Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics LRHS

As someone who backpack hunts the mountains and foothills of Alberta almost exclusively, I agree. I know my rifle is heavier w/ the LRHS on top, vs my old 6x36. I'm a fairly extreme ounce counter in almost every area of my gear, but some weight is still worth carrying IMO. I've cut weight in almost every area of gear over the years, but went back and added weight in sleep system & rifle optics. The few extra ounces of my LRHS are well worth it, for the massive increase in repeatability, durability and precision. IME.

I found the slip in my 4-18X box for 1100 bucks. Still a good deal on a great scope, but I wish I got it at the latest prices.
I am thinking of a 3-12 for an AR15.

Actually. I’m guessing a SWFA 3-9x42 or a Nightforce 2.5-10 with Pic rings and rail (my typical setup) would not weigh much different that a LRHS and Talleys.

I tried the LRHS on a couple of Montanas and had no problem with them. But decided to downgrade at the time to SWFA.

Aside from the obvious gain in weight and bulk with a 34 mm tube and 50 mm objective (which is worth it in some applications, but not generally on a hunting rifle, IMO), the DMRII is optically inferior. I’m not much of an optics snob, but the few DMRII scopes that I have owned were borderline unuseable in anything but excellent atmospheric/optical conditions.

Yup, right around 25 is what I usually see.

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 one on the way, how bad is the eyebox?

It's not.

Gotcha.

Mine lives on 12x. Might as well be a fixed 12. I hunt a lot of open country.

I never have any problems getting a perfect picture. IMO, they are very easy to get behind.

I don't think there is a better scope for 2X the money.

Definitely usable. It's not horrible by any means, so don't get alarmed. The exit pupil should give you a rough idea.

I was probably expecting an unrealistic improvement of the 12x version over the 18x version. However, I am shooting some contorted positions and the LRTS scopes just don't seem to agree with me. More annoyance than lack of functionality. I've been communicating with some other shooters who feel the same way. Both .mil and comp shooters (asking them for opinions on the DMR II). But, do your own evaluation, as this may not be relevant to you. And, this really boils down to nitpicking and personal preference.

Jason

I have the 3-12x and 4.5-18 and I don't find the eyebox to be a problem at all, at any power. Optics are very, very good as well.

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.

Thanks, based on your later posts I assume you are talking about the non-pro?

I picked up this deal for PRS, it doesn’t say pro in the title but the images are of the DMR Pro II so fingers crosses that’s what will be delivered.

https://cameralandny.com/shop/bushn...9e47e6b5?variation=2043878&query=Dmr

Thanks for the additional information Jordan. I'm going to give the DMR II a whirl anyway, to see if it's good enough for my needs in terms of image. If not, I'll send it back.

I didn't think that the PRO was available with illumination?

That’s correct. I’m careful to specify if I’m talking about the Pro model, because there is quite a difference between the two.

The Pro model doesn’t have an illumination option, so the scope in that link is certainly the non-Pro model.

You’re not the first guy to tell me that, and you wouldn’t be the first to send one back.

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.

Thanks!

Well that package is going back when I get it. I just looked at the picture when I ordered and assumed it was the pro, I didn’t know the pro didn’t come with illumination. I’m sure the photo was a simple mistake on their end.

I agree, 90% of my hunts are backpack hunts and use ultralight gear but I'm don't using scopes that don't function correctly, I'll save weight elsewhere.