-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Vortex lht 4.5-22 durability test
- Thread starter 762 ULTRAMAGA
- Start date
Ehh, it's a good scope I believe. However, there is a case to be made for the new Burris XTR III illuminated, that would be my next choice or maybe my first if it would have been out sooner(though I wish it was assembled in Japan like the LHT not Phillipines, but it does still have Japanese glass).
Yes. Their higher end stuff doesn't have some abysmal failure rate that most would have you believe. It's become trendy to bash vortex at this point. So in that light of that when their products that are produced here or in Japan fail, I am surprised. Now do I think some stuff could be done better with QC? Yeah the Gen III and LHT sample variance are prime examples of that.
Yeah I don't understand this either, I get tolerances and specs from an OEM. However, the Razor line is OEM'D in the same place as most of the other optics people are gonna say are "bomb proof", so it's kinda silly. For the cheap optics, yes I agree, for the more expensive stuff it's gonna be close to the other stuff made in the same place. *These LHTs are very lightweight so I can see them being not as robust as the others in the razor line*
I just bought one of the 3-15 LHT models to put on a lighter weight hunting setup. Interested to see how it holds up. My daughter has a 3-15 PST Gen 2 that has served well for the last couple years and I thought this LHT would be a bit of an upgrade. The Razor 4.5-27 on my old match rifle has never missed a beat and has been put through the ringer. So far, Vortex has been good products at each respective price point. The glass is nothing like my S&B scopes, make no mistake.
This scope checked a lot of boxes in regards to how I wanted to set up a hunting rifle for my kids. I'll have to put the new scope through it's paces myself. I've seen enough of this kind of bullshit on the forums over the years to know that I don't need to be too concerned unless I have an issue myself.
This scope checked a lot of boxes in regards to how I wanted to set up a hunting rifle for my kids. I'll have to put the new scope through it's paces myself. I've seen enough of this kind of bullshit on the forums over the years to know that I don't need to be too concerned unless I have an issue myself.
Right, yours may run forever and mine may go down after 6 months. Thats just the way things work sometimes, see it in every genre of products. My perspective is everything made by men can fail, now I want the product least likely to do that, so I buy the best I can afford; however, for everyone who has had a vortex or two go out on them for instance, you'll find another person whose abused them and they still keep trucking. Or probably any other optics company with higher end stuff.
I’ve had a couple of scopes not track on me. Most notably the mark 6 i had. The chamber on this gun though was sticking 108gr factory eld m. Then this happened when i took the GF out to hunt. Need to put the LHT on the 7ss and run it through it’s paces.
At the same time i had an incident where i thought our V6 was faulty and it wasn’t. Turned out to be the setup.
Last edited:
Wandering zero is a bitch because it makes you question everything, chamber, crown, base, mount, etc.
At least if a scope can’t track - it is semi obvious. But in my case wandering zero you’d do a ladder, check your zero. Then 2 weeks later you’d barely be on paper and wondering if you somehow screws up your hand loads, etc. Wasted a ton of components trying to figure it out.
So here's an interesting update on the LHT that was tested on Rokslide.
Looks like some mounting issues were noted by the tech at Vortex when the optic was returned for repair..
I can't believe he put loktite on the rings
"scope back from Vortex. Their communication was outstanding. I do have a VM into them to clarify something. But here is the email. We will listen to their mounting specification and retest."
Looks like some mounting issues were noted by the tech at Vortex when the optic was returned for repair..
I can't believe he put loktite on the rings
"scope back from Vortex. Their communication was outstanding. I do have a VM into them to clarify something. But here is the email. We will listen to their mounting specification and retest."
More corporate doublespeak as usual...
FYI Sphur sets spec on "wet" torque because its typically more repeatable, and the correction factor is easily scalable.
(Fyi loctite is used in all kinds of torque controlled, high precision fasteners and fixtures)
TORQUE-TENSION REFERENCE GUIDE
See, specifically...
Where
And
Versus
Reference
Last edited:
So you expected Vortex to say the LHT won’t hold zero? They would never admit to anything publicly. That would be a dumb move.So here's an interesting update on the LHT that was tested on Rokslide.
Looks like some mounting issues were noted by the tech at Vortex when the optic was returned for repair..
I can't believe he put loktite on the rings
"scope back from Vortex. Their communication was outstanding. I do have a VM into them to clarify something. But here is the email. We will listen to their mounting specification and retest."
Maybe you should reread their statement, looks like multiple issues were at play.
Bottom line there are many variables that can effect zero shift, some amateurs test is pretty useless without proper controls.
Or we can buy into your conspiracy theory that Vortex is making up a bunch of shit to cover their ass.
Hell NF has done it..
I disagree. It’s more of a risk to cover it up than it is to admit there was a fault with the sample.
Leupold is a prime example of this. Mark 6 was plagued with issues and before long people got the message and stopped buying them. The only saving grace of that optic was Mil contracts. They resigned that bastard of a scope with a 5x erector , C2 knobs, and the mark 5 series has been a huge success.
Last edited:
From everything I've read and my own experience with Vortex, they seem to be straight shooters when a scope has a problem, and they fix it. I see no evidence in all this to believe that all of a sudden they are trying to hide the fact that a scope had a problem. I'm not sure how any of us can go there based on anything but us just believing it OR wanting to believe it/wanting it to be true. Is there anyone who as ever had a scope issue that Vortex wasn't willing to fix and said- "eh, it's fine" in this thread or otherwise? Genuinely curious and it would give some credence to some of the things being proposed...
I agree, I don't believe Vortex is going to risk their reputation (even though some on here hate them and others fan boy, I'm not either but I can look at them objectively and say they have some good quality stuff in their high end lines that has held up even in military use, oh and btw just got a military contract) on lying about a scope because of some random guy on rokslide saying his sample set of one had a shifting zero. That just seems illogical and unreasonable. That doesn't mean it can't be true, I grant that, but it does seem that would be the worst move and out of character for Vortex whose known for outstanding customer service.
Other scopes he tests don’t have a problem with thread locker. His f1 proof scope never has a problem.
You are putting words into my mouth here. It’s no conspiracy theory. Vortex simply said “scope works fine”. It could very well, the way they tested it. I really doubt they test them with real gunfire.
Hell, even Nightforce doesn’t ever admit a scope fails. Nothing new in the corporate world.
Vortex didn’t exactly say they did or did not fix the scope. The wording in the email is pretty careful.
“We’ve received your riflescope, and run it through our full inspections and repair process. All optical and mechanical parameters have been verified, and the optic is now in perfect working condition!”
Right, maybe I said that wrongly. I wasn't trying to say from my post they did or didn't fix it. My point was that from everything I've seen reported from users and from when I've even reached out(even though it wasn't for a broken scope) they've always taken care of an issue and admitted if something was wrong/needed to be fixed or been willing to have a conversation about a potential issue. That's my experience, but others may differ, I'm open to hearing that for sure.
On the "shit where you eat" front, Avery/Rokslide is doing exactly that by showing what it takes to make a bunch of his sponsors' products fail in the name of the community and getting better info out there. That's what floors me about the criticism-dude is stepping out there away from his personal interests and people want to talk shit about it.
I put a lot of weight on what @koshkin says but I haven't seen how he suggests a consumer is supposed to know which scopes are less likely to lose zero, only references to manufacturers testing such things and that he could make them all fail. That's not helpful in the slightest to people who want to make educated equipment decisions for hunts they invest huge amounts of time, money, and passion into.
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think this is a fair assessment of what is happening here. I believe people want to get to the bottom of this. I believe that the actual tester has no stake or skin in the game(maybe Avery does I will grant you that), but we have no name, no background of said individual so he has literally nothing on the line except internet credibility, and there is absolutely no way up until this point to verify or not his testing. I think that is what people are challenging, I don't believe it's an unwillingness to believe but people are weary of a nameless faceless individual telling them the scope just sucks without being willing to atleast give their name and show their face, and I think that is how it should be. Form needs to do better if he's on the up and up and wants people to listen and take his scope testing more serious in the community, that's really what I'm saying and maintaining. He has said he going to do that so more power to him and we'll see what happens. But belittling(not necessarily you but others have)people for challenging something that we have no way of knowing if it's just someone with an ax to grind, someone whose trying to push another company, or someone whose doing it all right is not the right answer here. That's my thoughts up to this point. Again I own this scope, but I can resell it for more then I paid for it and it literally is no issue, I already know what I would buy as it's replacement, but I'm gonna need more then just "trust me I'm an internet expert" before that happens.
So you think some guy on the internet should conduct his own scope testing process without any standardized method or control, while also leaving out a lot of fine details, and we don't have a legitimate right to question said results?
Boy that reminds me of a certain "Trust the Science" theme that's been going around...
I don't own this scope and I don't plan on owning one anytime soon, I'm not cheerleading for Vortex or any other company.
I do however take interest in good repeatable data, and I haven't seen it yet.
The “scope testing process” is laid out in a dedicated thread in the forum made for these tests. I’m pretty sure they are not claiming to be the ultimate arbiter of zero retention truth, just a source of results to a process they are doing. Could you design a more fool proof process? Of course.
Its 2022, a sizeable portion of a companies marketing budget goes towards social media. That includes disinformation and attacks against competitiors, which today, are more effective per dollar spent than shiny photo ops. This is why people are skeptical and if the last 4 years hasn't made you question everything you hear, then you are a lost soul.
Is telling people to test their own shit, and laying out the guidelines for doing so telling them to “trust the science?” Who form is doesn’t matter in the slightest if other people are testing their gear and seeing what works on their own.
As you’re aware, another forum member took it upon himself to do his own testing (filmed) and got the same result as form with the RS.3. Unsurprisingly, his SHV did fine.
There are people here with legitimate concerns and questions. They should go read the sub-forum and draw their own conclusions. You have drawn yours, and are attempting to discredit the results however you can.
The failure rate of the first Gen PST was wild yet initially it was a very well received scope on the hide. Yet Vortex never admitted it, they just quietly replaced them until they discontinued and then moved on to Gen 2. I bet you you’ll have a really hard time to find someone that is still on their first Gen 1 PST and uses his rifle for anything else but a safe queen.
Some scope designs are worst than others. The LHT HD seems to be more delicate than others. Not sure why anyone is so shocked and so willing to tear their shirt off to defend Vortex. They made decent optics, they also make garbage. Just like trijicon, Burris, Bushnell and others.
No one knows what the real failure rate was except vortex and you need to put things in perspective. At the time, there was NOTHING comparable for even twice the price of the gen 1 PST. You have to look at things in the context of the time and market. It was still better than a MK4 and the NXS was the only other thing better at 3 times the price.
You have no idea how the LHT will pan out. 3 random assholes on the internet bitching about it when there are Thousands of these optics out in the wild and its been out for less than a year means nothing. Does the LHD have a reputation problem or was it the most popular mid range hunting scope for the last X years? Its a fucking hunting optic, not a 50oz beast designed to be dropped from 6 feet and handle 50 cal recoil.
Tech becomes obsolete and better shit replaces it. Surprised? Not really.
Its popular now to take shots at vortex and the shitheels with no skin in the game are the loudest voices. They should be ignored on principle.
0.50$ have been deposited in your account shill. Plenty of scopes in early 2010s were suitable such as the Bushnell HDMR 1st Gen, which was a bargain at like 800$, the SWFA SS, etc.
And yes I’d expect a hunting optic to be able to handle being carried around without loosing its zero. I didn’t get too upset when my LHT HD shit the bed because I was at the range 2 weeks before start of the hunting season but I would have been absolutely pissed off if I lost/injured an animal cause this “hunting scope” can’t handle 0.5g of just being bounced around my back on a sling.
And I’m sure Vortex knows exactly the failure rate of the PST. Geee I wonder why they totally redesigned the Gen 2 and made them 25-50% heavier.
And as anecdotal as it may, every single one of my PST failed, and everyone I know that had a PST failed. None of these guys hate Vortex, neither do I. In fact I bought a used Razor Gen 2 couple of weeks ago for the wife because she doesn’t mind the extra weight and I know it it’ll track and won’t loose it’s zero if the wind blows on it more than 15mph.
Also there are plenty of shooters that strap these vortex scopes on ARs with a chinesium bipod attached to a non free float hand guard and are happy with their minute of pizza box accuracy with the performance of their Diamond back and would never notice if the scope tracks or not, loose it’s zero or not, as they sling 55gr American eagle down the range.
The issue at play here is sample size. It's hard to condemn the entire lineup based on a sample size of 1.
I'm more interested in knowing why the testing is considered faulty and if it can induce a failure in any system.
Impact testing is a pretty common standard of practice this day in age for quality optic manufacturing. It's interesting to me because I've had Leupold tell me no-one test their optics as harsh as they do with their impact testing but if he said that on a public forum he would be laughed out of the room because that is not how the brand is perceived. Flip the coin on NF and if you tell someone "my NF broke" they loose their minds as if it's not feasibly possible for that to happen. Looking at you @ma smith lol.
What bugs me is that perception of brands have that pretty much become nothing more than echoing banter. Like Vortex's products don't work and people have to use the warranty all the time when discussing their Japanese made stuff. Which is speccd from LOW, which is where NF is made lol. That's the irony of it all. These are pretty much nothing more than anecdotal stereotypes that have spread like wildfire through the community and not really based on any statistical analysis that proves the statements themselves. It's all hearsay.
I'm sure that will be taken as me defending Vortex but that's not my intention, more so that they should be judged fairly in the price bracket the optic sits in according to their competitors. Do I like Vortex? Obviously, I run (coincidentally as of now) a good bit of their optics, because for the money they're putting out products that really satisfy a lot of niche applications. Having said that if the LHT is faulty it should be on full display as such and they should own up to it, but one test isn't indicative of the entire lineup. If that is the case you wouldn't be able to own an optic on the market because the reality is favorite brand or not, best friend owns the company, whatever, it's man made, shit happens.
If I can ever get some time on my hands (unlikely) I'll try and put mine through it's paces. I should've thrown it on the 7SS and ran the hell out of it.
Having said that it doesn't discount the failure rate of the PST gen I which idk if it's been quoted I'm sure was pretty damn high. PST Gen II I think was quoted at less than 5% though which is a major improvement.
I'm more interested in knowing why the testing is considered faulty and if it can induce a failure in any system.
Impact testing is a pretty common standard of practice this day in age for quality optic manufacturing. It's interesting to me because I've had Leupold tell me no-one test their optics as harsh as they do with their impact testing but if he said that on a public forum he would be laughed out of the room because that is not how the brand is perceived. Flip the coin on NF and if you tell someone "my NF broke" they loose their minds as if it's not feasibly possible for that to happen. Looking at you @ma smith lol.
What bugs me is that perception of brands have that pretty much become nothing more than echoing banter. Like Vortex's products don't work and people have to use the warranty all the time when discussing their Japanese made stuff. Which is speccd from LOW, which is where NF is made lol. That's the irony of it all. These are pretty much nothing more than anecdotal stereotypes that have spread like wildfire through the community and not really based on any statistical analysis that proves the statements themselves. It's all hearsay.
I'm sure that will be taken as me defending Vortex but that's not my intention, more so that they should be judged fairly in the price bracket the optic sits in according to their competitors. Do I like Vortex? Obviously, I run (coincidentally as of now) a good bit of their optics, because for the money they're putting out products that really satisfy a lot of niche applications. Having said that if the LHT is faulty it should be on full display as such and they should own up to it, but one test isn't indicative of the entire lineup. If that is the case you wouldn't be able to own an optic on the market because the reality is favorite brand or not, best friend owns the company, whatever, it's man made, shit happens.
If I can ever get some time on my hands (unlikely) I'll try and put mine through it's paces. I should've thrown it on the 7SS and ran the hell out of it.
st, DMR was and is a great optic but launched at 1500, it wasn't that cheap until way down the road once the XRS II, DMR II, and later the pro series hit. When the PST first released it broke the mold on budget options offering features that at the time didn't exist in that price segment. I think SWFA is probably a fair argument, the 5-20 has been around for a long long time though I can't recall the SWFA then. I can for sure say the HDMR wasn't really a thing then. The articles posted on Demigodllc about tactical rifle scopes were in 2009 when it was really just Schmidt/Hendsolt, USO, NF, Leupold MK4, then everything else. I say all this because that is the year I got into shooting.
Having said that it doesn't discount the failure rate of the PST gen I which idk if it's been quoted I'm sure was pretty damn high. PST Gen II I think was quoted at less than 5% though which is a major improvement.
Last edited:
Yea I am a shill, over here shooting ZCO and TT.
How many Vortex LHT do you own? What is your direct experience with the optic?
LOW makes optics to whatever spec the manufacturers pay for. Not everything that comes from LOW is the same.
The 5-20 SWFA was around $1300, significantly more than a PST which I think were like 650-750ish. Your options were basically pay a ton for a IOR that had a 50% chance of failing within a month, Spend $2500+ for a S&B, Premier or USO who at the time was starting to circle the drain in quality. MK4 were still $1K optics that didn't have matching turrets, were SFP and had poor reticle choices. NXS $1500-2000 and were mostly SFP.
People are so ospoiled today with endless options and compeition that keeps driving better products to the consumer every year. It wasn't always that way and people who never lived through it just don't understand.
FFP, Matching reticles/turrets, Actual usable reticle, decent glass and reliable compared to anything sub $1K at the time other than maybe the 3-9 or 3-15 SWFA that had their own issues. These are the scopes that put vortex on the map and were the lauching point for the Razor 1-4 and 5-20 and later the gen2's , 3's AMG, and hunting optics like the LHT and LHD.
I also had one of the first Bushnell DMR (Not H since Horus sucks) and they were game changers in quality and features but were still $1500. They did have significant drawbacks in the glass department but otherwise were as rock solid as they come.
Nothing came close the PST at that price for the features at the time. Vortex's warranty also made them much more attractive than wondering if SWFA, Val or Leupold would get your optic fixed or replaced in less than 4 months.
I never said otherwise. That much is obvious to anyone that remotely understands the designs of optics. My point was about the perception of these companies.
Agreed. I ran the hell out of my XRS II and besides glass they were great optics. Absolute work horses. I actually traded the mark 6 I lamented about earlier for the XRS II. I do remember a KYL stage that had a 4" circle at the end with no paint on it in the shade and couldn't see it with my XRS II.
This is true and a good point. However, LOW like any high end OEM has their own standard of producing quality so they maintain their status/business reputation. Your right there is variation, but they aren't gonna produce junk or low quality if a company wants them too. It has to be within their established standard, minimal specs and tolerances. This or course does not mean there won't be lemons or mistakes, just that they won't produce an inferior product for a company to help that company gain a profit while knowing it's trash or an incapable overall design or build.
Last edited:
I don’t think this is the case. $$$ talks, especially with a volume manufacturer. Not many people know where or by whom their scope is made. LOW scopes are always badged by someone else.
I hear you..I disagree to a degree as far as upper end manufacturers, as not just anyone can have their optics made in these OEMs, it requires relationships, trust and ability to equally produce something that makes them both residual money. Producing junk intentionally for high prices that break will do that for neither in the long term. But on the other hand what your saying about money talking generally is true, and I do not know personally the inner workings of LOW, just some things I've heard others talk about who should know. I wonder if anyone with more insider knowledge could shed some light on this? I am interested.
You should just go back to Rokslide and keep humping legs
This thread is crazy.
Razor G2 turrets are not LOW factory turrets, they are higher spec, AMG or some part of Vortex reworked something to get them to perform.
That is to Vortex credit, because the Data from Mark and Frank showed the did well.
However, it kills the notion that any LOW scope is by default "just as good" as g2 or NF.
That people keep thinking a 22 oz 1200 scope with 950 price point turrets is "just as good" as the $2-3000 g2/g3 Razor is border line crazy.
Not sure its worth trying to reason any further.
Razor G2 turrets are not LOW factory turrets, they are higher spec, AMG or some part of Vortex reworked something to get them to perform.
That is to Vortex credit, because the Data from Mark and Frank showed the did well.
However, it kills the notion that any LOW scope is by default "just as good" as g2 or NF.
That people keep thinking a 22 oz 1200 scope with 950 price point turrets is "just as good" as the $2-3000 g2/g3 Razor is border line crazy.
Not sure its worth trying to reason any further.
I think Nightforce literally pounds every scope they send out against vulcanized rubber to see if they can induce a zero shift. I remember seeing a video from shot show explaining this process.
I dont think anyone has said that they think the LHT is going to be as durable or "bomb proof" as the beast Razor g2 or g3. Obviously these scopes are built differently for different purposes. All that was said about LOW is they are a top manufacturer and it's hard to believe they would just peddle junk just because Vortex asks them too like some have implied, or that Vortex is intentionally putting out junk then lying about it. It's all possible, but at this point no solid evidence that can be verified has been given so it's just peoples opinions and bias' are showing up pretty easily. I get it if people have had an optic go down from said company, everyone is going to be less likely to trust it who that happens too. Also sometimes people just dislike certain brands, it's fine, but one thing that is going on in this thread by many is trying to search for the truth and not let biased emotions lead them in decisions that are extremely expensive and people take a lot of time investing in. This isn't about bashing or not bashing any brand or company for me, I'm trying to see if this scope has a real durability issue from light use(as was stated by the original tester) and if so is it a one off or an issue across this line. Im still waiting for valid evidence to appear to give me a reason to sell it if needed. I can test mine, yes and I will. But even that is a sample size of 1, I could just send it in and have it fixed easily if there was an issue, I want to see and hear about others testing their stuff too. But it's so hard to find the truth nowadays, especially on the internet. People do weird things for attention/money and ultimately this whole thing on rokslide doesn't pass the smell test so far, but I am willing to change my mind if/when some better documentation and someone who is willing to put their name on the line for their testing comes forth. Honestly, at this point it's he said she said and not much more.
Just admit you have no rebuttal, nothing constructive to add. Your entire argument is “show me your face, internet man!” Go put some energy into discrediting the guy who publicly tested his Maven, with their blessing, and got the same result.
No one said its just as good. No one said all LOW optics are the same.
There is a baseline in quality with a LOW optic just like there is with the name Razor attached to it at vortex. They don't put out junk.
You guys are looking for an argument that no one is making.
Again, how many Vortex LHT do you own? Answer the question.
Similar threads
