Lighter weight long range scope

[Mr. Monday]

Yeah, they're definitely proud of those Tangent's, no doubt. I've read a bunch on the hide about those and they get solid reviews. I don't think I'm about to cough up that much coin though and I'm very likely at the point of diminishing returns. Bang for buck, the Bushy LRHSi setup looks like a definite stand out winner, but I'd surely like to get a bit more magnification like the March has in it and save a few more ounces to boot. I could roll that Vortex AMG though for a screaming deal as well....decisions decisions....

The Tangent Theta is top dog in the 3-15x scopes. The Steiner T5Xi 3-15x50 is basically a budget version of the TT with worse optics. I need 3x on the low end so that disqualified the LRHSi for me, but if you're okay with 4.5x on the low end the LRHSi is a great choice. It has one of my favorite hunting rets but I guess not everyone is on the same page as far as rets go. I definitely prefer an xmas tree ret but I'm not a fan of the Horus rets, I find them to be busy and confusing.

 

[Muley Buck]

I have one of these as well but got the standard right hand Windage as I don’t dial wind so it can stay out of the way over on the right side of the scope.

Plan to compare it heads up to the AMG over the next couple months. Loser gets sold. Who know both AMG and k624 might get sold if they don’t show me enough advantage over the 4.5-18 LRHS.

Hey Luke, how did the AMG end up working for you? Love it? Hate it? Somewhere in between?

 

[White Mamba]

The March 3-24 ×40 at 21oz is a great scope.
The fml 1 reticle is just like a tmr. For weight and zoom range it's hard to beat
Can't go wrong with the 2-10 nightforce either, I've used them for years and they are solid scopes

 

[Rawmeat]

This might help your decision if price matters. I have never used LRHSi, but I ordered one 2 days ago. That price is crazy.

*special buy* scope only Bushnell LRHSi 4.5-18X44 G2H (mrad)

 

[Brado16]

Hey Luke, how did the AMG end up working for you? Love it? Hate it? Somewhere in between?

Luke Moffet I would also like to hear. I have a 4.5-18 LRHS and am looking at the AMG for better glass and thinner reticle.

 

[Stingray]

I put the Leupold vx-6hd on my .300 Winmag. It’s not a 1,000 yard gun but I’ve been happy with the setup. Holds a zero well. Nice glass. Not too heavy. Durable. If I was shooting 1,000+ I’d use a Schmidt and Bender or NF optic. I like the fine adjustment quality and feel and the ability to hold a zero of each. But not sure about the weight you’re hoping for.

 

[Formidilosus]

I put the Leupold vx-6hd on my .300 Winmag. It’s not a 1,000 yard gun but I’ve been happy with the setup. Holds a zero well. Nice glass. Not too heavy. Durable. If I was shooting 1,000+ I’d use a Schmidt and Bender or NF optic. I like the fine adjustment quality and feel and the ability to hold a zero of each. But not sure about the weight you’re hoping for.

How many legitimate rounds with the scope? How much dialing, and how are you checking correct adjustment value and tracking? Return to zero? How have you discovered it’s durability?


Honest questions as I find it interesting when I see multiples of a piece of gear and every sample has similar issues, and others say they have none.

 

[luke moffat]

Luke Moffet I would also like to hear. I have a 4.5-18 LRHS and am looking at the AMG for better glass and thinner reticle.

I have used the AMG to shoot just under 2000 yards and even shot my moose offhand this year with it at 150 yards. It certainly checks a lot of boxes. That said I didn't sell my Bushnell LRHSi 4.5-18. In fact I picked up 3 more of them or my other chassis rifles. I think the reticle on the LRHS line is the best of all the FFP scopes I have used (which is a pile in the last 18 months) for hunting purposes.

So in short I really like both. But that doesn't mean I am not gonna be mounting a 7-35 ATACR on my 7 WSM either. The scope shuffle will continue. I you got the funds the AMG is a dang nice scope....but for $800 for the LRHS right now and you get a $160 leatherman its kinda a no brainer. Kahles 6-24i, NF NXS 5.5-22, and March 3-24 have all been replaced with the LRHS if that tells you anything.

 

[choovhntr]

What about that sig line? I hear great initial impressions but can’t for the life of me find any follow up with tracking and such. Luke what made you not like the nxs vs the lrhs? Curious because I want a capped windage turret on one of my rifles with an nxs on it but afraid to touch anything lighter in a second focal plane. If the lrhs is that great I may just suck up the ffp aspect, and gain the 1/4 lb weight saving before they are gone for good

 

[luke moffat]

What about that sig line? I hear great initial impressions but can’t for the life of me find any follow up with tracking and such. Luke what made you not like the nxs vs the lrhs? Curious because I want a capped windage turret on one of my rifles with an nxs on it but afraid to touch anything lighter in a second focal plane. If the lrhs is that great I may just suck up the ffp aspect, and gain the 1/4 lb weight saving before they are gone for good

A couple things, mostly personal preference as the NXS is a great scope and the exposed windage on the NXS wasn't even a reason for me to change.

But here was MY reasons:

1) A SFP scope that reticle only "works' at 22X or dialed perfectly to 11X and doubling it is kinda a nusiance I found. If it was a 3-15 NXS this likely would have been a non-issue.

The LRHS being FFP and I can dial down to anything and still have the reticle means something is very nice.

2) Which brings me to #2 reason, reticle. The LRHS reticle is likely the best I have used for hunting in a FFP. This includes reticles from scopes that are $2K-$3K from NF, Kahles, March, and Vortex. The circle of death at 4.5 is still VERY useable for quick target acquisition and such.

3)The NXS was in MOA. I have grown to prefer MILs for me. Again personal preference and I realize I could get a NXS in MILs but not for the price GAP was closing out the LRHSi.

4) Small features like:
-Elevation cap that can be set back to zero without tools as a coin or piece of brass works fine.
-The windage pull out and set to zero and push back in is nice under the windage cap.
-Zero stop is a bit easier to set than the NF IMO.

4)Capped windage I guess. This was more of a bonus than a real reason as I have never had a problem with the windage dial turning on me but doesn't' hurt to cap it.

So if my NXS was a 3-15 MIL and not a 5.5-22 MOA is might have been a bit tougher to let go. As it was it was an easy decision for what I was looking for in the scope.

Again these are my preferences I have come to like. Not that the 5.5-22 is a bad scope by any means and many prefer it, just like the feature set of the LRHS better for my uses, as such I have 4 of them.

 

[Stingray]

Sorry for the delay. Just saw this.

Gun has about 150 rounds through it at this point, maybe a few more but around that number. It was zeroed when I had the gun made (boresighted and then the builder fired 5 or 6 rounds to zero at 200 yards before delivering). When I received it, I fired off a sled at distances from 100 to 300 yards over various days in various conditions to dial it in for me. When received it was shooting well but was a bit off for me, firing about 1 inch high and to the right. However, the MOA adjustments I needed corresponded well with the adjustment knobs meaning if I needed a 1/4 MOA on the target I could easily get that. Once dialed-in, it shot accurately over a couple of months during which time it was transported in the back of a truck and in the belly of several airplanes. Always returned to zero. I also dropped it on an elk hunt as well last year and it slid a couple of hundred feet down the hillside on a mountain. No damage just some minor scratches. Held zero when I shot it later.

I recently shot with a friend who is a former competitive distance shooter after retiring from the Marines as a sniper and sniper instructor. Over the course of a week we used it on his home range. He shot out to 800 yards and had very good groups and it returned to zero at 200 yards when I fired it.

I have not boredsighted it. I have only tested it by firing it from a sled at 200 yards every time it has sat in the case for long or after I’ve traveled. It has needed some adjustment but usually 1/4 MOA to return to zero. A handful of times it didn’t need any adjustment.

So far, it has done what I need and it has been reliable, accurate and precise. It might nit be as good at holding a zero as NF, Swaro or SB, but I’m happy with it. Fit the bill for what I needed.

Hope that helps.

 

[choovhntr]

A couple things, mostly personal preference as the NXS is a great scope and the exposed windage on the NXS wasn't even a reason for me to change.

But here was MY reasons:

1) A SFP scope that reticle only "works' at 22X or dialed perfectly to 11X and doubling it is kinda a nusiance I found. If it was a 3-15 NXS this likely would have been a non-issue.

The LRHS being FFP and I can dial down to anything and still have the reticle means something is very nice.

2) Which brings me to #2 reason, reticle. The LRHS reticle is likely the best I have used for hunting in a FFP. This includes reticles from scopes that are $2K-$3K from NF, Kahles, March, and Vortex. The circle of death at 4.5 is still VERY useable for quick target acquisition and such.

3)The NXS was in MOA. I have grown to prefer MILs for me. Again personal preference and I realize I could get a NXS in MILs but not for the price GAP was closing out the LRHSi.

4) Small features like:
-Elevation cap that can be set back to zero without tools as a coin or piece of brass works fine.
-The windage pull out and set to zero and push back in is nice under the windage cap.
-Zero stop is a bit easier to set than the NF IMO.

4)Capped windage I guess. This was more of a bonus than a real reason as I have never had a problem with the windage dial turning on me but doesn't' hurt to cap it.

So if my NXS was a 3-15 MIL and not a 5.5-22 MOA is might have been a bit tougher to let go. As it was it was an easy decision for what I was looking for in the scope.

Again these are my preferences I have come to like. Not that the 5.5-22 is a bad scope by any means and many prefer it, just like the feature set of the LRHS better for my uses, as such I have 4 of them.

Thank your for the in depth response. It was extremely helpful

 

[Muley Buck]

Yes, thank you for the insight Luke, much appreciated.

 

[Wrench]

I have a couple of the lrhsi scopes and honestly I prefer the x12 lrhs to the big brother. More forgiving eyebox and uber clear.....and it saves weight.

 

[luke moffat]

I have a couple of the lrhsi scopes and honestly I prefer the x12 lrhs to the big brother. More forgiving eyebox and uber clear.....and it saves weight.

Trade ya a 3-12 LRHS I have for your 4.5-18 straight up?

 

[Wrench]

I might do that luke. I have a un mounted one that has the distance backwards on the focus sitting on my shelf. Bushy will fix it for free....but I have another exactly the same and never felt like it mattered.

 

[luke moffat]

I might do that luke. I have a un mounted one that has the distance backwards on the focus sitting on my shelf. Bushy will fix it for free....but I have another exactly the same and never felt like it mattered.

Sweet. Keep me posted.