LOL. Some guys are just gluttons for punishment and oblivious to the irony of their comments.
Having shot with a few of the commenters on this thread, one of them a personal friend and shooting/hunting buddy, I know who shoots, more than a bunch, and who doesn't. My buddy and I have thousands of rounds under LRHSs, this year alone. Only a tiny fraction at paper or the range. They work very well for long range shooting and hunting, under many conditions. Full stop. Guys who obsess over the reticle at low power have completely missed the point. Again.
We shoot a variety of different scopes, across the design and budget spectrums. If a scope doesn't 'work'... It gets tripped or packed away. Got nothing to do with spending dollars wrong and being too proud to admit, or forum pack mentality. I own much more expensive scopes, but still, the 3-12 LRHS is my hands down favorite scope that I own.
OP, if you have your mind set on a NF, save up and get one. Buy what you really want, or you'll always wonder. But the LRHSs are far from a poor choice.
Over the span of 2 days, Ws and I put nearly 1000 rounds on steel from LRHS-scoped rifles alone, not including the rifles wearing other scopes, including shooting in dawn and dusk conditions. I can’t imagine how hard it would have been to make hits if those steel plates had curtains hanging over them.
Most years I spend 15+ days chasing critters just between Sept 15 and Oct 15. The LRHS hasn’t been a hindrance in low light, on low mag, at all. Is it the ideal low-light, close range reticle? No. The German #4 would likely get the nod there. But I don’t know of a reticle that rides the line between close-range, low-light work and long-range precision work as well as the G2H does.
