Vortex lht 4.5-22 durability test

[HaydenLane]

Again, how many Vortex LHT do you own? Answer the question.

Neither you, nor anyone else, has asked me that question before.

Since you asked, I will state what I’ve said previously, in multiple threads. It has a poor magnification range for hunting and a bad reticle (for hunting). I have no interest in owning one. On top of that, no other optics company has figured out how to make a reliable scope with similar specs, and I’m not going to be a guinea pig to see if Vortex somehow cracked the code. If I want a light scope, it’ll be an SWFA 3-9 or NXS 2.5-10 until something else gets a similar reputation.

 

[FreddyG]

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,

I agree with you on all of the BS on the internet, but how exactly is Ryan making money off of pissing scope manufacturers off, some of which are sponsors of his website? Makes no sense to me, especially when you consider he is funding some of the testing.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Neither you, nor anyone else, has asked me that question before.

Since you asked, I will state what I’ve said previously, in multiple threads. It has a poor magnification range for hunting and a bad reticle (for hunting). I have no interest in owning one. On top of that, no other optics company has figured out how to make a reliable scope with similar specs, and I’m not going to be a guinea pig to see if Vortex somehow cracked the code. If I want a light scope, it’ll be an SWFA 3-9 or NXS 2.5-10 until something else gets a similar reputation.

Thank you. You have zero hands on experience therefore your opinions are worthless.

You don't plan to buy one, so why are you here? Oh you want to get your shots in right?

People like you are the problem with the internet. No experience and all talk.

Go suck on your 15 year old SFP designs that aren't even in the same ballpark features wise.

 

[JDB55]

I agree with you on all of the BS on the internet, but how exactly is Ryan making money off of pissing scope manufacturers off, some of which are sponsors of his website? Makes no sense to me, especially when you consider he is funding some of the testing.

You have a fair point and it's fair question. I guess in my mind I was thinking that like that of people who were saying Vortex is trying to protect their brand/optics and aren't going to tell the truth due to money, that perhaps the original tester (not necessarily the owner of rokslide) is doing something similar for profit or bias pushing other brands and downing others. However, that is a completely unfounded accusation, that I don't know to be true and have zero evidence to even say it, just a potential possibility in my mind. Honestly, I don't think FORM is lying, I just question some of the testing procedures and wonder if it is shifting zero if it's the scope or another of the plethora of other things that contribute to shifting zero. Again, if we get more reports on these guys being finicky I want to know. All I want is an optic that fits the role I need and works, I don't care what brand name is attached to it ultimately.

 

[HaydenLane]

Thank you. You have zero hands on experience therefore your opinions are worthless.

You don't plan to buy one, so why are you here? Oh you want to get your shots in right?

People like you are the problem with the internet. No experience and all talk.

Go suck on your 15 year old SFP designs that aren't even in the same ballpark features wise.

My opinions on what? I own and will buy more vortex products, but an LHT will not be one unless they make a suitable magnification range/reticle model. I am, however, of the opinion that this forum was better when you were banned.

As a hunter I have an interest in companies like Vortex making actual good hunting scopes in FFP/Mil. The market is severely lacking.

Amazing that even Ilya still recommends the SWFA for hunting. Well designed scopes stand the test of time. None of the “features” the LHT have mean shit if it can’t hold zero (and I haven’t said that it can’t, just that I’ll remain skeptical until proven otherwise).

 

[carbonbased]

 

[5RWill]

View attachment 7808697

I’m dead thread is derailed but I’m dead lol

 

[JDB55]

View attachment 7808697

This is exactly what will happen to mine! I just know it

 

[Dobermann]

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.

Hi JDB55, respectfully, I think this points to some of the challenges of interpreting where people are coming from online in the age of social media.

Form isn't 'on the up and up'. This isn't TikTok; he's not splashed across social media and doing this for the views; he's doing it out of wanting to improve scope quality across the board.

He's been around a long time. Yes, he has relevant experience, but he's not really under any obligation to share it with you, me, or anyone.

And I think you'll find that he repeatedly says 'don't trust me' - the idea is, yes, to show multiple scopes tested to the same methodology ... but he's the first to say this is just a sample of one (although it does mean something if those samples fail one test, when other makes/models pass the test multiple times in the same setup) ... it's mostly to encourage the rest of us to test our gear, as we've assembled it, so that we have confidence in it, because we know it works.

 

[JDB55]

Hi JDB55, respectfully, I think this points to some of the challenges of interpreting where people are coming from online in the age of social media.

Form isn't 'on the up and up'. This isn't TikTok; he's not splashed across social media and doing this for the views; he's doing it out of wanting to improve scope quality across the board.

He's been around a long time. Yes, he has relevant experience, but he's not really under any obligation to share it with you, me, or anyone.

And I think you'll find that he repeatedly says 'don't trust me' - the idea is, yes, to show multiple scopes tested to the same methodology ... but he's the first to say this is just a sample of one (although it does mean something if those samples fail one test, when other makes/models pass the test multiple times in the same setup) ... it's mostly to encourage the rest of us to test our gear, as we've assembled it, so that we have confidence in it, because we know it works.

I understand where your coming from with your comments generally, however; specifically to me I don't use any social media of any kind(I know that's hard to believe in this day and age) and haven't for years, so I'm not sure what all is meant by that. It went over my head because I don't use those platforms.

To the topic of him being obliged to share who he is, relevant experience, his name, his face etc, you are absolutely correct. However, I equally do not have an obligation to believe him. I have been on internet forums of various types and topics for a long time and I have a standard by which I judge claims. Form, regardless of how long he's been behind a screename on rokslide, does not fit into my category of trustworthy(yet). Why? Not because I even believe he's lying necassarily, but because I've found when people are unwilling to put their name or their face to something there is normally a reason. Does Form have to live to my standard? Not at all, do I have to give him credence if he doesn't fit into my online standard? Not at all. Putting your name and face to something gives it more weight in my personal opinion because then there is atleast some cost if your found out to be doing testing incorrectly, just plain lying or profiting personally for pushing a certain brand etc. This is one of the reasons that Illya has gained such respect, he says what he says and has opinions but he also has put himself out their because he has established himself as an authority on scopes/optics at some level(I'm not saying he claims that, but that's how he's generally viewed). The truth is that Form to whatever level even if it's just rokslide is seen and being tasked(by rokslide) with being an authority to a degree and I'll say this, as such I believe he does owe it to our community to do better, because like we are discussing now, this testing does effect all of us and our money and rigs. Form doesn't have to do the testing, but if he's going to do it and people are going to come wherever the LHT is being talked about and post his stuff or chime in and talk about how unreliable it is with a shifting zero and how we just need to believe, then we all can admit that at some level Form is having an effect on our community more then just the average poster. I believe to that point Form has a responsibility to do better then he's doing, not a requirement; but if it was me, for the sake of the community I would go out of my way to the best of my ability to make sure I am trusted and trustworthy(I mean he can't even do a video?). So I'll either wait for that to happen or watch and wait for others(myself included) to have issues with the LHT, but for now Form gets put into the "maybe... maybe not" category, which is a shame because he obviously goes through a lot of time to do his stuff(if it's on the up and up) and I would like to be able to use his testing as some sort of baseline. However, being on the net as long as I have, I can't personally do that. I equally do not begrudge anyone who has a different standard, that's up to y'all and I respect that and appreciate a civil discussion on this forum. Cheers mate

 

[Freediver111]

I understand where your coming from with your comments generally, however; specifically to me I don't use any social media of any kind(I know that's hard to believe in this day and age) and haven't for years, so I'm not sure what all is meant by that. It went over my head because I don't use those platforms.

To the topic of him being obliged to share who he is, relevant experience, his name, his face etc, you are absolutely correct. However, I equally do not have an obligation to believe him. I have been on internet forums of various types and topics for a long time and I have a standard by which I judge claims. Form, regardless of how long he's been behind a screename on rokslide, does not fit into my category of trustworthy(yet). Why? Not because I even believe he's lying necassarily, but because I've found when people are unwilling to put their name or their face to something there is normally a reason. Does Form have to live to my standard? Not at all, do I have to give him credence if he doesn't fit into my online standard? Not at all. Putting your name and face to something gives it more weight in my personal opinion because then there is atleast some cost if your found out to be doing testing incorrectly, just plain lying or profiting personally for pushing a certain brand etc. This is one of the reasons that Illya has gained such respect, he says what he says and has opinions but he also has put himself out their because he has established himself as an authority on scopes/optics at some level(I'm not saying he claims that, but that's how he's generally viewed). The truth is that Form to whatever level even if it's just rokslide is seen and being tasked(by rokslide) with being an authority to a degree and I'll say this, as such I believe he does owe it to our community to do better, because like we are discussing now, this testing does effect all of us and our money and rigs. Form doesn't have to do the testing, but if he's going to do it and people are going to come wherever the LHT is being talked about and post his stuff or chime in and talk about how unreliable it is with a shifting zero and how we just need to believe, then we all can admit that at some level Form is having an effect on our community more then just the average poster. I believe to that point Form has a responsibility to do better then he's doing, not a requirement; but if it was me, for the sake of the community I would go out of my way to the best of my ability to make sure I am trusted and trustworthy(I mean he can't even do a video?). So I'll either wait for that to happen or watch and wait for others(myself included) to have issues with the LHT, but for now Form gets put into the "maybe... maybe not" category, which is a shame because he obviously goes through a lot of time to do his stuff(if it's on the up and up) and I would like to be able to use his testing as some sort of baseline. However, being on the net as long as I have, I can't personally do that. I equally do not begrudge anyone who has a different standard, that's up to y'all and I respect that and appreciate a civil discussion on this forum. Cheers mate

So many words, so few points that actually contribute to a meaningful discussion of the results.
At this point you and a few others have hashed to death the topic of who trusts Form, who trusts Ilya, who shows their face, who doesn’t, whose a shill…..fuck off already with these frivolous arguments! Sorry to be blunt but please stop with that shit and test some scopes yourself in a manner you feel is acceptable and let us know the results.

Seriously my man, I don’t want to offend you at all, you seem like a genuinely nice guy, but either: a) Come up with a test of your own for tracking/RTZ in “field” conditions or b) Accept or ignore Form’s results and move on with life.

 

[JDB55]

So many words, so few points that actually contribute to a meaningful discussion of the results.
At this point you and a few others have hashed to death the topic of who trusts Form, who trusts Ilya, who shows their face, who doesn’t, whose a shill…..fuck off already with these frivolous arguments! Sorry to be blunt but please stop with that shit and test some scopes yourself in a manner you feel is acceptable and let us know the results.

Seriously my man, I don’t want to offend you at all, you seem like a genuinely nice guy, but either: a) Come up with a test of your own for tracking/RTZ in “field” conditions or b) Accept or ignore Form’s results and move on with life.

You've said what you said and your thoughts about it, no offense taken. I'll keep doing what I'm doing and expressing how I feel about the subject in this thread that is dedicated to the discussion of this optics durability and about the testing and testers results. Everything at this point has been hashed through 100 times, and I was responding directly to someones comment not just saying this at random. Anyways, look forward to discussions in other threads. Have a good day Freediver.

 

[ma smith]

Lets do a thought experiment:

Assume $500 scopes are just not designed to be resistant to side impacts.

In such a world, is it possible the high portion drop-test test failures simply reflect engineering limits?

And since .mil requires drop test safety for triggers...whats wrong with a drop test of zero retention?

All the evidence shows that LHT is just a $500 scope with $1500 glass.

Which engineered system determines zero retention?

A honda civic or with a crate motor wont drive like an EVO rally car.

Thats not how it works.

A mclaren/honda f1 car is not a 'honda'. Theres tons of work in the chassis, aero, downforce, brakes, tires, engine control etc to maximize a given powerplant.

Even if we take similar LOW glass array, the optic needs a good chassis to put that glas to good use.

The chassis, turrets, etc are critical to tracking and zero retention.

Look what Vortex did with gen2/3 razor...

 

[godofthunder]

All this for a sample size of ONE...

 

[JDB55]

All this for a sample size of ONE...

Ok, you got me there...I'm guilty

 

[badgerfan]

So all of this for a guy who drop tested a rifle, and the rifle did not shoot to the same point of impact as it did before the drop. Form's testing procedure should be looked at as testing a rifle system as it does not isolate any single variable (scope included) and thus you cannot condemn any single variable in the system. The scope was sent to Vortex for testing where they could isolate the scope as the only possible variable, it passed their testing, and yet nobody believes that it could be anything but the scope. We are looking at an unscientific test that should only be interpreted as such, even Ilya said that any scope can fail this test.

The biggest takeaway for me is if I drop my rifle, it is probably a good idea to make sure it is still zeroed.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

So all of this for a guy who drop tested a rifle, and the rifle did not shoot to the same point of impact as it did before the drop. Form's testing procedure should be looked at as testing a rifle system as it does not isolate any single variable (scope included) and thus you cannot condemn any single variable in the system. The scope was sent to Vortex for testing where they could isolate the scope as the only possible variable, it passed their testing, and yet nobody believes that it could be anything but the scope. We are looking at an unscientific test that should only be interpreted as such, even Ilya said that any scope can fail this test.

The biggest takeaway for me is if I drop my rifle, it is probably a good idea to make sure it is still zeroed.

Thank you!
JFC you'd think we were arguing with fucking cinder blocks the way these guys keep saying

" Bbbbut you just don't want to believe the results, there's no way this test had any other variables that could cause error Vortex is lying to cover their asses".

Do I think it's possible that dropping an LHT on the ground from 3' could cause poi shift.. Hell yeah if it landed right..
Do I think dropping one 8" onto a padded mat over soft snow could cause the same shift??
Shit no
Do I believe Form is a truly trustworthy source?
Well based on a litany of retarded stuff he posts I'd have to say hell no.

Sorry if this offends the Bros
Make up your own frigging minds, and stop crying like little bitches because not all of us are convinced that this test is 100% sound

 

[HaydenLane]

Thank you!
JFC you'd think we were arguing with fucking cinder blocks the way these guys keep saying

" Bbbbut you just don't want to believe the results, there's no way this test had any other variables that could cause error Vortex is lying to cover their asses".

Do I think it's possible that dropping an LHT on the ground from 3' could cause poi shift.. Hell yeah if it landed right..
Do I think dropping one 8" onto a padded mat over soft snow could cause the same shift??
Shit no
Do I believe Form is a truly trustworthy source?
Well based on a litany of retarded stuff he posts I'd have to say hell no.

Sorry if this offends the Bros
Make up your own frigging minds, and stop crying like little bitches because not all of us are convinced that this test is 100% sound

Do you trust the other member and his videoed tests? Why or why not?

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Do you trust the other member and his videoed tests? Why or why not?

I'm not sure what member or video you're referring to, I'm talking specifically about the original test.
And introducing the response from Vortex adds even more doubt in my mind.

Why do you even care if myself or others aren't convinced?
If you are then great, but some of us want a standardized form of testing that is 100% repeatable before making conclusions.
Seriously I've never seen so much poop flinging at guys who voiced their skepticism

 

[HaydenLane]

I'm not sure what member or video you're referring to, I'm talking specifically about the original test.
And introducing the response from Vortex adds even more doubt in my mind.

Why do you even care if myself or others aren't convinced?
If you are then great, but some of us want a standardized form of testing that is 100% repeatable before making conclusions.
Seriously I've never seen so much poop flinging at guys who voiced their skepticism

I don’t care that you’re not convinced. You are not supposed to be convinced of anything. Form has never asked anyone to take his word for it. It’s always “test your own gear, draw your own conclusions.”

I care because you, and others, are trying to latch onto anything to discredit the entire idea, without even watching the videos or reading the testing summaries. Pretty much every concern brought up here is addressed in the testing threads.

For example, the same rings being used repeatedly, without even being removed from the rifle between scopes. Some passed, some didn’t, yet somehow it’s the rings that are the problem. Or believing they would mount the scope so it’s contacting the barrel. Give me a break.

Badgerfan above stating it doesn’t isolate a single variable, yet the original testing goes about as far you can expect one to go on a limited budget to do just that.
Ilya implied similar sentiments, yet he makes his determination by subjecting a mounted optic to washboard roads (something form also does post-drops), and says (paraphrasing) “if a scope is reliable for 2 or 3 years, I generally think it’s good.” How does that eliminate any variables?

This is what I was referencing. He’s been transparent about his process, learning as he goes, and working to proof his rifle to eliminate variables he can. He’s dropped an SHV and LRTS, in addition to this.

Maven RS.3 5-30x50 FFP mil/mil field evaluation

Q&A here https://www.rokslide.com/forums/threads/maven-rs-3-5-30x50-ffp-mil-mil-q-a.251009/ Maven RS.3 5-30x50mm evaluation. The test rifle is a 22BR Tikka T3 with 200ish bullets down the tube. It has shown to group under 1.5" for 10 shots at 100 yards in that time. The scope was sent to me...

www.rokslide.com

 

[Dobermann]

So all of this for a guy who drop tested a rifle, and the rifle did not shoot to the same point of impact as it did before the drop. Form's testing procedure should be looked at as testing a rifle system as it does not isolate any single variable (scope included) and thus you cannot condemn any single variable in the system. The scope was sent to Vortex for testing where they could isolate the scope as the only possible variable, it passed their testing, and yet nobody believes that it could be anything but the scope. We are looking at an unscientific test that should only be interpreted as such, even Ilya said that any scope can fail this test.

The biggest takeaway for me is if I drop my rifle, it is probably a good idea to make sure it is still zeroed.

@HaydenLane has already said it.

@badgerfan - might be worth reading the testing protocol thread this is all based on.

And then the other tests. Some scopes pass in the same set-up. Some don't. There's a reason.

 

[Dobermann]

I understand where your coming from with your comments generally, however; specifically to me I don't use any social media of any kind(I know that's hard to believe in this day and age) and haven't for years, so I'm not sure what all is meant by that. It went over my head because I don't use those platforms.

To the topic of him being obliged to share who he is, relevant experience, his name, his face etc, you are absolutely correct. However, I equally do not have an obligation to believe him. I have been on internet forums of various types and topics for a long time and I have a standard by which I judge claims. Form, regardless of how long he's been behind a screename on rokslide, does not fit into my category of trustworthy(yet). Why? Not because I even believe he's lying necassarily, but because I've found when people are unwilling to put their name or their face to something there is normally a reason. Does Form have to live to my standard? Not at all, do I have to give him credence if he doesn't fit into my online standard? Not at all. Putting your name and face to something gives it more weight in my personal opinion because then there is atleast some cost if your found out to be doing testing incorrectly, just plain lying or profiting personally for pushing a certain brand etc. This is one of the reasons that Illya has gained such respect, he says what he says and has opinions but he also has put himself out their because he has established himself as an authority on scopes/optics at some level(I'm not saying he claims that, but that's how he's generally viewed). The truth is that Form to whatever level even if it's just rokslide is seen and being tasked(by rokslide) with being an authority to a degree and I'll say this, as such I believe he does owe it to our community to do better, because like we are discussing now, this testing does effect all of us and our money and rigs. Form doesn't have to do the testing, but if he's going to do it and people are going to come wherever the LHT is being talked about and post his stuff or chime in and talk about how unreliable it is with a shifting zero and how we just need to believe, then we all can admit that at some level Form is having an effect on our community more then just the average poster. I believe to that point Form has a responsibility to do better then he's doing, not a requirement; but if it was me, for the sake of the community I would go out of my way to the best of my ability to make sure I am trusted and trustworthy(I mean he can't even do a video?). So I'll either wait for that to happen or watch and wait for others(myself included) to have issues with the LHT, but for now Form gets put into the "maybe... maybe not" category, which is a shame because he obviously goes through a lot of time to do his stuff(if it's on the up and up) and I would like to be able to use his testing as some sort of baseline. However, being on the net as long as I have, I can't personally do that. I equally do not begrudge anyone who has a different standard, that's up to y'all and I respect that and appreciate a civil discussion on this forum. Cheers mate

JDB: I appreciate the civil discussion too.

I think the point I was trying to make is that Form isn't 'on the up and up' ... because it's not about him. Indeed, posting the testing protocol, and then documenting each scope tested was a direct response to people who didn't believe when he'd claimed to have seen certain failures - it was an attempt to put the focus back on the results.

In other words, these tests are an attempt to be more transparent, not less - everything is documented, it's clearly acknowledged that this is a sample of one (although this can have more significance than people sometimes believe), but the main message is always for people to test their own gear, and not 'take his word for it'.

As to anonymity, I'm sure there are many here too who'd have good reason to maintain online anonymity ... no-one I know, unless they are professionals in the field wanting to secure business, uses their real identities online or posts personal info. At the very least, for some of us, the opposite of your experience is the case about trusting others - there are a bunch of people online who are 'trying to make a name for themselves' and posting rubbish. Personally, I'd prefer the personalities and the biases to be stripped out, and just have the documented evidence.

Related to that, you mentioned Ilya. I respect his knowledge. However, he has mentioned a few times that he 'likes' the people at Vortex and the people at Nightforce 'don't like' him. He also doesn't drop test scopes. Form, on the other hand, has said multiple times that he doesn't care what brand is on a scope so long as it works ... and he tests them. Personally, those are the kind of datapoints I find valuable.

 

[badgerfan]

@HaydenLane has already said it.

@badgerfan - might be worth reading the testing protocol thread this is all based on.

And then the other tests. Some scopes pass in the same set-up. Some don't. There's a reason.

I have read through his procedures, however my point is that the rifle system lost zero and that should be the takeaway because even going to the lengths he does it cannot eliminate the variables. I have seen mounts shift on rails, it can happen but that is not accounted for in his test except for saying that it didn't happen with the last scope so it can't happen this time.

You can also look at this type of testing giving folks a false sense of security if they have an optic that "passed" his test. If they are on a hunt and drop their rifle and think "well my optic passed Form's test I should be good" but their rifle system is not set up to handle that abuse it could be detrimental to their hunt. Again, I think the biggest takeaway from this type of testing should be to check your gear if something happens as every setup is different.

 

[wind gypsy]

You can also look at this type of testing giving folks a false sense of security if they have an optic that "passed" his test. If they are on a hunt and drop their rifle and think "well my optic passed Form's test I should be good" but their rifle system is not set up to handle that abuse it could be detrimental to their hunt. Again, I think the biggest takeaway from this type of testing should be to check your gear if something happens as every setup is different.

This is a good point. Lots of attention on optics losing zero, a little less on how to properly mount optics, and less yet about the rifle's connection to stock/chassis. If someone is going to be absolute about these things they should get all 3 right. Having a rifle bonded to a chassis in the test rifle helps a lot for these tests and form has put out some of the better info i've seen on the internets about scope mounting process for ensuring zero retention..

I put stock in what he says about zero retention results but not absolute trust.

 

[JDB55]

JDB: I appreciate the civil discussion too.

I think the point I was trying to make is that Form isn't 'on the up and up' ... because it's not about him. Indeed, posting the testing protocol, and then documenting each scope tested was a direct response to people who didn't believe when he'd claimed to have seen certain failures - it was an attempt to put the focus back on the results.

In other words, these tests are an attempt to be more transparent, not less - everything is documented, it's clearly acknowledged that this is a sample of one (although this can have more significance than people sometimes believe), but the main message is always for people to test their own gear, and not 'take his word for it'.

As to anonymity, I'm sure there are many here too who'd have good reason to maintain online anonymity ... no-one I know, unless they are professionals in the field wanting to secure business, uses their real identities online or posts personal info. At the very least, for some of us, the opposite of your experience is the case about trusting others - there are a bunch of people online who are 'trying to make a name for themselves' and posting rubbish. Personally, I'd prefer the personalities and the biases to be stripped out, and just have the documented evidence.

Related to that, you mentioned Ilya. I respect his knowledge. However, he has mentioned a few times that he 'likes' the people at Vortex and the people at Nightforce 'don't like' him. He also doesn't drop test scopes. Form, on the other hand, has said multiple times that he doesn't care what brand is on a scope so long as it works ... and he tests them. Personally, those are the kind of datapoints I find valuable.

This is well said and I do see where your coming from. I agree there are a lot of YouTubers who have their names and faces out there who want to make a buck and compromise their reviews to do so. I'm going to continue to follow this and again I'm open to whatever comes of it. I think FORM having a YouTube where he posts videos of his testing would be phenomenal and may help fund testing multiple sample sets of each scope, but truthfully ultimately that's his decision. For me I just want a reliable, lightweight, higher mag scope with excellent glass for my DMR AR10. My choices are limited for under 2k, I really want this vortex to be the one, I like it and I'll keep it UNLESS I see more issues popping up or next time I can get out to shoot (having 4 young children makes it tough) I see some major POI shift with my own tests.

 

[Dobermann]

This is well said and I do see where your coming from. I agree there are a lot of YouTubers who have their names and faces out there who want to make a buck and compromise their reviews to do so. I'm going to continue to follow this and again I'm open to whatever comes of it. I think FORM having a YouTube where he posts videos of his testing would be phenomenal and may help fund testing multiple sample sets of each scope, but truthfully ultimately that's his decision. For me I just want a reliable, lightweight, higher mag scope with excellent glass for my DMR AR10. My choices are limited for under 2k, I really want this vortex to be the one, I like it and I'll keep it UNLESS I see more issues popping up or next time I can get out to shoot (having 4 young children makes it tough) I see some major POI shift with my own tests.

JDB - I think part of the challenge here is that you'd then open up the videos to a much wider audience, which might bring a range of headaches.

However, Ryan has just uploaded the video showing the same test of the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18 x 44.

 

[clark33]

JDB - I think part of the challenge here is that you'd then open up the videos to a much wider audience, which might bring a range of headaches.

However, Ryan has just uploaded the video showing the same test of the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18 x 44.

I don't know, I think I'll do a little more research on scopes rather than take this guys word as gospel.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

I don't know, I think I'll do a little more research on scopes rather than take this guys word as gospel.

So what was the result?

 

[clark33]

He doesn't talk at all, but I think it passed?

 

[clark33]

I'll be honest... it was kinda weird

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Anyone thinking a test with a single example means anything is a moron.

If you don't own a LHT, then you really can't say shit. Go buy one and test it yourself if you feel so strongly to prove everyone wrong.

Mine has taken a few spills and has some nice rash on the turret and still tracks 100% with a steady diet of 300wsm in a 9lb rifle.

If there was a real issue, there would be a ton of people running here reporting it, with the hundreds of hide users who have already bought this and used it last hunting season. The loudest voices are a guy who doesn't even own vortex and someone spouting some shit from another forum.

 

[Dobermann]

Ok, CrabsAndFootball ...

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

I'll be honest... it was kinda weird

Glad I'm not the only one who got that weirdo vide..
I was gonna say it needed some editing, kinda reminded me of the methodical guy who silently walks into the basement to stroke a frozen head he pulled from the freezer

 

[JDB55]

It was not a well done video, however; atleast it was a video which I cannot complain about. Was it just my bad eyes, I couldn't see the groups well at all, maybe it's because I was on my phone watching.

 

[TX_Diver]

So all of this for a guy who drop tested a rifle, and the rifle did not shoot to the same point of impact as it did before the drop. Form's testing procedure should be looked at as testing a rifle system as it does not isolate any single variable (scope included) and thus you cannot condemn any single variable in the system. The scope was sent to Vortex for testing where they could isolate the scope as the only possible variable, it passed their testing, and yet nobody believes that it could be anything but the scope. We are looking at an unscientific test that should only be interpreted as such, even Ilya said that any scope can fail this test.

The biggest takeaway for me is if I drop my rifle, it is probably a good idea to make sure it is still

Edit. Somehow messed up the quote on my phone. All of the above was supposed to be quoted.

How does vortex do the testing to isolate the scope only? Not trying to squabble, but actually curious as it seems like good info and maybe there’s a better way to test them?

 

[Dobermann]

I think there's a few people here missing the point of the video.

The video is not the point of the test. It's not a product for public consumption. It's not meant to be edited or 'well done'. It's just documentary proof of the test happening in the way that was stated.

The process, results, close-ups of the groups, and discussion are all over on Rokslide. Viewing the video without this context won't show you much - because it's not the main event.

This video is not posted to YouTube for all to see, for entertainment, or to make its own point. It's not meant to be interesting. It's an *unlisted* video posted on another forum to provide a record of the test happening as stated, to support discussion within that forum. It being posted here is contextless, but then people are complaining because they don't have the context.

Results from previous tests were reported; detractors said they wanted to see proof. Proof was provided by way of documenting the tests in words and pictures; detractors said they wanted to see videos. Videos have been made - as a record of the process only, no more, no less - and now people want talking and editing ... and while simply stating the results was previously critiqued as not showing the method, now that the method is documented, it's critiqued as 'methodical'.

Perhaps if people are really interested in genuine discussion about these tests, they should head over to where the tests are actually hosted, and ask questions there about anything they legitimately want to know more about.

 

[aprocast]

I think there's a few people here missing the point of the video.

The video is not the point of the test. It's not a product for public consumption. It's not meant to be edited or 'well done'. It's just documentary proof of the test happening in the way that was stated.

The process, results, close-ups of the groups, and discussion are all over on Rokslide. Viewing the video without this context won't show you much - because it's not the main event.

This video is not posted to YouTube for all to see, for entertainment, or to make its own point. It's not meant to be interesting. It's an *unlisted* video posted on another forum to provide a record of the test happening as stated, to support discussion within that forum. It being posted here is contextless, but then people are complaining because they don't have the context.

Results from previous tests were reported; detractors said they wanted to see proof. Proof was provided by way of documenting the tests in words and pictures; detractors said they wanted to see videos. Videos have been made - as a record of the process only, no more, no less - and now people want talking and editing ... and while simply stating the results was previously critiqued as not showing the method, now that the method is documented, it's critiqued as 'methodical'.

Perhaps if people are really interested in genuine discussion about these tests, they should head over to where the tests are actually hosted, and ask questions there about anything they legitimately want to know more about.

Well said

 

[Thorbeast]

A while back everyone assumed that their scopes tracked and reticles were properly calibrated. It was eye opening when people started to actually test the mechanics of scopes (Steiner t5xi, Leupold mark 6...). Personally, I'm happy that people are trying to test the mechanical reliability of scopes, even if the methodology isn't perfect. I'm sure the process will be refined over time. 99 % of scope reviews are about the optical characteristics, I think this is a step in the right direction. As a consumer, I want to see these types of tests and information pursued. I'm suspicious of anyone who would discourage this testing, the goal should be to provide constructive feedback to refine testing, not shut it down or simply dismiss it.

Maybe all the naysayers in this thread could help develop a testing protocol and then we could crowd source the testing here on the hide rather than on rokslide. Imperfect? Yes, but that doesn't mean that usable information couldn't be obtained. I'm sure we would see trends...

 

[JDB55]

I think there's a few people here missing the point of the video.

The video is not the point of the test. It's not a product for public consumption. It's not meant to be edited or 'well done'. It's just documentary proof of the test happening in the way that was stated.

The process, results, close-ups of the groups, and discussion are all over on Rokslide. Viewing the video without this context won't show you much - because it's not the main event.

This video is not posted to YouTube for all to see, for entertainment, or to make its own point. It's not meant to be interesting. It's an *unlisted* video posted on another forum to provide a record of the test happening as stated, to support discussion within that forum. It being posted here is contextless, but then people are complaining because they don't have the context.

Results from previous tests were reported; detractors said they wanted to see proof. Proof was provided by way of documenting the tests in words and pictures; detractors said they wanted to see videos. Videos have been made - as a record of the process only, no more, no less - and now people want talking and editing ... and while simply stating the results was previously critiqued as not showing the method, now that the method is documented, it's critiqued as 'methodical'.

Perhaps if people are really interested in genuine discussion about these tests, they should head over to where the tests are actually hosted, and ask questions there about anything they legitimately want to know more about.

Thanks for clarification, I wasn't sure if that was the full test/record or a part with pictures. Is that the first video accompanied with testing? Maybe he'll redo the LHT at some point with video (probably not but here's to hoping).

 

[FreddyG]

Thanks for clarification, I wasn't sure if that was the full test/record or a part with pictures. Is that the first video accompanied with testing? Maybe he'll redo the LHT at some point with video (probably not but here's to hoping).

They retested the same exact lht vortex said was fine. Mounted to Vortex specs exactly. It failed miserably. Not a surprise.

I have a feeling that vortex tests scopes without firing a shot. It might actually pass their test, but thats not how scopes are used. Nobody uses scopes to not shoot.

 

[JDB55]

They retested the same exact lht vortex said was fine. Mounted to Vortex specs exactly. It failed miserably. Not a surprise.

I have a feeling that vortex tests scopes without firing a shot. It might actually pass their test, but thats not how scopes are used. Nobody uses scopes to not shoot.

By "not shooting it" you mean they don't put it in on a rig and shoot the gun then perform drop tests? I wouldn't expect any scope company to do that. To many other variables then just the scope, right? Or are you saying just shoot the scope without drop testing it to make sure it holds zero? Btw would you mind posting the video, thanks.

 

[ma smith]

Whats novel about this OP test is side impact loading.

The typical recoil impulse is linear in line of sight with the optic.

Optics could easily pass a recoil test and fail a drop test.

 

[gopherslayer]

By "not shooting it" you mean they don't put it in on a rig and shoot the gun then perform drop tests? I wouldn't expect any scope company to do that. To many other variables then just the scope, right? Or are you saying just shoot the scope without drop testing it to make sure it holds zero? Btw would you mind posting the video, thanks.

Here’s a video for you but not from Vortex. Hope the link works.

Hensoldt test

 

[HaydenLane]

Nobody does drop testing like this guy.

 

[FreddyG]

By "not shooting it" you mean they don't put it in on a rig and shoot the gun then perform drop tests? I wouldn't expect any scope company to do that. To many other variables then just the scope, right? Or are you saying just shoot the scope without drop testing it to make sure it holds zero? Btw would you mind posting the video, thanks.

Shooting means exactly that. If a scope can’t survive a 6” drop on a padded mat, which is equivalent to a tap with a hand, it’s not something I even care to own. I’m not going to bubblewrap the thing on a hunt. Even with bubblewrap, who knows if it will hold zero, since it lost zero just riding in the backseat of a pickup for 600 miles, while laying on a seat cushion.

I don’t think they have the video up yet.

 

[Thorbeast]

Whats novel about this OP test is side impact loading.

The typical recoil impulse is linear in line of sight with the optic.

Optics could easily pass a recoil test and fail a drop test.

 

[supercorndogs]

View attachment 7808697

 

[Dobermann]

I'm guessing testing like that is not what happened on the one that went back to Vortex.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

 

[Glassaholic]

I have tried to stay out of this knowing it would be a popcorn show, but finally decided to read through the pages of content (which was somewhat agonizing) and hear arguments from both sides, I do not consider myself a judge, but think of myself as more a member of the jury. So what's on trial here - whether or not a drop test performed by individual shooters in uncontrolled situations could give a fair analysis of the failure rate to return to zero (RTZ) of any given scope.

I am not here to praise or criticize Formidallacious' (yes, that was a joke based on his user name) and his detailed process for which to perform a durability test; however, I would like to say that I have been thinking of something similar for a number of years now - how can I perform a test that would be repeatable and rule out as many anomalies as possible to determine if a scope can hold zero after being banged around a bit. The reason I have not attempted to publish some test results is due to the responses I have seen written here - the scrutiny from the community would be overwhelming and if I make a mistake (or two or three) will that skew results and give a false impression toward any given brand/model. I can appreciate what "Formid" has attempted to do - follow the scientific method to come to conclusions that are testable and repeatable.

According to Cornell the Scientific Method is defined as:

Steps of the Scientific Method: 1. Observations 2. Question 3. Hypothesis, which is a tentative answer to the question. A hypothesis must be testable. 4. Experiment, includes recording and analyzing data gathered.

In the case of a scope's ability to hold zero, here are my interpretations of the above process:

1. Observation - we are aware that some scopes may be more prone to lose zero than others. A scope that loses zero after minor impact can be a major factor on a hunt, in a competition, etc.
2. Question - how can we determine a repeatable method by which to test a scopes ability to RTZ after impact.
3. Hypothesis - if we use a rifle, a picatinny rail, a set of rings and torque everything exactly the same, can we drop said rifle, mount and scope combo from X number of inches onto a material of known thickness sitting on a substrate of earth or snow, etc. and get repeatable results from different scopes?
4. Experiment - write out detailed instructions on how to perform a test and expect others to be able to repeat the test exactly as detailed. Results can then be reliably shared on internet forums.

I think this is a fair assessment; however, I think the incongruency comes not from the method itself but from the fact there are so many other factors that could affect outcomes. Think of it like this, many of you have probably seen the movie Jurassic Park with Jeff Goldblum, there is a scene where Goldblum's character is explaining chaos theory:



In essence, chaos theory tries to explain "underlying patterns and deterministic laws highly sensitive to initial conditions in dynamical systems that were thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities". Yes, we can argue till the cows come home whether or not everything was exactly configured the same way, but no one can ever know that because we are not dealing with perfect systems here. If a tree fell over in Siberia right before a drop test could that affect the outcome? (Yes, I'm being somewhat cynical here but hopefully you get the point - how can we rule out all abnormalities?) Therefore, there must be tolerance levels and assumptions and, of course, that is what many have tried to ascertain in preceding posts, some with logic and some with... well, not so much logic but this is an internet forum after all and we are going to get the occasional troll or Fudd (unfortunately, there seems to be much more of this on the Hide over the past couple years than there used to be).

In some posts the goal and character of "Formid" has come into question with many asking, "who is this guy". That is fair, but in all honesty, "who are any of us?", unless you personally know someone from the Hide it's hard to determine motivation. Could "Formid" be motivated by intense hatred for Vortex? Could "Formid" be a shill for NF? Could "Formid" be honest and genuinely want to help the community? Could "Formid" be doing the best he can to provide a repeatable method for the community? I think the answer to all these questions "could" be yes, but only "Formid" himself knows for certain and for many observers the true answer may never be known. Sometimes people are not who they said they are because they are messed up in the head or have ulterior motives or have extreme bias. But to the point of "who", outside of a dozen or so people on the Hide who I routinely talk with, how many people actually know me? I have never shared "too much" information about me because, frankly, I do not want that information on Al Gore's world wide web - information that could be used against me at some point and if you think I'm joking just look at what Big Tech has done to people since 2020. So I do not do social media, I do not do YouTube or Tik-toc-toe or any other video platform because I value my privacy. It's entirely possible "Formid" feels the same way or has a day job that could be in jeopardy if he suddenly became a big internet gun enthusiast; I don't blame anyone on this forum wanting a bit of anonymity - it sucks yes, after all we have a constitutional right to own firearms, but the Left is trying its best to make them more and more taboo and evil and horrible, so much misinformation (real misinformation put forth by the Left's propaganda machine, not the "fake" misinformation put out by Big Tech and politics).

Bias is often brought up in these conversations and I will often get a PM from someone saying "I appreciate your unbiased reviews" and I always try to point out - "I have bias as well, everybody does, but I try my best to share what my bias' are so you can make informed decisions on my conclusions". For example, I am not a huge fan of the Schmidt and Bender PM II 5-25 design mostly because it tunnels and has very poor FOV at 5x; however, this is an excellent scope optically and mechanically that has proven itself for many years so just because I don't like it for particular reasons doesn't mean it won't perform well or won't be someone else's favorite. I have heavy bias toward certain reticles, before NF came out with Mil-C and then Mil-XT I was not a fan, does that mean Nightforce scopes aren't any good, certainly not, reticle choice is personal preference but dang, it took NF long enough to come out with a .2 mil hash reticle! I have an addiction to ultra short design scopes and the industry has certainly gravitated in this direction with some designs; however, the more I test these the more I find compromises compared to their longer brothers and as such I'm beginning to lean back toward more traditional designs - so even someone's bias can change based on observation and differing needs.

Juror #3 (that's me), what is your verdict? - I think in the end, there are just too many variables to overcome and give conclusive, repeatable and accurate results, therefore, I take the conclusions that "Formid" has provided (or anyone else using similar methodology, including my own) with a grain of salt. Is it possible the Vortex LHT 4.5-22 could have a higher rate of failure to RTZ after impact given "similar" situations as compared with other scopes? Yes, it is possible, but inconclusive. The only "conclusive" outcome is to confirm your zero by actually shooting the rifle.

Most of you who've been around long enough may recognize my username, I changed it last year (see aforementioned Big Tech and privacy issues) but if you're savvy enough I'm sure you can figure it out, I've been on the Hide since 2012 and have been doing reviews since about that time to satisfy my own curiosity with the quality of scopes especially in low light situations. Many have benefited from my reviews and some have offered up constructive criticism which I've used to further my knowledge over the years. Not everyone agrees with my conclusions or point of view and as I am human (last I checked) I am prone to mistakes and do my best to learn from those mistakes and improve upon my process the next time around. Because I am not employed by anyone in the industry, I have to fund this myself (will some companies send me scopes to review, yes they will; however, I explain I will always be honest with what I find in those situations) but most of the time I am buying a scope with my own money out of my own curiosity to see how it performs in as best of a repeatable methodology as I'm able to perform at this time.

I do not personally know "Formid" nor have I ever spoken to him, nor did I even know of his existence prior to this thread, but his efforts whether you trust them or not (or trust him or not), have gained a certain following and are being discussed in multiple forums. Regardless of his motivations, I can appreciate that he wanted to try to come up with a methodology to help other shooters ascertain how well their scope will hold up to some abuse whether intentional or accidental. However, some tests can give false positives especially if all the variables aren't addressed exactly the same way and those results could sway opinion for a given model as well as brand that is hard to overcome regardless of the truth, so there is "danger" to promoting a particular method that is incapable of drawing conclusive results. In the end, I think the moral of the story is this, if your rig takes a spill or encounters some type of significant impact it would be best to confirm zero, doesn't matter if you have a Vortex LHT, Nightforce ATACR, ZCO, Hensoldt or (insert favorite brand here). If you're on the hunt of a lifetime, try to confirm zero, somehow, somewhere safe. If your rig is always losing zero every time you go out whether it falls on its side from a bipod onto your soft mat or taps up against a branch, etc. then something is wrong and you should check everything, if you have another scope, try that one, does the same thing happen, if not you might have reason for a warranty check but don't rule out other factors like, poor bedding, bolts not torqued to spec, torque wrench no longer in spec, rings out of spec, you're an idiot (I've done stupid things too) and so forth.

In summary, while I appreciate what I think "Formid" was trying to do, I am still on the fence with regard to the efficacy of the methodology and intended desire for the betterment of the industry both at the manufacturer and consumer level. As a former professional photographer I saw this time and time again with regard to the brand wars between Canon and Nikon, each photographer trying to prove why their brand of choice was the "better" system and coming up with different methods to test this and that. I've always felt a professional is capable of taking whatever they are given, understand its limitations and use it to the best advantage given those limitations. Assuming a particular scope has a high failure rate for RTZ is as bad as assuming another one with a low failure rate will always RTZ given a number of uncontrolled variables at play, maybe I'm wrong and I'm sure there will be a number of responses from people offended at some comment made, others will agree and support my point of view and others will not even care because "who the heck am I anyway"