- Thread starter 762 ULTRAMAGA
- Start date
I think the simplest way to check the rifle vs scope is to do the same test with the same rifle with a different scope. At least at that time it’s narrowed down to scope and rings vs the entire setup.
If I do this again I’ll take another scope or two and mount them and do the same thing. If they all shift then I would say it’s a good chance it’s a rifle issue. If it’s only the Vortex then I think it’s pretty cut and dry on where the issue is.
If I do this again I’ll take another scope or two and mount them and do the same thing. If they all shift then I would say it’s a good chance it’s a rifle issue. If it’s only the Vortex then I think it’s pretty cut and dry on where the issue is.
Hi carbonbased,
I think you'll find most of your questions are covered in the original thread.
Ryan from Rokslide is going to supply other scopes to be tested; the first being his own NX8.
Some more background on the test approach is here: https://www.rokslide.com/forums/threads/scope-field-eval-explanation-and-standards.246775/
Interesting. Are you the one-and-same as Formidilosus on rokslide?
Nope.
Too many variables…. Isolate them for testing. I’ve seen just a few wacks from the palm of my hand on the barrel shift zero on my match rifle before bedding it. Not all scope mounts, rings are created equal either. I’ve also seen zero drift just from smacking the side of a scope with the palm of my hand. Sometimes it’s the scope, sometimes it’s the mount, sometimes it’s both.
As anyone who has handled a lht 3-15 would appreciate, they feel lightly built. Almost inexcusably cheesy turrets. The kind of optic you would imagine not surviving a fall from waist height in the field. AFAIK g2 lht uses same quality turret and 5x erector. Not sure what else one would expect??
And he has been testing these optics this way for a while.
i recall reading his critiques of ffp crossover scopes as either being too tactical or too old school fp2, bdc etc, and really wanting light ffp optics to cater to hunters, ie good wide open reticles with Ffp wind holds for long range shots.
Point being the dude supports the market niche lht g2 is trying to meet. Dont think he has bias, but who knows.
Not every copy of every optic is top class.
That would certainly give a much better idea of it.
Interesting findings. I haven't gotten to use my LHT much cause we've had chamber issues from our prefit. I did take a doe at 330yds or so with our 6cm. It hasn't seen any abuse though.
Formidilosus is a known troll that claims to have tested 20k or some unrighteous number of scopes, he always bashes Vortex and exhalts Bushnell. His claims about Vortex are laughable. @Rob01 exposed him at least once publicly that I’ve seen. Ignore…
Is he a troll then? Or actually an idiot?My mistake doesn’t seem banned but lowlights comment is what I’m talking about.
Is There Any Truth To This Claim
The PRS “stats” on face value should be taken with a grain of salt. Unless you know the politics and inner workings you’re not seeing the what you think you are. For instance- if my life depended on it I would choose a Bushnell HDMR over most current production S&B’s as they have fewer...www.snipershide.com
His other gems include but are not limited to: barrels of any diameter do not change group size when heated, and extra shots rapidly are simply showing your true “cone” of accuracy and my favorite is that barrels do not need to be cleaned at any point in their lifespan, not for accuracy nor to increase barrel life. This of course is contrary to what every world record benchrest competitor thinks, and contrary to what Frank green went over to rokslide and wasted his time explaining one day.
I have been reading up on this Formidilosus fellow. I’ve only just touched his output on Rokslide, where he’s been a member since 2014.
As of now, I haven’t found anything that has thrown a red flag except that the sheer number of animals killed and scopes tested seems rather……high. Not sure what he does for a living that allows time and money for both of those activities. Haven’t run into the more outrageous claims referenced above and haven’t seen him post on his background. @DangerRanger and others, do post links of any questionable Mr. Formidilosus claims.
I mean, he may have a point. Or not.
If he’s legit, he’s got a decent idea for a YouTube channel and I’d urge him to go that route. But if you’re going public with bold claims, either quasi-sponsored by a forum or on YT, at a certain point you must show your face for credibility reasons and ideally show the test in real time. Koshkin is a good example. The fellow has much more cred than people (like me) that opine behind an avatar and username.
Anyone know of any engineers? I’ve tagged one above, just remembered @308pirate who also knows his stuff. Oh yeah, he’s busy, but maybe @THEIS has some opinions here?
As of now, I haven’t found anything that has thrown a red flag except that the sheer number of animals killed and scopes tested seems rather……high. Not sure what he does for a living that allows time and money for both of those activities. Haven’t run into the more outrageous claims referenced above and haven’t seen him post on his background. @DangerRanger and others, do post links of any questionable Mr. Formidilosus claims.
I mean, he may have a point. Or not.
If he’s legit, he’s got a decent idea for a YouTube channel and I’d urge him to go that route. But if you’re going public with bold claims, either quasi-sponsored by a forum or on YT, at a certain point you must show your face for credibility reasons and ideally show the test in real time. Koshkin is a good example. The fellow has much more cred than people (like me) that opine behind an avatar and username.
Anyone know of any engineers? I’ve tagged one above, just remembered @308pirate who also knows his stuff. Oh yeah, he’s busy, but maybe @THEIS has some opinions here?
Oh, ha! Formidilosus is Latin.
adjective
Definitions:
formidilosus, formidilosa
adjective
Definitions:
- dangerous, alarming
- fearful/timorous/frightened
- formidable
- terrible, scary
- Age: Medieval (11th-15th centuries)
- Area: All or none
- Geography: All or none
- Frequency: 2 or 3 citations
- Source: Lynn Nelson, Wordlist
I will chime with this, I actually spoke with Form a few years ago over the phone. This was about 5 years ago when I was first getting into shooting longer ranges and trying to learn Mils, dialing, PRS games, etc.
He was gracious enough to spend a solid 2-3 hrs on the phone with me and talked me through an array of fundamentals and how to get started. He was a really nice guy and helped me out a ton, keeping in mind I was a guy who only knew Kentucky windage skills with a typical 3-9 VX3 type scope….”that target is 400 yds, let’s try holding it on the top edge and see what happens” is the type of shit I was doing. Yeah, I’m not afraid to admit I was an Elmer Fudd.
He was vague about what he did for a living but I gleaned it was related to something regarding teaching shooting schools for the government (LE or military or something to that end).
At the end of the day his opinions may rub some wrong and even I question the claims that S&B is unreliable, but he did help me a ton when I was starting out and he had a lot of useful advice. No surprise though that most of my scopes are of the HDMR, LRTS, and SWFA variety. They’re all working well and no issues for me, but if I had FU money I would likely own more than a few S&B, TT, or ZCO scopes. Just got another 10 yrs before the kids are off to college and my FU funds are replenished.
Oh yeah, and I have owned a few Vortex products in the past and all 3 (2 PST’s and one set of binos) had to be sent in for warranty work, then I sold them when they came back. So while I did like the stats of these LHT scopes, I’m not buying. That’s just me though.
He was gracious enough to spend a solid 2-3 hrs on the phone with me and talked me through an array of fundamentals and how to get started. He was a really nice guy and helped me out a ton, keeping in mind I was a guy who only knew Kentucky windage skills with a typical 3-9 VX3 type scope….”that target is 400 yds, let’s try holding it on the top edge and see what happens” is the type of shit I was doing. Yeah, I’m not afraid to admit I was an Elmer Fudd.
He was vague about what he did for a living but I gleaned it was related to something regarding teaching shooting schools for the government (LE or military or something to that end).
At the end of the day his opinions may rub some wrong and even I question the claims that S&B is unreliable, but he did help me a ton when I was starting out and he had a lot of useful advice. No surprise though that most of my scopes are of the HDMR, LRTS, and SWFA variety. They’re all working well and no issues for me, but if I had FU money I would likely own more than a few S&B, TT, or ZCO scopes. Just got another 10 yrs before the kids are off to college and my FU funds are replenished.
Oh yeah, and I have owned a few Vortex products in the past and all 3 (2 PST’s and one set of binos) had to be sent in for warranty work, then I sold them when they came back. So while I did like the stats of these LHT scopes, I’m not buying. That’s just me though.
Last edited:
Hey, no problem, I get it. I found some posts by the fellow that were interesting:
- 8000 rds 308 without cleaning
- On reliable guns, and he seems to do sniper comps
- In 2019 he likes Sportsmatch rings on Tikka T3’s that don’t require inclination.
The turrets on the LHT HD, especially the windage are atrocious. I have better turrets on 100$ Chinese Weaver. It’s one of these scopes that looks nice on paper because they check all the boxes but the execution and the compromises in the design ... enough said. Almost ruined my hunting season but I was lucky I caught the issue in September.
And here’s Rokslide’s page that indexes Formidilosus’s scope tests.
Let me see if I follow what you're asking for. Because you're considering purchasing a specific optic you would like someone from this community who owns this model optic has already, or is willing to purposely, repeatedly drop said gear to test to see if it is damaged by said negligence?
Really??
All Posts Made By Formidilosus - 24hourcampfire
24hourcampfire - Where the Outdoors Flame Always Burns Bright.
www.24hourcampfire.com I haven’t read rokslide much. Most of what I’ve seen from and of Formidilosus has been on 24hrcampfire, it’s the same stuff. I don’t care who he has helped, he could help little old ladies shoot across the road. The guy is not to be believed, at all [full stop]
Last edited:
You think that dropping a rifle onto a padded mat lying on top of snow from 6” to 18” away is negligence? Did your mother drop you on your head?
You’re new here. If you board your way back machine you could watch Lowlight drop scopes, crank the turrets and blow them up. I think he even gave the blown up Bushnell away to a member that had the best hard luck story.
100%340 pages of posts, have fun.All Posts Made By Formidilosus - 24hourcampfire
24hourcampfire - Where the Outdoors Flame Always Burns Bright.
I haven’t read rokslide much. Most of what I’ve seen from and of Formidilosus has been on 24hrcampfire, it’s the same stuff. I don’t care who he has helped, he could help little old ladies shoot across the road. The guy is not to be believed, at all [full stop]
The guy is a fucking moron
I wouldn't be hesitant to believe his results if he wasn't such a dumb cunt
Look at it this way, at the end of the day every damn review of a scope on this site or any other site is one sample from some keyboard warrior with or without ulterior motives. I don’t give a shit who you are but when it comes to spending $1500 on a scope it’s your money so buy what speaks to you. Some might scoff at the simplistic reticle offered by SWFA while others rave about tracking durability. Others may rave about the glass on a TT and aren’t about to abuse a $3k scope so durability/tracking may be less of a concern.
If George Gardner told me a Bushnell could suck the chrome off a bumper would I believe him? No. But do I own a few Bushnell scopes? Damn right. The end reason is because they meet some series of specs I’m looking for in a scope for the budget I have at the time. Period.
All scopes have pros and cons, all have warranty issues. I appreciate tests like what Frank was doing before industry insiders shit their pants. But at the end of the day if a ZCO consistently ranks #1 across the board I can’t justify the cost at my budget. I’m not poor, just conservative with my funds, hate debt, and would rather use the savings to go moose hunting in AK. So I buy what I need and take my chances that there’s a slightly higher chance a $1,500 scope doesn’t meet the standards a $3,000 scope would. Period. The fault ultimately lies with the fact anyone is actually taking ANY review on what is increasingly a fucked up place for information (i.e. the interwebs) as gospel. Might as well throw in Fox News, CNN, ABC, etc into the mix.
Shit I can’t even buy a part for my truck on Amazon without questioning the 1,500 positive reviews from oversea bots. The net is a fucked up place with a bunch of fucked up keyboard warriors. Buyer beware. As it’s always been.
If George Gardner told me a Bushnell could suck the chrome off a bumper would I believe him? No. But do I own a few Bushnell scopes? Damn right. The end reason is because they meet some series of specs I’m looking for in a scope for the budget I have at the time. Period.
All scopes have pros and cons, all have warranty issues. I appreciate tests like what Frank was doing before industry insiders shit their pants. But at the end of the day if a ZCO consistently ranks #1 across the board I can’t justify the cost at my budget. I’m not poor, just conservative with my funds, hate debt, and would rather use the savings to go moose hunting in AK. So I buy what I need and take my chances that there’s a slightly higher chance a $1,500 scope doesn’t meet the standards a $3,000 scope would. Period. The fault ultimately lies with the fact anyone is actually taking ANY review on what is increasingly a fucked up place for information (i.e. the interwebs) as gospel. Might as well throw in Fox News, CNN, ABC, etc into the mix.
Shit I can’t even buy a part for my truck on Amazon without questioning the 1,500 positive reviews from oversea bots. The net is a fucked up place with a bunch of fucked up keyboard warriors. Buyer beware. As it’s always been.
Last edited:
Personally, I'm glad that someone is doing this kind of testing ... and I'm not that concerned about which brands pass or fail. Helps us as consumers be better informed, and might help scope manufacturers lift their game.
Whatever you might think of Form's other opinions, I think the point of the scope testing is to have a fairly repeatable methodology, and document the process and the results ... this isn't about 'keyboard warrrioring'; it's taking gear into the field and testing it.
I think what he's doing is what we don't usually see in most scope evaluations ... we might get RTZ / tall target / box text results, but not usually serious zero retention results after the kinds of drops that can, and do, happen in the field.
If others have better methodologies, I'd be happy to see those too.
Whatever you might think of Form's other opinions, I think the point of the scope testing is to have a fairly repeatable methodology, and document the process and the results ... this isn't about 'keyboard warrrioring'; it's taking gear into the field and testing it.
I think what he's doing is what we don't usually see in most scope evaluations ... we might get RTZ / tall target / box text results, but not usually serious zero retention results after the kinds of drops that can, and do, happen in the field.
If others have better methodologies, I'd be happy to see those too.
Yikes! I'm going to try to replicate this test to some extent in the next week or so. Mine is mounted to a lightweight 16" 6.5 Creedmoor gas gun, which will not exactly be easy on optics in the first place due to the heavy reciprocating mass. Luckily, the scope I had on it for the last year is still zeroed to it in a QD mount that does, in fact, return to zero. I really hope the example that guy had was just a lemon. My cold weather testing of the turrets and mag ring did not have the same result as his. I'm going to go toss the gun out in the elements for a few hours today, because reasons. I am certainly not in love with the illumination control.
Did you ever get a chance to go out and use it again? I put one on my NRL hunt gun that I’m taking to a comp this weekend and I wanna know if this will hold up or if I need to swap to something slightly heavier but more reliable
I haven’t, been slammed with work and I’m waiting for my 4.5-22 to show up. It seems like there are lots of guys that aren’t having any problems so I may just be unlucky.
Go drop it on a mat a few times in the yard if you have time to check zero before your match. I would be interested in knowing if my experience is at all common. The more scopes checked the better imo. If a bunch of guys check theirs and have failures I’m gonna explore options that I know are solid. The weight of the LHT’s is really tough to beat so I want them to be reliable as much as anybody else but I’ll pack that extra 10oz if I’m confident in it.
I wish I had time to check it. I’m swamped until the day I leave for the match which is why I’m paranoid. But I haven’t seen any signs of this so far In what I’ve used for it. But I haven’t dropped it accidentally either.
Are there guys who aren’t having these problems? Seems like anyone who intentionally drops it so far has lost their zero from what it looks like
I talked to the gentleman in question a couple of years ago. He seemed like a perfectly personable guy, but his results do not jive with mine. I also have the advantage of knowing the return statistics of several manufacturers. What he says about scopes sounds plausible, but does not jive with with what I have seen and what I know about the statistics of this. It also does not jive with the experience of a couple of fairly large armories I interact with for my dayjob.
I have not read everything he wrote over the years, but enough to think a lot of it is at least embellished (hunting stories) or out right silly nonsense (some of the scope tests). He does a good job of making them sound scientific, but it is really too uncontrolled of an experiment to make conclusions out of. I've been involved in designing equipment for durability testing of this stuff and I can tell you right off hand that the way he does it I can make any scope fail or any scope pass. It is as simple as that.
Beyond that, he clearly has a beef with Vortex. I do not know the origin of it, but he has never managed to find a Vortex scope that works. Not once. That's one hell of a lucky streak. He also has never managed to find a Nightforce scope that wasn't flawless, indestructible, etc. Is he a Nightforce shill? Perhaps, but he also likes older LOW designs like the SWFA SS HD and Bushnell LRHS/LRTS. I know with good amount of certainty that he does not have any personal relationship with the folks at SWFA. In other words, I have no idea where his bias comes from, but I know he hates Vortex with a passion.
He either does or did work for the military. Sometimes, he talks about it all the time and other times he goes all secret squirrel about it. I did not bother to check whether that is true or not, but he does like to sound mysterious.
He goes from forum to forum and bashes companies he does not like in more or less the same way. I know that on at least a couple of forums he got paid to stick around, presumably because he spins a nice sounding story and attracts an audience. Since it is always some form of the same nonsense, I sorta stopped paying attention to him a couple of years ago.
ILya
I have not read everything he wrote over the years, but enough to think a lot of it is at least embellished (hunting stories) or out right silly nonsense (some of the scope tests). He does a good job of making them sound scientific, but it is really too uncontrolled of an experiment to make conclusions out of. I've been involved in designing equipment for durability testing of this stuff and I can tell you right off hand that the way he does it I can make any scope fail or any scope pass. It is as simple as that.
Beyond that, he clearly has a beef with Vortex. I do not know the origin of it, but he has never managed to find a Vortex scope that works. Not once. That's one hell of a lucky streak. He also has never managed to find a Nightforce scope that wasn't flawless, indestructible, etc. Is he a Nightforce shill? Perhaps, but he also likes older LOW designs like the SWFA SS HD and Bushnell LRHS/LRTS. I know with good amount of certainty that he does not have any personal relationship with the folks at SWFA. In other words, I have no idea where his bias comes from, but I know he hates Vortex with a passion.
He either does or did work for the military. Sometimes, he talks about it all the time and other times he goes all secret squirrel about it. I did not bother to check whether that is true or not, but he does like to sound mysterious.
He goes from forum to forum and bashes companies he does not like in more or less the same way. I know that on at least a couple of forums he got paid to stick around, presumably because he spins a nice sounding story and attracts an audience. Since it is always some form of the same nonsense, I sorta stopped paying attention to him a couple of years ago.
ILya
Following this as I have one sitting on top of an ar10. It's smacked the ground a couple time since I shot it last, albeit just from being knocked over. Will report back on my next shoot day, but I do appreciate koshkin identifying a potential vortex bias with the other guys testing.
Will you elaborate on how you would make a scope pass or fail?
Thank you for weighing in
This is exactly why I brought this topic to the forum it needs credible input.
Your summary of that guy jives 100% with my impression, I've read some silly and outright pure disinformation that he's put out.
Appreciate the insight. I really hope this optic is solid, I want it to be. Im nervous to take it with me to my match this weekend. I may have to make time on Thursday and just see how it holds up. Not ideal to test this a couple days before I shoot it but peace of mind is priceless
I've been using the 4.5-22x50 for almost a year now and it has been banged around a good bit both hunting and from me being clumsy. The zero has not shifted.
Does that mean yours will not shift? It does not. Aside from sample variation, what it is on, how it falls and how it is mounted makes a huge difference. For example, with any spring loaded QD mount, it is a crapshoot.
ILya
To clarify: I have seen scopes from every manufacturer crap out due to manufacturing variances, random abuse, etc. Some product lines are better than others, but between the Razors and other good quality Japanese scopes from the same OEM, it is hard to find any statistical difference.
ILya
This seems both logical and reasonable. Reading through many of the comments on rokslide it seems like there is a lot of vortex hate. I am neither a fan or hater of Vortex as a company, this particular scope just fit the niche I needed for my rifle and I do like it so far. However, reading people on that forum say things like "vortex is a modern tasco" and "vortex is just a good marketing company" really pushed the boundaries of absurdity; I understand tolerances and OEMs building things to the companies specs, so just because it's Japanese made doesn't mean everything is the same, but acting like Vortex puts out or even designs their stuff to be chinsy intentionally is extremely overboard. To be fair the tester did not say those things, but that definitely seems to be the vibe there in that particular thread. All things made by men will fail or can fail, I will continue to keep an eye on mine objectively, but the concern people are having so far seems to be blown out of proportion. Cheers fellas, I'll report back next shoot day as mine has taken some good spills recently since shooting, lol.
Last edited:
The Vortex hate over there is but ‘tis a scratch compared to the whupping Leupold gets lol ow ouch
If they knew how many Razors are out there working just fine, they would faint. Vortex made an absolutely ridiculous number of Gen2 Razors and I would not be surprised if the number of HD-LHTs and Gen3s gets into the same category before too long.
ILya
Last edited:
No kidding
I was pretty shocked at all the mk5 bashing on that site..
Literally the first time I'd heard of them having issues, not that I don't believe they fail occasionally but it seemed every other guy on there owned one that crapped out.
LMAO at some of the clowns over there
It’s no different than the Harris bipod or IOR bashing around here.. bitching about stuff and the Internet go together like pb&j, lol
While not nearly the sample size as many others here I had 8 optics in a row from a top tier manufacturer ( not vortex ) all fail within the first 6mo. of owning them. I can’t give any logical explanation of why other than Murphy working overtime. Nonetheless I won’t buy another.
I don’t discount someone who has had a run of bad luck with a particular manufacturer, but I do keep in mind that the person is likely one of several hundred thousand.
Now I have to know what 8 optics in a row failed on you!
I have had only good experiences with my Vortex Razor Gen II's and HD.
First to admit I am pretty fucken rough and ready with my gear.
All scope manufacturers have duds.... yes, even S&B.
I have a shooting mate that had a fucking nightmare trying to get his NightForce repaired/replaced.
They simply wouldn't admit it failed, then wouldn't tell him what went wrong with it.
2 months....
Of the one guy I know whose Vortex dropped it's guts, the shop owner rang the distributor, and explained he was still on a shooting trip ( we came into Perth for supplies) and they credited the shop for a replacement scope, which they fitted straight away from their shop stock.
We zeroed that arvo, and were smashing ferals that evening.
I've heard the cheaper Vortex scopes are prone to failure, but have no first hand experience of it.
Like everything, pay a bit more to get a bit more quality?
First to admit I am pretty fucken rough and ready with my gear.
All scope manufacturers have duds.... yes, even S&B.
I have a shooting mate that had a fucking nightmare trying to get his NightForce repaired/replaced.
They simply wouldn't admit it failed, then wouldn't tell him what went wrong with it.
2 months....
Of the one guy I know whose Vortex dropped it's guts, the shop owner rang the distributor, and explained he was still on a shooting trip ( we came into Perth for supplies) and they credited the shop for a replacement scope, which they fitted straight away from their shop stock.
We zeroed that arvo, and were smashing ferals that evening.
I've heard the cheaper Vortex scopes are prone to failure, but have no first hand experience of it.
Like everything, pay a bit more to get a bit more quality?
Similar threads
