Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics LRHS

Just took mine outta the box 5 minutes ago. Scope looks and feels quality. My first experience with FFP reticle. Damn that thing is small, fine and faint looking at 3 power.
I bought the scope anticipating using it at longer ranges (500 yds) by dialing. This might take some getting used too. I think I understand the purpose is to keep reticle marks consistent across the power range for "on the fly" ranging adjustments? At shorter ranges, I shouldn't need the marks?
Do they make dial scopes in SFP? Wish me luck. Always been a shorter range, set it and forget it, Kentucky windage kinda guy.

I was wondering how fine the reticle would be at low power, like 5 or 6?

The purpose of keeping the marks consistent across the power range is for much more than just estimating range. Holding off for wind drift, measuring the necessary correction for a miss, etc, are common applications of the reticle. You're correct that when you're on low power you won't need the marks, and the reticle appears like a simple duplex for point-and-shoot opportunities. They do make reliable dialing scopes in SFP, but that would be a step backwards for your intended use. The SWFA SS 3-9x is going to be more to your liking as a general hunting scope that is capable of making precise LR shots, while the non-illum. LRTS is more of a specialized scope for LR precision shooting in decent light, due to the fact that the "posts" in the reticle are a series of hash marks rather than bold, black posts like you see in the LRHS, so are more faint and difficult to see in poor light. The illuminated LRTS is closer to a general LR hunting scope than the non-illum version, but the non-illum LRTS is slightly better for precision shooting in good light, due to the center of the reticle being a little finer.

Congrats Sir, damn nice piece, I cant wait to get started with my 6.5 Swede, bet it'll be a ladybug shooter for you.

Easy and clear to read at 3, 5 or 6X Remington, I like it.

Maybe it's just my 58 year old eyes!!!!

Same age, may be I eat more carrots!

That reticle is fine with my aging eyes, but black markings on FDE for the elevation is not easy for me to see in low light. I do appreciate the large font, but white on black is a lot easier to see. I'm not to the point of carrying reading glasses, yet...

Scope arrived yesterday, mounted it on my Tikker superlite 7-08, total weight isn't bad at all. I'm very impressed with this scope so far. Excellent glass, wonderful eyebox and eye relief, what's not to like.

I tried to hold off on this but I couldn’t help myself.

You got in under the wire, they only have a few left and after tomorrow if any remaining, they'll be back at $649 vs $599.

SD

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.

Neil exchanged my 3-12x LRTS for the DMR II. Should have it next week. I think he called me as soon as my return arrived, to complete the exchange. And the replacement DMR II was shipped promptly. Great service from Neil.

The PRO sounds awesome, especially if you can get a discount. A buddy bought one and loves it, even compared to his ATACR 5-25x. I had that ATACR for a few months, and I was very impressed. It smoked my LRTS 4.5-18 in terms of image quality, and I thought the LRTS was pretty good. I have not seen a PRO in person though.

I went DMR II to save a few bucks over the PRO, and to get the H59. The PRO is only available with the G3 and I'm actually not a fan of that reticle. After using the ATACR with Tremor, I found that I really liked that style of reticle. At first I thought it would be too cluttered, but really found that I liked it.

Just got my LRTS in the mail today.....I am impressed..Nice glass....Now if my new model 7 HS in 6.5 would get here.......

Me too, in fact I still am. Now days I mainly hunt. I very seldom shoot targets competitively and when I do it's very seldom at ranges over 200 yards because my gun range doesn't have the real estate for long range targets, though I wouldn't mind trying it. But I think it unethical to shoot at an animal much past 400 yards for me. Some people can pretty well do it out to 500 with out much problem. Actually 300 is pretty much my limit. All this hoopla about snipers has gotten everybody crazy. Yeah, I realize there's a lot of fancy equipment out there to help shoot real long range. But I leave that to target shooting. If I miss a paper bullseye at 600 yards or hell a thosand yards, so what? Regroup and try it again. Nothing hurt. But if I hit a trophy animal in the guts at 800 yards because even though I had the shot figured right but a sudden gust of breeze down range blew my bullet 12 inches off, and the animal runs 1000 yards and lays down and suffers for 10 hours before it dies, then that ain't ok. Then if it takes you two days to find the animal and the ambient temperature gets up in the 70s and the meat spoils, then that's a double booboo cacaroni. That's why I limit my range. Leave the 600-1000+ yard shots to the real snipers and F class and other guys in competition. Shooting game in the next zip code is no longer hunting.

That was exactly my thought. Kinda wish it was the LRHS instead but just couldn’t pass it up.

I just mounted a 3-12x44 LRHS on a 5lb semi custom model 7. With two piece steel bases and Sportsmatch rings, the total weight is 7lbs. Still a nice light package.
This is my first LRHS and I was shooting it yesterday. So far I’m very happy with it and looking forward to more shooting.

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.

I'm not going to argue about the ethics of shooting an animal at XXX range (although this is purely a function of the abilities and skill of the shooter!), but let's say you take a shot at a BG animal at your self-imposed limit of 300-400 yards. You take the shot and for whatever reason the bullet hits a little off from your POA and lands in the guts. The critter runs off 300-350 yards and stops to look back at you. Broadside. The wounded critter is now standing still, broadside at 700 yards. Don't you think it's beneficial to be able to connect on that 700 yard shot and put the animal down?

Yep.........I had a DMR II for about an hour........sent it back. Mirage was ridiculous and glass quality sucked past 14x.........and what Jordan is saying about image quality once you dial some inclination is spot on. Horrible scope design.

I'm not a huge fan of the LRTS either, but that's because I think it has "tunnel vision".

Personally, the 3-9x42 SWFA HD is optically better than LRTS or DMR II and very usuable from 4x-9x. Just my experience.