Originally Posted by 4th_point
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
The 3-12x is very easy to get behind, IME. The DMRII is a step in the wrong direction, if you ask me.


Thanks for the info Jordan.

I've never used a DMR II (yet!), so I don't know about the image quality differences, but everyone that I have communicated with regarding the LRTS and DMR II have stated that the DMR II has a better eyebox and is easier to get behind. I think the 3-12x LRTS is a nice scope, but am looking for something a bit better in terms of eyebox. The 4.5-18x isn't my cup of tea either, but the one that I had possessed a really nice image for the price.

The form factor and weight of the DMR II is not a concern for me. Eyebox was the main question.

Jason





I have the DMRII Pro on my primary match rifle, and have owned a few regular DMRII. The eyebox is very agreeable, but so is the EB on the LRTS/LRHS 3-12x, IMO. Both are so easy to work with that I haven't really noticed much of a difference between the two scopes, WRT EB, though the DMRII is slightly easier to get behind. But the optical difference is fairly remarkable in favour of the 3-12x. I've shot PRS-style matches with both, and I would take the DMRII Pro, then the LRTS 3-12x, with the DMRII non-Pro in third place, if I had to choose between the three for competition.