I'm getting ready to pull the trigger one of these scopes that Pat and George had a hand in designing.

Before I take the plunge, has anybody else tried one?

try going over to snipershide, there is thread about this scope.

I went over and read that thread, a bunch of people complaining about pricing. I thought it was pretty funny. I am a ffl holder so I never pay full price for anything.

I have always thought it is a great scope with nearly every feature I would want. only problem its a mil based scope. I don't want a mil reticle or mil turrets. I would have also like to seen about 14 or 16x on the max power. Well next year that is going to be fixed. well most of it. They are hung up on a FFP reticle which has its advantages and disadvantages. the disadvantage as I see it is if you want your reticle with 1 moa marks ffp is going to be too fine on the low end. So they have the reticle marked with 2 MOA marks to avoid that issue. which in my mind is a disadvantage. The mil system probably works best in a FFP scope, MOA system works best in a SFP scope. since I don't need to use the features of the reticle unless I am shooting longer ranges I am never not at max power, THUS I see no need for FFP.

in any event I will probably buy one of the 2015 LRHS scopes of course I am not paying retail for it!!

I have one and like it. The adjustments are superb. It tracks accurately and returns to zero reliably. The optics are great, rivaling any Zeiss I have ever owned. You get 10 mils of adjustment in one revolution. It has a very nice zero stop. Windage turret is low profile and capped. You can dial for windage if you want but the reticle lends itself very well for holding windage. The reticle is well thought out having a thick donut for close range low light use. The rest of the reticle subtends small enough as to not obscure long range targets. If anything, the reticle maybe a little too fine. The scope is built like a tank. While it is kinda heavy, that bears witness to robust tube and components which add to reliability. The turret markings are large and easily readable in low light.

At current street prices, about $1k, it is an absolute steal!

John

Thanks John, that's a big help. I found a source @ a little under 1k.

Pete

I echo everything John said. Its a superb scope and steal at $1K. If I had to find a fault it would be that at 25oz it is a heavy scope for a sporter, but you can drive nails with it, so pick your poison. But don't be surprised, you can definitely feel the weight. Like John mentioned I wish the reticle was thicker. It is easily lost in late afternoon dark shadows, with only the ring being visible. That said, the "tactical" crowd complains that it is too large, so go figure.

I still think $1000 is a lot of money for a scope that needs an illuminated reticle, yet doesn't come with one.

First, for me, the thought of a hunting scope and batteries does not compute. Second, the reticle is no where near as fine as the NF offerings where illumination is the only option. The small portion is .06 mils (equivalent to approximately .25 MOA to put in more familiar terms). Lots of pure traditional hunting scopes have reticles this size, which I feel are too small. But my preference is a heavy German #4 (.7 MOA) so of course I want more.

I've put around 900 rounds through one in the last week or so. Any specific info you're looking for?

Hard use I assume. Did she stay put?

Worrying about a battery in your scope is like worrying about having a battery in your watch.

In my mind the scope's reticle is too busy...especially w/the darn circle in the middle of things. I cannot imagine a Bushnell that could be worth $400 much less $1000. YMMV! powdr

If I'm not mistaken, Formidilosus has at least 3-4 high end Bushnell's on rifles he uses in competitions. I used to thing the same way you do, back in the 90's.

powdr, have you looked through the reticle or basing your opinion on diagrams? Its not the same. I've yet to find one person who has actually looked through one and feels like the reticle is too busy.

Except for the extra turret like protrusion (or grossly oversized parallax adjustment), a few more ounces, one more thing to break, and one more thing to require adjusting before a shot. No thanks. Not for me. But if you prefer it, have at it.

You don't have to use the illumination if you don't want to. If it doesn't work, then you still have a normal scope.

That scope should be $500 for the features it has.

Bushnell's high end stuff is quality these days. I have a DMR 3.5-21 on my comp gun, it has behaved QUITE well for two years for me. They regularly go for $1000 with rings over on the hide, and are a best buy at that price point in my opinion.

I now have two LRHS's, they have worked great for me and barring some zero retention issues (that I haven't seen yet but can't rule out) I can't see myself switching to anything else on the market.

It's doing well. Has held zero and adjusts correctly and consistently up to this point.






I do not care for "donut" reticles either, however the middle is the middle. Dial for elevation and hold for wind. It is silly to judge most things on emotion. The question is does it work? The answer is yes. For anyone that uses things that is all that really matters. We can get used to just about any reticle.

As far as cost, the 3.5-21x50mm and LRHS are not Bushnells as you know them. The 3.5-21x HDMR is one of the best scopes made for its purpose and there are probably more privately purchased HDMR's on military special operations sniper rifles than all others combined.






I'm at quite a few more than that and they are used on both work guns and comp rifles.

I like the way you operate sir. Not because I am a Bushnell Elite fan, but because you use and report honestly on the equipment you use honestly and without emotion or prejudice. Wouldn't it be nice if Bushnell priced the scope at what dogcatcher felt it was worth ? laughing !!!

The reason I think they went with a donut reticle is because they are stuck on a Ffp reticle. This makes the reticle more usable at lowest power where the scope is probably going to spend most of its time. How many guys are going to be using the features of the reticle on a 12x scope on anything but max power. I don't thing very many. But the tactical guys thing they always need ffp

RDFINN, the SS 3-9 is around $599. How is the LRHS $900 better? Twelve power is kind of in no man's land anyway. If you are going past 9x, might as well jump to 15+.

$600 vs $1000 = $400 difference, not $900.

12X is no man's land. Thats interesting.

Differences:
Zero stop (critical difference for me)
Parallax adjustment (big deal)
10 mils per rev vs. 5 mils (big deal)
low profile capped windage knob (big deal)
Great glass vs good glass


How would you compare the Bushy at $1000 to the nonilluminated NF 2.5-10x42 at $1600?

We could go round and round on this topic and we would both (well at least me) being speaking out of ignorance. I don't believe that power should define cost rather than construction and cost of components. From the thread started by George Gardner about this scope, he felt (or maybe it was Pat Sinclair) that the optics were very close to any high end Zeiss IIRC he'd used. Glass is a very big part of scope cost as I'm sure you know. I have no idea why they chose that power range and I can't speak intelligently about it either. There is, however, already talk about expanding that LRHS line with different reticles and power ranges from what a little birdy told me.

doggie if you can't see how this is better than a super sniper scope I don't know what to tell you. at 1k I think the scope occupies a very good niche a niche no one else is really in. 12x isn't no mans land its actually all the power a big game hunter can reasonably use. the scope is a long range hunting scope. is there scopes better for other purposes heck yeah. I personally would like a little more power because with a little more you can also use the scope for long range load development instead of having to put a specific load development scope on the gun. but in an actual hunting application 12x will get the job done to at least 1000 yards on a big game target.

the other thing you get is lots of movement in one revolution of the turret, you also get a zero stop. when you add it all up YES its worth that much more than a super sniper.

Some of us have actually used and like the scope. Others are just guessing�

John

Name a single scope that has the features this scope has for $500, or even $1k which is about the LRHS's current street price.

Let's see�

Accurate tracking
Reliable return to zero
Rugged construction
FFP reticle
Zero Stop
10 mils per rev
Low Profile turrets
Reticle suitable for close range low light situations
Glass rivaling Zeiss and other scopes known for their superb optics

One year satisfaction guarantee and lifetime repair or replace after that. That's right. If you don't like the scope for any reason for up to one year of purchase, Bushnell will refund your money.

Who else makes a scope for the same $ that has these features?

John

That never happens around here, does it?

Has anyone heard if the MOA version that will be coming out next year will be limited to the 4.5-18, or will the 3-12 be getting it, too?

I used to feel the same way until I started researching their Elite Tactical series. Their lower lines are not even in the same ballpark. I learned enough about the performance of the Elite Tacticals in combat and tactical competitions to make me want to give one a try. Based on how mine has performed for me, it was a great decision.

Bushnell is certainly not only ones that build to multiple price points. Let's see� VX1, VX2, Hog, VXR, VX3, VX6� You get the idea.

The Bushnell Elite Tactical series are not the Bushnells of old�

Quit guessing. Try one. If you don't like it, Bushnell will refund your money.

John

I have wondered the same thing but don't know. Might post that question over on the hide. I'm sure George would know.

I resisted mils for a long time, but it's a pretty easy transition, actually VERY intuitive.

John

I resisted switching from moa based systems to mil based systems for a long time. I didn't feel the 0.36 click (0.1 mil) was precise enough. Silly really for two reasons; (1) The 1/4 moa is 1/4 of 1.047" at 100 yds...functionally 1/4 of an inch vs. a little over 1/3 of an inch for the 0.1 mil click.

Hardly a difference; < 0.11".

(2) The second reason is I don't shoot well enough for that tiny difference to make any real world difference.

It's not so much transitioning from MOA to mils that bothers me, it's that I already have a lot invested in MOA-based scopes (USO, NF, etc) and would rather keep all of my optics in one format.

don't let them make you feel inferior over that. its simply a unit of measure nothing more nothing less. if one works better for YOU keep doing it.

I like everything about the scope, the only thing I would have done differently is offer MOA and SFP.
That being said...I don't see another hunting scope in this price range that is done as correctly as this one. I will be converting to MIL's because of this scope, just wish I grew up with the metric system because my brain wants to convert everything to inches which complicates things unnecessarily.
Enjoy your new scope, Gary

I don't understand the "conversions". Why are you converting anything? Mil/mil eliminates the need for conversions, FFP keeps that true for all magnifications, not just one. No need to convert anything, print your drop/windage in mils, make your POI calls in mils - why is there a need for conversion?

David

The only thing you have to "re-learn" is doping wind, but if you were raised on an MOA scope with mil-dots, you already got DOPE for that anyway. The military has jumped on mil/mil with both feet because it minimizes math errors, and that is what washes, or used to, more guys out of sniper school than anything else.

The same holds true for MOA FFP scopes - especially if you already own a spotting scope with an MOA reticle.