Anybody ever had these side by side? What were your thoughts?

LRHS 3-12 vs SS 3-9...

LRHS has a bit better glass and is easier to get behind, but both feel very solid and useable. The elevation turret on the LRHS is stellar. I'd say the LRHS is the better scope, but the price reflects that, too. Both are very durable, precise, and have great glass for their respective price range.

I have a 3-12 LRHS, a 6x42 SS, 10x42 SS, and a 16x42 SS. The Bushnell is brighter, it's elevation turret a little crisper and I really like the 10 mils in one rotation and the Zero stop. All, LRHS and SS both, track and return to zero extremely well. Is the Bushnell the better scope? Yes it is… But when comparing value for the $, I would have to say the SS wins.

John

Thanks. Have you noticed a preference of one reticle versus the other?

I prefer the G2H myself.

Like Jordan, I think the best comparison is with the 3-9x SWFA.






The LRHS's have generally proven to be solid scopes. I do not have near the amount of rounds or use on them as I do the SWFA's but they track well, track correctly and overall hold up fine. The one above did shift zero by 4. - .6 mil after a backpack trip. Only normal handling and it could have been the mounts, and it hasnt done it again, but.....

The reticle is useable though I prefer the Milquad in the SWFA as I do not care for circles/rings/horseshoes. That is personel preference. The elevation turret is probably the best feature about the LRHS. Nailed it. Only way to improve it is to make it locking turret like the HDMR's/ERS scopes.











SWFA SS's. Excellent scopes. Have a bunch, have used a bunch more. The least amount of rounds on any of mine is over 12k, the most more than 60k. Yes.

Have never had a lost zero despite truly abusive treatment, they track correctly everytime and return to zero everytime. The Mil Quad is the best mil based reticle for general hunting offered in any scope in my opinion and I which that I could get it in a NF. I used to prefer the earlier mil dot reticle but having used both the MQ is where it's at.

The only SWFA that I have sent back was an early 3-9x mil dot version that I had picked up at a pawn shop just outside of Bragg that I'm pretty sure was in an IED blast. I didn't know whether it was the gun or scope that was randomly throwing shots, so I sent it back even though it turned out to be a 100% gun problem, they said it checked fine but sent a new one anyways. Kind of bummed about that as it had the "look" that I like... grin.

I think Jordans had the only one that I've heard of with an issue...?


Overall the feel I get is that the LRHS is a long range scope made usable for all ranges (and well) but still a touch on the LR side, and the 3-9x42mm SWFA SS is made for 0-600 yards.

Great write up, Form. I'd say it's an accurate summary. The MQ is a darn good reticle, based on my limited exposure to one, but I really like the half hash-marks in the G2H at the 0.5 Mil intervals, and the "donut of death" doesn't bother me at all after using the reticle a bit. The posts are quite bold and the centre cross hair is a near perfect blend of being fine enough for precision work, but bold enough to pick up easily. As you said- personal preference.