Vortex Razor HD LHT

[skookum]

That's your prerogative. Nothing wrong there. I don't think ILya pushes anything but what he likes personally. But I'm a fan. That's no secret. The kahles in his review video of high end scopes is mine. Never met the man in person but have talked to him and Bill enough to realize what kind of people they are that i would send a stranger my $3300 optic to review. I hope that doesn't come off as uppity just trying to explain that i do trust the man.

I understand where you're coming from. What vortex did you have if you don't mind me asking? If you have mentioned it i apologize because i didn't see it.

I used to be the same way with leupold though. Then they basically rectified all their mishaps with the mark 6 that left a bad taste in my mouth with the mark 5. Which i absolutely love.

The easy remedy to not wondering if said scope will tract is to basically up the ante and spend the money to ensure a reliable optic. It's a shame that might not be what $1200-1500 gets you this day age unfortunately.

I've have PST gen 1, a Diamonback Tactical on an AR for varmints, a rangefinder and I took a hard look at the Fury Binos (the guy at the store broke them showing them to me.) I realize there have been improvements, and that's why I keep going back to them to check them out but at the end of the day I seem to find better investments, they have some great optics but their quality control just isn't there. Trust in your equipment is everything, and I've had enough experiences with Vortex to not trust them on anything other than a varmint rifle. At the end of the day, I don't baby my stuff and I shouldn't have to.

I've got nothing against Ilya, I read his stuff and I appreciate the effort he puts forward to put information out, but every list he puts out Vortex always seems to be at the top and I just can't believe it.

 

[Pdvdh]

I recommend babying your scope, rifle, and mounts no matter how much money you've spent on them, in order to increase the odds your rifle will hold its zero.

If your not protecting your rifle/scope from lumps, bumps, and falls, you're gonna have disappointments, based on my experience hunting with scoped rifles.

 

[Ucsdryder]

They posted the official reply and there's a solid conversation going on over there.

I recommend babying your scope, rifle, and mounts no matter how much money you've spent on them, in order to increase the odds your rifle will hold its zero.

If your not protecting your rifle/scope from lumps, bumps, and falls, you're gonna have disappointments, based on my experience hunting with scoped rifles.

this right here!

There are a lot of things that I want in a scope….

Clear glass
Low light capabilities
Reliable tracking
Locking turrets
Zero stop
Durability
Sub 20 ounces
Reasonably priced

I'm probably missing a couple. Somehow all that matter is if you can beat it like a sledge hammer and it'll hold its zero.

 

[WildRose]

I recommend babying your scope, rifle, and mounts no matter how much money you've spent on them, in order to increase the odds your rifle will hold its zero.

If your not protecting your rifle/scope from lumps, bumps, and falls, you're gonna have disappointments, based on my experience hunting with scoped rifles.

As a kid I had it pounded into my head to protect the optics at all costs.

The problem is you can't prevent all the slip and falls, horses, mules, goats or llamas doing something stupid on the trail or a myriad of other true accidents that can happen in the field much less idiot baggage handlers at the airport.

I need to have a certain level of confidence that my glass will at least hold zero with the kinds of bumps and jolts one expects in the field if for no other reason than we can't always take a shot to check zero after such a bump without screwing up a hunt.

There has to be a reasonable spot between dropping them off of a cliff to see if they survive and being worried that any bump or jolt is going to throw them way off of zero or worse.

That middle ground I guess is pretty wide and differs considerably from shooter/hunter to shooter/hunter.

 

[Pdvdh]

I don't know if it's scope internals, or the scope mounts, rifle bedding, or some combination of all three.
But after my rifle/scope takes a hit, bang, or fall during use, I fully expect POI shift significant enough to cause disappointments.
First priority is to recheck rifle zero. Second priority, continue hunting.

 

[WildRose]

I don't know if it's scope internals, or the scope mounts, rifle bedding, or some combination of all three.
But after my rifle/scope takes a hit, bang, or fall during use, I fully expect POI shift significant enough to cause disappointments.
First priority is to recheck rifle zero. Second priority, continue hunting.

"Better safe than sorry".

The tactical guys have a much higher expectation. Scopes literally have to be pretty much bomb proof if you're hunting bad guys. That of course comes at a big cost in terms of both weight and dollars.

 

[duckhunter175]

Interesting discussion on Rokslide for sure- the tester certainly didn't like getting called out by Vortex.

Seems like an easy solution- take the scope (that they said works fine) and repeat the test. Better yet-- video mounting the scope per their specs and repeat the test and check the results.

I owned AMGs and Razor Gen2s (without issue) before buying the LHT FFP-- I concur with most of what has been said so far-- I prefer illumination on a dial not a button. The mag ring is a bit tight but does 'break in'. I like the locking turret and the ability to lock at any setting.

My scope has several hundred rounds under it from a 6cm and 7saum so far. Dialing into the second rev and back (100-800-100, etc) and has held zero. The feel of the clicks does change a bit when you get deep into the second rev.

Mine bounced around strapped to my pack in utah for a week and nearly 100 miles not to mention bouncing around in the backseat of the truck with no issues. It was the right choice for a rifle that is 7lb 1oz scoped and needs to run to 800 yards.

 

[5RWill]

I've have PST gen 1, a Diamonback Tactical on an AR for varmints, a rangefinder and I took a hard look at the Fury Binos (the guy at the store broke them showing them to me.) I realize there have been improvements, and that's why I keep going back to them to check them out but at the end of the day I seem to find better investments, they have some great optics but their quality control just isn't there. Trust in your equipment is everything, and I've had enough experiences with Vortex to not trust them on anything other than a varmint rifle. At the end of the day, I don't baby my stuff and I shouldn't have to.

I've got nothing against Ilya, I read his stuff and I appreciate the effort he puts forward to put information out, but every list he puts out Vortex always seems to be at the top and I just can't believe it.

In his defense the vortex products he recommends much like myself are not in the same category as the pst Gen I or diamondback tactical. Less i just haven't paid attention to his more budget oriented reviews. This is the point of my post earlier. While i agree it would leave a bad taste in my mouth we're discussing two very very different optics from the same company. Admittedly I've never owned a pst Gen I. My brother has the 1-4. I've had the 1-6 razor and pst Gen II without issue. He had for a while the 5-25 Gen II which we also never had issues with.

But on topic you're judging the entire brand from optics that really don't represent Vortex's QC at all. And a lot of which has changed tbh, at least in for the PST lineup. It would be like me writing off the mark 5 from leupold because one of my lower cost VXIIIs broke. It's not apples to apples in any shape form or fashion. The only similarity between the two scopes is that they're labeled under the brand Leupold.

Im not trying to change your opinion if i bought 3 products or so that all failed I'd stay away too. Just merely stating that this is a large reason vortex has this reputation. And it's not representative at all of their high end stuff.

 

[WildRose]

In his defense the vortex products he recommends much like myself are not in the same category as the pst Gen I or diamondback tactical. Less i just haven't paid attention to his more budget oriented reviews. This is the point of my post earlier. While i agree it would leave a bad taste in my mouth we're discussing two very very different optics from the same company. Admittedly I've never owned a pst Gen I. My brother has the 1-4. I've had the 1-6 razor and pst Gen II without issue. He had for a while the 5-25 Gen II which we also never had issues with.

But on topic you're judging the entire brand from optics that really don't represent Vortex's QC at all. And a lot of which has changed tbh, at least in for the PST lineup. It would be like me writing off the mark 5 from leupold because one of my lower cost VXIIIs broke. It's not apples to apples in any shape form or fashion. The only similarity between the two scopes is that they're labeled under the brand Leupold.

Im not trying to change your opinion if i bought 3 products or so that all failed I'd stay away too. Just merely stating that this is a large reason vortex has this reputation. And it's not representative at all of their high end stuff.

Maybe I'm just old but I expect the same level of quality control across the whole line.

That doesn't mean all scopes across the line will be equal but the attention to detail during the QC process should be consistent across the line.

My bad experiences were all with Gen II Viper PST's and I can't see giving the same company even more money for the next level up scope when their QC and dependability were so poor on all five of those scopes.

If my mechanic did a bad job I would not pay him even more to do an upgrade on the next job, I'd find another mechanic.

 

[5RWill]

Maybe I'm just old but I expect the same level of quality control across the whole line.

That doesn't mean all scopes across the line will be equal but the attention to detail during the QC process should be consistent across the line.

My bad experiences were all with Gen II Viper PST's and I can't see giving the same company even more money for the next level up scope when their QC and dependability were so poor on all five of those scopes.

If my mechanic did a bad job I would not pay him even more to do an upgrade on the next job, I'd find another mechanic.

Fair enough. Like i said i get it. But considering those are coming from the Philippines and the Razors are coming from Japan. Whether we like it or not the QC is not the same for said optics. Nor is it for Leupold or any manufacturer that outsources across multiple price brackets.

Rose i know you like leupold. I've had Leupolds that didn't track. One of which specifically is the mark 6. Which admittedly i can't stand. It's a poor design, period, but it was 2/10ths off. Didn't stop me from trying a mark 5, which i love. But that's just me.

 

[7.62 Gunner]

Maybe I'm just old but I expect the same level of quality control across the whole line.

That doesn't mean all scopes across the line will be equal but the attention to detail during the QC process should be consistent across the line.

My bad experiences were all with Gen II Viper PST's and I can't see giving the same company even more money for the next level up scope when their QC and dependability were so poor on all five of those scopes.

If my mechanic did a bad job I would not pay him even more to do an upgrade on the next job, I'd find another mechanic.

That's quite an argument from a Leupold fan.
I'm not a basher but the cheaper vx line has been plagued with failures for decades.
The mk5 is truly the only Leopold I trust

 

[Montucky Roamer]

The test by Form is done with a proven rifle and mounting system. His action is epoxied into the stock permanently.
Also, he re mounts and re tests with a proven nightforce between tests.
The tests are not that extreme. They are drops at a MAX of 36" onto a SOFT pad on fairly SOFT ground.
The guy is a no bullchit sort who sees 10s of thousands of rounds fired a year and a lot by himself in rough conditions and terrain.
He also makes it clear that a failure on a sample of one is just that. A failure on one sample. But it can show issues in the design nonetheless.
He has zero brand loyalty, only likes things that work. Others may have different priorities.
I do take the tests into some consideration when considering optics and will do a few basic drop tests to build faith in my gun, mount optic system also.
Again , he re tests the system in between tests with proven scope and same mounts.
Anyway, it's a ton of work and I for one am happy someone is doing the work. There's a bunch of scopes that will be donated and getting tested coming up.
#1- Does it HOLD zero
#2 - Does it return to zero
#3 - Is the tracking accurate within reason.
#4- everything else
Those are my priorities. Yours may differ.

 

[WildRose]

That's quite an argument from a Leupold fan.
I'm not a basher but the cheaper vx line has been plagued with failures for decades.
The mk5 is truly the only Leopold I trust

I've owned dozens of Leupold scopes over the last 30 plus years. The only scopes that I ever had to send back for repairs was one that was crushed when a horse flipped over backwards and the other suffered a broken lens from banging around on a Motorcycle.

Currently I have more than 20 Leupolds from VX3, to Mk4, and VX6 and VXL's.

Most of them are at least 7 years old and have gotten a lot of rugged daily use 6-9 months a year.

That's a really good record compared to 5 for 5 Vortex PST's all of which either would not zero at all or would not hold zero and 3 of them made multiple trips back to Vortex for repairs.

5 scopes is a small sample I know but when you get five identical scopes all of which were broken coming out of the box or within the first few months of ownership it's reasonable to believe they have serious Quality Control and/or Design problems.

 

[WildRose]

The test by Form is done with a proven rifle and mounting system. His action is epoxied into the stock permanently.
Also, he re mounts and re tests with a proven nightforce between tests.
The tests are not that extreme. They are drops at a MAX of 36" onto a SOFT pad on fairly SOFT ground.
The guy is a no bullchit sort who sees 10s of thousands of rounds fired a year and a lot by himself in rough conditions and terrain.
He also makes it clear that a failure on a sample of one is just that. A failure on one sample. But it can show issues in the design nonetheless.
He has zero brand loyalty, only likes things that work. Others may have different priorities.
I do take the tests into some consideration when considering optics and will do a few basic drop tests to build faith in my gun, mount optic system also.
Again , he re tests the system in between tests with proven scope and same mounts.
Anyway, it's a ton of work and I for one am happy someone is doing the work. There's a bunch of scopes that will be donated and getting tested coming up.
#1- Does it HOLD zero
#2 - Does it return to zero
#3 - Is the tracking accurate within reason.
#4- everything else
Those are my priorities. Yours may differ.

Not bad and very practical.

Mine is even simpler, if it survives for six months bouncing around in my truck meeting all four of those criteria you list, it's a keeper.