Bushnell vs nightforce

[sndmn11]

Those are some good tests, definitely made me cringe on those drops, but they seemed very realistic to what could happen in the field. Both choices seemed to fair pretty well. I am fairly certain I know the range your at in the video. Knowing that and assuming we likely hunt similar areas, which scope would you choose? I think I know your answer based on what you keep on your hunting rifle (SHV).

If your offering to sell your lrts I appreciate it but I have a mental hurdle with used precision pieces that would always nag me, that is of course unless the price is too good to pass up, which I would not expect.

Sent from my motorola one 5G UW ace using Tapatalk

I prefer the Nightforce reticle, this is why.



I can pick up the reticle at low power better than on the Bushnell. I also know I can get ahold of someone at Nightforce in a few minutes if I was really grouchy about something.

I think some @HawkinsPrecision rings on a pic rail or their integrated ring/mounts, and you are in business.

 

[amassi]

I have the shv f1 on a tikka 22-250
The t084 didn't work for me, eye relief had the scope too far back and the bell was only a post it note away from the barrel.
For my eyes it really shines from 6-10 power even on coyote stands where a close shot may pop up I'll normally leave it on 6. Granted I did a lot of hunting in my youth with a fixed 6x that had a tighter fov than the nf.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Hondo64d]

I've narrowed down my next scope to either the Bushnell lrhs2 4.5-18 or the nightforce SHV 4-14 f1. I've searched a bunch and got some information but would like your guys opinions. Looking at the$1k price range. I know swfa is highly regarded but I want this scope asap to start practicing with it.

The scope will be going on a 7mm rem mag t3x that is used strictly for hunting (and practice) at ranges from 10 yards to 500 yards.

I'm currently using a vortex viper which is junk, has been warrantied, a tight eye box/poor eye relief, and not particularly clear glass at max mag.

I'm really interested in ffp for the correct subtensions at any mag.

Some reviews say the NF has a poor reticle at low power and the lrhs2 has the donut of death for really close range. I would like illumination but not a need if the reticle is visible in lower power and light.

I prefer new because there is usually a good reason a person is selling a used scope but maybe rokslide classified is better...

Any thoughts are welcome, thanks.

Sent from my motorola one 5G UW ace using Tapatalk

I’ve had both, and between the two, I prefer the LRHS. Both retained zero, tracked and returned to zero perfectly, but The MIL-R leaves much to be desired for hunting and the glass is a little better on the LRHS.

John

 

[slowelk]

The MIL-R leaves much to be desired for hunting?

What are you left desiring?

 

[Hondo64d]

What are you left desiring?

The open post on the Mil-R are harder to see in low light against a dark background when compared to the G2H reticle in the LRHS. I prefer the post to be solid all the way to the tip. With a mix of openings and hash marks, I found hold offs with the MIL-R to be less intuitive to use than a reticle that just uses hash marks, especially near the center of the reticle. That being said, I’m not a fan of the donut on the G2H of the LRHS, but did prefer that to the spaces on the MIL-R.

John

 

[billoo349]

I prefer the Nightforce reticle, this is why.

That image of the lrhs reticle really doesn't do it any favors. From the pics on the website it looks like heavy solid posts, but your image looks like faint and blurry posts.

Sent from my motorola one 5G UW ace using Tapatalk

 

[DakotaBPNW]

I also found the Bushnell glass to be superior in terms of picture quality

 

[sndmn11]

That image of the lrhs reticle really doesn't do it any favors. From the pics on the website it looks like heavy solid posts, but your image looks like faint and blurry posts.

Sent from my motorola one 5G UW ace using Tapatalk

The hunt reticle likely is a solid outer. The tactical reticle is .1 hashes for the outer.

 

[chutinlead]

I don't know what the Bushnell has for eye relief, but the NF only has 3.1" of eye relief. Might be a point to consider on a lighter 7RM.

I just switched from a LHT FFP to a SHV F1 on a rifle I am building more for competition in 6.5CM so that wasn't a concern.

 

[Wrench]

I have 5 lrhs's right now and would buy more tomorrow if I needed glass. They wring a lit out of the $1000 market and it takes another 5-800 to gain a substantial improvement....in my experience.

 

[left hunter]

Sndmn11 is using a picture of the lrts reticle not the lrhs reticle. The lrhs reticle is a completely different reticle than the lrts. The reticle in the lrhs is much bolder and easier to see in low light and has a doughnut in the middle

 

[DakotaBPNW]

This is the LRHS2 reticle. Like others have said, the price is hard to beat on these scopes. I was about to pull the trigger on an NSX and grabbed 2 of these for almost the same price. Both my hunting rifles have this scope now and it makes it easy to go back and forth between them

 

[billoo349]

The hunt reticle likely is a solid outer. The tactical reticle is .1 hashes for the outer.

Got it my bad. I'm about to pull the trigger on the lrhs2, I worry about stock on them but I should wait a couple weeks and get a look at both...

I have a Burris with the circle of death and I love it for quick acquisition on an AR, but it's sfp and illuminated so not a fair comparison.

Sent from my motorola one 5G UW ace using Tapatalk

 

[billoo349]

I don't know what the Bushnell has for eye relief, but the NF only has 3.1" of eye relief. Might be a point to consider on a lighter 7RM.

I just switched from a LHT FFP to a SHV F1 on a rifle I am building more for competition in 6.5CM so that wasn't a concern.

I do consider eye relief or maybe eye box is the better term I'm not sure, since they seem related.

The Bushnell claims 3.4" eye relief but my vortex claims 4" which its not even close to that. I had my fiancee crudly measure my eye relief many times and it's less then 3" to just over 3" at full mag to get full sight picture on the viper hs. Vortex only gives one number on that scope which i would assume is at min mag, for marketing I guess. Bushnell also only gives one number.

Sent from my motorola one 5G UW ace using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

Got it my bad. I'm about to pull the trigger on the lrhs2, I worry about stock on them but I should wait a couple weeks and get a look at both...


Sent from my motorola one 5G UW ace using Tapatalk

I'd call it my bad because I didn't realize the difference between the two reticles' outer posts. I thought it was just the circle and some reticle thicknesses.

I shoot rifles that the SHVs are on better than the LRTSs. Even if I put them on the same rifle back to back. I believe that the narrow window of eyebox/eye relief forces my position on the rifle to be more consistent and that translates to the terminal end. I could be wrong too, but I've used each enough that there is a correlation.

 

[Wrench]

I do consider eye relief or maybe eye box is the better term I'm not sure, since they seem related.

The Bushnell claims 3.4" eye relief but my vortex claims 4" which its not even close to that. I had my fiancee crudly measure my eye relief many times and it's less then 3" to just over 3" at full mag to get full sight picture on the viper hs. Vortex only gives one number on that scope which i would assume is at min mag, for marketing I guess. Bushnell also only gives one number.

Sent from my motorola one 5G UW ace using Tapatalk

I have one on a 300rum w/o a brake, weighs 8ish pounds....no issue.

 

[billoo349]

Sndmn11 is using a picture of the lrts reticle not the lrhs reticle. The lrhs reticle is a completely different reticle that the lrts has one is much bolder and easier to see in low light and has a doughnut in the middle

Are you saying the lrhs or the lrts is bolder?

Sent from my motorola one 5G UW ace using Tapatalk

 

[billoo349]

I have one on a 300rum w/o a brake, weighs 8ish pounds....no issue.

Well that's a shit load more recoil then my little 7mm. Are you talking shooting it at full mag?

Sent from my motorola one 5G UW ace using Tapatalk

 

[Wrench]

Well that's a shit load more recoil then my little 7mm. Are you talking shooting it at full mag?

Sent from my motorola one 5G UW ace using Tapatalk

Yes. Got another one sitting here waiting on a new bartlein 2b that's going to be a 300win in an edge.....and I won't worry a bit.

 

[billoo349]

Well I just ordered an lrhs2 from gap. I counted up the results and 6 for Bushnell and 5 for NF. Likely to change as others put their two cents in. I grew up shooting Bushnell and although they are more recently considered low end I hope this Japan made Bushnell scope gives me what I want. The reticle seems more intuitive to me. I like the extra mag, weight savings, turrets, and no fault warranty on the Bushnell. Granted they can't replace this scope since they don't make it anymore.

I know NF has been long considered top of the line since the early 2000's. I remember not long after they came out they were all the rage but I really do want Bushnell to succeed. I just wish they would focus on the mid price range glass though. If nothing else this limited run lrhs2 should have some additional nostalgia when I never sell it haha.

Sent from my motorola one 5G UW ace using Tapatalk