Bushnell LRTS vs. ?

[BoilerUP]

I've got two 4.5-18x LRTSi...love these scopes for their clarity, resolution, brightness, repeatability, feature set and overall value proposition. The only gripe I have is crosshair thickness of the G3i @ 18x...great for hunting or steel, but a bit of a liability shooting groups on paper.

What else is out there currently that offers similar brightness/clarity/resolution to the LRTS in the $1K-ish ballpark?

I missed out on the Midway DMR2/XRS2 closeout...though GAP has non-illuminated DMR2 for $849 and DMR2 Pro for $1149 and I know the non-illuminated G3 reticle is a lot thinner crosshair than the G3i. Pretty sure the DMR2 Pro GAP DMR2 Pro pricing is close to Cronus BTR UHD pricing on ExpertVoice.

I know there's the PST II...previously owned two with EBR-2C reticles and while they're solid choices, I sold them in favor of the LRTSi and think I'd rather run a Strike Eagle 5-25x with its known compromises and save the money.

I don't know anything about how the glass of the Midas Tac 5-25x or Ares BTR/ETR optically stacks up with the LRTS.

 

[Team RCBS & Bushnell]

We get a lot of questions about the G3 thickness, so I'm going to reply to your PM about that here so others can benefit.

The answer from the product manager is this:

• Non-illuminated G3 reticle line width on main stadia inside of 2 MIL horizontal and 0.5 MIL vertical is 0.03 MIL. Line width outside of 2 MIL horizontal and 0.5 MIL vertical is 0.06 MIL.
• Illuminated G3 reticles line width on main stadia is a consistent 0.06 MIL.

 

[BoilerUP]

That is SUPER helpful, thank you!

Now...how does the DMR2 compare optically to the LRTS - similar clarity/resolution/brightness? I know the DMR2 is higher magnification, larger tube/ocular, etc.

 

[Team RCBS & Bushnell]

That is SUPER helpful, thank you!

Now...how does the DMR2 compare optically to the LRTS - similar clarity/resolution/brightness? I know the DMR2 is higher magnification, larger tube/ocular, etc.

Same level of glass in those.

 

[Neurotic]

Same level of glass in those.

Damn. I wish I would've known that when Midway was clearing out the DMR2s. The most common complaint I read about th DMR2s was glass quality. Whereas the most common compliment for the LRTS is glass quality. Perhaps it's just people expectations based upon cost, where the DMR2 was a price step above the LRTS.

 

[bobke]

With the newer ED Prime glassing starting to show up beyond the DMR2 Pro, is there a technical reason behind absence of illumination in both, or will newer models be introduced with EDP/Illumination combo? Really a fan of what Bushnell has done with LRHS/LRTS and Pro series and would love to see a confluence of all these features brought forward.

 

[supercorndogs]

Damn. I wish I would've known that when Midway was clearing out the DMR2s. The most common complaint I read about th DMR2s was glass quality. Whereas the most common compliment for the LRTS is glass quality. Perhaps it's just people expectations based upon cost, where the DMR2 was a price step above the LRTS.

There is variability in what you see from one scope to the next in the same line. The glass in the LRTS and DMRII are both pretty good in general from what I have seen. The LRTS is also a long scope. So there may be some optical design at play.

"A scope with a long focal point will be able to be focused more precise for a sharp image, with very little depth of field. So it will be very sensitive to distance for maintaining sharp focus. This will require a longer scope tube, hence that high end scopes for precise focussing tends to have longer tubes."

 

[tlr16]

I just got a DMR Pro and my DMR will come in today. I will have them both out this weekend and compare them. The shop building the rifle did say the glass in the pro was noticeable better and possibly worth the extra. The main issue for me in the Pro is the 75yd parallax so thats why I went with the regular DMR for a 22. The Pro replaces a Kahles and is going on a Defiance 6.5 so to me it was easy to justify better glass for longer distance shots. If I can find a XRS II with G3 reticle I will be getting one of those for the Surgeon 223 or will swap it with the Pro. Not sure I want to replace the S&B currently on it.

 

[Team RCBS & Bushnell]

With the newer ED Prime glassing starting to show up beyond the DMR2 Pro, is there a technical reason behind absence of illumination in both, or will newer models be introduced with EDP/Illumination combo? Really a fan of what Bushnell has done with LRHS/LRTS and Pro series and would love to see a confluence of all these features brought forward.

I can't give out any details on the new ET stuff coming out yet.

 

[Team RCBS & Bushnell]

I just got a DMR Pro and my DMR will come in today. I will have them both out this weekend and compare them. The shop building the rifle did say the glass in the pro was noticeable better and possibly worth the extra. The main issue for me in the Pro is the 75yd parallax so thats why I went with the regular DMR for a 22. The Pro replaces a Kahles and is going on a Defiance 6.5 so to me it was easy to justify better glass for longer distance shots. If I can find a XRS II with G3 reticle I will be getting one of those for the Surgeon 223 or will swap it with the Pro. Not sure I want to replace the S&B currently on it.

There were no Pros built with a 75 yard parallax. Only the DMR II Illuminated is 75 yards. Pro = 50 yards.

 

[tlr16]

There were no Pros built with a 75 yard parallax. Only the DMR II Illuminated is 75 yards. Pro = 50 yards.

I guess I looked at that wrong. Now maybe I will have to change to the Pro. Initially I wanted the HDMR but couldn't find any. Thanks for the input now I guess Ill be selling the DMR I bet for a Pro

 

[bobke]

Get the disclosure issues, but your good work is creating an optically focused public very interested in what you’re bringing to market. Just want to be certain the level of intense interest finds its way back upstream through your R&D, engineering, marketing and production teams. Exactly the result you’d like to see, correct?

 

[Team RCBS & Bushnell]

Get the disclosure issues, but your good work is creating an optically focused public very interested in what you’re bringing to market. Just want to be certain the level of intense interest finds its way back upstream through your R&D, engineering, marketing and production teams. Exactly the result you’d like to see, correct?

I share a ton of what I see from you all on here with the folks involved in product management and engineering. It's very helpful to know what you're all after.

 

[beretta_man11]

I've got two 4.5-18x LRTSi...love these scopes for their clarity, resolution, brightness, repeatability, feature set and overall value proposition. The only gripe I have is crosshair thickness of the G3i @ 18x...great for hunting or steel, but a bit of a liability shooting groups on paper.

What else is out there currently that offers similar brightness/clarity/resolution to the LRTS in the $1K-ish ballpark?

I missed out on the Midway DMR2/XRS2 closeout...though GAP has non-illuminated DMR2 for $849 and DMR2 Pro for $1149 and I know the non-illuminated G3 reticle is a lot thinner crosshair than the G3i. Pretty sure the DMR2 Pro GAP DMR2 Pro pricing is close to Cronus BTR UHD pricing on ExpertVoice.

I know there's the PST II...previously owned two with EBR-2C reticles and while they're solid choices, I sold them in favor of the LRTSi and think I'd rather run a Strike Eagle 5-25x with its known compromises and save the money.

I don't know anything about how the glass of the Midas Tac 5-25x or Ares BTR/ETR optically stacks up with the LRTS.

The meopta optika6 3-18x56 is a good comparison. I currently use both. The bushnell sits on my 6.5prc hunting gun and the meopta is on a b14r 22 since it will focus below 25yds.

 

[Glassaholic]

Same level of glass in those.

That is SUPER helpful, thank you!

Now...how does the DMR2 compare optically to the LRTS - similar clarity/resolution/brightness? I know the DMR2 is higher magnification, larger tube/ocular, etc.

Let's be clear, same level of glass does not equate to same level of performance. The LRHS/LRTS design uses a 4x erector while the DMR design uses a 6x erector. It is the optical formula that often equates to "performance" and the optical formula in these scopes is different. I have had the DMR II and the LRHSi and LRTS and I can say the LRHS/LRTS series has better overall optical performance than the DMR II. That being said I was still highly impressed with the DMR II and the enhancements they made over the original DMR.

 

[Neurotic]

There is variability in what you see from one scope to the next in the same line. The glass in the LRTS and DMRII are both pretty good in general from what I have seen. The LRTS is also a long scope. So there may be some optical design at play.

"A scope with a long focal point will be able to be focused more precise for a sharp image, with very little depth of field. So it will be very sensitive to distance for maintaining sharp focus. This will require a longer scope tube, hence that high end scopes for precise focussing tends to have longer tubes."

There is certainly more to the total optical system performance than just the lenses, but the disparity in opinions is peculiar. The overall length and erectors are very different, but going from the largest complaint in one model to the largest compliment in another is interesting. It's probably partially the expectations based upon price.

 

[Totoro]

I really enjoy my -12x LRTSI to the point of changing a lot of my other scopes with same.

I recently received a well cared for XRS2 and pleasantly surprised with it's overall fit and function.

Agreed the G3i is a bit thick for accurate paper punching but works fine out in the field. I would like to have something a little thinner but thats just personal preference.

 

[supercorndogs]

There is certainly more to the total optical system performance than just the lenses, but the disparity in opinions is peculiar. The overall length and erectors are very different, but going from the largest complaint in one model to the largest compliment in another is interesting. It's probably partially the expectations based upon price.

The image in consistently better in the LRHS than the DMRII over lots of samples I have seen. ITs not a price disparity thing. People were very happy to pay 1200 for a used LRHS 4.5-18 a few years ago before the gap deal. I would not trade one for a DMRII.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

The image in consistently better in the LRHS than the DMRII over lots of samples I have seen. ITs not a price disparity thing. People were very happy to pay 1200 for a used LRHS 4.5-18 a few years ago before the gap deal. I would not trade one for a DMRII.

I have both and don't agree with that. I've probably shot more than 5k with each and spent considerable field time with both. The image quality of the LRHS isn't better and when you start getting into lower light conditions it becomes a lot more obvious. I really like the LRHS but it has it's limitations that I think get ignored because of what a great deal it was.

 

[supercorndogs]

I have had over a dozen of the LRHS/LRTS 4.5-18, and probably 10 DMRII. That is what I have seen. I disagree the DMRII does better low light.

Consistently better means you will find more that are better than worse. You didn't disagree, all you did was state your DMRII is "the same" as your LRTS/LRHS. Which is not outside the statement I made. I would bet dollars to donuts your LRTS/LRHS controls CA better than your DMRII.

 

[LR-Enthusiast]

I switched to all LRTSi 3-12s over DMR IIs because of the optical quality, size/weight and primarily the tunneling effect present on the DMR II and DMR II Pro which I’ve both previously owned. The DMR II is effectively a 5.5-21 and to me the low end matters.

IMO LRTSi is the best mid-range optic until you get to mid-range ATACRs. It’s an insane deal for what you get.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

You didn't disagree, all you did was state your DMRII is "the same" as your LRTS/LRHS.

I said the image isn't better, seems like I disagree with you. Everyone's eyes are different and opinions are just what they are. I stand by my post and you're welcome to not like it.

 

[BoilerUP]

May try a DMR2 if its optically close to the LRTSi...a crosshair half as thick as the G3i and a little extra magnification would be nice.

Do any Athlons, short of the Cronus, have optical quality that matches the LRTS? Ares BTR Gen2 or ETR perhaps?

 

[supercorndogs]

The Etr. The Ares BTR have pretty decent glass also. I haven't seen any of the the gen 2 yet, but I don't think they changed the glass. I don't know if its quite as good but not bad.

 

[LR-Enthusiast]

To me, the LRTSi is optically similar to my razor gen IIs and the DMR II pro. The standard DMR II had lesser optical quality.

 

[diggler1833]

I got lucky on a Cameraland closeout a few months ago and snagged a FDE LRTS 4.5-18 for $750. To me it is on par with any of the "best optics under $1,500". I still run an older Elite FFP 3-12x44 as a test scope on many of my rifles.

I understand that some people want more, and some people need more. However as an avid hunter and recreational shooter I think that the LRTS_LRTSi line covers 98% of what the non-professional needs.