Vortex Razor HD LHT

[dirtytough]

So what scope is there that works…

Here's my criteria.

Sub 20ounces
Hd glass
Locking turrets
Zero stop
Tracks and returns to zero
Sub $1000
Can be used as a mallet

The answer is…there isn't one. It's all a compromise so why is durability all of a sudden the ONLY thing that matters. I have an idea, how about not dropping your scope and if you do, confirm zero.

The funny thing is due to the rokslide forum all anyone wants to talk about is being able to drop their scope. I've never had a shift due to dropping a scope, but I missed a stud buck last year because I didn't have locking turrets and my elevation spun. Nobody seems to care about anything but being able to drop it.

Alex said without using a "scope checker is crude at best". I actually thought there was a better way to test durability/zero retention than the way they are doing it on RS. I have read Alex is a hell of a shooter and Smith. But instead the only thing he checked was tracking and if it would hold POA under recoil. Which I expect most scopes to do now days.

Your criteria is different than mine and I bet it will be different from whoever the next poster is.

If tracking correctly, or good glass, or a usable reticle, and so on is someone's criteria on why they pick a certain optic, why can't durability/zero retention be part of someone's criteria?

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Alex said without using a "scope checker is crude at best". I actually thought there was a better way to test durability/zero retention than the way they are doing it on RS. I have read Alex is a hell of a shooter and Smith. But instead the only thing he checked was tracking and if it would hold POA under recoil. Which I expect most scopes to do now days.

Your criteria is different than mine and I bet it will be different from whoever the next poster is.

If tracking correctly, or good glass, or a usable reticle, and so on is someone's criteria on why they pick a certain optic, why can't durability/zero retention be part of someone's criteria?

But they don't. MOST don't. Scope checkers are pretty rare out side the BR world so most people have no clue. I have made $2500 scopes move by shooting a 44 mag next to them. The muzzle blast alone can make a reticle move. Finding a scope that holds rock solid zero and tracks accurately is not easy. I have got to the point to accept a small poi shift on the first shot after an adjustment because its so rare to find one that wont. Since no one pays me to do any of the testing I do, I do it for my own person knowledge. I just happen to share some of it. And Im personally happy with a scope that holds zero and tracks under normal use. I dont care what happens when they fall down a mountain. But if some one wants to foot the bill I'll test that for them. You would have to make a serious mount one with ring caps machined into it so you eliminate the joint at the rail. You would have to eliminate the mounts and rings to know it was the scope that moved. It would not be the easiest test to detect small shifts.

 

[7.62 Gunner]

But they don't. MOST don't. Scope checkers are pretty rare out side the BR world so most people have no clue. I have made $2500 scopes move by shooting a 44 mag next to them. The muzzle blast alone can make a reticle move. Finding a scope that holds rock solid zero and tracks accurately is not easy. I have got to the point to accept a small poi shift on the first shot after an adjustment because its so rare to find one that wont. Since no one pays me to do any of the testing I do, I do it for my own person knowledge. I just happen to share some of it. And Im personally happy with a scope that holds zero and tracks under normal use. I dont care what happens when they fall down a mountain. But if some one wants to foot the bill I'll test that for them. You would have to make a serious mount one with ring caps machined into it so you eliminate the joint at the rail. You would have to eliminate the mounts and rings to know it was the scope that moved. It would not be the easiest test to detect small shifts.

This is why I've been suspect of the whole drop test thing.
Logic would quickly point out that there's more parts being effected by impact than just the optic.
Unfortunately if a person voices this point there's a bunch of stalwart believers ready to pounce

 

[Ucsdryder]

Alex said without using a "scope checker is crude at best". I actually thought there was a better way to test durability/zero retention than the way they are doing it on RS. I have read Alex is a hell of a shooter and Smith. But instead the only thing he checked was tracking and if it would hold POA under recoil. Which I expect most scopes to do now days.

Your criteria is different than mine and I bet it will be different from whoever the next poster is.

If tracking correctly, or good glass, or a usable reticle, and so on is someone's criteria on why they pick a certain optic, why can't durability/zero retention be part of someone's criteria?

It is part of it. One of multiples. That's my point.

They don't make a lightweight, reliable scope with good glass that can handle being dropped from 3 feet. It's all about compromise, but lately all I hear about is dropping scopes.

 

[WapitiBob]

So what scope is there that works…

Here's my criteria.

Sub 20ounces
Hd glass
Locking turrets
Zero stop
Tracks and returns to zero
Sub $1000
Can be used as a mallet

Take a leak before leaving in the morning, bring a real mallet or use a rock, and get a mark5.

 

[WYOHTF]

I have a few cheapo Weaver Kaspa tacticals that has stood the test. One is almost 12 years old. It's my most trusted and oldest scope. I test all scopes against it.

I own a few Vortex scopes. None of them have held to the Kaspa, I may have gotten luck,

 

[Pdvdh]

But they don't. MOST don't. Scope checkers are pretty rare out side the BR world so most people have no clue. I have made $2500 scopes move by shooting a 44 mag next to them. The muzzle blast alone can make a reticle move. Finding a scope that holds rock solid zero and tracks accurately is not easy. I have got to the point to accept a small poi shift on the first shot after an adjustment because its so rare to find one that wont. Since no one pays me to do any of the testing I do, I do it for my own person knowledge. I just happen to share some of it. And Im personally happy with a scope that holds zero and tracks under normal use. I dont care what happens when they fall down a mountain. But if some one wants to foot the bill I'll test that for them. You would have to make a serious mount one with ring caps machined into it so you eliminate the joint at the rail. You would have to eliminate the mounts and rings to know it was the scope that moved. It would not be the easiest test to detect small shifts.

Good info Alex. This is basically what I've sensed, after turret adjustment with my scopes. Requires one shot to settle in. But I've never had a way to document it. Never had your type of testing quipment.

Have you tested scope turrets by going past the desired setting in the "unscrew" direction, and then dialing into your final turret position while tightening the turret down, to see if scope turrets perform more reliably using this method of dialing turrets?

Seems like the "Best of the West" TV show was always recommending this method for dialing scope turrets. As if they knew from experience that scope turret adjustment reliability could be improved, using that technique.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Take a leak before leaving in the morning, bring a real mallet or use a rock, and get a mark5.

Unfortunately the guy doing the test on rokslide says that leupolds are not reliable either.

 

[BigPrince]

Unfortunately the guy doing the test on rokslide says that leupolds are not reliable either.

So do some of the guys on longrangeonly. Believe Ryan Furman had one lose zero.

 

[WapitiBob]

I've seen those. I also know several that have the mark 5 and say they're fine. It's a crap shoot for sure.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Good info Alex. This is basically what I've sensed, after turret adjustment with my scopes. Requires one shot to settle in. But I've never had a way to document it. Never had your type of testing quipment.

Have you tested scope turrets by going past the desired setting in the "unscrew" direction, and then dialing into your final turret position while tightening the turret down, to see if scope turrets perform more reliably using this method of dialing turrets?

Seems like the "Best of the West" TV show was always recommending this method for dialing scope turrets. As if they knew from experience that scope turret adjustment reliability could be improved, using that technique.

Yep, most of the scopes that I have tested were zeroed at 1000 yards so they had to be dialed down 25 moa to test them. Dialing down or left compresses the springs in a scope dialing up or right unloads them.

 

[Pdvdh]

Even using the tightening/compressing the springs method, you find many (most) scopes require a recoil event to settle in after a turret adjustment. Very educational!

That certainly helps explain many of my experiences spot checking rifle POIs over the years. I've come to expect that my scopes would require a shot or two to settle in, following a turret adjustment. More often than not, and with a couple scopes, much more so than others. I never knew what was causing the required tweaking of the vertical turret. In the future, I'll just have to plan on the necessity of a second shot, when field proofing POI after turret adjustment.

But I now plan to hold over using the vertical reticle hash marks, versus turret twisting, out to at ~ 700 - 750yds. I already zero my hunting rifles at 325yds. That generally allows hold overs using the reticle hash marks below the cross hair, rather than turret twisting, for the many of my long range shots on game. I prefer to, and have twisted, turrets for hunting shots at extended ranges. But why twist the elevation turret if it means known error is built into the POI on my first shot fired?

Thanks again,

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I was fixing a particular model by drilling and tapping a hole that opposed the two turrets. A nylon thumb screw was installed that pressed against the erector spring and you could apply force to help the spring. It eliminated 100% of poi shift. Not practical for most uses. Burris had the posi lock, same idea. There was a good reason Burris did that.
Most people would be surprised how much poi moves when adjusting power. Have seen up to 1 moa from low to high. FFP scopes cure that. Guys wanting to be shooting living animals at long distance should know all of this before going into the field. And I dont care what scope you have, if that rifle takes a good fall, your hunt should be over until you can verify zero.

 

[Revolting Peasant]

Good info Mr Wheeler. I appreciate you sharing the results of your experiments and research, along with the methods used. Very thorough and informative. I still learn something new every day.