Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Vortex CROSSFIRE SUCKS!!!!

Nsagam graciously pointed out that I should change the title of this to be fair. he has a point and I have done so, but I would request for the 'Fire to be fair, that you read my second post and where I also re-emphasize it on p.3


Ok, so I did NOT take y'all's advice, and ordered a Vortex Crossfire 6-24x50MM scope from SWFA. SWFA is to be commended for their fantastic & prompt customer service.

Anyway, I got he box and pulled the scope out. it looked OK. Then, I tried to attach the provided sunshade. After about 5 minutes of frustrating unsuccessful attempts, I got out my calipers and started measuring. Seems that the sunshade is badly out of round, being off by more that 50 thousandths! Ok, I think, that might work if I do some 'massaging' on it. I take it out on the porch about 45 minutes before dark, in the early eve. Well, at least it appeared to magnify at about 6x on the lowest setting. The edges were really fuzzy. I look at the top, and see that it is set at 10yds, so I start to turn it out to 100 yds, and inside the scope I feel a spring go 'sprong!' and can actually HEAR it! I give the scope a shake and nothing, look thru it and it is fine and much clearer, so I try to turn the objective back in. it is is very stiff, then 'ping!' and gets easy. I try this multiple times and it always works this way. The top-end magnification is 24x. i never intended to go that high, but even working with 'Sprong/Ping', I still see it is pretty fuzzy.

After farting with it for a bit and feeling really queasy, I get out my old El Paso Weaver 4-12x on my .270. Comparing the two throughout their respective range, I see that the Vortex has NO advantage over this 1970's product. in fact, it appears pretty inferior, and the flare on both, due to lack of coatings is there, but the 'new' Crossfire is noticeably more! I take the Weaver and put it in the house, and very carefully repack the scope, and email SWFA to get a Return Authorization Number.

The Crossfire is an absolute piece of Dawg-Shiatt!!!!! I did not expect a Swarovski. Hey-Yell, I didn't even really expect a Redfield Revolution, but Day-Yam...this is terrible!

Man, were you guys ever right about this!

One other thing. I work for a company that is not involved in this manufacturing, but in our market segment, we regularly have to make decisions as to whether or not we want to make a product at a profit, or break-even just to fill a niche, keeping our 'foot in the door' of the respective customer or market segment. When we get to that point, we always as ourselves if the product we are selling at reduced cost/value with ultimately hurt us if the product is perceived as poor.

I think that Vortex should have asked themselves this, and as such, I will not be purchasing anything further from the Vortex Line.

You can't judge the Viper and Razor lines by the one you tried.

+1

After using many of the Vortex line of products, you not scaring me away...As a matter of fact, my opinion is just the opposite as yours!!!

Well to each their own, but basically you are saying that if Ford made a total POS that never ran, that would be Ok if they made better models too.

Your sample of 1 means what? Ford has never had a lemon?

I'm quite certain there are a whole lot of guys out there buying that scope. They're not concerned about quality, they're concerned about having a really big scope with gobs magnification, and for the least amount of money. That one fills that particular hubble niche. The hubble's are in.

I'd not judge Vortex as a whole because of that particular model.

This is what sours me on Vortex. Any company that makes a sub-$100 and a $2000 dollar optic is suspect. Just too much variance.

I have two Vortex Viper 2x7x32 scopes. Excellent values, in my opinion. At $149, an even better value.

I considered the $99 Crossfire 6x24x50. But as I checked, not one positive review.

It's too bad that your $100 scope is not a classic, but that's life.

The Crossfire 4-12X40 is just about right.....

EXACTLY WHAT IS WAS TRYING TO SAY IN THAT 2ND POST!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, if Mercedes came out with a stretch limo for $9999 I'd know better than to drop the coin.

Things seeming to good to be true, usually are.

You bought a wide range variable huge objective entry model line (crossifre) scope for $99 and make a sweeping generalization about the entire COMPANY ?! (check your thread title)

Really?

The 2 vortex products I bought (gifts) are fantastic.

This is sort of amazing. Buy a cheap end product, which you were warned against, found out that everybody was right, so you condemn the whole Vortex line. Don't often find logic like that.

Seems a good point.

Shoulda bought a viper if you were going vortex u get what you pay for.

You want a nice high power scope, you have to drop the coin.

Sounds like you wanted something comparable to VX-3 Leupold, at a BSA price? There's no logic in that. Get real, what can someone expect when dropping $100 into a hubble, really what were you expecting? Try a Viper before you damn Vortex.

Like Scott said above, you get what you pay for. Regardless of who's producing it and where you're getting it from.

I think the missing component here is that anyone can compromise their name and reputation to become cheap. If Vortex was a name synonymous to quality, why produce a lesser scope and still call it Vortex. The same goes with Leupold, Zeiss, Swarovski S&B. Why not call it a Dork, Stump, Weasel, anything but the flagship name of the company if it is going to be a junker.

I work it backwards and wouldn't own a Vortex of any configuration due to the fact they make a junk scope at a cheaper than dirt price, so why would I pay more money for a high end scope produced by a dirt manufacturer?

I was in a Flyshop today and got the same empty feeling when I saw a Winston flyrod that was cheap, and worse than that, made in China. Winston used to represent the best in the flyfishing industry, but now they have morphed into the price market for whatever reason, sacrificing their once great trademark.

I may have missed iambrb's point, but to me this is what he was disappointed about