No more Vortex for me

schott is selling to a lot of companies ...

ask why Saworvski bought Kahles ....

Why did Swarovski buy Kahles? ;) I have had a Swarovski hunting scope since 2008, and it's a fine optic sight. Oh, and my mistake: Schott is a separate company from Zeiss. Zeiss makes glass for themselves and others, Schott is just a glass company.

Depending on how old of a Monarch it will be Japan or the Philippines. Prostaff 7 are currently being produced in China. (I'm not sure why that one line is different, I will endeavor to find an answer.)

Thank you. I managed to read the bottom of my scope by reflecting light underneath: Nikon Monarch UCC on the objective bell. On the bottom 2-7x32, ser.# KA223702 ... it's made in Thailand. Well, it works and worked for the previous owner but the size and magnification is ideal on a combination gun.
 
Why did Swarovski buy Kahles? ;) I have had a Swarovski hunting scope since 2008, and it's a fine optic sight. Oh, and my mistake: Schott is a separate company from Zeiss. Zeiss makes glass for themselves and others, Schott is just a glass company.



Thank you. I managed to read the bottom of my scope by reflecting light underneath: Nikon Monarch UCC on the objective bell. On the bottom 2-7x32, ser.# KA223702 ... it's made in Thailand. Well, it works and worked for the previous owner but the size and magnification is ideal on a combination gun.

because Kahles was making their own lenses and swa needed to learn better treatment.
 
here is the answer from Nightforce:

Thank you for contacting Nightforce Optics.

A portion of our optics offerings are engraved as "Made in USA" and others are engraved as "Made in Japan." The reason for the different "Made in" designations is due to the country of origin of the primary core components of the optics. We have worked with a Japanese firm since our earliest days, as they have proven time and again to be industry leaders in optical design and manufacturing. It has always been Nightforce's goal to build the best optics in the world, and we know that our Japanese affiliates assist us in doing so. With that said, all final assembly and quality assurance testing is conducted in our factory in North Central Idaho.

Please let us know if you have any additional questions or concerns.

Best regards,



Technical Support, Customer Service
 
I meant as far as in over the counter replacement?

If you happen to live close to a Vortex dealer that has lots of stock on hand, and your exact model in stock at that moment, over the counter might have some value.
Odds are you are sending it off in the mail regardless of who's name is on the scope.
I've read enough reviews of their "awesome warranty" on here to never give them a cent, the failure rate for the Crossfire/Diamondbacks is extremely high compared to the reputable competition (Nikon/Leopold/Burris/Bushnell). Considering the market share they hold compared to Vortex you would expect the opposite.
 
And neither is the price tag. For razor hd money i will stick with more reputable brands.

Not meaning to be provocative but I have to ask; what brands do you have that you feel are better or more reputable than the Razor HD Gen II ? I have S+B Pmii and Nightforce that I compared side by side to the Razor HD Gen II and I tell you the Razor was better than the NF and gave up little, very little, to the S+B's. I say this as someone who has been highly critical of much of the Vortex range and as someone no rational person would call a 'fanboy' of the brand generally.
 
My favorite scope is an old Bausch & Lomb 1.5-6X that's been on my M700 .338WM forever. Hasn't changed zero in 25 years.

In fact, the only time it ever did lose zero, was when I left the damn rifle leaning in front of my ATV and it got slammed to the ground, when I drove over it!! Half and hour later, I realized I didn't have my rifle! Then I drove over it again(!!) (it's all black.. lying in the dirt...), when trying to find it. It was kind of a ####-show...

Anyway, that's the only time that scope has ever lost zero. 'Greatest of all scopes'..

But I've got 'a pile' of Leupold Vari-X III's that can also make that claim. I sighted them in eons ago, and they never lose zero.

Today I look at 2 brands, when buying scopes: #1: Leupold. #2: Bushnell, and I buy according to application.


Cannot comment on Vortex, Nikon etc, as I've never owned one.
 
My favorite scope is an old Bausch & Lomb 1.5-6X that's been on my M700 .338WM forever. Hasn't changed zero in 25 years.

In fact, the only time it ever did lose zero, was when I left the damn rifle leaning in front of my ATV and it got slammed to the ground, when I drove over it!! Half and hour later, I realized I didn't have my rifle! Then I drove over it again(!!) (it's all black.. lying in the dirt...), when trying to find it. It was kind of a ####-show...

Anyway, that's the only time that scope has ever lost zero. 'Greatest of all scopes'..

But I've got 'a pile' of Leupold Vari-X III's that can also make that claim. I sighted them in eons ago, and they never lose zero.

Today I look at 2 brands, when buying scopes: #1: Leupold. #2: Bushnell, and I buy according to application.


Cannot comment on Vortex, Nikon etc, as I've never owned one.

they did for a while the 4200 1.6-6x36 and this is a great one too.
 
Not meaning to be provocative but I have to ask; what brands do you have that you feel are better or more reputable than the Razor HD Gen II ? I have S+B Pmii and Nightforce that I compared side by side to the Razor HD Gen II and I tell you the Razor was better than the NF and gave up little, very little, to the S+B's. I say this as someone who has been highly critical of much of the Vortex range and as someone no rational person would call a 'fanboy' of the brand generally.

Glass clarity is great but nowhere near the most important feature. Reliable and consistent tracking is a must. For the price of a Razor HD you could have a Nightforce, USO, Swarovski, Zeiss, and some Kahles, S&B, or March optics. Most on that list have been used by a reputable military at some point and all have a excellent reputations. In my experience Vortex does not offer anything that isn't already offered by the other well known brands, so why take that chance??
 
In my experience Vortex does not offer anything that isn't already offered by the other well known brands, so why take that chance??

Ok... by that reasoning you had no reason to try a NF because S&B already offered everything NF did. There's a reason there's other optics companies out there. Each company builds new scopes and pushes the next to keep advancing their technology. Why shouldn't Vortex be allowed in the discussion?

If you want to talk features instead of glass quality, I'm pretty sure the Razor Gen II has just as many if not more features as NF (locking turrets?). I believe that Vortex Razor's track pretty dang good otherwise they would't be used by competition shooters.
 
There is a good long read here about vortex problems, and a guy that serms to know his ####.
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/9472657/all/Vortex_Scopes

First a brief reflection of how I and those I know/work with test and why most don't even know their scopes aren't working.

Most mount a scope, bore sight, fire 1-3 rounds, adjust, fire 1-3 rounds and if the bullets are somewhere near their "zero" (usually 1-3 inches high at 100 yds), then they say the are done. If the scope seemed like it adjusted the bullets close to the desired amount they state that the scope works fine. Really the only thing they care about is staring at and bragging about the "glass".

There are several problems with this.

1) The most important is that just about every name scope has glass that is more than sufficient to see with and kill under just about any legal light. "Glass" is just about last on the list of importance for almost any use. Doesn't matter if it's long range shooting or hunting in the timber with a lever gun. You are far more likely to miss or wound an animal because the sighting device lost zero or adjusted incorrectly than you are because you couldn't see it to shoot.


2) 3 round "groups" are completely and totally insufficient to determine where any one shot will land. There is no- "hunting rifle", "1st shot from cold bore", "only the first shot matters"- nonsense. ALL guns fire in a cone. This is a fact. The purpose if zeroing is to move the center of the cone to point of aim (POA). It takes a certain number of shots to adequately determine where the center of the cone is. If you have a rifle that generally produces 3 shot "groups" of around 1 MOA, than you really have a gun that is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 MOA for the cone. This is important to understand as those three shots are almost meaningless and has a high likely good of being farthest from the center, rather than closest (there is more to it than that). That means that when you think you are zeroed, you can be almost 2 MOA off from actual ZERO. This alone should make it fairly obvious that doing the above will never allow one to see point of impact (POI) shifts of .5 to 1 MOA. Let alone knowing what size target we can hit, or if the scope is adjusting correctly.






3) Adjustments of a few MOA shows nothing of a scopes correct functioning. Lots of scopes have dead spots, shifts, under adjustments, over adjustments, flat spots, backlash, failure to return to zero, etc., anywhere throughout the adjustment range. Only tall target tests, with frequent POI measurement will show this. Adjustments of 30 plus MOA/10 mils with POI measuerd at least every 4-5 MOA/1 mil is needed. Now there will be plenty claiming that they don't shoot far enough for it to matter, however that's not the point. Any of the above conditions point to mechanical problems and a high likelihood of future problems that are much more severe.

Scopes don't get "better" with use. Any scope that exhibits the above issues is broke and will only get worse. Again most will say that none of that matters for none turret twisters... that is flat out wrong. For instance- a regular hunting scope say even a fixed 4x that will never be dialed, has dead spots, shifts and backlash. Doesn't matter once the scope is zeroed, right? Wrong. Those conditions are a sign of a faulty erector system, an erector system that is designed to be stable and in correct function in order to maintain zero. All else being equal that scope will have a measurably shorter life and a way higher probability of failing at any time.



This is a scope that was never dialed. There are plenty of really good three shot groups in both targets, and they even overlap somewhat. Firing just 3 rounds may have not shown the shift. Or it could have been attributed to any number of other factors.






Here is the exact same scope a year later after being totally remounted and a trip to Afghanistan with no abuse other than normal use, being zeroed before a major match.





Exactly one day later after going down in the middle of a LR stage




Top " group" was shot first, followed by the bottom with no adjustments made. Notice the two rounds right of the dot were fired first, then it shifted and the third is the one on the edge of the cardboard.



This can and does happen to hunting scopes ALL THE TIME. But most don't see it because of several reason i get to below and those above.




4) "Zeroing". The only way to have a true zero- that is the center of the cone overlapping the point of aim..... Is to have the center of the cone overlapping the point of aim. You do not have a zero if your gun is sighted in 2 inches high at 100. Or you do, but you have no knowledge of where that zero actually is. You may think it's close, and it may be to some uncertain point down range, but unless you fire enough shots to determine POI at THAT SPECIFIC range and have the POI match exactly the POA, you are guessing that it is zeroed. You do not know.



This-




And this-





Is NOT zeroed.



This-

(Sorry about the finger. Smack talk knows no bounds... grin).




And this-

(POA was the tip of the diamond)



Is zeroed. Both are 10 round groups and both are centered over the point of aim to the mechanical limit of the adjustments. Any zero shift will be immediately apparent.


5) Constant tinkering and changing ammo. It is impossible to determine stability in the scope if you change ammo, lots, or makes. Most are constantly tinkering with "loads" and therefor can have no idea whether the zero shifted.





How the zeroing process should go-


1) Choose scopes based on mechanical function first. Reliability and durability mean more than every other attribute.

2) Mount properly with a ring and base system proven to be extremely stable and durable.

3) Zero with 10 round groups at a minimum, insuring that you have 100% point of aim, point of impact.

4) Conduct a tall target test to show any erector flaws.

5) Ensure that what the ammo that was initially used to zero is used to check zero every single time it is shot. Same make, same brand, same lot. If hand loads are used then have enough left over to check long term.

5) Give absolutely no excuse for zero shifts, "fliers", or any hiccups with the scope. Any shift in POI/POA is a failure, even the first time, and WILL HAPPEN again.


Bottom line is that of my bullets aren't going to crosshair intersection, I do not fire enough rounds to determine both the center of the group and mechanically what size target those rounds will hit, and I do not test mechanical function, I have no idea if the scope is working, no clue or advance knowledge of potential problems, no idea whether it will even hold zero, and no idea whether a missed shot or wound was me or my equipment failing.

Although I rarely go through the lengths shown heretofore, I recently worked with a Rem 700 XCR-II with a Viper PST mounted. I was to get it ready for an elk hunt for a guy that needed to shoot across a canyon. He really only needed 500 yards but has bad eyes and needed every advantage he could get. The gun gave me fits. I would get an occasional good group but nothing consistent and I would have unexplained fliers. I finally pulled the NEW PST off and put a Leuplod VX3 LR on it. Groups were now small and consistent and repeatable. He used my scope for his hunt and sent his back.

I have it back now to re-install his scope and see what happens. I thought it was sharp, nice adjustments and adequate eye relief. It just wouldn't hold any zero and who knows how the turrets were reacting. I never made it past 200 yards as it shot terrible at 200.

I am not impressed with anything Vortex save their great warranty. They are another company with mediocre optics and a great warranty.
The interesting thing to me about vortex is how they have taken the hunting optics world by storm. they have somehow got themselves into nearly every sporting goods store. They have also convinced the tactical community that some problems with scopes are ok.
 
Glass clarity is great but nowhere near the most important feature. Reliable and consistent tracking is a must. For the price of a Razor HD you could have a Nightforce, USO, Swarovski, Zeiss, and some Kahles, S&B, or March optics. Most on that list have been used by a reputable military at some point and all have a excellent reputations. In my experience Vortex does not offer anything that isn't already offered by the other well known brands, so why take that chance??

I am using the Razor H D Gen 2 1-6 right now and very happy with it, Although my first choice was either Swarov or Khales, but the price difference is around $ 1,100 to 1,300.00. My only complaint og the Razor is the weight, its 7-9 0z compared to the Khales/ Swarov
 
Glass clarity is great but nowhere near the most important feature. Reliable and consistent tracking is a must. For the price of a Razor HD you could have a Nightforce, USO, Swarovski, Zeiss, and some Kahles, S&B, or March optics. Most on that list have been used by a reputable military at some point and all have a excellent reputations. In my experience Vortex does not offer anything that isn't already offered by the other well known brands, so why take that chance??

You're assuming people only buy scopes for long range target shooting. Tracking matters little to someone like the OP who's shooting a 375 Ruger hunting rifle, or myself, who leaves the windage and elevation untouched once a load is sighted in. I care more about clarity and durability, as the best hunting is often at low light. I don't give a rat's a$$ how it "tracks".
 
Ok... by that reasoning you had no reason to try a NF because S&B already offered everything NF did. There's a reason there's other optics companies out there. Each company builds new scopes and pushes the next to keep advancing their technology. Why shouldn't Vortex be allowed in the discussion?

If you want to talk features instead of glass quality, I'm pretty sure the Razor Gen II has just as many if not more features as NF (locking turrets?). I believe that Vortex Razor's track pretty dang good otherwise they would't be used by competition shooters.

Not all scopes are offered in all configurations by all manufacturers. Etched reticles, FFP reticles, specific reticles, illuminated reticles, fixed parallax or adjustable, fast focus eye piece, eye relief, eye box, 30mm/34mm main tube, magnification ring or magnification occular, weight, length, finish, adjustment values, exposed turrets, capped turrets, and zero stop are some features to think about. These are all features that may or may not be available from one manufacturer to the next. Locking turrets are a simple feature and have been around for quite some time but they don't effect performance and are simply "nice to have". Vortex hasn't mastered the ability to offer an optic that doesn't fail on an alarmingly regular basis. If you can't offer an optic that achieves the basics then it's a pretty safe bet they aren't offering anything advanced. Can't run before you walk.

The Razor II series appears to be a solid optic, again for the price they command it had better be. That sticker price also opens the doors to other brands with a much longer and more reputable track record. I don't see the logic in taking a risk on a brand that has been around for less than ten years with the record it has for failures.

I am using the Razor H D Gen 2 1-6 right now and very happy with it, Although my first choice was either Swarov or Khales, but the price difference is around $ 1,100 to 1,300.00. My only complaint og the Razor is the weight, its 7-9 0z compared to the Khales/ Swarov

I'm glad you're happy with it.

You're assuming people only buy scopes for long range target shooting. Tracking matters little to someone like the OP who's shooting a 375 Ruger hunting rifle, or myself, who leaves the windage and elevation untouched once a load is sighted in. I care more about clarity and durability, as the best hunting is often at low light. I don't give a rat's a$$ how it "tracks".

I am not assuming anything. If you read the post above by Hitzy you'd see that accurate and consistent tracking is not just for the long range shooter, it's essential for anyone who wishes to have an optic that works properly. Durability includes consistent and accurate tracking of the turrets. The lack of understanding about what is and is not important in an optic is what many companies prey on to make sales. Vortex, Bushnell, Simmons, Tasco, TruGlo, BSA, Barska, to name a few all like to rave about glass clarity or other features like lens coatings, dry purged tubes etc etc. Most of what they mention is standard practice(at its base form) for any optic. Bushnell has an ad on Wild TV that talks about their incredible light transmission due to great glass and special lens coatings. What they don't tell you is that the light transmission value is for a single lens, not all lenses in the optic(total light transmission). Schmidt and Bender has the highest rated scope in the world at 96% total light transmission.
 
You will be quite happy with vortex.

No, I wouldn't buy Vortex. I prefer Zeiss, Swarovski and Leupold, in that order. For entry level, I like Redfield's Revolution. I've had a few S&B, and we have(had?) some of the best prices in the world on them here in Canada, but for a hunting scope they're a little portly for my liking.

I am not assuming anything. If you read the post above by Hitzy you'd see that accurate and consistent tracking is not just for the long range shooter, it's essential for anyone who wishes to have an optic that works properly. Durability includes consistent and accurate tracking of the turrets. The lack of understanding about what is and is not important in an optic is what many companies prey on to make sales. Vortex, Bushnell, Simmons, Tasco, TruGlo, BSA, Barska, to name a few all like to rave about glass clarity or other features like lens coatings, dry purged tubes etc etc. Most of what they mention is standard practice(at its base form) for any optic. Bushnell has an ad on Wild TV that talks about their incredible light transmission due to great glass and special lens coatings. What they don't tell you is that the light transmission value is for a single lens, not all lenses in the optic(total light transmission). Schmidt and Bender has the highest rated scope in the world at 96% total light transmission.

My understanding of optics is quite adequate. I'll still take a Zeiss Victory over a Sightron S3 any day of the week, even if the latter "tracks" better.
 
Last edited:
Glass clarity is great but nowhere near the most important feature. Reliable and consistent tracking is a must. For the price of a Razor HD you could have a Nightforce, USO, Swarovski, Zeiss, and some Kahles, S&B, or March optics. Most on that list have been used by a reputable military at some point and all have a excellent reputations. In my experience Vortex does not offer anything that isn't already offered by the other well known brands, so why take that chance??

You are correct - for the price of the Razor II I could have purchased other brands. What you may not have clearly understood is this: At the time I bought my Razor I owned S+B Pmii, NF NXS, NF BR, NF Comp, Leupold Mk4, Sightron Siii and Bushnell Tactical and one Vortex product - the PST. Also, I was never a 'fan' of Vortex but decided after a lot of research to see what all the fuss amongst the PRS folks was all about. Finally, I have spent a lot of time behind some nice glass and have reviewed (for example) both of Tangent Theta (5-25x56) and March (8-80x56) as well as all the brands I own so you think I might actually know that "Glass clarity is great but nowhere near the most important feature" ? When I say the Razor is top drawer I've gone thru the steps I go thru with all my scopes.

I don't know why it is so hard for some people to understand why this admitted S+B 'fan' could actually be so impressed with a Razor - just because it doesn't fit the narrative of the optics snobs should I have written a poor review of the upstart with the temerity to price itself amongst the 'established' scopes? I'm old enough to recall two things in the optics World; the days when Leupold was the very best and the days when a new kid on the block was called Nightforce which goes to show that as far as scopes go nuthin' stays the same.
 
Back
Top Bottom