Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Anyone Try the Bushy LRHS?

I'm getting ready to pull the trigger one of these scopes that Pat and George had a hand in designing.

Before I take the plunge, has anybody else tried one?

try going over to snipershide, there is thread about this scope.

I went over and read that thread, a bunch of people complaining about pricing. I thought it was pretty funny. I am a ffl holder so I never pay full price for anything.

I have always thought it is a great scope with nearly every feature I would want. only problem its a mil based scope. I don't want a mil reticle or mil turrets. I would have also like to seen about 14 or 16x on the max power. Well next year that is going to be fixed. well most of it. They are hung up on a FFP reticle which has its advantages and disadvantages. the disadvantage as I see it is if you want your reticle with 1 moa marks ffp is going to be too fine on the low end. So they have the reticle marked with 2 MOA marks to avoid that issue. which in my mind is a disadvantage. The mil system probably works best in a FFP scope, MOA system works best in a SFP scope. since I don't need to use the features of the reticle unless I am shooting longer ranges I am never not at max power, THUS I see no need for FFP.

in any event I will probably buy one of the 2015 LRHS scopes of course I am not paying retail for it!!

I have one and like it. The adjustments are superb. It tracks accurately and returns to zero reliably. The optics are great, rivaling any Zeiss I have ever owned. You get 10 mils of adjustment in one revolution. It has a very nice zero stop. Windage turret is low profile and capped. You can dial for windage if you want but the reticle lends itself very well for holding windage. The reticle is well thought out having a thick donut for close range low light use. The rest of the reticle subtends small enough as to not obscure long range targets. If anything, the reticle maybe a little too fine. The scope is built like a tank. While it is kinda heavy, that bears witness to robust tube and components which add to reliability. The turret markings are large and easily readable in low light.

At current street prices, about $1k, it is an absolute steal!

John

Thanks John, that's a big help. I found a source @ a little under 1k.

Pete

I echo everything John said. Its a superb scope and steal at $1K. If I had to find a fault it would be that at 25oz it is a heavy scope for a sporter, but you can drive nails with it, so pick your poison. But don't be surprised, you can definitely feel the weight. Like John mentioned I wish the reticle was thicker. It is easily lost in late afternoon dark shadows, with only the ring being visible. That said, the "tactical" crowd complains that it is too large, so go figure.

I still think $1000 is a lot of money for a scope that needs an illuminated reticle, yet doesn't come with one.

First, for me, the thought of a hunting scope and batteries does not compute. Second, the reticle is no where near as fine as the NF offerings where illumination is the only option. The small portion is .06 mils (equivalent to approximately .25 MOA to put in more familiar terms). Lots of pure traditional hunting scopes have reticles this size, which I feel are too small. But my preference is a heavy German #4 (.7 MOA) so of course I want more.

I've put around 900 rounds through one in the last week or so. Any specific info you're looking for?

Hard use I assume. Did she stay put?

Worrying about a battery in your scope is like worrying about having a battery in your watch.

In my mind the scope's reticle is too busy...especially w/the darn circle in the middle of things. I cannot imagine a Bushnell that could be worth $400 much less $1000. YMMV! powdr

If I'm not mistaken, Formidilosus has at least 3-4 high end Bushnell's on rifles he uses in competitions. I used to thing the same way you do, back in the 90's.

powdr, have you looked through the reticle or basing your opinion on diagrams? Its not the same. I've yet to find one person who has actually looked through one and feels like the reticle is too busy.

Except for the extra turret like protrusion (or grossly oversized parallax adjustment), a few more ounces, one more thing to break, and one more thing to require adjusting before a shot. No thanks. Not for me. But if you prefer it, have at it.

You don't have to use the illumination if you don't want to. If it doesn't work, then you still have a normal scope.

That scope should be $500 for the features it has.

Bushnell's high end stuff is quality these days. I have a DMR 3.5-21 on my comp gun, it has behaved QUITE well for two years for me. They regularly go for $1000 with rings over on the hide, and are a best buy at that price point in my opinion.

I now have two LRHS's, they have worked great for me and barring some zero retention issues (that I haven't seen yet but can't rule out) I can't see myself switching to anything else on the market.

It's doing well. Has held zero and adjusts correctly and consistently up to this point.






I do not care for "donut" reticles either, however the middle is the middle. Dial for elevation and hold for wind. It is silly to judge most things on emotion. The question is does it work? The answer is yes. For anyone that uses things that is all that really matters. We can get used to just about any reticle.

As far as cost, the 3.5-21x50mm and LRHS are not Bushnells as you know them. The 3.5-21x HDMR is one of the best scopes made for its purpose and there are probably more privately purchased HDMR's on military special operations sniper rifles than all others combined.






I'm at quite a few more than that and they are used on both work guns and comp rifles.

I like the way you operate sir. Not because I am a Bushnell Elite fan, but because you use and report honestly on the equipment you use honestly and without emotion or prejudice. Wouldn't it be nice if Bushnell priced the scope at what dogcatcher felt it was worth ? laughing !!!

The reason I think they went with a donut reticle is because they are stuck on a Ffp reticle. This makes the reticle more usable at lowest power where the scope is probably going to spend most of its time. How many guys are going to be using the features of the reticle on a 12x scope on anything but max power. I don't thing very many. But the tactical guys thing they always need ffp