Bushnell LRHS - Anyone have any experieince with these?

[Jordan Smith]

Glass is way overrated when talking real-life use of scopes, IMO.

But having said that, LRHS 3-12x glass (resolution, color rendition, contrast) is a bit better than NXS 5.5-22x, 8-32x, and SHV glass, IME. My LRHS has glass that's a bit better than my Razor Gen 1 5-20x, and a fair bit better than any VX3 or SWFA SS 3-9x I've owned or looked through. Not quite as good as S&B, Kahles, etc, but not far behind, either. I haven't owned or used an ATACR or BEAST, so can't comment either way.

 

[Dunky]

i see they have the LRHS 4.5 -18 on the website with an illuminated reticle. For you guys that have this scope without illumination, do you ever wish you had it ? considering this option but not sure I need it.

 

[Formidilosus]

i see they have the LRHS 4.5 -18 on the website with an illuminated reticle. For you guys that have this scope without illumination, do you ever wish you had it ? considering this option but not sure I need it.

Nope.

 

[huntsman22]

Nope

 

[pyroducksx3]

I have it and never use it. The only time it would of come in handy was with a less expierenced shooter right at legal shooting light with a target reticle. He was having trouble making out the reticle and I didn't even remember I had the batteries in the scope.

 

[Mtslackcountry]

Glass is way overrated when talking real-life use of scopes, IMO.

But having said that, LRHS 3-12x glass (resolution, color rendition, contrast) is a bit better than NXS 5.5-22x, 8-32x, and SHV glass, IME. My LRHS has glass that's a bit better than my Razor Gen 1 5-20x, and a fair bit better than any VX3 or SWFA SS 3-9x I've owned or looked through. Not quite as good as S&B, Kahles, etc, but not far behind, either. I haven't owned or used an ATACR or BEAST, so can't comment either way.

The LRHS is the new " vortex razor spotting scope" People eighter like that glass or think it sucks. This thread is all over the map as far as the "glass" I for one think LRHS is pretty damn good... On the other hand I thought the Razor spotter sucked.... So this leads me to what I have been saying all along... If your on the fence buy one from a retailer that allows returns.... then look thru it and compare it to your xyz scope or your buddies xyz scope... Then YOU will know if this scope is acceptable to your standards.

 

[wind gypsy]

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?

The additional eye relief is definitely a benefit. On steep uphill shots I'd be careful.

 

[luke moffat]

i see they have the LRHS 4.5 -18 on the website with an illuminated reticle. For you guys that have this scope without illumination, do you ever wish you had it ? considering this option but not sure I need it.

I bought my LRHS 4.5-18 off optics planet and at the time I did the illuminated version was exactly the same price ($1140) as the non-illuminated so why not right?

 

[Dunky]

Thanks everyone for the illumination info. You guys answered my question. Don't really need it.
Luke, I agree,if the price was the same why not.

 

[ckkone]

I had the 4.5-18x and returned it for the following reasons:

-Turns out I don't like FFP in a hunting scope.
-The glass was OK, no better or worse than some of my other scopes (Weaver tactical 3-15 and Zeiss Conquest MC 3-9)
-Main reason was the weight

Ended up going with a Vortex Razor HD LH, for its intended purpose of a lightweight hunting scope with good glass its hard to beat.

 

[GKPrice]

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

Nor did I .....

 

[GKPrice]

Glass is way overrated when talking real-life use of scopes, IMO.

But having said that, LRHS 3-12x glass (resolution, color rendition, contrast) is a bit better than NXS 5.5-22x, 8-32x, and SHV glass, IME. My LRHS has glass that's a bit better than my Razor Gen 1 5-20x, and a fair bit better than any VX3 or SWFA SS 3-9x I've owned or looked through. Not quite as good as S&B, Kahles, etc, but not far behind, either. I haven't owned or used an ATACR or BEAST, so can't comment either way.

should keep the perspective of GLASS in context, the LRHS will do most everything else noticeably better than those others mentioned

 

[GKPrice]

Glass is way overrated when talking real-life use of scopes, IMO.

But having said that, LRHS 3-12x glass (resolution, color rendition, contrast) is a bit better than NXS 5.5-22x, 8-32x, and SHV glass, IME. My LRHS has glass that's a bit better than my Razor Gen 1 5-20x, and a fair bit better than any VX3 or SWFA SS 3-9x I've owned or looked through. Not quite as good as S&B, Kahles, etc, but not far behind, either. I haven't owned or used an ATACR or BEAST, so can't comment either way.

all in the "eyes" I suppose - I find VX3's to be quite good, especially in low or fading light - for the difference of "maybe" 5-6 minutes compared to the cost and weight penalty I'll pick the VX3 (now VX3i with yet better glass) - and that is not mentioning dialing which I don't do

 

[USPcompact]

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.

Good choice.

 

[luke moffat]

Good choice.

Thanks!! Yeah should be pretty good setup I am hoping. I was shocked out LONG Tikka throated the CTR in the little 6.5. It was like 2.960 or something for a 143 eldx to the lands. Luckily both the standard CTR and the AICS mags will get me there.

Though its already killed two caribou in the OEM stock already and I hope to take it to Kodiak this fall for deer as well as have it for friends to use this fall for killing caribou.

 

[USPcompact]

Thanks!! Yeah should be pretty good setup I am hoping. I was shocked out LONG Tikka throated the CTR in the little 6.5. It was like 2.960 or something for a 143 eldx to the lands. Luckily both the standard CTR and the AICS mags will get me there.

Though its already killed two caribou in the OEM stock already and I hope to take it to Kodiak this fall for deer as well as have it for friends to use this fall for killing caribou.

The CTR is a ridiculous value for the money. Mine is chambered in .260, which is all I could find when I picked it up. I was out the door for $950 or so. The OEM stock didn't cut it for me (needed more comb height, especially so with the big Razor HD II) and I'd shot a few rifles with the XLR previously and liked it, so it was a no brainer. I added a Sterk curved bolt handle (like the AI guns have) as well as a Sterk titanium bolt shroud. It's a consistent 1/2 MOA gun, and occasionally sneaks down into the .3s whenever I take time to really concentrate and shoot a group.

You highlighted another advantage of the 6.5 Creedmoor over .260 Remington when feeding from a magazine. My CTR is 2.323" to the lands, and jamming a 143 ELD-X would give me a COAL of 2.966". Even using the Accurate Mag AICS mags with no binder plate the max COAL is 2.950". Thankfully, the 143s shoot best in my CTR with a jump of .040" to .050", so I have some COAL breathing room. The shorter OAL of the Creedmoor would definitely be an advantage in such a situation. I'm going to burn up the OEM barrel and then spin on a 24" Bartlein in 6.5 Creedmoor.

 

[luke moffat]

The CTR is a ridiculous value for the money. Mine is chambered in .260, which is all I could find when I picked it up. I was out the door for $950 or so. The OEM stock didn't cut it for me (needed more comb height, especially so with the big Razor HD II) and I'd shot a few rifles with the XLR previously and liked it, so it was a no brainer. I added a Sterk curved bolt handle (like the AI guns have) as well as a Sterk titanium bolt shroud. It's a consistent 1/2 MOA gun, and occasionally sneaks down into the .3s whenever I take time to really concentrate and shoot a group.

You highlighted another advantage of the 6.5 Creedmoor over .260 Remington when feeding from a magazine. My CTR is 2.323" to the lands, and jamming a 143 ELD-X would give me a COAL of 2.966". Even using the Accurate Mag AICS mags with no binder plate the max COAL is 2.950". Thankfully, the 143s shoot best in my CTR with a jump of .040" to .050", so I have some COAL breathing room. The shorter OAL of the Creedmoor would definitely be an advantage in such a situation. I'm going to burn up the OEM barrel and then spin on a 24" Bartlein in 6.5 Creedmoor.

My COAL to the lands in my Creedmoor is actually .010" longer than yours is in the 260. Kinda suprised Tikka cut the chambers so long but atleast they provide the magazine from the factory to give ya the latitude to get there.

Nice to see what it'll look like in the XLR setup.

Honestly only reason I went CTR over RPR was I wanted stainless. Last blued rifle I bought I took it on one ocean based hunt for black bear and made the mistake of treating how I would a stainless rifle and it ended up with more pock marks than a 14 year old boys face.

For $880 for the rifle and then the cost of the a XLR the price difference honestly isn't that much different than an RPR and I get the stainless I wanted.

 

[USPcompact]

My COAL to the lands in my Creedmoor is actually .010" longer than yours is in the 260. Kinda suprised Tikka cut the chambers so long but atleast they provide the magazine from the factory to give ya the latitude to get there.

Nice to see what it'll look like in the XLR setup.

Yeah, I worded that poorly. I had to look up my CBTO number and COAL, and it all went off the rails from there.

I meant to highlight one of the case dimension differences in that the Creedmoor has a shorter and fatter case body but a longer neck, and for a given COAL the bullet will occupy less space in the case body vs the .260. The SAAMI COAL specification for the 6.5 is actually .115" greater than the .260, but in practice is typically limited by magazine length for an off the shelf rifle.

I was out shooting coyotes last night, and staying up tonight to watch basketball is catching up with me.

 

[Rorschach]

Just received a mil-mil 4.5-18x44 LRHS in the mail. Unboxed it and played with it for a second. I've got a Nightforce 4-14x50 SHV coming (also mil-mil) to compare it to. Here are some initial observations on the Bushnell...

- Low profile, easy-to-interpret/adjust elevation turret is a real plus. The clicks are relatively far apart and easy to distinguish by feel alone.

- Capped windage turret is a good feature as well. Same as for elevation: clicks are very easily distinguishable.

- Magnification ring is super-easy to rotate, compared with most others I've used in the past (Vortex Strike Eagle, Vortex Razor HD LH, Bushnell Elite 6500, Bushnell HDMR).

- The reticle, at least in the bedroom just now, is pretty thin-looking at 4.5x; could turn out to be a liability in low light, but I hesitate to even mention it because I'm not sure how much it'll really matter, practically. The illumination should solve that problem.

That's all for now.

 

[luke moffat]

Just received a mil-mil 4.5-18x44 LRHS in the mail. Unboxed it and played with it for a second. I've got a Nightforce 4-14x50 SHV coming (also mil-mil) to compare it to. Here are some initial observations on the Bushnell...

- Low profile, easy-to-interpret/adjust elevation turret is a real plus. The clicks are relatively far apart and easy to distinguish by feel alone.

- Capped windage turret is a good feature as well. Same as for elevation: clicks are very easily distinguishable.

- Magnification ring is super-easy to rotate, compared with most others I've used in the past (Vortex Strike Eagle, Vortex Razor HD LH, Bushnell Elite 6500, Bushnell HDMR).

- The reticle, at least in the bedroom just now, is pretty thin-looking at 4.5x; could turn out to be a liability in low light, but I hesitate to even mention it because I'm not sure how much it'll really matter, practically. The illumination should solve that problem.

That's all for now.

Good to hear. I picked the LRHS for the low pro elevation dial and capped windage as well.

I actually like the G2 reticle so far. That 2 Mil Semi circle seems to work well for target centering at 4.5X thus far.

My biggest gripe about the scope thus far is the parallax adjust is one stiff SOB. Maybe it'll loosen up with more use we shall see.