Rifle Scopes NF SHV/NXS vs Bushnell LRHS/LRTS

[echamp8]

I’ve seen some comparisons as far as the higher power NFs but am actually looking at the lower power 3-10/2.5-10 vs the 3-12 Bushys. Does anyone have any comparisons in low light. Got skunked on a hunt last week due to not being able to see at sunset +20.

The NXS is way above the price of the other two though. Not sure if the cost is indicative of the performance over the other options. I know it’s ffp vs sfp, but I can adapt to either. Wouldn’t dial below 10x anyways.

Anyone with any insights on direct comparisons as far as brightness at dusk? Also, anyone that wants to chime in on accuracy potential with a 12 power or less. I can shoot 3/4 moa consistently with a 4-16. Just wondering how much accuracy I’d lose at 10 or 12 power. Thanks in advance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TimeWillTell]

I'm no scope expert and interested to hear the answers, but I do believe if low light is a big factor (which it sounds like it is) then I'd probably look for a 56mm objective.

And you'd lose no accuracy going down in magnification power other than it might reduce your range. Most though feel fine with 12 power on animals out past 600 easily. I personally feel 12 power is plenty for up to 1000 on game though I don't shoot animals at that range, yet.

 

[Mordamer]

I have a 3-12x44 LRTS. Scopes I have to compare it to in low light are an SWFA 10x42 and a Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42 F1. The LRTS is far superior to the SWFA in low light and darn close to as good as the ATACR. I can certainly use it the full 30 minutes after sunset that we are allowed to hunt here in Oklahoma.

As far as accuracy with a 12x scope, I think that somewhat depends on how good your eyes are. I have shot many sub 1/2 MOA groups over the years with 10x and 12x scopes. It can be done. For hunting I have no doubt that 12x is adequate. I shoot quite a few prairie dogs with 12x and 10x scopes and I find that I can easily hold on them at 500+ yards. The limiting factors in hitting those small targets has always been the accuracy of my gun, my rangefinding accuracy, and my ability to judge the wind. The scope power never was a problem.

 

[WB300]

What scope were you using when you got skunked? What reticle was it? What maginification were you on? What was the game? What were the environmental conditions?

Without knowing these, going to a NF or Bushy may not improve your hunting situation but just cost you $.

 

[PBWalsh]

Mordamer, are you comparing the LHRS to the classic SWFA or the HD version?

 

[Mordamer]

Mordamer, are you comparing the LHRS to the classic SWFA or the HD version?

The classic SWFA. Sorry. Should have specified.

 

[echamp8]

What scope were you using when you got skunked? What reticle was it? What maginification were you on? What was the game? What were the environmental conditions?

Without knowing these, going to a NF or Bushy may not improve your hunting situation but just cost you $.

I was using a Bushnell Engage 4-16x44 with the Deploy reticle. I could make out the silhouette of the deer but couldn’t differentiate each one to make a shot on the right one. It was overcast but plenty of light for my 12x50 binos to see out to 400 yards. Which I know the exit pupil is 5.25 vs my scopes 2.75. The scope was set to max power due to having to dial for a shot. Which is why I was considering the LRHS. My thinking is that even at 10x the exit pupil would be at 4.2 and still usable for dialing.

That’s a huge difference and I know a bigger exit pupil will help. That being said, I also figured if I’m going to be upgrading, I might as well get the best glass I can afford.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WB300]

Ok. A lot to consider here. I'm not the best qualified to talk about everything scope-wise that would go into making your shot under those conditions. Hopefully those more knowledgeable like Ilya will chime in. They can help understand the "how and why".

If you are not interested in all that, then giving a budget might produce quicker alternatives.

I've had a few instances like yours and always vowed to sell a kidney and buy the mother of all low-light long range hunting scopes, so I'll be following this thread.

Good luck and keep us posted on your purchase and game harvests.

 

[260284]

I have the 4.5-18 LRHS and the LRSTi and I have hunted and shot matches with both. The LRHS has the ring in the reticle that is perfect for a deer's vitals at the lower power, but I like the illumination on the LRSTi. I shot a buck just before 30 minutes past sunset this year with the LRSTi and didn't have any trouble seeing the deer in thick cover. The shot was only 155 yards and I did not have any illumination on. I also had the sunshade on as my stand faces west.

I put a finishing shot in my son's buck last year with the LRHS at 4.5 in the same conditions. The shot was 75-85 yards and it wwas easy with that reticle.

I would think as a hunting only scope the 3-12 LRHS would be better than the 4.5-18 version. If it is available with illumination, that might be worth the extra $.

 

[CMH]

I was using a Bushnell Engage 4-16x44 with the Deploy reticle. I could make out the silhouette of the deer but couldn’t differentiate each one to make a shot on the right one. It was overcast but plenty of light for my 12x50 binos to see out to 400 yards. Which I know the exit pupil is 5.25 vs my scopes 2.75. The scope was set to max power due to having to dial for a shot. Which is why I was considering the LRHS. My thinking is that even at 10x the exit pupil would be at 4.2 and still usable for dialing.

That’s a huge difference and I know a bigger exit pupil will help. That being said, I also figured if I’m going to be upgrading, I might as well get the best glass I can afford.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you actually dialing your scope, or are you holding with the reticle and mistakenly calling it dialing? If you are really dialing, there is no reason your scope has to be at max power. Back it down for a larger exit pupil. Dialing works the same regardless of what power you are at.

 

[echamp8]

Are you actually dialing your scope, or are you holding with the reticle and mistakenly calling it dialing? If you are really dialing, there is no reason your scope has to be at max power. Back it down for a larger exit pupil. Dialing works the same regardless of what power you are at. [/QUOTE]

Actually dialing. The scope is a sfp scope. I don’t use holdovers unless it’s within 1 moa. Which is why I was only looking at the NF in a max 10 power, having the much larger exit pupil. I think a 4.0 exit pupil would be the absolute minimum usable in low light conditions for my eyes. The bushy would be able to use the full range, however I am not too certain on the size of the reticle being useable on the 4.5-18, set at 9x-12x.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[echamp8]

I have the 4.5-18 LRHS and the LRSTi and I have hunted and shot matches with both. The LRHS has the ring in the reticle that is perfect for a deer's vitals at the lower power, but I like the illumination on the LRSTi. I shot a buck just before 30 minutes past sunset this year with the LRSTi and didn't have any trouble seeing the deer in thick cover. The shot was only 155 yards and I did not have any illumination on. I also had the sunshade on as my stand faces west.

I put a finishing shot in my son's buck last year with the LRHS at 4.5 in the same conditions. The shot was 75-85 yards and it wwas easy with that reticle.

I would think as a hunting only scope the 3-12 LRHS would be better than the 4.5-18 version. If it is available with illumination, that might be worth the extra $.

This is exactly what I was looking for. I was contemplating the 4.5-18 for extended range use. How usable is the reticle at 9x-12x? Do you have any experience on the 3-12, as far as comparing eye boxes?

I have looked through the 3-12 and without that donut, it is completely useless under 5-6x, especially not having illumination. I feel like the illumination one the 3-12 would be fantastic.

I will be buying two. One for a dedicated hunting rig and the other going on a Bergara HMR. I was thinking the LRHS/NXS on the hunting rig and the LRTSi on the HMR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[260284]

I haven't looked thru a 3-12, but I have heard the eyebox is better than the 4.5-18. I picked up the LRSTi as I thought the finer reticle and lack of the donut would be better for matches. That said, I shot 3 deer, a coyote, and a crow with the LRSTi on my Tikka 6.5 Creedmoor and it worked fine. The coyote was at 50 yards on 4.5 from kneeling, two deer at 220 and 244 from a treestand at 9x, and my buck at 155 at 6x in very low light.

I am going to put the LRHS on a Tikka Varmint in .223 that is coming. I have it on my Grendel, but I haven't even sighted it in. I wouldn't hesitate to use either a 3-12 or 4.5-18 LRHS on a dedicated hunting rifle. Illuminated or not, the reticle is heavy enough to see in legal shooting light.

 

[echamp8]

Y’all are awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[echamp8]

Y’all are awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EscapeVelocity]

Other than the low light issue, how did you like that scope. It looks appealing for the price.

 

[supercorndogs]

Are you actually dialing your scope, or are you holding with the reticle and mistakenly calling it dialing? If you are really dialing, there is no reason your scope has to be at max power. Back it down for a larger exit pupil. Dialing works the same regardless of what power you are at.

^^^^This^^^^ The magnification has no bearing on how far POI moves when you dial.

 

[Hondo64d]

This is exactly what I was looking for. I was contemplating the 4.5-18 for extended range use. How usable is the reticle at 9x-12x? Do you have any experience on the 3-12, as far as comparing eye boxes?

I have looked through the 3-12 and without that donut, it is completely useless under 5-6x, especially not having illumination. I feel like the illumination one the 3-12 would be fantastic.

I will be buying two. One for a dedicated hunting rig and the other going on a Bergara HMR. I was thinking the LRHS/NXS on the hunting rig and the LRTSi on the HMR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you want the 3-12, I suggest the LRTSi. It is the same scope as the LRHS with a few exceptions; no donut, locking instead of capped windage turret, and available with an illuminated reticle. The ONLY thing I prefer about the LRHS is the capped windage turret.

I have the 3-12 LRHS and I agree with you. At last light, below about 6x, the reticle leaves me wanting. I also have the 4.5-18 LRTSi and the reticle is visible in low light even with it turned down to 4.5. The illum is nice though. They did it right. Barely visible at its lowest setting at night and visible on its highest setting in the day, with something for every situation between.

John

 

[jakelly]

I low light tested my 3-12 LRHS against; a 3-15 Weaver Tactical, a 3-15 Premier Hunter, a Steiner 5-25 M5Xi, and a Nightforce 2-10x42. The LRHS finished third, behind the Steiner (out in front easily) and just a touch behind the Premier, but in front of the Nightforce. The Weaver was well behind that group, but performed impressively well also. I like the 3-12 more than 4.5-18 as a total package. Get what you want, but the 3-12 LRHS punches WAAYY above it's weight class in every aspect that matters to me for my application. I think you'll have to go with a 4-16 F1 to see an appreciable improvement in the Nightforce line.

 

[alaskalanche]

Comparing the 3-12 LRHS to the 3-10 SHV is not even a fair comparison. Aside from being 4 oz heavierthe LRHS wins in every other category....unless you want MOA.

Of course the March 3-24x52 and Vortex AMG are on more different platforms so not as fair to compare both from feature set and price point.

 

[FireShooter]

The LRTS is very good in low light as stated above. I hunt with mordamer. I shot 2 coyotes this year at over 100 yards when light was low enough I couldn't see them against the background with my naked eye. I know it is better than an XTR 2 in low light and slightly better than my 3-15 T5xi. I can't directly compare to the NF. But I think the 3-12 LRTS is the Best Buy in glass, you can find really good deals on them if you look around and are patient. That's My opinion, but they are a nice little scope for sure.

 

[JR869]

So you like the LRTS better than the T5Xi?

 

[FireShooter]

For hunting yes, I prefer the LRTS. The T5XI is nice too don't get me wrong. I had it out this evening and it does just fine in low light. The LRTS is a bit better in low light. The T5XI is a better long range scope.

 

[JR869]

Ok, good to know as I'm not much of a low light shooter.