After all, Form (and others of us here) have had good luck with the Fury 5000 ABs. Many of us here aren't that interested in brands, just what works.

However, I just accidentally stumbled upon Vortex's podcast. I listened to a few episodes, and one from March 2020, about "Choosing the right riflescope", stood out. Apart from the endless mentioning of Vortex's scope offerings (understandable to a point, but still unsufferable as a listener), I think this gave a few key insights into some of Vortex's thinking (more for us as hunters, so this is a slight thead derailment, but looks like we're already headed there ).

At 80 mins, I wouldn't recommend listening to it all. But two quick things stood out - one was a discussion about why they didn't want to make a first focal plane reticle for scopes of about 15 x max magnification (which they called 'modest magnification'):

"The first focal plane in this case - let's just say we made one for the shooters out there that say 'It's gotta be first' - if you were to turn that reticle down, because those reticles scale, the centre point - even though this is illuminated - would grow infinitely tiny ... For a lot of the shooters out there arguing that a riflescope like this should be first focal plane, imagine us at the drawing board trying to make a usable reticle at 15x 'cause we have to start there and get smaller ... imagine what that reticle would look like with the illuminated component. It would be huge; it would be like a dinnerplate in the middle of your reticle. And when we scaled down to 1x, or 3x in this case, it would be useable. I think a lot of folks would be off-put by the lack of quote 'precision feature' in that reticle ... "

Huh? I've had three FFP scopes in that mag range from three different companies that all had useable reticles at min and max magnification (Nightforce NXS 3-15, SWFA, Bushnell LRTS).

But here's the kicker: they then discussed how they used to have an FFP 4-16, but hunters didn't like it because they couldn't see the reticle ... but this was interpreted as being an issue with FFPs at this so-labelled 'modest magnification', rather than the reticle they hadn't designed well for that platform.

More importantly was this quote about what was most important in a scope:

"Where I put my precedence is always optical quality ... more than anything else. More than any dial, lever, illuminating component or bell or whistle. Optical quality will always win out for me."

Yep, no mention about reliability.

Oh, and there was the old chestnut about not wanting exposed elevation turrets on a hunting scope, as they might get bumped ...

All up, while the podcast now feels like an hour and a half of my life I won't get back, it did help me understand some of the context for why Vortex - and, to be fair, probably other optics companies - keeps having the issues that we keep documenting.

 

[Dobermann]

PS The above wasn't meant to 'bash' Vortex, more that it helped me understand some context for the kinds of issues we see.

As for the military contract, I hope those scopes do well.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

I have to wonder why Forms thread was shut down. I know they explained that they were parsing out the comments from the substance, but I am guessing they were running cover for being told to shut it down.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

When Vortex won the 416 contract with their 1-6 I was unsurprised.

I'm shocked that the military is going to a smart scope instead of teaching people to shoot further with something more robust and less electronic for the weight.

 

[Wapiti1]

Good for them. Keep in mind that particular optic had to pass testing (may or may not mean a lot) by the military. I hope it is a solid piece of gear.

Wonder if there are any Berry compliance stipulations. Seems like the electronics would be problematic for that. Also makes some sense that they discontinued the AMG scope. Need somewhere to build these whizbang gizmos.

As to the way Vortex designs their optics, they do what they think we want. I can say for certain that they have never talked to me, and are probably talking to a lot of what I'll term sunny day or a just before the season shooters. Serious shooters are in the minority of the shooting population.

Jeremy

 

[maverick]

Form's threads were moved to the long range hunting section at the top of the page under rifle scope field evaluations in it's own section.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[260madman]

I have to wonder why Forms thread was shut down. I know they explained that they were parsing out the comments from the substance, but I am guessing they were running cover for being told to shut it down.

Nope. Own section. I’m pretty sure Avery doesn’t give a crap what someone tells him. He’s going to do what he wants.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Nope. Own section. I’m pretty sure Avery doesn’t give a crap what someone tells him. He’s going to do what he wants.

I didn't think to look in Long Range Hunting. A scope test seems to have more to do with optics than long range hunting to me. Glad to see that it wasn't a result of any pressure.

 

[Hoodie]

USMC Reconnaissance units have been using the 1-6x Razor for a bit already. The rest of the Marine Corps went with a Trijicon 1-8x I believe.

If it can be broken, they'll break it.

 

[ZackP]

Good for them. Keep in mind that particular optic had to pass testing (may or may not mean a lot) by the military. I hope it is a solid piece of gear.

Wonder if there are any Berry compliance stipulations. Seems like the electronics would be problematic for that. Also makes some sense that they discontinued the AMG scope. Need somewhere to build these whizbang gizmos.

As to the way Vortex designs their optics, they do what they think we want. I can say for certain that they have never talked to me, and are probably talking to a lot of what I'll term sunny day or a just before the season shooters. Serious shooters are in the minority of the shooting population.

Jeremy

I got a chuckle out of your second sentence.
After 6 years(many moons ago) I’m almost positive whomever hands out these contracts does so for their personal benefit, more so than the reliability or quality of the product in question. Quid pro quo if you will.

 

[5RWill]

PS The above wasn't meant to 'bash' Vortex, more that it helped me understand some context for the kinds of issues we see.

As for the military contract, I hope those scopes do well.

Considering Gen II 1-6s have been used in the SF community for years now, I'm sure they will.

There is a disproportionate perception of Vortex these days that is rather undeserved IMHO. I think a large part of it is the sheer amount of their cheaper stuff that has QC issues. Granted I don't use their cheaper Philippines products. My brother has had some Gen II PSTs and my Cousin has one without issues.

Now given the new LHT if that one sample is representative, then there is no excuse. It's hard to judge based on one optic though. I had a Mark 6 that wouldn't track. How many Mark 6s and Mark 8s with the M5C2 turrets are in the military? That work just fine? Regardless it left a bad taste in my mouth about Leupold for some time, so I completely get it. However I gave them a second chance with the Mark 5 and I genuinely love that optic.

My point though is to illustrate that Vortex's flagship lineup, the stuff made in Japan and assembled here or the AMG (made/assembled here) doesn't have some high failure rate, actually quite the opposite. I'm not saying there aren't failures, there are. It's just not at the alarming rate the internet would have you believe.

 

[Wapiti1]

I got a chuckle out of your second sentence.
After 6 years(many moons ago) I’m almost positive whomever hands out these contracts does so for their personal benefit, more so than the reliability or quality of the product in question. Quid pro quo if you will.

An unfortunate facet of our contract negotiation system.

Jeremy