Rifle Scopes New Bushnell Elite LRHS2

The only thing I would do different, is have a thinner reticle with either a floating cross or dot. The G3 reticle is a tad too thick, but usable.
This is the only thing I would change about this scope as well. The reticle is too thick in the center, a floating dot would make it complete. Updating it with better glass goes without saying. Looking forward to seeing what is released.
 
I have owned a LRTSi 4.5-18 and LRTS 3-12 and have been extremely impressed with both. I was about to pull the trigger on a vx5hd for a dedicated hunting rifle. Any idea when an eta on release is?
 
Man I hunt a LOT, all my scopes have illuminated reticles, but have had zero issues taking shots in low light with high mag ffp scopes. I guess maybe it's just me, but illum is kinda overrated. But most my scopes have it lol.
I would say that reflects the majority of us - is illumination really needed for 98% of what we do, even in low light situations, probably not, but the old adage applies "better to have it and not need it, than to not have when you do need it".
 
Details on the new scope that differ from the old 4.5x18 LRHS
Biggest and best differance is the Glass has been changed to ED Prime, otherwise known as HD etc, much brighter and resolution is top notch.
New lens coatings that allow even more light in and less glare
G3H reticle is back and does not need illumination as its thicker for low light
for those that have not used to G3H id has a 2 mil circle that when dropped to 4.5 power make a nice (dogunut of death) for close range hunting.
Removable throw levar for fast power up or down
lockable windage knob, we went away from the capped windage and added the locking windage knob. Some guys wont use it after Sight in and some will so it opens more options.
Rest of the scope is the same , the length and weight is the same.
Price will be under $950 and will be available in Late June We will put a complete write up out soon and put up a pre order with small deposit on our wedsite to secure one from the first shipment

Thanks Guys

George

 
G3H reticle is back and does not need illumination as its thicker for low light

George
I keep reading this and it keeps bothering me, yes, a thicker reticle can help in low light situations, but stating "does not need illumination" is a bit of a stretch. My G2H reticle is also pretty thick, but there are situations where it is nice to have the illumination. Yes, for most of us we rarely use the illumination for most of our daytime shooting, but it is nice to have it in those rare instances you need it than to not have it when you do need it.
 
Your right Bill, I’ve got one place that I hunt and right at dusk when most of our deer come out in that area, it gets dark in there quick. I’ve not been able to take many a shot because I could see the deer, but not the reticle, SFP or FFP. So now I just buy
Illuminated scopes. Period. I might hunt with my 19lb match rig or my lightweight one, but all my scopes are illuminated now. Don’t know why they would improve the scope
And leave out the illumination.
 
Nice!

Now...you guys go buy them ALL so maybe there will be a reason to make a 3-12?

I feel really strongly that the Original 3-12 LRHS was the best crossover scope (shooting/hunting) ever made...
In your opinion what made it superior to the 4.5-18?

Weight and dimensions are almost a toss up.
 
I have owned multiples of :

3-12 LRHS
4-18 LRHS
4-18 LRTSi.

The eyebox is a little bit tighter on the 4-18 but they are almost the same size, weight,ect. Much rather have the extra top end.

I think George Said the 4-18 outsold the 3-12 10 to one. I doubt there is enough demand for them.

If you really want a 3-12, find a used one.
 
I still have 4 of the 3-12. Sold all my 4.5-18
At least to my eye the 3-12 was very near perfect for a multi use scope.

To many people think the need more than 12x when they really don’t
So you actually use the 3-4.5 power range?
If the 3-12 was physically smaller I’d also prefer the 3-12 b/c of the size but I never use a scope on less than 4.5 even in the woods. If I’m going to lug a long and heavy scope around it might as well have more magnification for evaluating bone at distance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spife7980
I believe the 3-12 is a bit shorter than the 4.5-18
As far as usable power, for me they are more like 4-12 and 6-15x

If the Gen 2 really does have better glass and a better eye box it would be a solid scope
 
In your opinion what made it superior to the 4.5-18?

Weight and dimensions are almost a toss up.
Dimensions are not a toss up.
3-12 smaller
3-12 better eye box
12x on top is a delight
3-12 better all around, IMO

That said, some guys like more power. If that’s you (or anyone else), then it’s good to know what you like and seek that out.

More than anything, I loved the generous eye box and shorter length on the 3-12
 
How noticeable is the difference in glass with the ED Prime glass? I currently own a 4.5-18 LRHSi and two DMR II scopes and they are the best glass of any scopes I’ve owned. I’ve never had any top tier scopes but the glass in the regular Elite line seems pretty good and looks better to me than the Viper PST gen 2 and Athlon Ares BTR I have.

Contemplating selling my LRHSi to buy one of these when they come out of the glass is noticeably better. I’ve never actually used the illumination
 
Still classified on the first. The XRS II is no longer in production. Since I know that'll cause some concern for some - Yes, we're still totally taking care of people on warranty on them.

Can you comment on any new reticle possibilities in the line? Specifically any .2 mil hash mark versions?
 
I still have 4 of the 3-12. Sold all my 4.5-18
At least to my eye the 3-12 was very near perfect for a multi use scope.

To many people think the need more than 12x when they really don’t


I used to feel the same way when I had 20/10 vision.
As my vision got worse, the extra magnification came in pretty handy on targets and small varmints.
For shooting big game, yeah, 12x is plenty.
 
I was one who jumped on the bandwagon early when the 3-12 LRHS was introduced, primarily because it was advertised at 20 to 21 ounces. When it arrived at 25 ounces I became less enthused because that was not what I put my money down for.
Should have kept them, they are hard to beat in their price range even at 25 ounces.
 
What does this mean?
8F01D340-193C-469B-8893-30CCF85F6022.jpg
 
chevy, I hear you on the weight of the Elite scopes. I wish my LRTS was 6 oz. lighter but it has everything else I wanted so a few ounces won't kill me since my 6.5 PRC Browning X-bolt Pro only weighs 6 lbs. 3 oz. naked.

I looked a long time at the Nightforce ATACR in that same magnification range and it is very nice but also very pricey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BAKPAKR
Yup, the 3-12x is shorter, has a more forgiving eyebox, and has better glass on similar magnification. The 3-12x LRHS/LRTS is my favourite all-around scope. For strictly hunting where weight is a concern, the SS 3-9x is my number-one choice. For strictly match-type shooting, the DMRII Pro is sweet. But for a general, do-it-all scope, it's tough to beat the 3-12x.