Originally Posted by Wrongside
Originally Posted by 4th_point
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
You’re not the first guy to tell me that, and you wouldn’t be the first to send one back. wink

In ideal lighting conditions the image in the DMRII is great, but in mirage or anything less than perfect conditions, it’s like looking through a fish bowl full of water. The LRTS and even the $299 SWFA Classics do much better in poor lighting conditions. If the image works for you, you will be very happy because everything else about the scope is awesome. The DMRII Pro has all the same awesome features as the DMRII, but handles poor lighting conditions significantly better.

Hopefully you are happy with the DMRII! Let us know what you think after you have some use on it.


Funny that you mention the SWFA Classics. After getting the 3-12x LRTS I was thinking that I'd just as soon use the 10x MQ at 1/3 the price, but I feel very comfortable with the Classics and their limitations. The lower image quality, 5 mil/rev, and lack of zero stop don't bother me.

My buddy, however, struggles with the 10x MQ. He's tried several different rifles with that model and has a hard time using it. His vision is a not great, but does well with other low cost scopes.



Pretty sure Jordan and I have owned/been around a similar number samples of the DMRII & DMRII Pro. I'd echo his comments on them. I'd rather use a SS 10x than the DMRII, especially if mounted to maximize erector. OTH, the Pro I own is a great scope.

Hope yours works out for you. Look forward to your feedback.

That's a very good point that I forgot to mention. A well-designed scope loses very little optical quality throughout it's range of erector travel. There is essentially no noticeable image degradation in the LRHS/LRTS and SWFA scopes when adjusting between the top and bottom of the range of erector travel. The DMRII, on the other hand, has a pretty decent image within about 5 MRAD above or below mechanical center on the erector, but as soon as you get beyond that, the image gets progressively worse. If mounting the scope so as to maximize available "up" on the elevation turret (aka as close to the bottom of the erector range as possible) the image is all but unusable. Kind of a silly design for a 34 mm-tubed scope that is meant for LR shooting. The Pro suffers from the same design flaw, but to a much lesser extent. The improved coatings on the lenses of the Pro must help somewhat to offset this design flaw that is more noticeable/pronounced in the DMRII (non-Pro). These observations are based on about half a dozen samples of the DMRII and 3-4 of the DMRII Pro.