Would you buy this scope?

[Formidilosus]

Don’t most of the scopes come out of donated optics or donated and testers personal monies? How many Mfg’s have sent scopes for testing?

That’s just a question not a call out aimed at you since I haven’t tracked mfg submitted test scopes. I thought it was small to near non existent but could be wrong.

Most yes, but multiples companies have sent scopes in to be evaluated.

 

[Formidilosus]

I believe this is correct. There were a couple companies talking about bringing scopes and watching the test themselves but as far as I know it hasn't happened yet.

As I stated above- multiple companies have sent scopes in specifically to be, or knowing that they would be evaluated. Off the top of my head and IIRC- Maven, Sightmark, Swarovski, ZeroTech, Element, Sightron, Zeiss, Riton, Arken, Leica, Bushnell, Vortex, and Revic. There are two more that have done so, and when we get the thumbs up to post, we will.

 

[Formidilosus]

IMO There won’t be any conflict of interest as far as advertising drop performance. They know good and well that a bunch of you are going to drop your scope when you get it and any flaw or zero shift will be quickly called out. Look at the responses to the UM failures on Rokstok’s and UM rings. The bar is high and they know it. Plus the people behind it want it to work as advertised so why would they tell you any different just to sell a product

Oh everyone knows there will plenty of people purposely trying to break them to cause lost credibility.

He would lose so much face and credibility forever if he did that and in no way could I foresee him doing that. Does anyone really think he would? Kinda absurd to even suggest that would ever happen. Q to be clear I’m not saying you are suggesting that at all.

You are correct. I have taken $0 or compensation from any company, beyond paying for my direct fuel expense (S2H has paid for my direct gas only, and one other company that wants to remain anonymous has paid for the ammo for a rifle test). At some point that may change, but it hasn’t yet- and I won’t lie about anything if it does. I wouldn’t do so firstly because I’m not a ****; secondly- it goes against the entire reason that I started posting here: to get people information to force change in the industry for better products and proper testing.

 

[blue_ridge]

While anything from Vortex is suspect and I would have to put a lot of caveats on a scope even if they trended to be solid- due to their history (they could change them at will) a good product is a good product.

T

Thread 'Vortex drop testing their new LPVO'

Jan 11, 2026

I just watched this, I dont have a use case for this scope but wanted to see what was so advanced about it.
Was pleasantly surprised to see them dropping it from shoulder height rather than just using machine tests.

Looks like its going to be a tough scope.

• Te Hopo
• Replies: 19
• Forum: Optics

• 

I’ve said this on other forums and been shouted down, but your testing will (already is) change the way scope mfg’s design and test scopes. Have had numerous people argue the consumer base that is aware or even cares about drop testing and maintaining zero is so small that no scope companies will pay attention. I disagree and I think some of the changes coming from LOW and now in at least one Vortex product, is proof they do pay attention. Sales of S2H scopes will get their attention also.

It wasn’t that long ago that SFP, MOA/ mil and IPHY scopes were commonplace. They may be slow to adopt changes, but they do pay attention.

 

[Kyguy]

View attachment 1000555

Nobody does metal finish with scopes anymore. I bet this would sell.

The reason is that they DON'T sell. If other finishes sold enough to make it worth doing, they'd do it.

 

[WCT3]

As I stated above- multiple companies have sent scopes in specifically to be, or knowing that they would be evaluated. Off the top of my head and IIRC- Maven, Sightmark, Swarovski, ZeroTech, Element, Sightron, Zeiss, Riton, Arken, Leica, Bushnell, Vortex, and Revic. There are two more that have done so, and when we get the thumbs up to post, we will.

I didn't know that, very cool to hear.

 

[wysongdog]

I’m just hoping they will be at the expo in a month so we can get our hands on them.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

I’m just hoping they will be at the expo in a month so we can get our hands on them.

They said scopes will be at the expo, I assume at the UM booth.

 

[Dobermann]

The "conflict of interest" will be up to the end user to decide. No doubt some will think differently about the drop tests, knowing he has his own scope. The vast majority of the drop test "believers" will not fall into that category imo. It's similar to podcasters that have always used a particular product, well before they podcasted, then said product comes on as a sponsor. I see it in Rogan's arena often. At the end of the day, you either believe the tester, or you don't.

This post crams so many assumptions and errors of logic it might set a new Rokslide record.

Just a couple of points: the post runs the risk of being condescending readers here; conversely, Form has always said to *not* 'beleive' him, and for people to do their own testing.

This new scope is only 'his own scope' in as much as Form has influenced some features, but primarily as the requirement was for it to be durable - something he's always said he'd celebrate if other scope companies achieved it.

 

[HuntHarder]

This post crams so many assumptions and errors of logic it might set a new Rokslide record.

Just a couple of points: the post runs the risk of being condescending readers here; conversely, Form has always said to *not* 'beleive' him, and for people to do their own testing.

This new scope is only 'his own scope' in as much as Form has influenced some features, but primarily as the requirement was for it to be durable - something he's always said he'd celebrate if other scope companies achieved it.

Ok.

 

[fwafwow]

There is a product that I have suggested to people repeatedly on this forum, that was taken from me- my idea, my design, my testing, my development; and the company cut me out completely after swearing they would not. I still recommend it- it is the best product of its kind on the market.

I’m betting I’m not the only one who is curious about the product and company. I’m guessing you left out the names on purpose though.

 

[Kyguy]

I’m betting I’m not the only one who is curious about the product and company. I’m guessing you left out the names on purpose though.

Since he didn't mention the names, that's probably a good guess. He surely didn't leave them out on accident.

 

[HighUintas]

You are correct. I have taken $0 or compensation from any company, beyond paying for my direct fuel expense (S2H has paid for my direct gas only, and one other company that wants to remain anonymous has paid for the ammo for a rifle test). At some point that may change, but it hasn’t yet- and I won’t lie about anything if it does. I wouldn’t do so firstly because I’m not a ****; secondly- it goes against the entire reason that I started posting here: to get people information to force change in the industry for better products and proper testing.

I thought this was the case. No actual compensation other than maybe ammo or gas or something. Aside from enjoying it, I figured you did it for data, product testing, and getting what you want made/put into market.

I am curious... I know/think your goal is to be free of conflict of interest and no obligation to do anything but be objective by not taking any money for anything, so how and when do you decide that you're interested in doing so. In regard to what fwafwow quoted above, it seems you have at some point been interested in making some money on something you've done. And keep in mind, I'm not trying to kick a hornets' nest; I'm just asking out of curiosity.

 

[Formidilosus]

I thought this was the case. No actual compensation other than maybe ammo or gas or something. Aside from enjoying it, I figured you did it for data, product testing, and getting what you want made/put into market.

This is correct.

I am curious... I know/think your goal is to be free of conflict of interest and no obligation to do anything but be objective by not taking any money for anything, so how and when do you decide that you're interested in doing so. In regard to what fwafwow quoted above, it seems you have at some point been interested in making some money on something you've done. And keep in mind, I'm not trying to kick a hornets' nest; I'm just asking out of curiosity.

I didn’t want money- I wanted my IP. I have helped numerous companies with quite a few products- lots that people would know of. The product I mentioned above was a bit different- it was one I wanted control of. There are items or things I want to develop and make, but I will not give them away- not for money, but because they are mine and I want them done correctly. With that company I had a handshake- they decided they didn’t care, or whatever. Fortunately they kept the quality and design correct.
I have handshakes with other companies for other items- most not in the hunting world. So far those companies have made the items correctly, and will acknowledge that they are mine/they came from me if I request them to do so.

In short- I don’t want money from the industry, I just don’t want people to “steal” what I give them.

 

[Fowl Play]

I understand that people can’t understand truly non-biased, objective behavior because it goes against human nature, and people reflect their own viewpoint into it.

I will never allow liking, or disliking something or someone to affect objective data or outcomes. My own “ego” wouldn’t allow it- what kind of a **** lies to make a buck or hold a grudge? That’s how my brain works.

I didn’t want money- I wanted my IP. I have helped numerous companies with quite a few products- lots that people would know of. The product I mentioned above was a bit different- it was one I wanted control of. There are items or things I want to develop and make, but I will not give them away- not for money, but because they are mine and I want them done correctly.

Good to hear, my comments about scope testing maybe not continuing were not to be accusatory in any way, but mainly to express what I thought would be the natural evolution of a business. You guys deciding to bring your own products to market after seeing nothing comparable in the industry. (Stock, scope, etc) Not saying you guys would lie about future tests to benefit yourselves, but that you might just choose not to do them. And competitors might not want you to do them.

I know if I took the risk to develop this scope, I wouldn’t be putting forth the effort to test, say a new hunting focused lineup from Trijicon or Nightforce on my own time and money. It just wouldn’t make business sense anymore.

A man still has to put food on the table at the end of the day. Benefitting competitors with my own time and money goes against that interest.

 

[_MountainBum]

My autistic analyst side rarely misses on font forensics, this is a Tract.

 

[IrkedCitizen]

I mean Tasco built the SWFA 3-9... I can bring myself to buy a Tract. Vortex not so much

 

[_MountainBum]

I mean Tasco built the SWFA 3-9... I can bring myself to buy a Tract. Vortex not so much

I do stuff like this for a living so it was only natural to look. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m not.

 

[swavescatter]

I mean Tasco built the SWFA 3-9... I can bring myself to buy a Tract. Vortex not so much

That's a good point - what's the warranty on this scope? Vortex or Maven would be perfect with their no questions asked warranty IMO. Looks Athlon-ish to me?

 

[Kyguy]

I do stuff like this for a living so it was only natural to look. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m not.

LOW builds the Torics.... Same as LOW will build this scope. Many companies use existing products to prototype. The internals will be better than Tract, I'm sure that's a guarantee.