• If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here

New Bushnell LRHS

bruce_ventura said:
That's a bold claim. Most scopes in the $2500+ price range have a triplet objective lens. Does this LRHS model have a triplet objective?
Click to expand...

I may be out of line here, but I interpreted the original comment as image quality not actual composition or the construction of the scope.

It seemed to be a comment to offer a frame of reference for the image quality, but hell what do I know?

I know I have a lower cost scope that is easier on my eyes than scopes that I have that cost significantly more, and I do not believe I would be remiss to say it's image quality is better than scopes costing $x,xxx more. It would in no way be a comment as to the actual construction of the scopes, but rather a subjective description of the image quality in a way that others might be able to understand.
 
bruce_ventura said:
That's a bold claim. Most scopes in the $2500+ price range have a triplet objective lens. Does this LRHS model have a triplet objective?

Either way, I think this LRHS model will be a winner somewhere. The LRH model may be better suited to the precision rifle community, than the LRHS model is to the hunting community. Long range hunters seem to prefer higher magnification and SFP. Personally, I'm satisfied with 12X out to about 750 yds, which is my upper limit for hunting. However, 12X on the high end forces you to bring a spotting scope for counting antler points. The donut reticle feature obscures the field of view for long range shots. I'll have a better feel for the reticle design after I see it at SHOT in Jan.

Incidentally, I've been using a Bushnell HDMR H59 scope on a 50 BMG rifle in ballistics testing for the past year and it's holding up very well. I've been generally pleased with the direction Bushnell has gone with their tactical and other high end scopes.
Click to expand...

Ill check on the Lenses, as Im not sure. The scope is made by Light Optical in Japan who makes the Nightforce scopes and the Vortex Razor. It should be the same setup as in your HDMR except in a 30mm Tube. That scope is made by Light Optical as well.

As far as 12x for Long range hunting. I will say first that this is partially a lucky fluke, But when the very first copy of this scope arrived at Bushnell, Myself, Pat Sinclair and Jamie Cunningham and Scott Schrieve were hunting Antelope in Buffalo WY. Bushnell next day Air'ed one to us and on the second day of the hunt we dismounted my March installed the LHRS we went to the Buffalo, Wy public 100 yard range and Pat zeroed the scope at 100 yards and we set the zero stop. Driving into the ranch we spotted a small group of Ewe's along the road so we passed them up and set up on a bluff 1268 yards out. Pat called the distance and we estimated the wind at 10-12. The very first long range shot using this scope was a first round hit on a ewe antelope at 1268 yards. Elevation was perfect the wind call was about .2 off left. The round struck the antelope right through the neck as it was feeding!

True Story !!


BTW I was born and raised in Ventura, CA if you look east on top of a mountain there are 2 Trees that stick out on the Horizon. My Great Grandfather George T Gardner planted those 85+ years ago. He was a huge walnut farmer back then. Gardner Ave off of Telephone Road was named after him and their house used to be on that corner. My Grand Uncle Edwin Gardner was Mayor of Ventura in the 60's. Interesting history I thought Id share.



407753724.jpg
 
Hey thanks for responding. I won't hold my breath that the LHRS has a triplet objective. It would be very difficult for a scope in that price range to have a triplet lens. The HDMR only has a doublet - I confirmed that by inspecting my scope.

There was a point to my question: a triplet objective lens is one if the things that sets the Nightforce NXS scopes apart from lower priced tactical scopes. The triplet lens gives the scopes better resolution at high elevation settings. NXS scopes also cost more than the LHRS price, so I'm not claiming to compare apples to apples.

Interesting trivia about your family history here in Ventura - it's a small world. I'll look for the trees. Ironically, there's a hill here called "two trees" due north of the County Hospital. Those trees have a far different history, though.

Maybe there's a small town in Germany that has a street with my last name on it... Nah, my ancestors were probably peasants.
 
ICANHITHIMMAN said:
George

As impressed as I am with the optic, I must ask the obvious question as to why? With the given popularity of the 5.5x22 NF in the long range hunting crowd, why did you choose the 3-12 and not more power?

Jon
Click to expand...

for me at least I don't want my scope only going down to 5.5 on the low end. 12x is plenty enough power for long range big game hunting. I would have liked to see at least 14 or 15x on the upper only because its nice to have for load development at long range. that way I don't need to put a high power load development scope on. I think they designed this scope for a specific use, its not meant to do everything. in my view they got it almost exactly right, the problem for me is its a mil scope, most long range hunting people prefer MOA. there isn't anything magic about either system simply different unit of measurement. its easier for me to correlate the size of something be it a wind call or size of the target or rock if I am using the MOA system.

I want to see them go 1/3 MOA clicks on the turret, keep the circle thingy and adjust it to fit MOA sizing. make the reticle SFP with 1 moa spacing on the horizontal crosshair for wind holdoffs.
 
cummins cowboy said:
for me at least I don't want my scope only going down to 5.5 on the low end. 12x is plenty enough power for long range big game hunting. I would have liked to see at least 14 or 15x on the upper only because its nice to have for load development at long range. that way I don't need to put a high power load development scope on. I think they designed this scope for a specific use, its not meant to do everything. in my view they got it almost exactly right, the problem for me is its a mil scope, most long range hunting people prefer MOA. there isn't anything magic about either system simply different unit of measurement. its easier for me to correlate the size of something be it a wind call or size of the target or rock if I am using the MOA system.

I want to see them go 1/3 MOA clicks on the turret, keep the circle thingy and adjust it to fit MOA sizing. make the reticle SFP with 1 moa spacing on the horizontal crosshair for wind holdoffs.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the low end. What would have been nice on the high end going to 15x is that would have pretty much eliminated any need for me to bring a spotter along with me. 12x is just not quite what i personally need to pick out antler tips on mule deer and elk at long range.

BTW, 1/10 MIL is .34 MOA so you basically have that part of your request already. :)

Scot E.
 
cummins cowboy said:
for me at least I don't want my scope only going down to 5.5 on the low end. 12x is plenty enough power for long range big game hunting. I would have liked to see at least 14 or 15x on the upper only because its nice to have for load development at long range. that way I don't need to put a high power load development scope on. I think they designed this scope for a specific use, its not meant to do everything. in my view they got it almost exactly right, the problem for me is its a mil scope, most long range hunting people prefer MOA. there isn't anything magic about either system simply different unit of measurement. its easier for me to correlate the size of something be it a wind call or size of the target or rock if I am using the MOA system.

I want to see them go 1/3 MOA clicks on the turret, keep the circle thingy and adjust it to fit MOA sizing. make the reticle SFP with 1 moa spacing on the horizontal crosshair for wind holdoffs.
Click to expand...
I will start out by saying i am a MOA shooter. If you do the math, or more simple, a google search you will see the following;

0.1 MIL= 0.36" at 100 yards
1/3 MOA= 0.33" at 100 yards
For me, it seems much simpler to stick with MIL VS the 1/3 MOA. I was once asked how many dimes (MIL) are in $65, then again asked how many quarters (MOA), the math is much more simple for MIL.
If my choices were those two, i would choose MIL.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

B
Bushnell LRHS
Replies
5
Views
2K
jrsolocam
J
H
Bushnell Discontinuing LRHS
Replies
10
Views
6K
Mike 338
M
T
Bushnell LRHS reports
2
Replies
18
Views
4K
Kimber7man
Kimber7man
wilkup
Bushnell LRHS/LRTS verses...
2
Replies
21
Views
15K
Danehunter
Danehunter
B
  • Poll
Bushnell drm 2 or bushnell lrhs-2
Replies
6
Views
2K
bsnyder
B

Recent Posts

Top