Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Bushnell LRHS vs Swarvo Z8i

I own, but have never mounted or used, a Bushnell Elite LRHS 3 - 12x 44mm FFP scope. I purchased this a couple of years ago with the intent of building a rifle with which I can chase game out west. I am finally getting around to it and am having a good friend build me a custom rifle in 6.5 PRC. He is suggesting I sell the LRHS and pick up the Z8i. I understand the Swarvo has an illuminated reticle and is SFP but I am trying to figure out how much better the Swarvo is. While I highly value his opinion, I've just never owned "premium" glass so I am trying to determine if it's worth the cost difference.

I know opinions on this are subjective but I know that most everyone on here has more experience that I in using these scopes.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

What are you going to use the rifle for? The Bushnell will be better at killing things, the Swaro will be better for looking at them. I had a Z8i 2.3-18x56 and found it to have a very demanding eyebox that I was not a fan of for hunting. Even at 2.3x it wasn't the easiest to get behind in awkward hunting positions. If you don't plan to dial it doesn't really matter, but I still wouldn't choose the Z8i for even a short range hunting scope again. Lost my ass on that scope, resale value is awful because no one wants to pony up that much for a used one btw.

Looking for a do it all or do most well set-up. Deer in OK and then chasing game out West.

FFP is best for high mag, long(er) range & dialing; SFP is better at closer range, lower mag. JMHO, kinda depends on your use.

Regardless of what some think, you can still kill game at long(er) range with the SFP as well.

Not sure which Z8i you're looking at but they are all around $3,000 & considerably lighter than the Bushnell if that matters to you.

MM

The LRHS is very impressive for the price. I'd hang onto it.

The one cited above is almost 26 ounces 2.3-18x56 . I cannot understand the need for super power ranges, what exactly is wrong with 4-5x ?

Keep the Bushnell.

Ask the guy that's considering buying one.

MM

Me thinking out loud

There's nothing wrong with a 4-5X for the lowest setting on a variable scope. But for serious hunting one needs to be able to verify their target with more magnification is actually legal at longer ranges.

Have to disagree on that one.

If you're hunting at ranges where that's true & you need >12x or so, then you really need a spotting scope.

Rifle scopes are for shooting; spotting scope are for game evaluation at long range.

YMMV

MM

I and many others disagree.

I have the 4 higher power LRHS, and they are great, except they are plenty heavy.

The LRHS is one of the clearest, best-built and well-thought-out scopes I've ever used. Definitely wouldn't waste MY money on the Zeiss.