Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Bushnell LRS 3-12x44?

I took my LRS 3-12 to the range today. (It's on an accurate .223.)I put up butcher paper (using a level) and tested the scope's tracking to 10 mils, then RTZ. Going up, (each time), bullet impact was only high 1-2 clicks. It also RTZ spot on. I had mounted the scope using a Brownells EXD tool and a plumb line. It also has a Sinclair scope level. It tracks straight up and down.

I was impressed!

I also measured the eye-relief to the end of the scope (not the glass) using a ruler (in tenths), a light, and a piece of paper. 3.1 on 12X.

Hope something there helps.

To be clear.... Everybody understands that the LRS and LRHS are cometely different scopes, correct.

Tanner,

Have used the LRS's quite a bit when they came out. They are pretty decent and generally track well, however are not as durable as some others. I would not but one for $700 when there are other scopes both cheaper and slightly more expensive that are better all around.

Form,

After having read your comments about SWFA (and Tanner, Boxer, et al) I bought two 3-9 and a 6. (Just sold the 6.) I really like them. (I was unable to clearly resolve the hash marks on the 6 most of the time because of my poor vision, so I sold it and used the money towards the LRS.)

I bought the LRS I wrote about above because I wanted something with an illuminated reticle that would track well and be durable. (I have advanced macular degeneration/loss of light-recepting (rod) cells and thought the illuminated reticle would be helpful the last 30 minutes of light.)

I also thought the 12x magnification and adjustable parallax would help if I use that AR on gophers.

When you wrote there are better scopes that are cheaper, would any of those scopes be illuminated and of a similar magnification range?

I was all set to get the SWFA 3-15, but decided to try the LRS. I'm disappointed to read that it is not as durable as other scopes it is competing against. I saw a video on Youtube about the 3-12 Bushnell where the well-known shooter thumnped on the scope and said it was good-to-go. Oh well. For my use, it will probable be fine.

Thanks

In the $7-800 range with illuminated reticle, the LRS is solid.

thanks for the answer.

3.1" is a deal breaker

3.1" is a deal breaker

I don't think a little shorter eye relief is a big deal. in this case it makes the eye box more forgiving. seeing that most people keep their scopes on low power while they are moving around and doing most of their hunting. I still can't believe people are so gaga about this scope in a hunting application, you can't hardly see the reticle on low power. I don't believe the scope is illimunated when I roll out of my bunk at first light, which is when I have the chance to shoot something ALOT the reticle will be invisible at first light. Its shocking that the wizards of optics put out such a piece.

So I guess you've spent some time looking through the scope now? Last I knew you hadn't even seen or held one in person...

well I,ve looked thru them some and have to agree the recticle is not the most desirable if used on low power and maybe dark woods .....if used in the open at the upper powers , yeah it is fine , but the 3.1 eye relief is not gonna be the best on 300 mags and up...

It isn't meant to be ideal for low light, close range, dark woods shooting. It is meant to be functional for that kind of work, and perhaps the best compromise in a reticle for LR precision shooting, and close low-light snap shooting in the dark woods.

I also wouldn't take 3.1" as a written-in-stone value. That's just the measurement that I got for one test on my scope. It may not be representative of all samples of the model.

Am I missing something? Why would someone use a first focal plane scope for "the best compromise in a reticle for LR precision shooting, and close low-light snap shooting in the dark woods," when the crosshair gets smaller at lower powers and larger at higher power?

Maybe that's why it has a big sized circle in the middle of the reticle? On low power use it like a big hollow dot site.

jordan, do you ever hunt anything? here is a scenerio. I pack in 5 miles to an area with cliffs overlooks and canyons ridges etc, IE THE MOUNTAINS. some of its open, some of it has sparse sage, some rocky,thick pines, aspens. pretty much a mix of everything. shots are from 30 yards to 1000 yards or as far as you dare. You pitch a tent and roll out of bed before light. just as light is breaking, your already in an area with the animals your hunting. you slowly carefully make your way around. stopping every 30-40 yards to see if you can make out any animal you might be bumping through your binoculars. Your swarovskis are straining for every last ounce of light as you look through them as you walk to your overlook areas to glass. With the LRHS scope on your rifle you might as well be carrying a sharp stick in your hand in these conditions. It simply is not going to be able to make a low light shot in these conditions, where your going to want to be on low power in case you need to make a fast quick shot at an animal that might have gotten bumped. Conditions I might ad that are prime to shoot a huge buck who is mostly nocturnal because by the time the rifle hunt is there the animals have felt some pressure from other hunters.

This isn't shooting in bright sunlight on the same rifle range everyday! a hunting scope is just that, the best time to see and shoot animals is often when light is at its poorest. isn't this all common sense?

That's rich...

I know whom I've read more hunting posts by and seen more pics of them with game...

What's certainly NOT common sense is that you've never even looked through the scope, while telling the world what it can and can't do...

cumminscowboy,

Fun post. The low light performance, in a scope, is more important than anything else to me. People snicker at my 52mm objectives, but I know my old man eyes need all the help they can buy.

Its funny, I shot a really nice buck in Idaho this fall under these exact conditions. Spent 3 days waiting for a shot at a buck that was holed up. Finally at barely daylight (and it was raining) the buck was on the edge of the timber, very dark conditions. 250 yds. I shot him. I forgot to tell him that I had a FFP scope on 7x and that it wouldn't work. I had no problem seeing him or my crosshairs.

Yep, you are.

The reticle is designed so that the large, bold features are visible and usable on low power, while the fine, precision-oriented features are only visible and usable on higher power...

Funny how that works. People who actually try different FP scopes and use FFP reticles in the field don't seem to have any problem being effective with them, while those who denigrate FFP reticles and scream the loudest have nothing but speculation and assumptions to back them up. You know what they say- "I have never seen pessimists make anything work, or contribute anything of lasting value."
– Harry Truman