What’s better? Maven rs3.2 viper gen ll or vortex razor hd

[Peregrina]

What the best scope out of the maven rs3.2 5x30x59/vortex viper pst gen ll 5x25x50 or or vortex razor 4.5x22x50

 

[stilesg57]

Can't speak to the Maven but I have owned both those Vortexes. Sold each over the last couple years but currently thinking about getting another LHT for a 6.5 PRC field build.

The Viper PST had a little better eyebox than the Razor LHT, but the LHT had a thinner bezel occluding the view from behind it. Glass quality was a little better overall on the LHT, but the image was "cooler" in it's color profile; less CA at distance than the PST, but because of its color palette it stood out more to my eyes (if that makes sense). Less outer edge distortion as well, especially when off-center.

If it sounds like I'm building up the PST, I'm not: the LHT has an unbeatable trick up it's sleeve and that's its 22oz weight. Until the Viper HD 5-25 came out -- which is still like a quarter pound heavier -- there really wasn't anything within 6oz of the LHT that outperformed it, and most of those (Bushy LRHS, Burris XTR3) are either 5x erectors or top out at 18 power (or both). The LHT is still the lightest FFP scope that reliably tracks and is over 20 power that I'm aware of. Beyond that, the LHT somehow carries even lighter given how its weight is distributed compared to scopes like the PST. Hard to explain that effect, but it's real and noticeable in hand.

I think it comes down to how much you're hauling it around vs your budget. If you're not going to carry it much and/or it's for more of a target/varmit rifle, you can save some cash and get a better eyebox, a little more mag up top, and more positive turrets with the PST. But if you're carrying it, you're going to love the LHT for longer range or more precision field shooting.

 

[Peregrina]

Right on thank you for the input. I’m eyeballing the maven rs3.2 or the razor lht

 

[stilesg57]

If you do go the Maven route...please report back on your thoughts after you've put it through some paces. I'm very curious about Maven generally, just haven't had a perfect specs-to-needs alignment with their models yet to force me into one.

 

[Peregrina]

Most Definately will

 

[ResearchinStuff]

None of the above?

Rifle Scope Field Evaluations

rokslide.com

 

[stilesg57]

None of the above?

Rifle Scope Field Evaluations

rokslide.com

I don’t drop my rifles from 3’ multiple times and then don’t confirm zero before taking an important shot, so…

I know everyone on here loves this test/list but it’s merely a curiosity as far as I’m concerned. It’s unscientific and doesn’t apply to me and how I use optics. If you like any model of SWFA more than the Vortex FFP LHT simply because of this “test,” more power to you.

 

[eric1115]

I don’t drop my rifles from 3’ multiple times and then don’t confirm zero before taking an important shot, so…

I know everyone on here loves this test/list but it’s merely a curiosity as far as I’m concerned. It’s unscientific and doesn’t apply to me and how I use optics. If you like any model of SWFA more than the Vortex FFP LHT simply because of this “test,” more power to you.

Do you drive around on dirt roads with your rifles? The purpose of the field evaluation is to expose long term reliability problems without having to do multi-month or multi-year evaluations. Yes, falls and hard hits sometimes happen and it's nice to know whether a scope deals well with them, but the real benefit is that this eval correlates very closely with real world reliability. If a model passes the eval it almost always is long-term reliable and if it fails it usually will eventually exhibit zero retention and/or tracking issues in regular use (driving around, small knocks like tipping over on a bipod, etc).

Edit to add: I agree that in one sense it's not very scientific. Exact amounts of force are not easy to control or account for. However in another sense they are very scientific. Results are repeatable and verifiable, in that for the most part scopes of a model that passes will all pass and ones that fail all fail.

It seems that on an arbitrary durability scale , most scopes are either a 1-3 or a 7-8, and this test has a pass/fail threshold of of 5ish. Something like a Meopta Optika that more or less passes the eval and then exhibits iffy long term reliability is pretty rare. So for most scopes it tells us whether they are in the good bucket or the bad bucket.

 

[Milron]

I think it depends on your intended use of the scope. For a general purpose range rifle I'd save yourself some $$ and go PST 2 route. If a Hunting rifle or dual use I'd go Maven because it's more compact and I like the reticle better. The 5X low end could be an issue though depending on use....or the LHT to save a little weight..... I've had all three. LHT just seemed fragile to me but never had any issues with the one I had. Glass is pretty close between all of them to my eyes. On a hunting gun that will be carried I dispise a huge giant scope. PST 5-25 is a lot of scope for the money, still not sure there is anything better when I snag them on sale; it is however a fairly large scope as it's geared more towards a range type rifle and not a hunting rig.Eyebox is probably a little tighter on the Maven because it's more "compact"

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I don’t drop my rifles from 3’ multiple times and then don’t confirm zero before taking an important shot, so…

I know everyone on here loves this test/list but it’s merely a curiosity as far as I’m concerned. It’s unscientific and doesn’t apply to me and how I use optics. If you like any model of SWFA more than the Vortex FFP LHT simply because of this “test,” more power to you.

The fact that one is far more expensive than the other doesn’t concern you?

I bought my first SWFA scopes long before I came to RokSlide. I wanted a scope I could reliably dial and the Leupold I had wasn’t it. I didn’t want to spend big money on a scope until I learned more and I didn’t want something made in China. It seemed worth my money to take a gamble on them. Mounting it on a .308 and clicking the turret to reliably move the point of impact was a novel experience for me after years of doing the Leupold two step. After that, I bought several more. I currently own five of them and sold one to each of my brothers.

Only later did I join RokSlide and hear about the drop test.

I can understand being a bit skeptical about the utility of the drop test. I treat my rifles well. A lot of folks would say that I baby them. But stuff happens if you use them. I messed up and left my rifle sideways on the bag the other day. My rifle fell off the bench while I was changing targets. It fell three feet and landed on concrete. Based on the marks, the rifle rolled off the bag, hit the concrete table, bounced, hit the ground first with the suppressor, then the windage turret, then rolled on the ground. I picked up the rifle and put five more bullets into the same spot as the previous ten shot group. Then I made the planned corrections and finished sighting it in. That was reassuring to me.

Scientific? Not at all. But in a small sample size, no other scope I have ever owned was that reliable. I remember a Redfield that bounced off the rifle rack in the truck when my brother hit a hole. It didn’t even fall hard. It just hit the back of the seat and slid behind the seat. But it had to be sighted in again. Same for my dad’s Leupold when he slipped in the mud and fell with his rifle over his shoulder.

Of course, if you prefer a different reticle or need more magnification, that’s another matter. I’m not suggesting that everyone has to love every aspect of SWFA.

But for me, I want to get something objectively better if I am going to spend more money. So I use SWFA as my primary scope and Trijicon if i want something extra (like illumination). Good luck with your search!


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[eric1115]

If I were looking for something in that zoom range(ish), my top choices would be Bushy LRHS2 4.5-18 or Trijicon Tenmile 3-18 (4.5-30 if you just have to have the big top end). I had the LHT and while it is nice to look through, it's not much better than the LRHS or for sure the Tenmile. Lots of reports of the LHT not being nearly as robust as we all hoped it would be. I had a few times I had to adjust zero by a bit, and a few times the first shot out of the gun felt good but didn't land where it should (next shot settled back in). I never did do a drop test. Big zero shifts from dropping it less than a foot onto a padded shooting mat on snow do not inspire confidence.

I 100% get the skepticism on the usefulness of evaluating whether a scope stays zeroed on a 3' drop, but the eval is about a lot more than that and regardless this is a crazy level of fragility to accept in a tool to be used in the backcountry.

Thread 'Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22x50mm Field Eval'

Feb 14, 2022

Ryan Avery asked if I would review this scope in the same vein as the Meopta Optika 6 and Tanget Theta evaluations and I agreed. I get queried about these scopes almost as much as any, and even though I have seen poor performance from the prior LHT’s, this is a different design and will be looked at with objectivity.

This thread will be similar to the others; focusing almost exclusively on correct function, and less on looks or “glass”. Those topics are beaten to death and they have little to do with use as an aiming device. It will be mounted correctly on a rifle/rifles that...

• Formidilosus
• Replies: 5
• Forum: Rifle Scope Field Evaluations

• 

 

[Pwhite]

I found the drop testing thread incredibly useful and informational. I have unfortunately dropped guns much further than 3 feet during hunts, an inevitability if you hunt in Southeast Alaska. Having a scope that reliably stay on zero through multiple 3 foot drops is a huge benefit to me personally. Reading his reviews of Leopold's failing the drop test has really put me off on them.