Lrhs 3-12 vs rs1.2

[Joshuajosh]

I’m debating trying out one of these rs1.2 scopes and switching out my 3-12 lrhs, however I know these lrhs scopes are pretty much impossible to come by nowadays so if I’m not missing much I’ll just hang onto it. Those of you that have tried both, which do you prefer and why?

 

[SouthPaw]

I preferred everything about the 3-12 LRHS except the reticle and 50 spline turret. But the reticle improvement is dramatic and for big game hunting gives the edge to the rs1.2 for me. The 3-12 LRHS with an improved reticle and a few OZ lighter is the ideal scope.

 

[willfrye027]

They’re both great scopes. I did not mind the reticle in the LRHS, but agree that the maven is a better reticle overall. Unless you want/need the extra few x of magnification or the LRHS reticle bugs you, I’m not sure it’s “worth” the upgrade for a general purpose hunting scope

 

[Weldor]

I'd run a 3x12 LRHS if they were not as rare as Hen's teeth. Great scope and reliable. Sorry I sold mine.

 

[wind gypsy]

I've had a bunch of LRHS/LRTS scopes. I do prefer the RS1.2 and have been tempted to replace my last LRTS 3-12 or my LRHS2 with one but i have not yet been able to justify the extra $500 spend to do so.

The reticle and the zoom range of the RS1.2 are the two main benefits. The turret setup is nicer if you're changing ammo/zero frequently too. They are functionally pretty similar scopes.