Nightforce SHV 3.5-10X42-vs-Vortex Razor HD LHT 3-15x42 MOA


Well-Known Member
May 20, 2013
Looking for some input guys. I'm almost exclusively a hunter, with an occasional trip to range to shoot steel. Never anything further than 600 yds, so don't need an uber heavy, high $$, high power scope. I'm currently running a NF SHV 3.5-10X42 with the MOAR reticle on my primary hunting rig. It's been an extremely solid scope so far, especially mechanically, since I pretty much always dial. The one big knock I have against the SHV is the lack of a zero stop. Everything about this scope if perfect for my application besides the lack of a zero stop. I've recently been hearing much adulation for the new Vortex Razor LHT 3-15. It certainly seems to check all the stop, great glass, light weight, illuminated center dot,etc.. The one thing I haven't read much about is the internals on the Vortex. How good are they? Is the reliability, tracking, returning to zero on par with the SHV? If so, the LHT seems to be an amazing value for the $$. Anyone here have experience with the LHT scope or any other higher end Vortex product? If so, what's your opinion of their quality/reliability, especially compared to the SHV?

I think the razor would be a great scope for you. I have the pst viper and I ha e dialed that up and down with no issues. Don’t think the razor will do you wrong.
The razor line is typically great quality. I have not got my hands on the LHT yet but i would assume, until shown otherwise, that it will be the same. Given the options I steer toward the LHT if I didn’t already have the shv. But if you aren’t truly happy with the shv the LHT might be worth a try.
The razor checks my boxes. Sfp is important to me for good low power visibility reticles without needing illumination. Hold for wind with the reticle and dial elevation.

My concern with all vortex products is the lack of quality consistency.

I believe they had many problems with other scopes in the razor lh line crapping out.

Maybe though we hear of all these problems because they sell a ton of scopes, more than a lot other manufacturers, if not number 1
The Razor LHT is a great scope for your needs. I have two of them mounted on rifles now and really like them them. I'm just a hunter, don't spend much time really trying to go long but I do dial past 400 yds. I think the elevation turret is great and the zero stop is super easy to set. One of the rifles is a 7 lb 28 Nosler so that scope does take some recoil with no issues.
+1 for vortex’s quality. I have many vortex optics mounted and used over the years. Only issue I’ve ever had was a “me caused” and their customer service walked me through the fix.
Only... only... thing if you asked me to say 1 negative thing about them. On max power with the ffp stuff, the clarity is not super crisp. I’ve back them off a Misquto hair and the clarity comes back. These are on the 25x razors I’ve used.
My primary western gun has a 3x15 LHT on it and couldn’t be happier.

With that said. You need to go with what you truely feel fits your needs. Or you will be able to make every excuse when you miss :)
I’ve run my LHTs well past 1k on heavy recoilers many times and tracking/rtz has been perfect. They run right with my NXS, NX8 and March scopes way out there yet are quite a bit more usable for quick/close shots. Probably my favorite pure hunting scope even when compared to options that cost three times as much
I have a SHV on a Browning X-Bolt 300WSM and a Razor LHT on a Montana Rifle Company 300WM. The both track as I would expect (once I figure out the DOPE for the rifle in the real world) and I haven't found a situation where the glass is noticeably different. I suppose the turrets on the Razor are a bit more... pleasing in design.

I do fine I'm consistently more accurate with the 300 WSM and I like the reticle on it a little better because it has separate ranging subtensions that I actually use, but that said, IMO, the Browning has a better factory trigger and frankly the Montana took 100 rounds before it reached sub-MOA. The Browning did that in its first 3 shots.
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.