I'd like to know how many people here are giving the Bushnell LRHS scope an unfair "review" when they have never used one, or shot with one?
Looking thru one in your local gun shop is not using one. I have one on my extreme hunter and so far I love the scope for hunting. You could even make it a great semi auto optic.
After shooting with it I fully see what George picked this reticle design. It's fast and easy to track a moving animal. I think retail wise this scope is justifiable in the $1000-$1200 range.
I have both the LRHS and the less costly 3-12x44 FFP/G2. I've used the LRHS at the range and a competition, and it has worked great so far. My take on the scope:
-I paid just under $1k and I think that's a fair price for the glass and features. If I had paid $1500 I would be unhappy. It's a great scope but it's not $1500 great. In fact, if I had bought one at $1500 I would probably use the 1-year satisfaction guarantee to return my scope, get $1500 back, and then go pick up an identical new replacement for the $1k-ish street price. Bushnell might want to consider a price adjustment / price match policy before they have a flood of people doing just that.
-at $1k, I think its among the best scopes and values at that price. It absolutely blows away a Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x, and has much better glass and feel of quality than a Vortex Viper PST.
-The elevation turret is great in every respect. I would take it over just about any other turrets I've used, including Nightforce and Steiner Military. Time will tell on its durability, but given who makes it and who had a hand in designing it, I expect it to be very durable.
-Owning both flavors of the FFP 3-12x44, I can say that the LRHS definitely has better glass in terms of clarity and absence of CA, but other than that improvement it seems as if it's the same in magnification and FOV. For the price and quality of scope, I would have liked less of a black ring around the image (not tunneling, which it has none, just the black ring between scope image and your peripheral vision).
-The reticle is perfect for the scope's intended use of hunting. For my range use I'd rather have the original G2, but that's not the advertised purpose of this scope, and the two reticles are not much different anyway. I'm moving the LRHS over to a hunting rifle shortly, where it will be perfect.
The LRHS is a great scope at current street prices. Its introduction was a bit of a charlie-foxtrot between the price, the weight and the parallax range, but the end result is still a great scope for anyone not disappointed from expectations before its final production design. I'll look forward to the higher magnification tactical flavor that has been mentioned, although I won't be buying at the initial price! BTW, that caveat may also apply to the Steiner T5 and any other scope that is announced with feature set X... wait and see the scope that's actually for sale to you.
