Bushnell LRHS - Anyone have any experieince with these?

[Formidilosus]

Nope, don't have one. For the reason I stated but I was very close to buying one. You seem to think I'm saying this scope is crap and I'm not. Do you have a nightforce nxs, atacr, khales, S&B.... I have a vx3 and the glass is just so so, especially when I'm used to the upper end scopes.

I don't think that you are saying anything. I do question giving advice on something I've never used. There is a ton of bad info given out everyday and it is hard form most to know what's good or bad info, or who's speaking from actually using the item in question or who's going off what others have said. Both points of view can be useful, but it is important to know which the person is speaking of. I'll explain a bit in the next post on Ryan's thoughts on them.



In any case, yes I've seen a NF once or twice.....

 

[luke moffat]

I didn't think it was possible to make a Tikka less attractive..

Its like you put a fat suit on Rosie O'Donnell..

Thanks for proving me wrong.

But Rosie likes to eat.....a lot and so do I so the Tikka is good for actually killing stuff cause them rolls didn't come from knocking over steel targets.

 

[luke moffat]

Is that a custom cheekpiece?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup even with the raised cheek piece on the CTR it's too low for my high cheek bones. Just has to work. Could care less if it looks crappy as it's getting dropped into a XLR chassis here in the next day or so anyway.

As for the glass on the LRHS it's plenty good for me and my buddy got his first big game animal shooting in the fading light at a caribou this past week. That said the ATACR is a def step up when I used my buddy's to shoot at 1200 and 1775 last month. I don't see me losing any opportunities at actual game in the difference between glass. Taking 1000 yard shots at last light isnt my gig in the event blood trailing may be needed happen so I will leave that to the true long range guys. For now I see no need to upgrade beyond the LRHS but again as you know I am not a long range hunter or glass snob and just use what I have with me so not the best guy to ask.

Somehow we all still kill stuff

 

[Ryan Avery]

Yup even with the raised cheek piece on the CTR it's too low for my high cheek bones. Just has to work. Could care less if it looks crappy as it's getting dropped into a XLR chassis here in the next day or so anyway.

As for the glass on the LRHS it's plenty good for me and my buddy got his first big game animal shooting in the fading light at a caribou this past week. That said the ATACR is a def step up when I used my buddy's to shoot at 1200 and 1775 last month. I don't see me losing any opportunities at actual game in the difference between glass. Taking 1000 yard shots at last light isnt my gig in the event blood trailing may be needed happen so I will leave that to the true long range guys. For now I see no need to upgrade beyond the LRHS but again as you know I am not a long range hunter or glass snob and just use what I have with me so not the best guy to ask.

Somehow we all still kill stuff

You just get lucky a lot!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mtslackcountry]

I own a LRHS... Not for very long but I compared the glass to a vortex viper and a Vx6. The viper was blown away by both and the Vx6 was only very slightly better than the LRHS. I own Swaro binos and leica spotter so I have experience with high end glass. I am happy with the glass on the LRHS.

The pros over nightforce for me were

-Price
-lower profile turrets/ covered windage
-better reticle IMO
-less weight

I think if your seriously considering this scope buy one and look through it. Most places will let you return within 30 days. I bought one without high expectations and replaced my vx6 with one after looking at the 2 side by side.

 

[luke moffat]

Rather be lucky than have to rely on stupid things like skill and know how....that's for the birds!!

 

[pyroducksx3]

I don't think that you are saying anything. I do question giving advice on something I've never used. There is a ton of bad info given out everyday and it is hard form most to know what's good or bad info, or who's speaking from actually using the item in question or who's going off what others have said. Both points of view can be useful, but it is important to know which the person is speaking of. I'll explain a bit in the next post on Ryan's thoughts on them.



In any case, yes I've seen a NF once or twice.....

I really have zero patience for you. I never said it was a bad scope . In fact we aren't even that far apart on it. You say it's a good scope and I said it was a good scope. If someone doesn't 100% agree with you it means they don't know shit. You say its every bit as good as a 3000 dollar scope, I disagree. We are just two people that aren't ever going to get along. I'm sure you are accomplished and have great and vast expierence but you're a guy that always has be right. I feel like youre bored and just trolling to entertain yourself. I'll continue not saying anything and fledgling along with my shooting and hunting since I don't really know anything at all.

 

[luke moffat]

Wow man pryo I honestly didn't read his post that way at all.....

 

[pyroducksx3]

This isn't my first interaction with him and he stated I wasn't saying anything at all, how do you take that....but it's cool. I need to spend less time on the Internet anyway.

 

[luke moffat]

I will say the glass in the ATACR didn't exactly impress me much either. No matter how we focused the scope the 2'x2' plate at 1778 yards looks more like an orange fuzzy ball than a square plate. Granted it also appeared that way in my LRHS as well but looked perfect in the Swarovski spotter we were using and even my "crappy" vortex razor HD 12x50 binos.

No doubt NF has better glass than the LRHS and I don't believe anyone here is arguing otherwise. Just saying neither can come close to touching the quality of a good spotting scope

 

[Formidilosus]

I really have zero patience for you. I never said it was a bad scope . In fact we aren't even that far apart on it. You say it's a good scope and I said it was a good scope. If someone doesn't 100% agree with you it means they don't know shit. You say its every bit as good as a 3000 dollar scope, I disagree. We are just two people that aren't ever going to get along. I'm sure you are accomplished and have great and vast expierence but you're a guy that always has be right. I feel like youre bored and just trolling to entertain yourself. I'll continue not saying anything and fledgling along with my shooting and hunting since I don't really know anything at all.

We're not going to get along? On the internet?

Brother,

It has nothing to do with agreeing or not, nor bored and trolling, and everything to do with trying to help people who are seeking advice. Ryan Avery didn't like the glass, and for his use I get that. The only time you and I have conversed is on two threads where you are giving advice on scopes that you have limited or no experience with. That's it man. Even still, it's ok to disagree and discuss it- that's how people learn. If you say the glass is "questionable" and I say it's "pretty decent" and we do not discuss it.... how is anyone supposed to draw usable information from that? It isn't personel, it's a discussion. You asked if I had used NF, S&B, etc. I did not take offense as that's a legitimate question. I posted pictures to show that yes, I have used them. As well as quite a few S&B, Hendsolt, Khales, Zeiss, Bushnell LRHS/HDMR/ERS, etc., etc.

The way your posts read, as a couple of people have asked/told me is "the glass is sub-par". And that just isn't the case- as most people would define it. To most people VX3, old Zeiss Conquest, etc "glass" is pretty good. No, it does not have the color "pop" and "brightness" of a Swarovski X5, NF ATACR, or S&B. If a guy is asking about a LRHS I would have to think he understands that. It does have pretty solid resolution, and good mechanics, but like others suffers from CA. I've put them in optical charts, and tested them in low light and they are as good as about any $800-$1,000 scope.

 

[Formidilosus]

That's your opinion, mine is different.
Glass might be the last thing I would worry about on a long range scope. But my option is the glass is marginal at best. I shoot a lot right before dark at a local range. I had trouble shooting at a shot up steel target at 640 yards with the LRHS. I had no trouble with the X5, NXS and VX6 during the same time period. Different eyes might be fine with this scope. Mine were not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do do not disagree with this at all. If I remember correctly from a podcast, you didn't like Zeiss due to the coatings, correct?

For scopes to be used at long range right at dark, the LRHS, HDMR, ERS series Bushnell's are not the best available. For that use I'm jumping straight to the better NF ATACRs, etc. Having said that, for me, I don't generally shoot animals right at dark at long range. Sub 600, sure depending on the situation. For those that do and will shoot at LR right at dark, both for reliable adjustments and "glass, I absolutely would go with one of the above scopes (save the VX6, as I have not found them to be reliable enough).

 

[pyroducksx3]

Maybe I'm moody lately, maybe I've hit mentapause early I dunno.I sure got the vibe that you were specifically saying it was everybit as good as an nxs, atacr or other higher end optic. I complex agree for a 1000 dollar scope it's a great option and that on other levels it performs very highly. I felt like we were both almost saying the saying same thing but then you threw out the "you aren't saying anything" which honestly I got peeved about. I guess I'll just take a maximum strength motrin and chill out.

 

[Formidilosus]

Maybe I'm moody lately, maybe I've hit mentapause early I dunno.I sure got the vibe that you were specifically saying it was everybit as good as an nxs, atacr or other higher end optic. I complex agree for a 1000 dollar scope it's a great option and that on other levels it performs very highly. I felt like we were both almost saying the saying same thing but then you threw out the "you aren't saying anything" which honestly I got peeved about. I guess I'll just take a maximum strength motrin and chill out.

No, I meant "I'm not reading anything into what you are saying, or putting words in your mouth", not that you weren't saying anything. Exactly opposite from the way you took it.

 

[TheCougar]

 

[Broz]

I will say the glass in the ATACR didn't exactly impress me much either. No matter how we focused the scope the 2'x2' plate at 1778 yards looks more like an orange fuzzy ball than a square plate.

Luke, Is this the only ATACR you have used? Reason I ask is from your description something is way wrong. I shoot small aim points with an ATACR F2 from a mile to 3K and the sight picture is crisp and clear. The first time I took one out I was amazed I could differentiate the colors of orange and green lichen on a rock at 2500 yards. I heart shot that bear at 1702 and was on the crease behind the shoulder. Think about that, seeing the crease on a black bear at close to a mile. I do know there was a few of the first Gen 1 F2 ATACR's that went out that has a focus issue. So you may want to look into this.

Thanks
Jeff

 

[luke moffat]

Yeah it was a sample of one and honestly it may have been atmospheric conditions maybe but the fact that the Swarovski spotter was crystal clear (granted it was at 60x) makes me think it may be something's up my buddy's ATACR? I still hit just fine at 1778 (which is my one and only shot beyond a mile so not claiming to know anything about long range) merely sharing what I saw in the glass that day.

 

[mtnwrunner]

View attachment 48704

Yup, both good dudes.


Randy

 

[wind gypsy]

Chalk me up as a fan of the LRHS. I have much less experience than some in this thread but I've owned a few higher end scopes.

My 4.5-18 LRHS sits on my Beanland 6.5 SAUM hunting rifle. I spent $3k on a March 3-24x52 as my first choice for this rifle. The parallax was insanely finicky and it was difficult to get parallax dialed along with a clean reticle (yes I wasted a bunch of time messing with the diopter to no avail). The March was a very cool piece of equipment but a poor choice for hunting to me. I lost nearly the purchase price of the LRHS when I sold the March and put the LRHS on there. The LRHS comparatively gave up a little glass quality, weight, and refinement (the March turrets are top notch) for much more forgiving parallax, a reticle is always clean, and it tracks in exact units (something the March also didn't do).

I also have a VX6 3-18x44 - I've went back and forth between the two many times. I was convinced the glass was better in the LRHS until I cleaned the VX6. Now I say it's a tossup. I also run a Khales Gen 3 624i 6-24x56, while the glass is better than the LRHS, it's not enough so to amount to much in the real world use IMO.

One part about the OP's post that I see different than some is FFP on a 3-12x optic, I'd rather have SFP at that power range and would look at other options. If you're shooting far enough to hold for wind you're probably already at 12x IMO. On a 18x top end optic I might be using the reticle from 9-18x so it makes sense.

I've shot nightforce but never owned. Primary reasons for not going 4-16 ATACR over LRHS:
-Twice as expensive
-Why have a 34mm tube with a 42mm objective? 34mm tube forces you to mount the scope high enough for a bigger objective anyway.
-Don't like turning the entire ocular for magnification adjustment
-ATACR is heavier, with less mag
-14x is still borderline for FFP options to me, and I prefer the g2/g3 reticles

 

[Rorschach]

Gentlemen,

What do y'all think about how the LRHS compares with the Nightforce SHV?

I ordered a Nightforce SHV F1 4-14x50, but came across this thread, and the 3-12 LRHS looks really good, to my untrained eye.

What's the word?

Edit: I see where the eye relief on the LRHS is considerably larger (~3/4") than that of the SHV F1. I'm worried that with a Tikka Superlite I just purchased in 300wm, I'm going to be seeing stars. Legit concern?