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

Has anybody given these scopes a run? I know the general consensus on the LRHS has been very good, but I haven't seen many guys on here discuss the LRS.

The turrets look good, and I like the GD2MR reticle. I am curious on any reports of tracking and zero retention.

Tanner

Tanner,

I'll be no help here, but for about the same price, why not just go LRHS? I recently saw a guy selling a LRS for $900 shipped, and another was selling a LRHS for $875 shipped. Both were BNIB and local to me. You can guess which one I grabbed.

I'm guessing the LRS would be okay, but I know the LRHS had a redesigned erector assembly geared toward reliability and durability, similar to the DMR.

Jordan, really the only reason I ask about the LRS is I see them FS this side of the border regularly for less than $700.

That is good to know about the erector assembly.

Tanner

Hey Jordan if you have time give us your thoughts on the LRHS!

It's still brand-new and I've got it mounted up, but I have yet to use it in the field or on the range. My initial impressions are very, very good. The scope is built like a tank, and weighs 25oz. It feels like I could swap it for the framing hammer in my tool belt and it'd do the job okay.

The elevation turret is quite amazing. It's got a better feel then the turret on the SS 3-9x42, and about as good as my Razor HD Gen 1 5-20x50. I really like the turret indexing and zero stop mechanism, which is simple and would make slipping the turret in the field or at the range easy with nothing more than a quarter in your pocket. I was expecting the scope to be of a single-turn turret design, but it's really not because of the ZS design. The little nub on the turret housing extends up, and the nub on the ZS ring extends down, so that the sides of the nubs make contact with each other when you turn the ZS ring. The ring, when affixed to the turret, threads upward as you twist the turret up (unscrewing it from the housing), causing the nub on the ZS ring to rise away from the nub on the housing, causing them to clear each other as the turret approaches one full revolution up. The turret has a total range of 24.7 Mil, and I have access to 21.7 Mil with the ZS set 3 Mil from the bottom of the turret's range. This may not seem monumental, but I was expecting it to be a single-turn design, having slightly over 10 Mil of elevation with the ZS set.

All adjustments turn smoothly and without excessive effort. The reticle and glass are quite incredible for a scope in this price range, but glass impressions are still preliminary. For the feature set you get, I would still buy this scope if it were $200-300 more than the LRS.

Isn't the LRHS the one that Scenarshooter and George Gardner had a hand in designing?? Maybe Pat can give some additional info on how it works in the field.

Liking mine, but limited use so far.

Yeah, it is. Pat did an in-depth review of it in the optics forum, I think.

Thanks Jordan !

Yes, George and Pat designed the LRHS.

I hunted with an lrhs on my 300 wsm last year. Took a nice buck with it at 280 yards. I happened quick and I hit a little high. Afterwards I noticed my elevation dial had been bumped up about .6 mils. Other than that I noticed that when resetting the dial to zero the cap only resets every other .10 mil. Everything else about the scope I really like. Good glass and it tracks well.

Bb

Tanner, pm EGH , I ThInk he did a test for them!

I have three of the LRHS, no worries with these. Probably a little heavy for the tastes of some but tough to find these features in an optic of this quality and features for the money.

Can't comment on the LRS.

I just bought one, but with the illuminated mil-dot.

I haven't shot it yet, I can offer my initial observations. I will take it to the range this week and will report back if you are interested.

There is a sign down the road from my window. The sign is exactly 10 mils from the bottom of the post to a certain letter towards the top of the sign. I put the the rifle the scope is on in the cradle and dialed it up and down (10 mils) and the tracking seems dead on.

The glass seems good to me, but I have fuzzy eyes so that comment isn't worth much.

I like that the parallax goes down to 10 yards.

I like the tension on the knobs.

I really prefer the reticle in my SS 3-9 a lot more. The mils in the LRS become usable to me between 5-6 power, but no half mil marks, of course.

What I don't like:

The vertical illumination is much brighter than the horizontal, but not relevant to your reticle.

The hashes on the turret, to let you know what revolution you're on, are not numbered well.

This scope has a fast-focus eye-piece. I prefer locking.

The scope is advertized at 80 MOA (25 mils). Mine only has 70 MOA. That means at 1000 with my load, I'm only three minutes form maxed. I don't like that and will use it on an AR I will only shoot out to 600 most of the time. That REALLY bugs me. (That the advertised adjustment is less than stated.)

SWFA has the one with the illuminated mil-dot for $670 IIRC. Most places it's like $880. For the sale price I like it, but would prefer it with more even illumination, better marked hashes, and correctly advertized adjustment range.

Also, I've read some remarks about Bushnell CS. I've used it three times. Once to get my old spotting scope checked, and they replaced it with a new one. Once because I felt my new Elite binos had some curvature in one lens. They sent me a new pair. (Then I found out from the eye doc it was an eye problem and had nothing to do with the binos. Sorry, Bushnell.) And one time because the bino twist-cup came off. I had great CS everytime.

I called Bushnell the other day to get the specific eye relief on the LRHS on high power and they couldn't give me an answer, I would think they should have this info but they were clueless, and didn't seem interested in helping!

I just measured the ER on my scope, and it looks like I'm getting 3.1" to the edge of the ocular housing on 12x.

I was thinking of putting one of these on my 338 Win. Now I'm not so sure as I don't know if 3.1" would keep it out of my face...

You askeered? I would be.

Thanks Jordan, it is supposed to be 3.75" on low and they said it would tighten up a bit on high, so 3,1 sounds about right!

A bit. That said, I'm not pretty so a few knocks won't matter to much...