Vortex Razor AMG UH-1 - Page 16

AR-15 » Optics, Mounts, and Sights

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Vortex Razor AMG UH-1 (Page 16 of 20)

Posted: 7/1/2017 9:38:02 AM EDT

[#1]

My guess is they chose polycarbonate because its shatter proof. The hardcoats on polycarbonate are much better than they were several years ago. And most polycarbonate is UV stabilized, which means it can tolerate the sun well.

Polycarbonate is actually more exspensive to use than glass. I have experience with polycarbonate. The additional steps involved with cutting, cleaning, and mounting make polycarbonate very expensive to use.

Because the windows are used in transmission, they have little impact on the reticle.

I think people should support Vortex in their effort to compete with a multi-billion dollar (Lehman Brothers and company) L3 Eotech.

Who is L3 Eotech

Vortex is "American owned, veteran owned, family owned etc..." company!

L3 Eotech is questionably American. Read the lawsuit. They trivialized the safety of soldiers in Afghanistan. Whistle blowers shared the emails with the government!

Eotech Lawsuit

I'm pro Vortex. These guys are a solid and honest company.

Posted: 7/1/2017 10:17:58 AM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:
I'm pro Vortex. These guys are a solid and honest company.

View Quote

I'm very pro-Vortex, too. I really like what I've read and seen of the company. But, not to the point of buying something that doesn't suit me.

I was marginal on the UH-1 from the start, for three reasons: 1. Cost, 2. Size, 3. Lower-1/3 co-witness. Then came the shipping delays. Then came people getting theirs before others who'd had them on-order for six months or more. Then came the reports of reticle intensity sensitivity. Then dust and debris inside the optic. Then the "revelation" the windows were polycarbonate. All kinds of "nope" there.

I would have happily considered a Vortex RDS, instead, except they don't have one with a circle-dot reticle.

So now I've got a Holosun HS503GU on an ADM QD mount to hold me over until something better, that suits my desires, comes along. If ever. *shrug* If I continue to find it suitable before something better comes along, I'll repeat the purchase for my 15-22.

Posted: 7/1/2017 10:20:41 AM EDT

[#3]

holy smokes, I'm way behind the power curve on these

I like the reticle design and price, 5.56 out of potential 7.62, will buy

Posted: 7/1/2017 10:35:49 AM EDT

[#4]

This is a discussion forum. So we discuss things. No one should make a decision to buy or not buy based on what they read here. There simply isn't enough to make a determination yet. Try one if you're interested and return it if you don't like it.

There are improvements that can be made imo. I'm sure vortex would agree. But if no one says anything, how will they get user feedback?

I'm rooting for vortex as well. To me, they are a good company. I like to see good companies do well. Any criticism I have pointed out is meant to be constructive and again because this is a discussion forum. It's not nitpicking for the sake of it.

Posted: 7/1/2017 10:48:36 AM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:

. Then came the shipping delays. Then came people getting theirs before others who'd had them on-order for six months or more.

View Quote

Just curious about these 2 points. I agree about the shipping delay. I had ordered mine right after it was announced. I had spoken with a rep at vortex about 2 months ago and I was told they wanted to make sure it was right before it was released. So I can respect that. Showing a product before its ready it why Magpul really does not show you anything spectacular anymore until its ready for production because dates are missed and things never work as planned. I'm not going to hammer a company because they miss deadlines especially if they are not taking peoples money ahead of time.

AS far people getting theirs before others who had them on order. Maybe you should see who you are ordering them from. I have ordered things from Optics Planet they just take your money and months go by and nothing then I check out some of the smaller shops online and they have it. I work in the supplying of general goods to dealers. I'm going to go out on a limb and say most MFG's work the same way when delivering product. Here is my example on how it works for us.

If a company is supplying us with product to deliver to a bunch of different dealers. We can have a company like walmart, Target, Sams, place an order for 20,000 units each, and we have another 25 smaller mom and pop shops place an order for 100 units each. When the MFG sends us a 1000 units to distribute. We could send all 1000 to walmart and screw everybody else over or we can take those 1000 units and send a few to those mom an pop shops first then when more product arrives we start filling the larger orders. Since those stores could take all the product for ever and no little shops would ever have it.

I'm going to assume Vortex does something similar since you have all the giants like Bass Pro, Cabellas, Optics Planet that could in theory place large enough orders that no smaller dealers would ever get products for a long time. I'm guessing this is why my local shop received 2 or 3 of the UH-1's and I grabbed one from them and CXL my order from OP. Just my .02

Posted: 7/1/2017 11:38:33 AM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:
Just curious about these 2 points. I agree about the shipping delay.
[snip]
AS far people getting theirs before others who had them on order. Maybe you should see who you are ordering them from.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
. Then came the shipping delays. Then came people getting theirs before others who'd had them on-order for six months or more.

Just curious about these 2 points. I agree about the shipping delay.
[snip]
AS far people getting theirs before others who had them on order. Maybe you should see who you are ordering them from.

In my case: Yes. And I'll think thrice before ordering from Optics Planet again, but, some people had ordered direct from Vortex, and are still waiting.

That being said: I don't want to beat on that one point. That, for me, was just one straw, and far from a major one. I was actually resigned to waiting until August or whatever, for a while, there.

Posted: 7/1/2017 11:58:25 AM EDT

[#7]

Just got mine in from 3 Rivers Precision and I like it so far.

I cranked it all the way up and actually have to look for the three blooming reticles.

I found that while shining a weapon light up against a white wall I didn't even need that highest power setting anyway.

I'm probably going to get out to the range this week and shoot it, I also took it outside and back inside and I didn't find any need to readjust the brightness no matter where I looked.

I have an astigmatism and with my prescription on the dot looks fine just as well as Eotech always did for me.

I just wanted this on one of my rifles to change things up a little bit as with my prescription eyesight everything I own is pretty much scoped with LPV's and higher powered optics these days.

Posted: 7/1/2017 1:48:31 PM EDT

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:
My guess is they chose polycarbonate because its shatter proof. The hardcoats on polycarbonate are much better than they were several years ago. And most polycarbonate is UV stabilized, which means it can tolerate the sun well.

Polycarbonate is actually more exspensive to use than glass. I have experience with polycarbonate. The additional steps involved with cutting, cleaning, and mounting make polycarbonate very expensive to use.

View Quote

Not sure what type of work you do with polycarbonate but none of the above is true. I guess if you compare a abrasion resistant coating from 15 years ago until today, it is a lot better. Fortunately, most people don't clean their optic lenses like they do their eyeglass lenses. Not all PC has UV inhibitors in it, most doesn't. We have no idea what grade of PC they used in these lenses. For all we know, they went super cheap. No way Vortex coated these lenses like sam said. It was all outsourced. With all that said, my PC eyeglass lenses have served me well over the years but I highly doubt Vortex used the same quality PC lenses that are in my glasses. My guess is that they used a standard SL grade AR PC.

Posted: 7/2/2017 11:16:28 AM EDT

[#9]

I respectfully disagree. My experience is engineering military specification mobile devices.

Glass is much much much easier to work with. Especially for their application.
Cost drivers for PC are in the assembly process. PC requires superior surface preparation, handling, special epoxies, and long cure times (among other things).

The coating market, for PC, has continued to develop new coatings that try to achieve "near glass" scratch resistance. A google search finds many. The need for PC windows with near glass qualities is huge, especially in aircrafts.

I don't see anything from vortex about UV stability. But to be honest, they give a lifetime warranty. I'm sure they used a UV stable product. Actually, the lifetime warranty eliminates this type of risk.

I tested the wavefront, of my UH-1, with a Michelson interferometer and the PC is extremely flat. I've tested acrylics, PC's, and lots of glass in my work. The flatness of the Vortex PC is better than some float glass.

I'm not trying to talk anyone "into" polycarbonate. Just trying to share my experience.

Just to point out, my Eotech is completely plastic. The battery cap isn't even painted. Seems kind of cheap compared to the UH-1 / MRO.

Posted: 7/2/2017 1:10:49 PM EDT

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:
I respectfully disagree. My experience is engineering military specification mobile devices.

Glass is much much much easier to work with. Especially for their application.
Cost drivers for PC are in the assembly process. PC requires superior surface preparation, handling, special epoxies, and long cure times (among other things).

The coating market, for PC, has continued to develop new coatings that try to achieve "near glass" scratch resistance. A google search finds many. The need for PC windows with near glass qualities is huge, especially in aircrafts.

I don't see anything from vortex about UV stability. But to be honest, they give a lifetime warranty. I'm sure they used a UV stable product. Actually, the lifetime warranty eliminates this type of risk.

I tested the wavefront, of my UH-1, with a Michelson interferometer and the PC is extremely flat. I've tested acrylics, PC's, and lots of glass in my work. The flatness of the Vortex PC is better than some float glass.

I'm not trying to talk anyone "into" polycarbonate. Just trying to share my experience.

Just to point out, my Eotech is completely plastic. The battery cap isn't even painted. Seems kind of cheap compared to the UH-1 / MRO.

View Quote

Thanks for posting your testing. I agree that if your lenses yellow from uv or anything vortex will take care of it. As long as their still around of course. But yeah that is a big plus. I hope someone does a hardness/durability test on the coatings at some point.

The eotech exps2 I had had glass lenses. Unless you mean the body which is plastic with an aluminum shroud. I haven't heard of issues with newer versions of eotech plastic housings cracking though, it's pretty hard stuff. That said the all aluminum uh1 feels much more solid and I do like that

Posted: 7/2/2017 2:43:43 PM EDT

[#11]

RANGE REPORT: Went to the range this weekend, put a hundred or so rounds through it after preliminary zero.

This optic is as fast as eotechs, no doubt about it.

I am brightness setting 11 and havent found an indoor setting where this optic hasn't performed to my expectations.

Having a the holdover dot at the bottom of the reticle is pretty great.

This is a quality optic, and despite some minor hiccups aside(figuring out brightness, particulate in optic) I am happy with the amount that I paid for it.

Posted: 7/2/2017 3:26:55 PM EDT

[#12]

Would be very interesting if someone with a UH-1 in hand did the parallax testing from this thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/714950_Red-Dot-Parallax-Test-Results.html&page=2 to see if the UH-1 is also as parallax-resistant as the EOTechs seem to be.

Posted: 7/2/2017 3:48:11 PM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:
RANGE REPORT: Went to the range this weekend, put a hundred or so rounds through it after preliminary zero.

This optic is as fast as eotechs, no doubt about it.

I am brightness setting 11 and havent found an indoor setting where this optic hasn't performed to my expectations.

Having a the holdover dot at the bottom of the reticle is pretty great.

This is a quality optic, and despite some minor hiccups aside(figuring out brightness, particulate in optic) I am happy with the amount that I paid for it.

View Quote

Great to hear! What distances were you shooting at? Sounds like it held zero. Did you happen to test the repeatability of the mount?

Posted: 7/2/2017 5:12:05 PM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:
Would be very interesting if someone with a UH-1 in hand did the parallax testing from this thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/714950_Red-Dot-Parallax-Test-Results.html&page=2 to see if the UH-1 is also as parallax-resistant as the EOTechs seem to be.

View Quote

Why waste your time in an unscientific test? People get mad at me for saying that but the truth can be unpopular.

Posted: 7/2/2017 6:46:42 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:

Why waste your time in an unscientific test? People get mad at me for saying that but the truth can be unpopular.

View Quote

I'll do a test with an instrument in which I have high confidence: The seat of my own pants. If I can hit what I'm aiming at, including running hogs from a helecopter, I'll be very happy. Isn't consistently hitting the target the point, anyway? I do enjoy the technical discussion and enjoy hearing about the minutia, but at the end of the day, I want to shoot with it and see how it shoots and feels.

For all the issues with Eotech, it did the job on Bin Ladin and many others. I'm hopeful this will be an even better unit than theirs. I was actually very happy with the way my Eotech performed and often regret returning it. Thanks to Vortex, I may have one that's better and be money ahead, at the same time. The warranty and service they provide is just gravy.

Posted: 7/2/2017 9:35:51 PM EDT

[#16]

Vortex said my sight had a variance in it that caused the multiple reticles to be more pronounced. They offered to replace with another unit with less pronounced multiple reticles but stated the multiple reticles was "normal". However they are working to completely eliminate the multiple reticles. Said they would exchange the new sight when they got that worked out. I just opted for a refund with intent to buy later when multiple reticles is no longer and issue.

Posted: 7/2/2017 10:44:12 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
I respectfully disagree. My experience is engineering military specification mobile devices.

Glass is much much much easier to work with. Especially for their application.
Cost drivers for PC are in the assembly process. PC requires superior surface preparation, handling, special epoxies, and long cure times (among other things).

The coating market, for PC, has continued to develop new coatings that try to achieve "near glass" scratch resistance. A google search finds many. The need for PC windows with near glass qualities is huge, especially in aircrafts.

I don't see anything from vortex about UV stability. But to be honest, they give a lifetime warranty. I'm sure they used a UV stable product. Actually, the lifetime warranty eliminates this type of risk.

I tested the wavefront, of my UH-1, with a Michelson interferometer and the PC is extremely flat. I've tested acrylics, PC's, and lots of glass in my work. The flatness of the Vortex PC is better than some float glass.

I'm not trying to talk anyone "into" polycarbonate. Just trying to share my experience.

Just to point out, my Eotech is completely plastic. The battery cap isn't even painted. Seems kind of cheap compared to the UH-1 / MRO.

View Quote

I sell a ton (and I mean tons) of polycarbonate into the military/ personal aircraft sector. They only use polycarbonate for one reason, it's strength. If you truly "work" with polycarbonate in this sector, you would know that that polycarbonate does not come close to the clarity of glass. You would also know that nearly 55% of the polycarbonate that gets sold into this sector gets rejected because of the clarity issues.

I find that very hard to believe how flat you found this polycarbonate lens to be compared to glass especially with the abrasion resistant coating. What's the chance you can post a pic of you testing the flatness of this lens with your Michelson interferometer?

With all that said, polymers are outstanding for making products. I have a few different handguns with polymer frames and they perform great. I'm not saying it's the PC lens that is causing any of the issues. There is/ was just a lot of BS being tossed around about PC in this thread that was simply not true.

Posted: 7/3/2017 9:14:42 AM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
Vortex said my sight had a variance in it that caused the multiple reticles to be more pronounced. They offered to replace with another unit with less pronounced multiple reticles but stated the multiple reticles was "normal". However they are working to completely eliminate the multiple reticles. Said they would exchange the new sight when they got that worked out. I just opted for a refund with intent to buy later when multiple reticles is no longer and issue.

View Quote

Can you take a picture of the multiple reticle?

I have an astigmatism so when I don't wear my glasses I get two reticles, but with glasses Its crystal clear and I only see one. Happens to me with Red Dots as well. As they say the camera does not lie.

Thanks RS

Posted: 7/3/2017 10:32:39 AM EDT

[#19]

I agree. The transmission of PC is less than glass and the only real reason to chose it is for its strength.
I'll take a few pictures of the interferometer test next week.

It's funny though, I haven't heard people talk about what makes the UH-1 better than an Eotech?
I think the Eotech gets 600 hrs from the battery? The UH-1 gets 1600? Why is that?

Posted: 7/3/2017 11:05:02 AM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
It's funny though, I haven't heard people talk about what makes the UH-1 better than an Eotech?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
It's funny though, I haven't heard people talk about what makes the UH-1 better than an Eotech?

Personally my current thinking is it's about a toss up.

Quoted:
I think the Eotech gets 600 hrs from the battery? The UH-1 gets 1600? Why is that?

Technology improvements. EOTech appears to me to be resting on it laurels. Which is kind of weird, considering...

One would think that, between the snafu and Vortex' entry, their engineers would be burning the night oil in answer. Maybe they are and EOTech's just being very, very quiet about it?

That is my hope, anyway. I think the UH-1 is not for me and I don't see anything else currently on the market that is.

Posted: 7/3/2017 11:13:07 AM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:

Can you take a picture of the multiple reticle?

I have an astigmatism so when I don't wear my glasses I get two reticles, but with glasses Its crystal clear and I only see one. Happens to me with Red Dots as well. As they say the camera does not lie.

Thanks RS

View Quote

I posted pictures a couple pages back. Vortex now has the old sight. I no longer own a UH-1.

Posted: 7/3/2017 11:18:54 AM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
I posted pictures a couple pages back. Vortex now has the old sight. I no longer own a UH-1.

View Quote

I have your sight sitting at my desk right now. It is definitely NOT normal, which is why I was so confused when this was first brought up. What I was used to seeing is very faint secondary reticles that could only be seen with the sight turned up to it's highest intensity indoors. And even then, you had to be trying to look for them.

This one is not like that and certainly isn't acceptable, so I completely understand why you sent it back.

Now that we are aware of it:

1. We are revising the inspection routine to make sure we catch this on the front end.
2. We are studying the issue to make sure as little variance as possible and to eliminate it completely.

Of course, anyone that isn't happy we will take care of it.

Posted: 7/3/2017 2:35:16 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:
I have your sight sitting at my desk right now. It is definitely NOT normal, which is why I was so confused when this was first brought up. What I was used to seeing is very faint secondary reticles that could only be seen with the sight turned up to it's highest intensity indoors. And even then, you had to be trying to look for them.

This one is not like that and certainly isn't acceptable, so I completely understand why you sent it back.

Now that we are aware of it:

1. We are revising the inspection routine to make sure we catch this on the front end.
2. We are studying the issue to make sure as little variance as possible and to eliminate it completely.

Of course, anyone that isn't happy we will take care of it.

View Quote

It doesn't bother me, but I'm seeing it a few levels below max.

Posted: 7/3/2017 4:12:40 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
I have your sight sitting at my desk right now. It is definitely NOT normal, which is why I was so confused when this was first brought up. What I was used to seeing is very faint secondary reticles that could only be seen with the sight turned up to it's highest intensity indoors. And even then, you had to be trying to look for them.

This one is not like that and certainly isn't acceptable, so I completely understand why you sent it back.

Now that we are aware of it:

1. We are revising the inspection routine to make sure we catch this on the front end.
2. We are studying the issue to make sure as little variance as possible and to eliminate it completely.

Of course, anyone that isn't happy we will take care of it.

View Quote

Not one review mentioned the multiple reticles prior to receiving your optic. I worked hard and saved my money so and was excited when I received your product as this was my first Vortex optic. I admit I was disappointed and probably had one of UH-1's that were unacceptable (and I felt like this problem was the norm). I should have contacted you for a replacement or a personal review of my optic. Unfortunately, I sold your optic out of disappointment (no returns). Will I ever buy a UH-1 again, absolutely when the corrections are done. As you mentioned yourself, it just wasn't acceptable.

I'll save again and look forward to doing business with ya'll in the future. I'll definitely keep my eye on this thread and good-to-know you respond accordingly with your customers on this thread.

Posted: 7/3/2017 10:47:39 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:
I have your sight sitting at my desk right now. It is definitely NOT normal, which is why I was so confused when this was first brought up. What I was used to seeing is very faint secondary reticles that could only be seen with the sight turned up to it's highest intensity indoors. And even then, you had to be trying to look for them.

This one is not like that and certainly isn't acceptable, so I completely understand why you sent it back.

Now that we are aware of it:

1. We are revising the inspection routine to make sure we catch this on the front end.
2. We are studying the issue to make sure as little variance as possible and to eliminate it completely.

Of course, anyone that isn't happy we will take care of it.

View Quote

Glad to hear it wasn't just me, that there was an anomaly with the unit I had.

Posted: 7/3/2017 11:40:42 PM EDT

[#26]

OpticsPlanet contacted me, they got some more in. Will probably have mine shipped out after the fourth. Will report my "opinion" it's worth 2 cents. :)

Posted: 7/4/2017 2:41:03 AM EDT

[#27]

After consideration, this was not the place for this comment. I edited it to remove the comment regarding Prod. I apologize that I put this out before Prod had a chance to remedy the situation.

He has made it right.

Posted: 7/4/2017 2:45:17 AM EDT

[#28]

Comment removed

Posted: 7/4/2017 12:12:32 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
For prosperities sake...

And the EE ad UH-1 ad in ee

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quick very basic straight-to-the-point review (and forgive me since this is my first one).

The optic is built solid, mounts perfectly, and the field-of-view is amazing.

The reticle is crisp and clear when you have it in the "perfect" brightness setting. However, as some people have mentioned, if you transition to lower light, even outside like aiming somewhere in the shade or a darker background, the setting now becomes too high and you have ghost (and blooming depending on the brightness setting). Can I tell which is the "real" reticle, yes. However, it is at least to me, very distracting and annoying.

To those that say there is debris/dust in them. Yes, mine has just a tad and even what appears to be a quarter of someone's eyelash (not joking). However, the debris appears to have no impact on the optic itself and I do not find it bothersome, especially when looking through the optic. I'm only stating this for those that are concerned about it.

I have perfect 20/20 vision and I had EOTech's, Micro's, and other Aimpoints but they never ghosted, bloomed/had multiple reticles. To be honest, I thought members were exaggerating about it and wasn't bothered by early reports. However, the sight is very unforgiving when transitioning backgrounds. Overall it is a great clear reticle but I feel that the constant up or down in settings to get rid of the ghost (or blooming) has been annoying thus far.

The optic looks great on my rifle and I'm forcing myself to love it but I just.....can't.

P.S. for those that are interested. My background is 13 years in the military with some time in Iraq. I consider myself a very hobby oriented shooter that loves his firearms and gear. I am not an operator or highspeed.....just a normal guy.

For prosperities sake...

And the EE ad UH-1 ad in ee

Comment withdrawn. Thks for clearing it up.

Posted: 7/4/2017 12:42:19 PM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:
Wow, integrity, trust and reputation are things that are hard to build, but easy to lose. Sad to see someone do this to themselves. I think it calls into question anything he said is wrong with the unit, or anything else he said in this thread. I look forward to seeing mine for myself.

Good catch and exposure!

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quick very basic straight-to-the-point review (and forgive me since this is my first one).

The optic is built solid, mounts perfectly, and the field-of-view is amazing.

The reticle is crisp and clear when you have it in the "perfect" brightness setting. However, as some people have mentioned, if you transition to lower light, even outside like aiming somewhere in the shade or a darker background, the setting now becomes too high and you have ghost (and blooming depending on the brightness setting). Can I tell which is the "real" reticle, yes. However, it is at least to me, very distracting and annoying.

To those that say there is debris/dust in them. Yes, mine has just a tad and even what appears to be a quarter of someone's eyelash (not joking). However, the debris appears to have no impact on the optic itself and I do not find it bothersome, especially when looking through the optic. I'm only stating this for those that are concerned about it.

I have perfect 20/20 vision and I had EOTech's, Micro's, and other Aimpoints but they never ghosted, bloomed/had multiple reticles. To be honest, I thought members were exaggerating about it and wasn't bothered by early reports. However, the sight is very unforgiving when transitioning backgrounds. Overall it is a great clear reticle but I feel that the constant up or down in settings to get rid of the ghost (or blooming) has been annoying thus far.

The optic looks great on my rifle and I'm forcing myself to love it but I just.....can't.

P.S. for those that are interested. My background is 13 years in the military with some time in Iraq. I consider myself a very hobby oriented shooter that loves his firearms and gear. I am not an operator or highspeed.....just a normal guy.

For prosperities sake...

And the EE ad UH-1 ad in ee

Wow, integrity, trust and reputation are things that are hard to build, but easy to lose. Sad to see someone do this to themselves. I think it calls into question anything he said is wrong with the unit, or anything else he said in this thread. I look forward to seeing mine for myself.

Good catch and exposure!

Dan, Integrity is emailing the user before airing dirty laundry. I should have tried to email PRod before posting to the thread. He has made it right with me. That is integrity. He has many positive reviews and After reevaluating the situation and looking at the timeline, I do NOT think that he was trying to be deceptive.

Josh
jlgil73

Posted: 7/5/2017 12:00:23 AM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:

Great to hear! What distances were you shooting at? Sounds like it held zero. Did you happen to test the repeatability of the mount?

View Quote

I zeroed and shot at 25 yards. I did uninstall and reinstall the optic 3 times and it returned to zero all 3 times.

Posted: 7/5/2017 7:32:13 AM EDT

[#32]

I changed my order from Optics Planet to Kenzie's, and saved about 25 bucks, making the UH-1 $424. The one difference I noticed was that Kenzie's charged my credit card, even though it is on backorder. Optics Planet had not charged it yet, and wouldn't have done so until it was ready to ship. Not a huge deal, but that's one detail I appreciate about OP.

Now I'm curious when Kenzie's will get them in and ship.

Posted: 7/5/2017 9:39:51 AM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:
I changed my order from Optics Planet to Kenzie's, and saved about 25 bucks, making the UH-1 $424. The one difference I noticed was that Kenzie's charged my credit card, even thoiugh it is on backorder. Optics Planet had not charged it yet, and wouldn't have done so until it was ready to ship. Not a huge deal, but that's one detail I appreciate about OP.

Now I'm curious when Kenzie's will get them in and ship.

View Quote

They charged your credit card? Or authorized it?

Posted: 7/5/2017 2:04:25 PM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:

They charged your credit card? Or authorized it?

View Quote

Looks like they charged it, from what I see on my bank account. They also sent me a receipt. Optics Planet did not do that.

Posted: 7/6/2017 9:01:41 AM EDT

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:
I changed my order from Optics Planet to Kenzie's, and saved about 25 bucks, making the UH-1 $424. The one difference I noticed was that Kenzie's charged my credit card, even though it is on backorder. Optics Planet had not charged it yet, and wouldn't have done so until it was ready to ship. Not a huge deal, but that's one detail I appreciate about OP.

Now I'm curious when Kenzie's will get them in and ship.

View Quote

Thats a hell of a deal. Did they have a coupon or something?

Posted: 7/6/2017 10:22:10 AM EDT

[#36]

Sooooo.....are they good to go or not? lol I was literally about to put one back order 10 seconds before skimming through here.

Posted: 7/6/2017 10:30:11 AM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:
Sooooo.....are they good to go or not? lol I was literally about to put one back order 10 seconds before skimming through here.

View Quote

Context is important. Is who or what "good to go?" The optic or the last seller mentioned?

Most buyers seem satisfied enough with the optic to see how it shakes out. I think only two have returned theirs or re-sold them, so far. This out of about... plus-or-minus a dozen that have received them?

The seller? Dunno. I'd be annoyed if they charged my card without having product in stock. I certainly won't be buying from them.

Posted: 7/6/2017 11:06:01 AM EDT

[#38]

I love mine. I'm getting ready to get another in a month or two, once I get some funds saved up for it. I have about 600 rounds through it, so far. Then again people complained to hell and back about the MRO and I have one of those and I have no issue with it either especially when shooting. Most people complaining have not even had it on gun and outside to shoot with it.

Posted: 7/6/2017 11:35:48 AM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:
I changed my order from Optics Planet to Kenzie's, and saved about 25 bucks, making the UH-1 $424. The one difference I noticed was that Kenzie's charged my credit card, even though it is on backorder. Optics Planet had not charged it yet, and wouldn't have done so until it was ready to ship. Not a huge deal, but that's one detail I appreciate about OP.

Now I'm curious when Kenzie's will get them in and ship.

View Quote

Did you pay through paypal?

Posted: 7/6/2017 11:41:17 AM EDT

[#40]

I paid with a credit card, but I think they use Paypal for handling credit card transactions.

Posted: 7/6/2017 11:59:53 AM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:
I paid with a credit card, but I think they use Paypal for handling credit card transactions.

View Quote

Yeah, thats one of the issues with paypal, they process payment immediately.

Posted: 7/6/2017 1:28:10 PM EDT

[#42]

Quote History

Quoted:
I paid with a credit card, but I think they use Paypal for handling credit card transactions.

View Quote

You would know immediately if you used PayPal as you would've had to sign into your PayPal account in order to make the transaction.

Posted: 7/6/2017 3:27:44 PM EDT

[#43]

Got mine about a week ago, have yet to take it to the range to see how it performs. As mentioned, yes there are multiple reticles if you have it turned up too high indoors other than that I do not have any complaints thus far. Excited to get to the range and put it to use.

Posted: 7/6/2017 5:38:19 PM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:

Looks like they charged it, from what I see on my bank account. They also sent me a receipt. Optics Planet did not do that.

View Quote

Why not just call Kenzies? They have excellent CS.

Posted: 7/6/2017 6:08:46 PM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:
Got mine about a week ago, have yet to take it to the range to see how it performs. As mentioned, yes there are multiple reticles if you have it turned up too high indoors other than that I do not have any complaints thus far. Excited to get to the range and put it to use.
http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o534/kw68nova/19620899_10213044202169927_288418588622912253_o_zps1vtge6kq.jpg
http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o534/kw68nova/19366215_10213044228530586_5480345408319203090_n_zpseeddgoj0.jpg

View Quote

Is that a magnifier mounted behind it? What brand? It kinds of looks like another scope.

Posted: 7/6/2017 6:29:11 PM EDT

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:

Is that a magnifier mounted behind it? What brand? It kinds of looks like another scope.

View Quote

That is a vortex magnifier and mount

Posted: 7/6/2017 10:20:53 PM EDT

[#47]

Quote History

Quoted:

Why not just call Kenzies? They have excellent CS.

View Quote

Because it isn't a huge deal. They told me they expect another shipment soon, so 1 to 4 weeks. I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with $425 bucks. That's a great deal.

Posted: 7/7/2017 12:57:56 AM EDT

[#48]

Quote History

Quoted:
I sell a ton (and I mean tons) of polycarbonate into the military/ personal aircraft sector. They only use polycarbonate for one reason, it's strength. If you truly "work" with polycarbonate in this sector, you would know that that polycarbonate does not come close to the clarity of glass. You would also know that nearly 55% of the polycarbonate that gets sold into this sector gets rejected because of the clarity issues.

I find that very hard to believe how flat you found this polycarbonate lens to be compared to glass especially with the abrasion resistant coating. What's the chance you can post a pic of you testing the flatness of this lens with your Michelson interferometer?

With all that said, polymers are outstanding for making products. I have a few different handguns with polymer frames and they perform great. I'm not saying it's the PC lens that is causing any of the issues. There is/ was just a lot of BS being tossed around about PC in this thread that was simply not true.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I respectfully disagree. My experience is engineering military specification mobile devices.

Glass is much much much easier to work with. Especially for their application.
Cost drivers for PC are in the assembly process. PC requires superior surface preparation, handling, special epoxies, and long cure times (among other things).

The coating market, for PC, has continued to develop new coatings that try to achieve "near glass" scratch resistance. A google search finds many. The need for PC windows with near glass qualities is huge, especially in aircrafts.

I don't see anything from vortex about UV stability. But to be honest, they give a lifetime warranty. I'm sure they used a UV stable product. Actually, the lifetime warranty eliminates this type of risk.

I tested the wavefront, of my UH-1, with a Michelson interferometer and the PC is extremely flat. I've tested acrylics, PC's, and lots of glass in my work. The flatness of the Vortex PC is better than some float glass.

I'm not trying to talk anyone "into" polycarbonate. Just trying to share my experience.

Just to point out, my Eotech is completely plastic. The battery cap isn't even painted. Seems kind of cheap compared to the UH-1 / MRO.

I sell a ton (and I mean tons) of polycarbonate into the military/ personal aircraft sector. They only use polycarbonate for one reason, it's strength. If you truly "work" with polycarbonate in this sector, you would know that that polycarbonate does not come close to the clarity of glass. You would also know that nearly 55% of the polycarbonate that gets sold into this sector gets rejected because of the clarity issues.

I find that very hard to believe how flat you found this polycarbonate lens to be compared to glass especially with the abrasion resistant coating. What's the chance you can post a pic of you testing the flatness of this lens with your Michelson interferometer?

With all that said, polymers are outstanding for making products. I have a few different handguns with polymer frames and they perform great. I'm not saying it's the PC lens that is causing any of the issues. There is/ was just a lot of BS being tossed around about PC in this thread that was simply not true.

To he fair he wasn t talking about clarity from what I read.

Posted: 7/7/2017 7:59:28 AM EDT

[#49]

Quote History

Quoted:

Because it isn't a huge deal. They told me they expect another shipment soon, so 1 to 4 weeks. I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with $425 bucks. That's a great deal.

View Quote

Did they have a sale or something? They're $500 now. Or did you have a coupon code?

Posted: 7/7/2017 9:58:38 AM EDT

[#50]

Quote History

Quoted:

Did they have a sale or something? They're $500 now. Or did you have a coupon code?

View Quote

Yeah, they had a coupon code for 15% off. It was "merica". You might try it. I wouldn't be shocked if it still worked. If not, call them. They might just give it to you. Free shipping, too.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Vortex Razor AMG UH-1 (Page 16 of 20)

AR-15 » Optics, Mounts, and Sights

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us