Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Anybody running the Bushnell LRHS 4.5-18x44?

Thoughts? Never was really interested in the LRHS due to the MIL adjustments, but noticed they make the 4.5-18x44 in a MOA version.

good scope. not a big fan of the reticle.......

I use one on my SAUM. A lot of scope for the money, near perfect long range hunting scope. Really good glass, particularly in low light.

jakelly,

Welcome to the 'fire. Have you compared this with other scopes side by side in low light? Which ones? What did you discover?

Interested in this scope as well.
Jakelly - more details would be appreciated.
Are you running MOA or MIL? how are the turrets; positive clicks? eyebox at 18 power?

I'm running a 3-12 and really like it.

Bb

where you guys running these to you might be using them but you ain't runnin #hit STUPID

illiteracy. it's what's for dinner.

Why is it that the biggest moron in the room is always the one that likes to point out grammatical errors?

From dictionary.com:

running
[ruhn-ing]
Spell Syllables

noun
1.the act of a person, animal, or thing that runs.
2.managing or directing: the running of a business.
3.an act or instance of racing: the 113th running of the Kentucky Derby.
4.the condition of a track or surface to be run or raced on; footing:Our track team had muddy running today.
5. the amount, quality, or type of a liquid flow.

adjective
6. galloping, racing, moving, or passing rapidly.
7. going or proceeding rapidly at the gait of a gallop.
taught to proceed at a gallop.
8. creeping or climbing, as plants:
a running vine.
9. moving or proceeding easily or smoothly.
10. moving when pulled or hauled, as a rope.
11.slipping or sliding easily, as a knot or a noose.
12.operating or functioning, as a machine.


Your usage was correct. Mohick is still a moron.

Great scopes if they weren't ffp reticles

Here we go again.

PG,

I beg to differ. Your example:

"12.operating or functioning, as a machine."

would necessitate the useage as:

"My LRHS 4-18x44 rifle scope is running smooth."

"I am running a LRHS 4-18x44 rifle scope." is a longrange hunting forum colloquialism.

May I recommend the Musical "My fair Lady?"

Prof. Higgins:

"...there even are places, where English completly disappears. In America, they have not used it for years.

Oh, and no, I have no experience with the scope in question.

Ready,

You are correct - I had my usage messed up.

I'm using the mil model. I compared my 3-12 to my Premier Hunter in low light. The test was resolving a small (6") box inside of a larger(20") box at 100yds. The Premier definitely had it beat throughout the evening, but the margin was very small. At the end of the night the Bushnell tapped out approximately 2 mins before the Premier and both bested my Weaver Tactical 3-15 by ~an hour. FYI that Weaver beat my VX3 Leupolds so badly I sold them all.
The 4.5-18 is really nice, the 18x strains the Bushy glass more than the 12x does, but the extra 6x comes in handy. Eye box is definitely not excessively "tight". The turrets are "good" not too firm or soft, the side focus and mag ring are also "good". I wouldn't describe any of the controls as orgasmic, perfect, or Tangent Theta esque, but they're all very "good". The 4.5-18 is longer than the 3-12 by about 1 1/2", almost all this length is added between the erector housing and the objective so it looks a bit stretched. The reticle is serviceable at the lowends, the 4 mil circle really doesn't help "that much" as it is kind of gray and subdued. Neither of the LRHS scopes really shines in the WV deer woods, but that's where I live/hunt now and I certainly don't feel helpless or hapless carrying one, haha. I drastically prefer the weaknesses of the LRHS line to the weaknesses of any other practical distance scope available, they just work very well. I really like both of these scopes, great rifle sights.

I have the big brother the HDMR 3.5-21x50 h58 and it is a fantastic scope. I really want to try the LRHS 4.5-18 it looks like a great scope as well. I have been overly impressed with the glass quality of the top end Bushnell scopes. My HDMR has a clearer brighter image than my NXS 5-22x56. The LRHS does have a 30mm instead of 34mm main tube I don't know how much that would affect light transmission and therefore image brightness. But the HDMR is a very big heavy scope and the 30mm tube might be an acceptable trade off to get a smaller lighter hunting scope.

I've never owned a 3.5-21, but everyone who has used both seems to think the LRHS glass is noticeably better than anything else Bushnell offers. For my input I will say the LRHS is just below the best tier of glass available; Zeiss, S&B, Premier, et al; however, I do not think the difference will amount to any practical disadvantage. I think the Bushnell optimizes the performance per dollar equation for the longer range hunter, and nothing else is close.

Where's the correct second focal plane model for hunters? Now-a-days we have rangefinders.

FFP will allow you to make correct wind holds regardless of what power the scope is set on....

Jakelly,

good info, thanks. I did notice the 4.5-18 seemed a bit long - almost cartoon-ish. My main concern was sensitive eyebox at 18x, but it doesn't sound like an issue.

I think I'll be picking one of these up in the next few weeks. I recently did a review on the 4-16 F1 ATACR for Len over on LRH that will publish next month and really liked the scope. I figured the LRHS checked most of the boxes of the ATACR at about $1k less (and the 30mm tube is a preference over the 34mm of the ATACR for my application).

I'll be interested to compare the LRHS to my 2.5-10x42 NXS as well. If you have the time, please post up a pic of your 4.5-18 mounted up on your rifle. Thanks again.