• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Vortex lht 4.5-22 durability test

Why are you talking about character assination?
The issue we're discussing is credibility, I don't trust the test or the results because I've interacted with the tester, and read many of his posts.
I can't stress this enough, he says some really really stupid stuff and comes at it from a professionals perspective, but does not have any professional credibility.

Don't take my word for it, read the stuff he says about not cleaning his barrel in 8000 rounds, or claiming a 223 is a great elk round.
It goes on and on with that guy, I'm not a professional in the shooting industry but I'm very serious about it, and have professional experience courtesy of uncle Sam.
Formidilosus is full of shit and that's a fact, I respect the hell out of guys like @koshkin and sincerely appreciate his input because it's backed up with facts
There’s a 70 page thread with dozens of pictures and accounts from other people on the terminal ballistics of the 223/77TMK on big game animals, and that’s part of your reasoning on Form being full of shit?

Maybe he is, but that definitely isn’t why.

I’ve read/watched plenty from Ilya, and hold his opinion in pretty high regard. The problem is neither he, nor anyone else really, puts emphasis on what matters for hunting.

Until some prolific backcountry hunter/optics expert who doesn’t choose to remain anonymous and doesn’t represent a brand comes along, this is what we have.
 
I beat mine up, I had a 3-15x42 got it when it first came out. Mounted it in vortex precision rings on a bergara b14 .308.

Hunted a bear season, fall season, bear season then this last fall.

Close to 500rds shot through it maybe more.

I sent it in to vortex after the parallax shit the bed. I had a dent in the obj bell edge, big ass scratch in the eye piece glass, elevation turret cap screw was stripped out. I tipped this rifle over so many times on the bipod, it was strapped to backpack and set down on itself, floor of the truck a bunch. I did have to rezero a few times wile I owned it. Then the parallax finally did it in for me. Vortex was cool they fixed everything no questions sent it back and I sold it.

I'm gonna try a nightforce shv or nx8 going into this year's bear season. The vortex was a good scope tracked awesome awesome glass and is probably great for less clumsy or more careful hunters/shooters haha. I have a hard time being gentle to tools though.
 
The problem is neither he, nor anyone else really, puts emphasis on what matters for hunting.

Until some prolific backcountry hunter/optics expert who doesn’t choose to remain anonymous and doesn’t represent a brand comes along, this is what we have.

Interesting you mention that.
Did you happen to watch the shows from Ilya about how he actually took the vortex scope this thread is about on an extended, rugged hunting trip & how it performed for him?

He also has several other suggestions for hunting scopes that he has used on hunts.

Your mythical "prolific backcountry hunter/optics expert" most likely does not exist.

Ilya is an actual optics expert who hunts from time to time.

You are always welcome to study and research and put years into becoming an actual legit optics expert and then quit that and become a "prolific" hunter and post your reviews...

The best you are going to get right now, going the other way, is somebody who hunts a real lot and has a rough idea about scopes and can review the limited number of scopes they have used a lot (I doubt they will be the high dollar ones).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 762 ULTRAMAGA
the good thing about being a 2-3moa shooter, all day every day, if i do my part, is that any zero shift gets lost in the noise...

j/k of course but maybe not a bad idea to at least lightly do some drop or fall over tests to rule out any totally weak optics in my stable.
 
I went in my local cabelas today to see if they had one of these. They had this and a nx8 4-32. I was really unimpressed with the vortex turrets. There was a lot of slop in between clicks. The clicks them selfs were solid enough. But the turret would rotate back and forth a small amount in between clicks. The turret lock was nice. Really I think vortex knocked it out of the park. But man I don't think I can pay 1500 for something that has turrets that feel like a 100 dollar scope.

The night force was awesome in every way but it sure was heavy when compared side by side with the vortex

Eta. I am really thinking the new xtr3i will be what I end up going with. It should come in cheaper than the nx8 but I don't expect any of the shortcomings of the vortex. But we will see
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDB55
The Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50 illuminated would have been my choice originally, if it was on the market. But it's just taking them so long to get it to market.
 
The Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50 illuminated would have been my choice originally, if it was on the market. But it's just taking them so long to get it to market.
Off topic but I feel like that scope never made it to market? Are they that rare?
 
Off topic but I feel like that scope never made it to market? Are they that rare?
They still haven't released the illuminated version, supposedly soon but I'm not sure what that means at this point, haha.
 
Like a few have mentioned I believe there's a pretty big gap between the hardcore Backcountry hunting community and the high round count long range rifle guys. Each group has their pre dispositions and beliefs and seems to think the others methodology is failed. (I still don't get why anyone thinks they need an illuminated reticle for hunting) Irregardless, I think it benefits us all to have guys out there doing these tests and telling others to do the same. I'm hopeful that in a few years it pushes manufacturers to make better stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dobermann
Hunt at night with a conventional scope and then get back to us on the illumination thingy.
Oh, you can’t hunt at night in Idaho?
We can and do in Texas. Pigs, exotics, varmints, etc.
 
Hunt at night with a conventional scope and then get back to us on the illumination thingy.
Oh, you can’t hunt at night in Idaho?
We can and do in Texas. Pigs, exotics, varmints, etc.
Not sure if you ever looked but we can hunt at night and we can do it both on private and public land with a permit that costs less then 2 dollars. I've done my fair share of it and agree that it could be useful for that purpose although I've never used it. I was referring to conventional daytime hunting.
 
On a ffp optic illumination is really, really useful in my experience at last and first light for close encounters
Yep, it's fairly easy to lose the reticle in low light or early mornings or even just a dark wood line without illumination. It can be very useful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wade2big
How many times has that ever been a deciding factor in the success or failure of a hunt? I hunt a lot! In multiple states every year for multiple species across a pile of different conditions and I can't say I've ever been in a situation where that would be what kept me from shooting something. I think there are situations where it could but the are talked about WAY WAY more than they actually ever happen.
 
I have my illumination on at some point every single hunt so idk what that number is. My freezer was full this year so I turned down all my shots as I was trophy hunting, but I can remember 3 opportunities I had illumination on.

The year before I shot a buck at 9 yards in the woods at first light. I was inside the woods peaking out across a long field and he ran in between me inside the wood line. Illumination was on so I could see the reticle.

How many times? Enough that I noticed I wanted it. I’m happy for you that you don’t need it for your uses. I’ve found I want it for mine.
 
Kinda off topic but regardless of what scope is on my rifle, if I take a spill out hunting, I’m taking a shot to confirm zero. Followed by getting my Allen wrench for my rings out of my Bino harness and making sure everything is still snug.
 
I don’t buy scopes without illumination for a hunting rifle especially a FFP scope. Daylight range gun could go either way.
 
Same. Even with a SFP scope I don’t think I’d ever hunt without an illuminated reticle.
 
How many times has that ever been a deciding factor in the success or failure of a hunt? I hunt a lot! In multiple states every year for multiple species across a pile of different conditions and I can't say I've ever been in a situation where that would be what kept me from shooting something. I think there are situations where it could but the are talked about WAY WAY more than they actually ever happen.
I’ve been burned once using a FFP non illuminated scope. It won’t happen again.
 
I did have to rezero a few times wile I owned it ...

The vortex was a good scope tracked awesome awesome glass ...

And I think this points to the issue ... how many times do we see problems with zero retention ... but then summaries that V's 'customer service was great', or that they're still 'good scopes'?

Not wanting to hassle mj at all - it's a broader phenomenon that seems to happen when people discuss scopes of many brands, but especially seems to happen with Vortex ... a mystery I really don't understand. 🤷‍♂️
 
it's got to be a geographical location thing

i got no use for illumination. and i hunt just a smidge.
Perhaps it’s what you hunt and where? Perhaps you have good eyes? I’m a prairie dog shooter and illumination is useless in that situation (broad daylight, open country).

However, I have attempted to hunt squirrels (fuckers!) in the forest. There, while aiming into a shadowy tree while using a 3-15x FFP PST II EBR-2C reticle at 3x, I found that having illumination was pretty helpful. It was even more helpful near the end of the day. That reticle is pretty small and thin at low power, the quarry is tiny, and I don’t have the best eyes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wild Idaho
Perhaps it’s what you hunt and where? Perhaps you have good eyes? I’m a prairie dog shooter and illumination is useless in that situation (broad daylight, open country).

However, I have attempted to hunt squirrels (fuckers!) in the forest. There, while aiming into a shadowy tree while using a 3-15x FFP PST II EBR-2C reticle at 3x, I found that having illumination was pretty helpful. It was even more helpful near the end of the day. That reticle is pretty small and thin at low power, the quarry is tiny, and I don’t have the best eyes.
The 3-15 pst gen 2 has a much thicker reticle than most FFP scopes. It is twice as thick compared to most which is a huge plus for me. Imagine that reticle on 3x and being half the thickness like most other FFP scopes are. Yikes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: carbonbased
Getting back on topic regarding drop tests, I took my hunting rifle to the range over the weekend. Shot a 3 round group at 100, then decided to drop test it a total of 4 times, two on the left side and two on the right side and test it at 100 yds again.

Note: I completely dissembled the rifle a few weeks ago, gave it a light cleaning, and installed a pic rail for my new Atlas Cal bipod. So forgive the one flyer in the first group. Once the first shot was out of the way it grouped exactly as I had left it.

Rifle is a Tikka T3, 300 wsm, Benchmark barrel (around a 2b contour or something, slimmer profile but a little thicker than Tikka Sporter barrels). Factory stock, mountain tactical rail, seekins rings, and scope is a Bushnell LRTS 4.5-18. I used blue loctite and a Wheeler fat wrench to install. Handload ammo used (4831sc, CCI 250 primers, Nosler brass 2x fired, 212 eldx jumped .095).

First 4 rounds out of the rifle when I arrived at the range (first flyer post rifle clean and disassembly highlighted):

723C9DD9-BF58-496A-9B80-719DBBA52862.jpeg


Then I dropped it from 18” a total of 4 times. Two on each side. Rifle landed on the side each time. Pic of rifle and drop zone. Essentially just my shooting mat on top of snow. Snow was on the hard side. A good 1” of crust on top.

D5156929-0DD9-41FF-A8F1-4B00632D78F3.jpeg


After the drop I shot the following 3 shot group:

398928CD-0673-43A2-8BC1-ABE27DEAE844.jpeg


After that I proceeded to hit the 500, 600, 800, and 1,000 yds targets several times. I noticed no shift post drop.

The caveat to all this is that I continue to be a nobody in the gun world, I am not telling you who I am, what I do for a living, will not provide an anal swab for dna tests, etc. Maybe instead of spending 45 mins writing about why one guy is trustworthy because he shows his face vs another who doesn’t want to post that info, spend some time testing your set up. Maybe dropping your gun to test zero retention doesn’t matter to you, that’s fine. But how is it that some people are shitting their shorts about what secret motive Form has up his sleeve when some dude tested his LHT on page 1 of this very thread and had similar loss of zero results?

Did I prove my LRTS is better than the LHT? No, I sampled one unit in a rudimentary fashion and had no discernible change pre vs post test. All it tells me is that it would appear my set up can handle an 18” drop on a padded mat over hard snow. Who knows, maybe I drop it on a rock while hunting from 6” and it shits the bed.

In the end I think these types of tests are in fact useful for some consumers. When it comes to what’s important for me in a scope, durability, zero retention, and repeatable dialing is paramount. I will gladly sacrifice some glass quality and lack of illumination if it means I can have my top 3 priorities met in a scope.

The only question I have left is that if some folks (Ilya included) claim that the drop test is flawed and you can make any scope fail with a similar test, tell us exactly why it’s flawed and prove to me you can make them all fail. I think debunking the test with valid data/results is much more interesting than these unsubstantiated claims and demands that anyone who posts negative test results must prove their identity. Maybe stick to actually testing scopes and show us some results. Yeah I get you can test various things in a lab with fancy equipment, so tell us how you test RTZ and durability after a little abuse? Telling me you hunted with a scope and it worked well doesn’t do much for me. I do happen to have 20 years of employment in a scientific field, so I’m partial to details regarding how you tested it and the subsequent results rather than conjecture.

I guess what I’m saying is that if you’re going to discount the results from this test, please detail an alternative test that you think proves a scopes capability to retain zero under some mild field-like use and I will test my scopes in that manner and post the results. Until then, it’s just a bunch of keyboard warriors debating asinine shit while their moms make them some meatloaf. At least that’s where I’m at with this. Less words, more details on tests and results. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Getting back on topic regarding drop tests, I took my hunting rifle to the range over the weekend. Shot a 3 round group at 100, then decided to drop test it a total of 4 times, two on the left side and two on the right side and test it at 100 yds again.

Note: I completely dissembled the rifle a few weeks ago, gave it a light cleaning, and installed a pic rail for my new Atlas Cal bipod. So forgive the one flyer in the first group. Once the first shot was out of the way it grouped exactly as I had left it.

Rifle is a Tikka T3, 300 wsm, Benchmark barrel (around a 2b contour or something, slimmer profile but a little thicker than Tikka Sporter barrels). Factory stock, mountain tactical rail, seekins rings, and scope is a Bushnell LRTS 4.5-18. I used blue loctite and a Wheeler fat wrench to install. Handload ammo used (4831sc, CCI 250 primers, Nosler brass 2x fired, 212 eldx jumped .095).
When I saw that you had a LRTS I knew it would survive the drop test 🤣🤣🤣. If you don’t mind the extra little bit of weight, it’s one of the best FFP hunting scope for us commoners.

[edit] and yes. The LRTS is superior to the LHT HD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dobermann
The only question I have left is that if some folks (Ilya included) claim that the drop test is flawed and you can make any scope fail with a similar test, tell us exactly why it’s flawed and prove to me you can make them all fail. I think debunking the test with valid data/results is much more interesting than these unsubstantiated claims and demands that anyone who posts negative test results must prove their identity. Maybe stick to actually testing scopes and show us some results. Yeah I get you can test various things in a lab with fancy equipment, so tell us how you test RTZ and durability after a little abuse? Telling me you hunted with a scope and it worked well doesn’t do much for me. I do happen to have 20 years of employment in a scientific field, so I’m partial to details regarding how you tested it and the subsequent results rather than conjecture.

I guess what I’m saying is that if you’re going to discount the results from this test, please detail an alternative test that you think proves a scopes capability to retain zero under some mild field-like use and I will test my scopes in that manner and post the results. Until then, it’s just a bunch of keyboard warriors debating asinine shit while their moms make them some meatloaf. At least that’s where I’m at with this. Less words, more details on tests and results. Thanks.
You won’t get a response to this, except for maybe a “trust the science” bs.

Dudes have too much invested in their “next best thing” scopes to face reality. It’s called denial.

Does anyone really expect an individual, any individual, that is connected to certain manufacturers to shit where they eat?
 
You won’t get a response to this, except for maybe a “trust the science” bs.

Dudes have too much invested in their “next best thing” scopes to face reality. It’s called denial.

Does anyone really expect an individual, any individual, that is connected to certain manufacturers to shit where they eat?
Oh I knew it wasn’t going to be well received and likely get few, if any, meaningful responses.
Based on some of the responses in this thread, it’s very apparent why Frank decided to quit posting the results of his scope tests.
I get that dropping a scope that’s attached to a rifle adds multiple layers of uncertainty. Scope rings, bases, rifle/stock interface, etc. It’s by no means perfect, I get it. Short of banging the scope with a rubber hammer, how else can the lay person test RTZ/zero retention in a somewhat controlled field-use style test? Even whacking it with a rubber hammer would cause people to blame the rings or bases. Easy to find flaws, but thus far seems tough for anyone to intelligently describe a detailed testing methodology that satisfies everyone.
Comments like “I know how Vortex tests their scopes but I’m not going to tell you knuckle dragging morons how it’s done” or “I used it on a hunt and abused but it continues to work great”. Very defensive, but all of it conjecture unless backed by details on how tests are conducted and results posted.
 
Oh I knew it wasn’t going to be well received and likely get few, if any, meaningful responses.
Based on some of the responses in this thread, it’s very apparent why Frank decided to quit posting the results of his scope tests.
I get that dropping a scope that’s attached to a rifle adds multiple layers of uncertainty. Scope rings, bases, rifle/stock interface, etc. It’s by no means perfect, I get it. Short of banging the scope with a rubber hammer, how else can the lay person test RTZ/zero retention in a somewhat controlled field-use style test? Even whacking it with a rubber hammer would cause people to blame the rings or bases. Easy to find flaws, but thus far seems tough for anyone to intelligently describe a detailed testing methodology that satisfies everyone.
Comments like “I know how Vortex tests their scopes but I’m not going to tell you knuckle dragging morons how it’s done” or “I used it on a hunt and abused but it continues to work great”. Very defensive, but all of it conjecture unless backed by details on how tests are conducted and results posted.
Another thing that these “pros” fail to address, is the fact that the mil spec nxs, and ATACR have not failed the same test. Even when done over and over. It’s hard to ignore patterns...

Just wait until a ZCO is tested. Heads might explode.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jafo96
Oh I knew it wasn’t going to be well received and likely get few, if any, meaningful responses.
Based on some of the responses in this thread, it’s very apparent why Frank decided to quit posting the results of his scope tests.
I get that dropping a scope that’s attached to a rifle adds multiple layers of uncertainty. Scope rings, bases, rifle/stock interface, etc. It’s by no means perfect, I get it. Short of banging the scope with a rubber hammer, how else can the lay person test RTZ/zero retention in a somewhat controlled field-use style test? Even whacking it with a rubber hammer would cause people to blame the rings or bases. Easy to find flaws, but thus far seems tough for anyone to intelligently describe a detailed testing methodology that satisfies everyone.
Comments like “I know how Vortex tests their scopes but I’m not going to tell you knuckle dragging morons how it’s done” or “I used it on a hunt and abused but it continues to work great”. Very defensive, but all of it conjecture unless backed by details on how tests are conducted and results posted.
Truthfully others have said similar things that you stated and there have already been plenty of responses, it seems to be pretty much hashed out where everyone stands on the issue/original tester at this point, no reason to keep going around the mulberry bush until there is some movement or more information arises.

On a side not, I like your set up and I put one of those scopes on my Fathers' Ar10 that I bought from here recently, it's a really sweet scope!
 
6FC600FD-3D23-4C61-8194-24E84A672BC8.jpeg


Interesting.

 
Last edited:
This reads like a CNN article.

The guy is meticulous about his mounting process, use Nightforce rings for these tests and his rail is permanently bonded to the action.
Also, what would you expect them to say?
I’m not sure. Thought it was interesting if true. I have no way to validate it. Just like a sample doesn’t represent the entire lineup. You people crack me up. Spend days talking about shooting the messenger then post shit like this lol.


TLDR passing the OEM vortex test means nothing unless its the same test.

Ive never heard of an OEM doing lateral / orthogonal to line of sight impact testing.

Probably why so many scopes fail...
You did read it tho so…

All of it is irrelevant less someone has proof that LHTs failing is a widespread issue. But i think it’s interesting if true. If that scope got sent back to vortex and tracked with in spec then it doesn’t sound like the optical system is broken to me.

I’m curious to hear and see more results though.
 
I just "read" this as people who are unsophisticated in corporate doublespeak.
 
I’m not sure. Thought it was interesting if true. I have no way to validate it. Just like a sample doesn’t represent the entire lineup. You people crack me up. Spend days talking about shooting the messenger then post shit like this lol.
It was a rebuttal to vortex's statement. I didn't attack anyone.
 
This reads like a CNN article.

The guy is meticulous about his mounting process, use Nightforce rings for these tests and his rail is permanently bonded to the action.
Also, what would you expect them to say?
It just brings us back to this reality, the guy allegedly did the things you mentioned. Also, the person allegedly asked vortex and vortex allegedly tested the scope like was posted. I'm not necessarily discrediting either of these, but it reiterates this point, that all this is just people posting behind screen names and on forums. Which is fine, but the tester needs much better documentation to be believed then just saying believe me because I post on a forum. Vortex could be blowing smoke, the tester could be as well, but to me all of this is a wash until something more documented is put together. At that time, if it's shifting zero (and that from multiple sample sizes) I'll sell mine and go another direction. No problem at all. Just my thoughts.
 
Last edited:
It was a rebuttal to vortex's statement. I didn't attack anyone.
It reads like a CNN article for a forum post which is the very topic of all 4 pages of this thread is a little far fetched. Dude says what vortex told him after he inquired about the incident. He can’t be right, that’s fake news. But another random guy who likes to throw scopes in the snow is taken as gospel. That’s my point.

But regardless i want to see what happens. See if the LHT pans out. Or if it really is a lemon. I own an LHT and do have wondering zeros but my chamber has also been fucked from the get go. So I’m curious.
 
I just brings us back to this reality, the guy allegedly did the things you mentioned. Also, the person allegedly asked vortex and vortex allegedly tested the scope like was posted. I'm not necessarily discrediting either of these, but it reiterates this point, that all this is just people posting behind screen names and on forums. Which is fine, but the tester needs much better documentation to be believed then just saying believe me because I post on a forum. Vortex could be blowing smoke, the tester could be as well, but to me all of this is a wash until something more documented is put together. At that time, if it's shifting zero (and that from multiple sample sizes) I'll sell mine and go another direction. No problem at all. Just my thoughts.
This is totally fair and I'd encourage you to look at some of his more recent tests. He's doing a lot better at documenting the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDB55 and 5RWill
For anyone too slow to read it, that is not the actual Rokslide OP (scope tester) reporting back from Vortex.

That is som random 3rd party calling corporat HQ and being fed a line of BS, then going to multiple non Rokslide forums to "spread the word"

Nothing new in this CNN grade PR response is new information or verified in any way.
 
For anyone too slow to read it, that is not the actual Rokslide OP (scope tester) reporting back from Vortex.

That is som random 3rd party calling corporat HQ and being fed a line of BS, then going to multiple non Rokslide forums to "spread the word"

Nothing new in this CNN grade PR response is new information or verified in any way.
Lol you're something else smith.

But yeah it's an LRH post I don't think anyone is mistaking it for Rokslide...but to go another tangent Frem is some random guy throwing rifles in the snow (no offense Frem, trying to illustrate a point is all) Do you really just despise Vortex so much that you associate them with the CNN of the scope industry?
 
I thought it was a 24hr campfire post tbh. I don’t recall Form ever saying it didn’t track, just that it lost zero. That’s why I’d like to know what Vortex actually means and what they found, if they were in fact contacted by this 3rd party.
 
Posted the link to the pic to get rid of the confusion. I want to dig into the faults of the test so to speak if there are any.

Back to vortex though. Just spit balling here. If they would lie to try and save face and the community found out about it, versus owning up to a faulty scope, which one is more beneficial? The former in my eyes would ruin their reputation, the latter makes the most sense from every standpoint trying to sell a consumer product. JMO.
 
Last edited:
Are people really surprised that Vortex products fail? Corporate isn’t going to go against their own interest. Of course it passed their test.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirtytough