You’d do fine by 15x then, imo. If price is no object, the TT is probably the “best”.Steel out to 8, maybe 9. Agree on usability inside 600, for sure.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You’d do fine by 15x then, imo. If price is no object, the TT is probably the “best”.Steel out to 8, maybe 9. Agree on usability inside 600, for sure.
Well,both scopes have the same size knob so I'm sure they are the same. My question is what lever do you have because none of the Vortex SV's call out the LHT and I need to source one eventually. I'm really liking these LHT's, especially the 3-15 SFP scope ret for close varmint shots.Does anyone know if the LHT 3-15 throw levers fit this version? The typical throw lever retailers don't distinguish between the models, and I want to verify they're the same rather than sites haven't ben updated. Thanks.
Thanks. I'm looking at the AO levers as they're my go to as long as they cover the application. I have them for a variety of Burris and Athlon optics.Well,both scopes have the same size knob so I'm sure they are the same. My question is what lever do you have because none of the Vortex SV's call out the LHT and I need to source one eventually. I'm really liking these LHT's, especially the 3-15 SFP scope ret for close varmint shots.
Cheers,Scott
Awesome, thanks!I have the FFP LHT and I can confirm the anarchy outdoors throw lever works with it
Yup,thanks gonna go order something tonight..Awesome, thanks!
Yes, they do fit. I also make throw levers. $15 each.Does anyone know if the LHT 3-15 throw levers fit this version? The typical throw lever retailers don't distinguish between the models, and I want to verify they're the same rather than sites haven't ben updated. Thanks.
That'd be yours truly.For me the one with the least branding wins.
Yes, it's unreal how stiff it is, my parallax is still as well, I like everything else about the scope.Anyone else have one with a SUPER stiff magnification ring? So much so that I had to get a throw lever for it.
You will love it. Light, Great IQ, good reticle. Its the perfect hunting scope, other than the tight mag ring.well these better not suck as i just ordered one!
Just reviewed this thread again, and beetroot's comment above caught my attention. Currently I have a 1.5-6x42 Burris Four-X scope mounted on my main deer rifle (18" Ruger M77 in .308) and it works very well for the wooded areas I hunt in central and east Texas. I very rarely see shots over 125 yards or so and typically leave magnification set at @ 3x. I can't see putting this new LHT on my rifle. If they could make a 3.5-17 (same erector ratio as 4.5-22) it would have a lot more appeal to me and perhaps other hunters in the eastern half of North America. That 1x difference between 3.5 and 4.5 doesn't sound like much, but it really is when you need to get the biggest FOV possible at low mag, and it would arguably still have enough top-end mag to be useful for long range shooting. Otherwise, this new Vortex looks like an excellent scope. Maybe they'll expand the line in the future....It looks pretty sweet being so light, I can't help but think the mag range should've been 4-20. The FOV spec at 4.5x in narrower than the PST 5-25 at 5x. I can appreciate they sacrificed FOV for weight savings in the LHT line but it pains me to see it so much narrower than the PST line (17% better). I'm probably just splitting hairs, I'm guessing most folk wont use this scope in tight brush where they need less magnification.
You do not have to put the zero stop ring in, but even if you do you still have 11 mils or so which is plenty,You will love it. Light, Great IQ, good reticle. Its the perfect hunting scope, other than the tight mag ring.
I would have loved to use it for NRL hunter but the zero stop limiting elevation is kinda silly.
Agreed, dreams are free i guess....Meanwhile I'm patiently waiting for an even lower base mag to replace my 1.5-8 Razor LH.
I wonder if they'll make a FFP version of the 3-15x42, it would be an easy solution to the problem you raised.Just reviewed this thread again, and beetroot's comment above caught my attention. Currently I have a 1.5-6x42 Burris Four-X scope mounted on my main deer rifle (18" Ruger M77 in .308) and it works very well for the wooded areas I hunt in central and east Texas. I very rarely see shots over 125 yards or so and typically leave magnification set at @ 3x. I can't see putting this new LHT on my rifle. If they could make a 3.5-17 (same erector ratio as 4.5-22) it would have a lot more appeal to me and perhaps other hunters in the eastern half of North America. That 1x difference between 3.5 and 4.5 doesn't sound like much, but it really is when you need to get the biggest FOV possible at low mag, and it would arguably still have enough top-end mag to be useful for long range shooting. Otherwise, this new Vortex looks like an excellent scope. Maybe they'll expand the line in the future.
Sorry for the continual replying to my own emails, but it'll help others backtrack.Replying to my own post to update that I've decided to keep all three of my scopes because I really like the optic. The good news is one scope out of the three has what I'd say is appropriate "pop-up" tension for a hunting optic. The one in the vid is the worst, and one is in-between.
Vortex has agreed to take a look at the scopes and the lead engineer had some ideas like adding more grease to an o-ring, making a custom spacer, or finding a scope with more tension.
This didn't come up in development, he said, and no feedback except mine has yet reached his ears.
I like Vortex customer service.
Anyway, there you have it and I'll update this thread on what happens. @Diver160651
I am awaiting my throw ring to arrive. Never had a scope with the mag ring so hard to turn.Anyone else have one with a SUPER stiff magnification ring? So much so that I had to get a throw lever for it.
Damn guys are they that bad?
I checked one out yesterday at a local Cabela’s. Mag ring was really hard to turn - a cattail would be a must have. Parallax was pretty stiff. Locking elevation was easy to lift, but the turrets felt really mushy. Glass seemed good but hard tell in the store. I know everybody is raving about these things but it just felt cheaply done, especially for the Razor line. Fit and finish on my Razor Gen 1, Gen II and AMG were all much nicer.Yes mine is almost impossible to turn. This optic reminded me why I got away from vortex in the first place.
Mine tracks perfectly.anyone having tracking issues with the lht?
Do you feel the eye box is any better on the 4.5-22 compared to the 3-15×42?In regards to stiff controls, I find with some scopes, a breaking in period is needed. I twist zoom rings and parallax knobs back and forth a bunch to (sometimes) mitigate. I also notice some scopes settle back into stiffness if not used for a while, and that my PST II's and LHT's do have wide stiffness variation (roughly eight PST II's, three LHT 4.5-22, one SFP LHT 3-15).
I gotta say, though, it's not a big deal (to me). Once I get a scope to a mag setting, I don't tend to move it too much in the field when hunting. I use binos or spotters for finding game and mostly leave the scope at the mag that I think I need. But I'm not a gamer and tend not to shoot in more dynamic situations.
I make a focus wheel for that parallaxYes, it's unreal how stiff it is, my parallax is still as well, I like everything else about the scope.
I bought your mag lever but i was not aware you made a parallax wheel, thanks.I make a focus wheel for that parallax
LH levers if made precisely, do NOT fit the LH/T. The "nub" is slightly different. Found that out upon release.
However, they can be backwards compatible if a lever is made to fit the LH/T as the diameter is the same.
I bought your mag lever but i was not aware you made a parallax wheel, thanks.
Just tested that out on a tripod. (Edit: don’t have the 42mm LHT, just the 50mm with the G4 reticle). At 15x the 50mm LHTs are a tie.Do you feel the eye box is any better on the 4.5-22 compared to the 3-15×42?
ThanksJust tested that out on a tripod. At 15x the LHTs are a tie.
On a tangent: the PST II 3-15 has a wee bit better eyebox than either to my eye (I know you didn’t ask but I just had to check). But of course it’s heavier, supposedly worse glass (I have the start of cataracts so hard for me to tell), no locking turrets etc but I think that particular model is a gem with its wider FOV than either LHT. Koshkin likes it too.
Even with cataracts I noticed my PST II 5-25 definitely has a bit (a bit!) worse glass than the LHTs (and PST II 3-15), but that PST II 3-15 has some magic and punches above its weight class.
Again, take what you will from this cataract guy.
But after I spun a PST II turret while hunting, the LHT 4.5-22 get the nod for PD shooting while walking about.
I edited my post. I don’t have the 42mm LHT. FYI.Thanks
I was hoping to hear that the eye box was improved, maybe it was just me but I had a hell of a time with tunneling on my 3-15 lht.
Thanks that makes a difference!I edited my post. I don’t have the 42mm LHT. FYI.
If your a ffp mil guy, there is no better choice unless your willing to get a March 3-24x52. But that scope still has eyebox sensitivity and requires a lot of parallax tuning. However you get slightly better glass, excellent turrets and smoother mag/parallax rings.Thanks that makes a difference!
I'm suspecting/hoping the issues I had were due to the 42mm objective at max magnification.
The 4.5-22 is one I'm considering seriously for a lightweight lr hunting setup
Good to hearIf your a ffp mil guy, there is no better choice unless your willing to get a March 3-24x52. But that scope still has eyebox sensitivity and requires a lot of parallax tuning. However you get slightly better glass, excellent turrets and smoother mag/parallax rings.