Anyone else get theirs? Impressions? Mine arrived a few days ago haven’t had a chance to play with it further than taking it out of the box and looking through it inside the house. Hope to get it mounted and hit the range next week.
Rifle Scopes DMR II Pro 3.5-21x50mm
- Thread starter slkzic
- Start date
Very nice! Do you have an older model to compare glass?
The catalog from Bushnell does not mention an illuminated model
Cant wait for the xrs tremor 3 to be available
The catalog from Bushnell does not mention an illuminated model
Cant wait for the xrs tremor 3 to be available
I want to buy one but waiting on reviews. Can’t imagine anything better in this price bracket.
Looks like they do advertise it with illuminated reticle :
https://www.eurooptic.com/Bushnell-35-21x50-E-DMR-Black-ED-Prime-G3-Box-Riflescope-ET732150ED.aspx
But if you look in the catalog, no mention of illuminated reticle as it just states G3, not " Illum G3"
http://bushnell.com/getmedia/fee0ce6c-6baf-4c81-a27a-b954e5d2ec4f/2018-Bushnell-Catalog-PDF
https://www.eurooptic.com/Bushnell-35-21x50-E-DMR-Black-ED-Prime-G3-Box-Riflescope-ET732150ED.aspx
But if you look in the catalog, no mention of illuminated reticle as it just states G3, not " Illum G3"
http://bushnell.com/getmedia/fee0ce6c-6baf-4c81-a27a-b954e5d2ec4f/2018-Bushnell-Catalog-PDF
The XRS II has both illuminated and non-illuminated options so I'm sure the DMR PRO will offer same
Last edited:
No they took the DMRII, which had very nice glass, and put better glass in it. Probably because of how everyone raves about the Cronus glass.
I actually thought the glass in the DMR II was pretty good, a definite improvement over the original DMR, but not quite as good as the LRTS I had and showed a fairly thick amount of CA. The fact that there is no DMR II Pro illuminated in sight is a bit strange, but hopefully will be making its way by 2019. The biggest question for DMR II owners and others, is whether or not the "Pro" version has enough of an improvement in glass - CA, Color, Contrast, Resolution
There must be quite a bit of variance from scope to scope because the image quality in the one I had was unacceptable for a scope costing more than $300. I'm not a glass snob at all and have been generally happy with the glass in just about every other scope I've had, high end or not (with the exception of a first run Steiner T5Xi) but the Bushnell was just not good at all. Other than that, I liked all of the features of the scope.
The glass in mine was definitely better than a $300 optic; however, you bring up a very good point with regard to "variance", I think that plays a big part of these "budget" oriented scopes, and by budget I mean in the $1000 range which for many may appear to be "expensive" compared to the $250 hunting scope they're used to buying. It would seem that many of the $1k scopes have a propensity to show variance in quality from time to time, sometimes it's "first run" optics and other times its stuff that reveals itself over time. Many others have been happy with their DMR II so you may have received a unit that missed some QC check.
I was willing to live with the less than ideal glass, but then it had a tracking issue so I sent it back and made a note that the glass was disappointing. They sent it back with a clean bill of health and didn't do anything for the glass so it must have been "within spec." FWIW I was happy with the ERS I had before it, but the DMR2 was definitely a downgrade.
Back when the DMR II first came out there were some ERS owners who thought the glass was an improvement. This is why it's so difficult to determine how good a scope is from reviews, they help that is for sure, but the proof is in the pudding as they say and until you get the scope in your hands and use it in the real world, you can't really tell how well it will perform.
How did you determine there was a tracking issue?
I ask because if you didn't have the diopter set properly, that would affect both the image quality and potentially an incorrectly adjusted parallax - leading to what might appear to be a tracking issue. And I say this because my diopter on my XRS II was a challenge to set properly, and only after much trial and error getting it set properly, did the image finally resolve. But once it was set up, the clarity was great.
I played with the diopter pretty extensively at the range because this was supposedly an issue with the early T5Xi I had as well. It turns out that the T5Xi just had issues though. The tracking issue came up in the middle of a club finale match, which kept me from finishing. I had to dial about 3.5 mils to get near the target at 400 yards, which usually takes 1.8 mils. I'm not sure what happened, but the turret would not consistently adjust for what I had dialed so I sent it back.
If it has the same glass as the XRS II the 'pro' version of the DMR is going to be a really good option for people. The ED prime in my XRS II is as good as that in my ATACR
Last edited:
The DMR II and DMR II Pro are listed to have 100 MOA total elevation adjustment. If you mounted it on a 40 MOA base, would the dial let you dial up 90? Or does the dial have a lower limit than the internal travel?
Would it be a bad idea to mount on a 40 MOA base if the goal is extreme long range (mile+)? Is 10 MOA down usually enough margin for mounting slop?
Would it be a bad idea to mount on a 40 MOA base if the goal is extreme long range (mile+)? Is 10 MOA down usually enough margin for mounting slop?
Did you get out this weekend to try it out? I’m strongly considering this as my next scope so I’d love to hear your thoughts and comparisons to others you’ve used.
I’m going out on Tuesday. Weather and never ending house projects prevented me from going on Friday. While looking through it getting it mounted up and getting the diopter set it definitely looks like it has the potential to be a big winner.
Got to go to the range yesterday to try out the new scope and new rifle. Only fired of 20 rounds at 100 yards for zero. I was more than impressed with the scope. The glass is awesome I would say easily up there next to anything I own/owned or looked through. Very crisp picture. Color is true. No tunneling. Generous eye box the scope was easy to get behind and stay behind very comfortable both seated off the bench and prone. No CA that I could find whatsoever. The one windage and elevation adjustment I had to make to get in the bullseye was like 4 mils down and .3 mils right tracked true. I am going to get out soon to do a tall target/ box test and shoot out further when I get time. If you decide to go with the DMRII Pro you will not be disappointed. I personally have zero reason to pay more than what I paid for this scope again. I was just as impressed with the Falkor Petra it's mounted on. Decided not to do the industry standard barrel break in and just shoot the thing. Got the gas key tuned to shoot suppressed got on the bull and then shot 2 sub MOA groups when taking away the one flyer in each group shrank it down to .4 MOA groups with factory 200 grain ELDX at an average of 2850. I figure more trigger time and I should be able to keep her around .5 MOA.
@slkzic thanks for the report!
So your saying the new DMR2 Pro has absolutely no tunneling at low power? And also no CA that you could notice? These are two of the biggest "complaints" that people have with the DMR2 (I have one as well and can confirm these things). Have you had experience with the plain DMR2 to compare? How were your ambient conditions for observing CA?
So your saying the new DMR2 Pro has absolutely no tunneling at low power? And also no CA that you could notice? These are two of the biggest "complaints" that people have with the DMR2 (I have one as well and can confirm these things). Have you had experience with the plain DMR2 to compare? How were your ambient conditions for observing CA?
Bushnell doesn't list any new specs for the DMRII pro vs the DMRII as far as FOV. The XRSII and XRS still have the same FOV 24' at 4.5. I highly doubt that the tunneling is gone considering none of these things changed. It starts about 4.5 power so I would not expect to see it in an XRS.
Yeah my DMR2 starts tunneling right around 4x... when looking through the scope and rotating the magnification ring, it seems like a shit ton cause it is a long travel of adjustment at the low powers, but when I lift my head and check its only starts around 4, maybe 4.25x.
I also notice that the CA is pretty tame and controlled until I start to go above maybe 19.5-20x in magnification. Depending on the conditions, the CA at full 21x really suffers compared to the rest of the range.
I've said it before, and I will say it again: I really think that Bushnell could have just produced this as a 4-20x, which would have all but eliminated any low end tunneling, and would have maintained better clarity/picture through the top end of magnification. It's almost as they produced it as a 3.5-21x so they could appease the masses with a "6x" zoom ratio, without caring about the image quality at the extreme low and high ends.
I also notice that the CA is pretty tame and controlled until I start to go above maybe 19.5-20x in magnification. Depending on the conditions, the CA at full 21x really suffers compared to the rest of the range.
I've said it before, and I will say it again: I really think that Bushnell could have just produced this as a 4-20x, which would have all but eliminated any low end tunneling, and would have maintained better clarity/picture through the top end of magnification. It's almost as they produced it as a 3.5-21x so they could appease the masses with a "6x" zoom ratio, without caring about the image quality at the extreme low and high ends.
Got mine yesterday, the tunneling at 3.5 power is definitively there. Glass is way better then my Mark 4, edges look good, low light is good, parallax at 50 is great. Will compare it to my XRS 2 that came today...the pro might go back...really don't like the tunneling on that pricey of an optic.
"way better"? If that is the case that would be one impressive scope. How is the CA on the DMR II Pro, anyone have one to compare to the DMR II which still had pretty heavy CA. The LRHS/LRTS controlled CA better than the DMR II in my opinion, still evident but not as obvious, just curious if the DMR II Pro glass improves on CA.
Yes way better then LRHSi in both resolution, clarity and low light performance. I used an eye chart before dusk and at dusk. It's the same glass in my XRS 2 as I compared both last night. That being said I'm going with XRS 2 w illumination and sending the DMR 2 Pro back. I like the locking eyepiece, no tunneling, and slightly thicker crosshair at lower end and of course illumination. The Pro with illumination would be a great scope at a reasonable price though.
The new DMR Pro and XRS-II have Prime ED glass that is fluorite glass so yes way better then the old DMR-II and XRS glass...step in right direction!!!
A friend and I purchased XRS II's and the glass was very underwhelming compared to our Razor Gen II's, Mark 5's, and S&Bs. If the DMR II Pro is the same glass I wouldn't be super excited. It seemed cooler in color and "darker" at the same magnification settings. The resolution wasn't bad, but the darkness at higher powers and lack of contrast was noticeable. It also had much more CA than the other scopes we compared it to.
You will probably take offense to this, but I've seen you shit post the XRS II almost every time its mentioned in a thread here. I don't think you guys had the diopters set up properly on your XRS IIs and you made a quick judgement with a improperly set up scopes. It took me a while to get mine right and once I did, the clarity exploded. And I've now had the same experience on 3 separate XRS IIs.
I know how to set up a scope. The clarity and resolution was great in them. The contrast, CA, and color was not very good for this price of scope. We both sold our XRS IIs in favor of the other scopes mentioned above. You can call it "shit posting" if you want, but it's just my personal opinion. If I were reading these threads, I'd be glad if someone saved me from a potential 2000 dollar mistake. I'm just trying to help other folks out based on my personal experience with a lot of high end scopes since I know not everyone can afford them or has the ability to try them out. We even brought both our XRS II scopes out t a match and let 3 or 4 other people plays with them and shoot them with a Gen II Razor side by side for comparison. Everyone unanimously agreed the Razor was a better scope in not just glass, but other features. I'm simply 1 data point . Take if for what it's worth. One post in a thread with 20-30 people. I never make claims to equipment I have not personally used.
It sounds like you love your XRS II and that's great. Then my opinion should not matter to you and you can be happy. You can even offer up your own opinion on the matter which is why we are all here. Maybe my friend and I got a bad batch of scopes? Not out of the realm of possibility. I'm just posting my personal experience. Not trying to "shit" on a company. I have owned plenty of other Bushnell products that I have been happy with.
Similar threads
