Rifle Scopes Bushnell DMR II Pro

[jbell]

I am thinking about giving one a go, I have owned several of the original DMR’s and they are very good for the $ all tracked 100% and gave me years of good service. I like the G2 & think I will like the G3 reticle so that isn’t a factor for me. I am curious about people’s experience with these scopes ability to correct parallax at 50 yards, all my 1st gens were able to in all conditions. What about these? Curious as to why the DMR II and the XRS both say 75 yards and the DMR II Pro says 50 yard on Bushnells website?

How are these scopes preforming? I have not been seeing much about them as far as good or bad. Just looking for first hand experience, thanks.

 

[wade2big]

I cant help you with first hand with the Pro but I will say if the Pro was illuminated I would buy one.

They have the XRSII glass which is nice. I did not like the DMRII. It was the only scope I have ever looked through that the CA was so bad I couldn’t stand it. I have never noticed CA in any other scope as I don’t look for it. The DMRii Pro would cure that problem.

Hopefully someone with experience chimes in for you.

 

[jbell]

No illumination isn’t a deal breaker for me.

 

[dustingaunder]

I have two G3 Pros. Huge fan. No CA, nice and clear.

 

[Ryridesmotox]

I have an XRS2 and mine can resolve inside 50 yards. Might be an outlier though. And I don't do it on magnification setting more than like 6. Haven't shot a DMR2 pro though.

 

[tansinator]

Jbell, not what you asked about, but give the Meopta Optika a look. I have it on my Vudoo and love it.

 

[Glassaholic]

I have two G3 Pros. Huge fan. No CA, nice and clear.

Can you verify the Pro has 50 marked on the parallax? My DMR II could only do 75 and it was 75, try as I might to focus closer and it would not. Only way is by backing off magnification to get better DOF. PRO shares the same optical formula as DMR II so I’d be surprised if it truly does focus to 50. My DMR II had an acceptable amount of CA for the price, Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18 was worse. Bushnell’s DMR II/XRS II scopes are solid albeit with a few shortcomings.

 

[dustingaunder]

I focused it on my shop the other night before I swapped it out for the ZP5. I’d say the 50 yards is pretty close. It’s about 35 yards away on my deck and I was in the house.

 

[jbell]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate the info. Keep is coming.

On the parallax thing the 1st generation DMR’s I had were marked at 75 yards on the knob (as we know that does not really matter) but all 3 or 4 of them would completely correct parallax at 50 yards in all environments that I shot in. So more than likely these will be the same.

 

[Lunchbox27]

I have two DMRii’s. Love them! Granted, not the pro, but tracking has been solid, eye box is good. Zero complaints. I would buy the Pro if I needed another scope.

 

[Aaron47pb]

The DMR II Pro is an awesome value at “street prices”. I’ve had one for a while on my 6.5 PRC and have about 400 rounds on it. Good adjustments, tracks well, good glass, easy zero mechanism, etc. It’s just a great scope.

Haven’t done any shooting inside 100 yards, but just looking through it at my backyard, it appears to resolve well inside 50 yards.

 

[jbell]

The DMR II Pro is an awesome value at “street prices”. I’ve had one for a while on my 6.5 PRC and have about 400 rounds on it. Good adjustments, tracks well, good glass, easy zero mechanism, etc. It’s just a great scope.

Haven’t done any shooting inside 100 yards, but just looking through it at my backyard, it appears to resolve well inside 50 yards.

Thank you, but does it correct out parallax? **@ 50 yards

 

[Glassaholic]

I focused it on my shop the other night before I swapped it out for the ZP5. I’d say the 50 yards is pretty close. It’s about 35 yards away on my deck and I was in the house.

View attachment 7212423

Nice, that is interesting they are offering the pro with 50y parallax, but the II with 75. Now if only they'd offer illumination, still can't figure out what is taking them so long to offer illumination in the pro model.

 

[Aaron47pb]

Thank you, but does it correct out parallax? **@ 50 yards

Don’t know, I didn’t actually check. I’ll check next time I have it out.

 

[Nathan11B]

I have the XRS 2 and haven't had any issues with 50yards and 100yards. Haven't tried closer than 50yards. Given that, I think the DMR II Pro wouldn't have any issue and if memory serves me right they (XRS II n DMR Pro II) both use the same glass. To me that would be enough to go ahead and purchase the DMR II Pro. If you look hard enough I'm sure you can find an XRS II for 1200, I paid a hair over 1400 for mine and it was pretty much new minus one scratch.

 

[jbell]

I have the XRS 2 and haven't had any issues with 50yards and 100yards. Haven't tried closer than 50yards. Given that, I think the DMR II Pro wouldn't have any issue and if memory serves me right they (XRS II n DMR Pro II) both use the same glass. To me that would be enough to go ahead and purchase the DMR II Pro. If you look hard enough I'm sure you can find an XRS II for 1200, I paid a hair over 1400 for mine and it was pretty much new minus one scratch.

Right on man, I hope you are doing well!

 

[wade2big]

Thank you, but does it correct out parallax? **@ 50 yards

What kind of parralax issues would you expect to have at 50? I’m curious as I think parallax errors are an internet problem and not a real world one.

 

[wade2big]

Can you verify the Pro has 50 marked on the parallax? My DMR II could only do 75 and it was 75, try as I might to focus closer and it would not. Only way is by backing off magnification to get better DOF. PRO shares the same optical formula as DMR II so I’d be surprised if it truly does focus to 50. My DMR II had an acceptable amount of CA for the price, Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18 was worse. Bushnell’s DMR II/XRS II scopes are solid albeit with a few shortcomings.

Holy crap if the mark 5 3.6-18 is worse than the dmrii, how could anyone ever keep one. ? The DMRii is bad.

 

[Glassaholic]

Holy crap if the mark 5 3.6-18 is worse than the dmrii, how could anyone ever keep one. ? The DMRii is bad.

I can accept CA at certain levels or price points. I pretty much accept it at scopes under $2k but above $2k I expect CA to be controlled better. Sometimes CA can be exacerbated by poorly configured diopter, other times it is simply the scope itself but I’ve even seen manufacturers “fix” scopes where customers complained enough and they got back a scope that controlled CA better. Every optical system has CA but engineers will control it through the optical formula which might include the use of certain glass. Fluorite exhibits qualities that improve resolution and help to control CA but fluorite is very expensive, and popular among newer optics today is Japanese “Super ED” which has many qualities similar to fluorite at a cheaper cost, for a little more info check out this article: https://marchscopes.com/news/1644/

Keep in mind not all glass is the same so while some manufacturers use the term “Super ED”, ED or HD it doesn’t automatically mean the scope is going to compete with a Tangent Theta at an optical level. I am reminded of a few years ago when the term “HD” caught hold of the bino world and everyone and there grandmother started using HD in their marketing and model numbers, but clearly not all HD is equal. The new craze is ED, but compare the Vanguard Endeavor ED at $300 to the Swarovski EL at $3000 and while both use “ED” glass the IQ is very different.

So while the DMR II and XRS II both share what Bushnell is calling ED Prime glass and claiming to reduce CA (which has been corroborated by many owners) we aren’t certain if it’s the same as other manufacturers ED labeled glass. Besides, glass alone doesn’t remove CA but other factors such as the alignment of the glass in the tube also plays a role.

In a day and age where machines are making many mass produced scopes and lack of good QC I can see how some scopes will slip through the cracks and may exhibit worse CA than the typical scope from the model range.

That may have happened with the Mark 5 I had, but I’ve also seen heavy CA in the old Kahles K624i and the worst I’ve seen came from the early Steiner T5Xi scopes which I’ve heard Steiner has done a much better job with in later generations.

All this to say that just because you had a DMR II that had horrible CA, and I had a Mark 5 that had bad CA doesn’t necessarily mean that all the scopes from that model line will exhibit the same.

 

[jbell]

I can accept CA at certain levels or price points. I pretty much accept it at scopes under $2k but above $2k I expect CA to be controlled better. Sometimes CA can be exacerbated by poorly configured diopter, other times it is simply the scope itself but I’ve even seen manufacturers “fix” scopes where customers complained enough and they got back a scope that controlled CA better. Every optical system has CA but engineers will control it through the optical formula which might include the use of certain glass. Fluorite exhibits qualities that improve resolution and help to control CA but fluorite is very expensive, and popular among newer optics today is Japanese “Super ED” which has many qualities similar to fluorite at a cheaper cost, for a little more info check out this article: https://marchscopes.com/news/1644/

Keep in mind not all glass is the same so while some manufacturers use the term “Super ED”, ED or HD it doesn’t automatically mean the scope is going to compete with a Tangent Theta at an optical level. I am reminded of a few years ago when the term “HD” caught hold of the bino world and everyone and there grandmother started using HD in their marketing and model numbers, but clearly not all HD is equal. The new craze is ED, but compare the Vanguard Endeavor ED at $300 to the Swarovski EL at $3000 and while both use “ED” glass the IQ is very different.

So while the DMR II and XRS II both share what Bushnell is calling ED Prime glass and claiming to reduce CA (which has been corroborated by many owners) we aren’t certain if it’s the same as other manufacturers ED labeled glass. Besides, glass alone doesn’t remove CA but other factors such as the alignment of the glass in the tube also plays a role.

In a day and age where machines are making many mass produced scopes and lack of good QC I can see how some scopes will slip through the cracks and may exhibit worse CA than the typical scope from the model range.

That may have happened with the Mark 5 I had, but I’ve also seen heavy CA in the old Kahles K624i and the worst I’ve seen came from the early Steiner T5Xi scopes which I’ve heard Steiner has done a much better job with in later generations.

All this to say that just because you had a DMR II that had horrible CA, and I had a Mark 5 that had bad CA doesn’t necessarily mean that all the scopes from that model line will exhibit the same.

Very true, I have had examples of several higher end scopes that show some degree of CA and others of 5he same scope that didn’t.

 

[jbell]

What kind of parralax issues would you expect to have at 50? I’m curious as I think parallax errors are an internet problem and not a real world one.

Parallax is parallax and will shift your POI from your POA at any distance. The shorter ranges (50 yards and under) are distances where most scopes stop correcting it. It is probably because most mfgdont feel the need to design that into their optical system as it isn’t as common as shooting from 100 yards out to 1000+. I do a lot of precision rimfire shooting and swap my scopes around if I ever suspect a tracking issue so every scopeI own needs to be able to put the reticle and the target on the exact same image plane every time. I know you can mitigate the effects of parallax by using scope shadow to make sure your eye is centered in the scope, but I dont really want to do that. So I am just asking before I buy one...

 

[Hollywood 6mm]

I've got a DMR2 Pro on my .223 gasser, and I have been really happy with it. I'll probably end up with a second one at some point soon for another project I am working on.

 

[wade2big]

All this to say that just because you had a DMR II that had horrible CA, and I had a Mark 5 that had bad CA doesn’t necessarily mean that all the scopes from that model line will exhibit the same.

i didn’t read your whole post. You lost me after about three seconds. ?

I skipped to the end and I agree with what you said.

 

[Glassaholic]

I’m curious as I think parallax errors are an internet problem and not a real world one.

Parallax is very much a real world problem, I test for parallax when I first get a scope and after I setup the diopter. When I first had the Burris XTR III there was nothing I could do with the parallax knob to get parallax under control at distance (I was testing at 1000 yards) I don't remember exactly how much margin of error there was but it was enough to miss a target at that distance depending on my eye placement. Then I fine tuned the diopter and the parallax settled up nicely, was able to get it so there was very little movement between different eye placement.

 

[wade2big]

Parallax is very much a real world problem, I test for parallax when I first get a scope and after I setup the diopter. When I first had the Burris XTR III there was nothing I could do with the parallax knob to get parallax under control at distance (I was testing at 1000 yards) I don't remember exactly how much margin of error there was but it was enough to miss a target at that distance depending on my eye placement. Then I fine tuned the diopter and the parallax settled up nicely, was able to get it so there was very little movement between different eye placement.

I get that it exists and what it does and I understand the less the better, but the problems are way overstated. Put your eye behind the scope and there isn’t an issue. I can dial in parallax on purpose with a blurry image as well and bang away on steel at least to the distances I shoot (900 max).

Seems To me that it rates up there with a bubble level for cant and the whole shorter barrels are more accurate argument.

 

[HMRamateur]

My pro has no issues at 50 yds. First time I used it was at 50 just to make sure I was on paper, and it was just as clear at 50 as it is anywhere beyond that. As far as the markings on the parallax knob lining up with the actual yardage, that's a different story. Either way though, it was clear.

Edit: currently looking out to 40 yds at my neighbours Christmas lights. No movement on the reticle when focusing on one specific light and moving my head.

 

[jbell]

I get that it exists and what it does and I understand the less the better, but the problems are way overstated. Put your eye behind the scope and there isn’t an issue. I can dial in parallax on purpose with a blurry image as well and bang away on steel at least to the distances I shoot (900 max).

Seems To me that it rates up there with a bubble level for cant and the whole shorter barrels are more accurate argument.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but parallax adjustment isn’t for focus as much as it is having the same POA for every shot. If the target and reticle are not on the same focal plane you will incur a sighting error (that you more than likely will not detect) which will result in a POI shift from your POA.

 

[Glassaholic]

I get that it exists and what it does and I understand the less the better, but the problems are way overstated. Put your eye behind the scope and there isn’t an issue.

If you're able to get perfect eye placement every time then you are a rarity, try doing that with a scope with finicky eyebox as well and good luck. Put yourself in a stressful situation and where you are not able to get ideal placement behind the scope and then tell me how well you do. All that being said, there are scopes that are more forgiving with DOF/parallax and these scopes are highly sought after especially within the competition community. It could be that your experience has been with these scopes that are more forgiving, but put yourself behind a Nightforce NX8 2.5-20 with finicky parallax and eyebox and compared to a Schmidt Ultra Short 3-20 and you'll notice a world of difference with how forgiving the parallax is between the two. The Schmidt is much more of a "set it and forget it" type of scope where you can set your parallax around 300-500 and find that you have essentially a parallax free scope between about 200-1000 yards, but try that with the NX8 and your POI is going to be a lot different if you don't fiddle with the parallax. Also, keep in mind that parallax tends to be more of an issue at closer ranges, so when jbell asked about 50 yards that is going to make a difference, maybe not for a 3" round but if you're shooting 1/2" dots or smaller then parallax could be the difference between points and no points.

 

[wade2big]

If you're able to get perfect eye placement every time then you are a rarity, try doing that with a scope with finicky eyebox as well and good luck. Put yourself in a stressful situation and where you are not able to get ideal placement behind the scope and then tell me how well you do. All that being said, there are scopes that are more forgiving with DOF/parallax and these scopes are highly sought after especially within the competition community. It could be that your experience has been with these scopes that are more forgiving, but put yourself behind a Nightforce NX8 2.5-20 with finicky parallax and eyebox and compared to a Schmidt Ultra Short 3-20 and you'll notice a world of difference with how forgiving the parallax is between the two. The Schmidt is much more of a "set it and forget it" type of scope where you can set your parallax around 300-500 and find that you have essentially a parallax free scope between about 200-1000 yards, but try that with the NX8 and your POI is going to be a lot different if you don't fiddle with the parallax. Also, keep in mind that parallax tends to be more of an issue at closer ranges, so when jbell asked about 50 yards that is going to make a difference, maybe not for a 3" round but if you're shooting 1/2" dots or smaller then parallax could be the difference between points and no points.

I wasn’t picking on @jbell. I was curious on why it mattered to him as I haven’t experienced issues at any range. Same for your experience. I don’t discount that it differs from mine, i just can't relate.

 

[jbell]

If you're able to get perfect eye placement every time then you are a rarity, try doing that with a scope with finicky eyebox as well and good luck. Put yourself in a stressful situation and where you are not able to get ideal placement behind the scope and then tell me how well you do. All that being said, there are scopes that are more forgiving with DOF/parallax and these scopes are highly sought after especially within the competition community. It could be that your experience has been with these scopes that are more forgiving, but put yourself behind a Nightforce NX8 2.5-20 with finicky parallax and eyebox and compared to a Schmidt Ultra Short 3-20 and you'll notice a world of difference with how forgiving the parallax is between the two. The Schmidt is much more of a "set it and forget it" type of scope where you can set your parallax around 300-500 and find that you have essentially a parallax free scope between about 200-1000 yards, but try that with the NX8 and your POI is going to be a lot different if you don't fiddle with the parallax. Also, keep in mind that parallax tends to be more of an issue at closer ranges, so when jbell asked about 50 yards that is going to make a difference, maybe not for a 3" round but if you're shooting 1/2" dots or smaller then parallax could be the difference between points and no points.

Exactly

 

[jbell]

I wasn’t picking on @jbell. I was curious on why it mattered to him as I haven’t experienced issues at any range. Same for your experience. I don’t discount that it differs from mine, i just can't relate.

I didn’t take it that way at all, I was just making sure we were talking about the same thing.

 

[wade2big]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but parallax adjustment isn’t for focus as much as it is having the same POA for every shot. If the target and reticle are not on the same focal plane you will incur a sighting error (that you more than likely will not detect) which will result in a POI shift from your POA.

I know what it is. I just described it as a blurred mess because typically the parallax error would be experienced with a picture like that. I also understand that it can happen with an in focus target as well.

As far as I am concerned, i use it as a focus. If my target isn’t blurry I shoot. The only time i mess with my parallax knob is when zeroing a rifle at 100 yards. Past that i set and forget.m

i will just use it as an excuse. If I miss, its paralax and not me ?