That it is.
I have no idea if he is a competent shot. I only skimmed through his optics video, but not the others.
With optics, he can't tell his ass from an elbow.
ILya
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Another Vortex down
- Thread starter mzvarner
- Start date
I have no idea if he is a competent shot. I only skimmed through his optics video, but not the others.
With optics, he can't tell his ass from an elbow.
ILya
I know Falex personally. And I can guarantee you guys are completely misjudging him. People have the right to be disgruntled over a product and they have the right to be vocal about it if they choose. If you don't agree, say so and move on. But the personal attacks are way out of line. Falex is as good a guy as you'll meet anywhere. He's an excellent PRS competitor, a valuable member of our local law enforcement community, and I have always enjoyed squadding with him. The insults are excessive, and quite frankly, as far off the mark as you can possibly be.
It's interesting how criticizing Vortex makes people so passionate.
I see Eotech, Leupold, IOR, SB, and even Hensoldt criticism turn up, yet none of them ever morph into 6+ page monster threadnaughts.
I see Eotech, Leupold, IOR, SB, and even Hensoldt criticism turn up, yet none of them ever morph into 6+ page monster threadnaughts.
That is so true. I don't understand why Vortex has such a cult like following.
I’ve never owned a Vortex, so I can’t comment. I have never shot in a PRS match and I don’t have a desire to. (Too old to compete with all these young guns lol) What I take from this tread and a lot of others is this- PRS, whether you love it or hate it is good for everyone. It sounds like these guys really put their equipment through its paces and it will force all companies to step their game up and improve the quality of their products. Most shooters aren’t going to put their equipment through the abuse these guys do, so the average shooter might never see some of the problems these guys have with their equipment, but companies will be forced to address these issues. Win Win for everyone.
Hey...Maybe you missed my post above, but I have not yet received a response and was hoping to. I would really like to get in touch with this guy that had a TT fail. I would like to know how the company treated him and how quickly they got him up and running again. Since he is your good friend maybe you can get him to pm me...or give him my phone number if that works better. This is the first TT I have ever heard of failing.
Edit:
Never mind. I see the "good friend" you were talking about was T. Stevens. Seeing as he is also a good friend of mine I can actually call him up and see what actually happened...but doesn't look like I have to because he explained it above. NOT a scope fail. Interesting.
My theory is simply market share? I have never owned one, but I wouldn’t mind a Razor or AMG.
Impossible...Glocks are perfect and never break
Full disclosure, ishoot vortex and glock and I'm being a smartass
Full disclosure, ishoot vortex and glock and I'm being a smartass
Last edited:
I like what you say here Birddog. I was just addressing this very issue in another post. It's easy to get disgruntled when you purchase a high dollar item and it bombs out on you, nobody wants that to happen and we all want to purchase an item that hopefully will never have an issue, but that is not reality. But how we handle ourselves and the situation when it arises is entirely up to us. If you buy a scope and there is an issue, this is a great forum to ask if it's maybe user error or truly an issue with the scope that requires warranty service. I had a Vortex scope crap out on me during an important trip and it sucked, but Vortex provided the best customer service I've experienced yet in their response and that weighs into my opinion of Vortex. Had I received crappy CS and slow turn around it most likely would have tainted me in a way that I would probably have sold the scope and been done with it, but since it is an amazing design and impressive IQ and since Vortex CS was fantastic I am still a happy customer. By and large the Snipers Hide community has been pretty amiable, certainly we have our disagreements and sometimes we defend our point of view vehemently but I think what we are seeing with some of the responses is due to our social media enabled culture, this feeling that we have a soap box and can spew out any kind of vitriolic remarks that make us feel good. I am not a social mediaholic, in fact, the Hide is about the closest I get to Social Media, but I see this in the younger generation especially. One of the best articles I've read on the subject is one entitled We are raising a generation of deluded narcissists by Keith Ablow, it's already 5 years old but probably holds even more weight today. One of the big reasons I do not get caught up in the social media craze is because of my own tendency to voice my opinion, and sometimes in a manner that I later regret because people frustrate me, and people who hold a particular political point of view frustrate me even more, but that is a subject not intended for this forum.
Here's the thing, I am not a Vortex fanboy, I own other scopes, I praise other scopes, the Vortex AMG happens to be a scope that fits my intended purpose very well, if another manufacturer were to make a better scope at the same weight or less it would probably draw my interest (yes, I've owned two March's and they've been great scopes but have their own drawbacks). I don't expect everyone to like the AMG and I realize that some AMG's and Gen II's and... you name it, have gone down, they are still very good scopes backed by a company who stands behind their product. Do more Vortex AMG's or Gen II's go down than do Nightforces or Schmidts or you name the top tier brand of your choice, I do not know, and I don't think anyone truly knows the answer because I doubt any manufacturer is going to release warranty information. I think we can all agree that if you shoot your scope hard enough and long enough it will eventually go down, be it optically, mechanically or electronically and it will require service, if you buy a new scope and it goes down, and you send it in, and it goes down again and again, etc. then I think it's time to look for something else, how many times you can tolerate sending it back for repair is up to you, some of us have low tolerance for this and I think that has been reflected in some of the posts on this thread. If your scope goes down within the first few months and you think that is indicative to the quality then that is your prerogative and if you replace that scope with another brand and it doesn't go down in the first few months then that is great news and you'll probably be happy with that brand. There are also brand loyalists who swear by Company X and Scope X even though there is clear evidence there are issues and problems. I have low tolerance for companies who deny issues exist only to admit it later on, we see this time and again for automobile manufacturers as well as some cell phone manufacturers (ahem Apple!) and it ticks me off because they are taking advantage of a loyal customer base, and I admit that I have had some harsh words at times and have stuck to my tainted point of view for probably too long even after the issues have been addressed, but I also believe in second chances and watch to see how they handle the situation ultimately.
To sum up, I know we can stand our ground probably better than most with some of our backgrounds and we want to voice our opinion or rip on someone who we think is a jerk, but one way I try to control my temper at times especially with forum posts is to think, "how would I respond if he were standing in front of me" and there have been plenty of times where I spent 30 minutes or more writing some vitriolic response only to end up deleting it and rewriting and addressing the issue without being a jerk in return. The delete key can often be your friend
That’s why my screen name is my full name...if I say it online, I’ll say the same in person...I don’t want there to be any confusion
I wish I could understand this. All my shooting at distance up to 600 yards has been NRA high power service rifle, so no optics. I have never spent any time behind any optic other than a red dot.
I'm currently trying to figure out where my money is best spent on an optic for my JH. If I go the route of a Steiner T5xi or Cronus BTR I have saved $1500 over the price of a Kahles, which translates into 1200 rounds of Prime 6.5 creedmoor. That's a LOT of time behind the gun.
How is an extra $1500 put into the optical clarity going to make that much difference between hits and misses?
Keeps me honest. When I miss I know it’s not because the target is a grainy smudge, it’s because the target is a respectably defined steel silhouette that would be that much clearer if I’d bought a Tangent Theta. ?
It wont, it's mostly in your head.
Glass quality in todays $1000+ rifle scopes is, for the most part, very good across the board. There are a few scopes out there that have a slight edge in optical quality but its not a night and day difference, nor a hit or miss difference. I'd venture to guess the guy you quoted became more confident in his gear and/or replaced a poor quality optic which resulted in better overall performance.
Last edited:
I wasn't taking a shot at anyone by quoting, I'm just struggling to understand the hard facts about making this type of investment into an optic. There seems to be so many broad statements and contradicting opinions it makes it hard to find out what really matters.
Is it a case of, the guys spending $4k on an ipticcare never going to say "hey, I could have had 95% of the exact same thing for $1500" or a case of the guys that spent $1500 trying to make their purchasing that much closer to the quality of a $4k optic .
Sorry, all off topic.
I didn't think you were taking a shot at anyone and I wasn't either.
I think most people buying a $2500+ optic are paying for peace of mind, knowing that they not only have a scope with the features they need, but a scope thats built well enough to hold up and perform under less than ideal conditions. When you've had $1500 scopes die, a $2500 scope makes sense. Debating optical clarity in that price range is for bird wachers though, there's much more important things to consider for a precision rifle scope.
I think most people buying a $2500+ optic are paying for peace of mind, knowing that they not only have a scope with the features they need, but a scope thats built well enough to hold up and perform under less than ideal conditions. When you've had $1500 scopes die, a $2500 scope makes sense. Debating optical clarity in that price range is for bird wachers though, there's much more important things to consider for a precision rifle scope.
LOL!!! I love you man!!! That response was actually damn funny.
Here's my history of Vortex products: First Vortex was a 6.5-20 Viper with BDC reticle. It was returned because turning the windage turret made 0 changes to the POI. I returned it, they fixed it.
Second scope was a Vortex Diamondback 4-12. Scope performed just fine, no issues.
Third was a 6-24 Crossfire. This scope's elevation turret had something wrong with it. Long story short, the last 7-10 (can't remember) minutes of "up" elevation would not move the POI whatever those last several minutes remaining were. This scope is somewhere in my garage. I got it for a Christmas present and didn't really care about it too much.
Fourth was a 4-16 PST. Unfortunately, I sold that rifle and optic not long after I mounted the optic, so can't give a true recounting of it's performance other than stating that for the short time I owned it, there were no issues, it was good to go.
Then, onto my G1 Razors-
I bought two of them at the same time. Got the first one mounted up, believed the reticle to be canted, so I sent it in. The reticle was canted internally. Although Mr. Parks said it was very minimal, it was canted, nonetheless. The second Razor had that problem with the internals of the elevation turret (which some of you are contributing to some type of user error, but it simply was not. This was the internal assembly. There's not one of you on here that has screwed that fucking thing down or up, and if you have, it's because you had the same thing happen to you that I did). Furthermore, just because you call a company and they can help you fix something over the phone, does not mean the problem was user error. That is a stupid argument and you damn well know that).
So, after those issues, I sold the Razors off and swore off of Vortex forever. Then came along the GII Razors. Rob01 will recall how I ate crow and opted to recant my protestations of Vortex, so I bought a pair of G2 Razors. Once the problem with those set screws became apparent (again, this was not just me having this issue. In fact, if it were, I would not have thought much of it), I decided it was too prominent an issue to be nonchalant about it. And we can tell how prominent it is by simply observing how many of you have commented on making sure you have those screws "torqued down just right." Consequently, some of you know how much time and money goes into competing. The last thing I wanted to worry about was being in the middle of a competition and forget to check those set screws, only to find out, they had backed out again.
To answer your other queries, I am not a millenial, but I am an asshole. I have been shooting in competitions looooong before the PRS was the PRS (probably much longer than yourself, in fact), and as of presently, I haven't asked anyone to sponsor me. Believe me, friend, Vortex does enough, they don't need to sponsor anyone, really.
Even though I would never take a Vortex scope into a gun battle, or a PRS/NRL match, and although I know that may get some skivvies bunched up, I have always tried to recognize their dedication to the shooting sports. Vortex has been amazing at bringing new shooters into the fold. What's more, is the fact that they have treated those of us who serve our communities and country, with more-than-outstanding concern and care by allowing us the opportunity to purchase products at excellent prices. I will always be a fan of them for those reasons, as well as, for setting the standards in the customer service department.
Birddog - Thank you for the kind words. I always look forward to shooting with (and simultaneously against) you!
make the purchase and you will understand. Not all glass (or eyes) are created equal. It took me over a year to buy the K624i, and my first range trip verified that it was a great (painful) purchase.
People will mock that its "skill" or this or that. But a clear shot makes it easier.
So, sounds like I can buy the T5xi because I like the turrets and as long as I never look through anyone else's gear I'll be fine
I fired about 12,000 rounds last year in practice and competition through optics costing between $1000 to $1300. I also harvested a pretty decent 5x6 bull and some smaller critters. There is not one single occasion where I was limited by glass quality. And I can say the same thing for the past 4 years that I have been using these optics. I see the same hits and misses as everyone else. I've seen the same bullet splash that the spotters picked up while shooting to a mile.
Poor mechanics/tracking will hurt you, good, but not perfect glass will not.
I'm not a "great glass" hater. Some of those optics are very impressive. If you have the money and want one, do it. But from a performance perspective, the right $1000 to $1500 will allow you to do everything the more expensive optic will do. Their just Corvettes instead of Ferraris.
Poor mechanics/tracking will hurt you, good, but not perfect glass will not.
I'm not a "great glass" hater. Some of those optics are very impressive. If you have the money and want one, do it. But from a performance perspective, the right $1000 to $1500 will allow you to do everything the more expensive optic will do. Their just Corvettes instead of Ferraris.
BD6424,
I generally agree with you, in that poor glass won't make you miss. That being said, if you can't see it, you can't hit it. Now for PRS, that isn't an issue. But for hunting (depending on the game and the terrain) that could definitely cause an issue, if you can't see the animal (like the sliver of the top of the head and an eyeball of a prairie dog, barking from his mound 400 yds out). Shrug...different strokes for different folks...
I generally agree with you, in that poor glass won't make you miss. That being said, if you can't see it, you can't hit it. Now for PRS, that isn't an issue. But for hunting (depending on the game and the terrain) that could definitely cause an issue, if you can't see the animal (like the sliver of the top of the head and an eyeball of a prairie dog, barking from his mound 400 yds out). Shrug...different strokes for different folks...
I'd say this a good analogy. Corvettes still go just as fast, but they're just not there on the fit and finish.
I'm with you there Marine. Exceptions to every rule.
I chase a lot of game around, just about year round. I've been fortunate so far to not be thrown in a scenario where I couldn't make out a set of horns or game animal. The worst test was fall of 2016, trying to follow a black bear through shaded timber first thing in the morning. We had seen a very nice sow with cubs in that area earlier, so we had to watch this one to see if it was her. By the time we figured out it wasn't her, it never presented a clean shot
That's the one and only time I have ever turned on my reticle illumination, my reticle was completely washed out. But I was able to see it clearly enough to make a shot.I'll never argue that high end optics are a bad investment for hunting. There's far more to determine in hunting scenarios than in PRS shooting steel plates in full daylight.
I don't do much prairie doggin' so I don't have that experience in spotting them. My targets are generally a little more sizeable.
Here's a fun shot I took last fall. I had the drop on this young fella at a few hundred yards. This was day three of my hunt, and this was about the 15th spike we had counted so far. This is a crappy shot through my phone while I tried to hold the rifle steady. It's actually overcast and drizzling rain at the time.
Last edited:
in the past few yrs ive been to a lot of matches (club and prs) i can only think of 3 stages where glass quality (and also zoom) were factors
at the 2016 Outback match, i was RO'ing a stage with dirt berms and targets at 400, 500, and 600 yds...they were unpainted squares hung on black rubber straps...the stage was hit to move on and i watched a TON of shooters get down, complain they couldnt make out the 400 yd target, and just start sending rounds thru the strap (high above the target)...some guys never hit it...you could see the strap, but the piece of steel on the dirt blended in really well and was tough to see even thru a swaro spotter below 20x
at the 2016 finale there was a stage where the sun was blocked by the ridge/tree line depending on what time of day you shot it... and lots of shooters were complaining they couldnt see the targets that were back under the trees, unpainted, and backed by fresh dirt....they could see the target stand and strap, but couldnt make out where the targets edges were...i could see them fine in my gen 2, but i had to crank up to max power to ID them, below 20x would have been a guessing game...my buddy was running a 3-18x mark 6 and said he could only make out a few of them by seeing the shiny bolts
this past weekend at the Lonestar match, the stage i RO'd had prairie dogs from 200 to 450 yds...the 450 yd dog was shot up and the ground behind it all shot up by day 2 and again, blended right in with the dirt...you could see the t post but without me pointing out where the 450 yds dog was, guys couldnt find it...guys with lower power optics and lower quality glass really struggled, most said they couldnt see the target so they just shot near where they thought it was and moved on
i agree with Bird...99.9% of the time having "decent enough" glass isnt going to hurt you, but at times if the situation is just right, it could make things a little more difficult. accurate tracking and durability are still above glass in my book, always will be
at the 2016 Outback match, i was RO'ing a stage with dirt berms and targets at 400, 500, and 600 yds...they were unpainted squares hung on black rubber straps...the stage was hit to move on and i watched a TON of shooters get down, complain they couldnt make out the 400 yd target, and just start sending rounds thru the strap (high above the target)...some guys never hit it...you could see the strap, but the piece of steel on the dirt blended in really well and was tough to see even thru a swaro spotter below 20x
at the 2016 finale there was a stage where the sun was blocked by the ridge/tree line depending on what time of day you shot it... and lots of shooters were complaining they couldnt see the targets that were back under the trees, unpainted, and backed by fresh dirt....they could see the target stand and strap, but couldnt make out where the targets edges were...i could see them fine in my gen 2, but i had to crank up to max power to ID them, below 20x would have been a guessing game...my buddy was running a 3-18x mark 6 and said he could only make out a few of them by seeing the shiny bolts
this past weekend at the Lonestar match, the stage i RO'd had prairie dogs from 200 to 450 yds...the 450 yd dog was shot up and the ground behind it all shot up by day 2 and again, blended right in with the dirt...you could see the t post but without me pointing out where the 450 yds dog was, guys couldnt find it...guys with lower power optics and lower quality glass really struggled, most said they couldnt see the target so they just shot near where they thought it was and moved on
i agree with Bird...99.9% of the time having "decent enough" glass isnt going to hurt you, but at times if the situation is just right, it could make things a little more difficult. accurate tracking and durability are still above glass in my book, always will be
I can’t comment on glass quality. I didn’t even have any glass in my scope when I took this beauty.
I echo this thinking. 99% of the time, a decent scope is enough, but it sure is nice on that 1% opportunity. Mine was at the Allegheny Sniper Challenge (up in the hill country of WV). Stage was called 'cave' or something like that and the steel target was about 1100yds away set inside a cave-like hole in forest. Most shooters could not see, let alone engage it, as weather and lighting was especially poor. Guys with higher end scopes that had big objective lens could. My Premier 5-25x56 really was awesome on that stage as I had no issues seeing target and spotting for other guys.
Unless you are real poor or the like, I would recommend spending the dollars for the better optic. They hold their value well and can be used a long time without wearing out across multiple platforms. Do make sure you get one with a good warranty. Save money somewhere else if you really need to (e.g. get a Rem 700 instead of the custom action).
Ok, in that case how about good glass in the case of a S&B, but maybe a less than ideal reticle?
I still see a few PMII floating around under $2500 with a P4l fine reticle. That would NOT be my first choice in a reticle, as I would like a MSR style....
Hm, this would have been easier 10 years ago when automatic transmissions sucked. LOL!
Reticle is probably more important than glass. If you don't like or cant use your reticle well, the fuck does it matter how crisp or clear what you're looking at is?
The only issue I have with those damn Razor Gen2's is that once I tried one it is the only scope I can live with on my rifles so now I have 3, and the corresponding pain in my wallet. I wanted to try the AMG for my last purchase but I couldn't do it because I have so much faith in these. I will take anyone at face value if they say they have issues but frankly I havent seen it in any of mine.
Rex reviews hates them.. sell your gen2 Razor and get a 243 with a super sniper...
Sorry drinking... never mind, keep your Razor and Dasher, I’ll shut up.
Sorry drinking... never mind, keep your Razor and Dasher, I’ll shut up.
This reply is why I have 4 scopes from Vortex. I've only sent one back for repair and the repair was handled flawlessly.
Thanks Vortex !
By the way, I checked the torque on my turrets on my Gen 2's and they are about 4-5 inch lbs at best and have never slipped so all that stuff above doesnt appear to be the case for my scopes.
I trust that Dave/Vortex are keeping track of which scopes are problematic and keeping track of the problems their scopes repeatedly have. And if so, will identify those and engineer a fix to those. That's just good business. They can't fix 'stupid' (driving over your scope, torquing the rings in foot pounds,etc).
I also agree with a member here who commented about 'trolls' and believe that could be part of the 'issue with Vortex'. That said there is definitely problems and they seem associated with the lower priced Vortex scopes. These problems are magnified when the lower priced scope, broken, is compared to a tier one scope of another maker (an apple to orange thing). I became a range officer this year and my first day showed up with my rifle and Vortex scope. The rangemaster I was working with asked what scope I had and I told him a Vortex. He was an old geezer (I can say that because I am an old geezer, he was just older). First thing he says to me was he saw nothing but problems with those Vortex scopes. I said that I wondered whether the problems were with their lower end scopes. He thought a minute and agreed. I worked the rest of the season at the range and shot there as well and never saw any problems with any Vortex scope. Nor any other scope for that matter.
I own a Razor HD, 5-20x50 and it has been hitch and glitch free. Was going to sell it to my army buddy after buying a Kahles 624. But could not part with my Razor. So, I bought my army buddy a new Razor and sold it to him at the price we agreed upon had he bought mine used ( he is an army buddy, that means something). Anyway, I just got back from spending two months with him shooting our rifles topped with our Vortex Razors and we are both happy shooters. Even though I now own a $3000 Kahles, I will not be parting with my Vortex Razor.
I'd be leery of buying any brand midrange or low range scope. High end, not so much. My experience and my2centsworth. Kudos to Dave for his comment here. Companies that don't care, don't comment in cyberspace forums.
I also agree with a member here who commented about 'trolls' and believe that could be part of the 'issue with Vortex'. That said there is definitely problems and they seem associated with the lower priced Vortex scopes. These problems are magnified when the lower priced scope, broken, is compared to a tier one scope of another maker (an apple to orange thing). I became a range officer this year and my first day showed up with my rifle and Vortex scope. The rangemaster I was working with asked what scope I had and I told him a Vortex. He was an old geezer (I can say that because I am an old geezer, he was just older). First thing he says to me was he saw nothing but problems with those Vortex scopes. I said that I wondered whether the problems were with their lower end scopes. He thought a minute and agreed. I worked the rest of the season at the range and shot there as well and never saw any problems with any Vortex scope. Nor any other scope for that matter.
I own a Razor HD, 5-20x50 and it has been hitch and glitch free. Was going to sell it to my army buddy after buying a Kahles 624. But could not part with my Razor. So, I bought my army buddy a new Razor and sold it to him at the price we agreed upon had he bought mine used ( he is an army buddy, that means something). Anyway, I just got back from spending two months with him shooting our rifles topped with our Vortex Razors and we are both happy shooters. Even though I now own a $3000 Kahles, I will not be parting with my Vortex Razor.
I'd be leery of buying any brand midrange or low range scope. High end, not so much. My experience and my2centsworth. Kudos to Dave for his comment here. Companies that don't care, don't comment in cyberspace forums.
If a customer buys a company's low-mid end scope and has nothing but problems with it, they'd be hardly inspired to jump to that same company's high end line.
Yes but what one of the other high end scope makers make tactical style scopes in the $500-1000? S&B? TT? NF? USO? Kahles? Hensoldt? See where I am going? Vortex offers shooters a wide variety of scopes form $199 to $2500. You can only judge each by their own performance.
Off the top of my head, Nightforce has scopes that can be had in the 750-1200 range and they're rock solid.
SWFA has scopes from 280-1500 and they're solid across the board.
Do they have all the features that a PST has? Illuminated reticle, FFP, zero stop, etc? I’m guessing that they don’t.
My point is that the Vortex PST type scope is a great VALUE. Lots of features for a resonable price. However, if you asked ME my OPINION I would say it still isn’t in the same class as those you mentioned.
That’s the thing with these topics, it’s all based on opinions and expectations and not so much on empirical data and facts.
SWFA is not a top tier scope.
The NF SHV are decent scopes but not rock solid either. They only offer a couple in that lower than $1000 range. But I guess my point was missed if you are nit picking a couple scopes.
Buy a low end bubble pack Bushnell and see if their warranty is any different than with a LRTS or HDMR.
Similar threads
Rifle Scopes
Newbie needs advice on scope for Cross STX 6.5CM
