The LRHS 3-12x44 Ahead of the Market.

[supercorndogs]

When the 3-12 LRHS came out I think there were a lot less people willing to drop 1k on a scope, and most of the market for FFP "tactical" scopes were long range shooters, primarily. I think the crowd here has changed a lot over the years. With the constant drone, of that reticle is too thin, that scope is too heavy, and I can't see the reticle in the dark woods. The 3-12 LRHS/LRTS is exactly what many people are looking for. I think it was just 6 years too early.

 

[Glassaholic]

Loved the LRHS design with G2H reticle. Not many appreciated how good these scopes were optically because of how long they were and the narrowish FOV. When GAP released the LRHS2 some hoped they’d improve more than just glass, I can handle the length but wish they’d improve FOV. If GAP came out with LRHS2 3-12 I’m guessing there’s still be interest.

 

[lennyo3034]

I've been using one for years on hunting rifle. Last year I bought a 4.5-22 LHT to replace it. Once I got it, I compared them side by side and decided to leave the LRHS on the rifle.

 

[5RWill]

I never got behind the 3-12 but always wanted one the 4.5-18 needed to be redesigned IMHO. I wasn't a fan of many of it's attributes.

I don't think my previous held a candle to my LHT granted it's been years.

 

[Dobermann]

When the 3-12 LRHS came out I think there were a lot less people willing to drop 1k on a scope, and most of the market for FFP "tactical" scopes were long range shooters, primarily. I think the crowd here has changed a lot over the years. With the constant drone, of that reticle is too thin, that scope is too heavy, and I can't see the reticle in the dark woods. The 3-12 LRHS/LRTS is exactly what many people are looking for. I think it was just 6 years too early.

It was a sweetheart all right - reliable, tracked, good RTZ, good zero retention. Perfectly functional optical performance for field use. Great hunting scope, great DMR scope.

Yes, I know they sold more of its big brother, but if you don't need 18x max mag, then the weight savings for the 3-12 was great.

Not much that really matches it now.

 

[stello1001]

It was a sweetheart all right - reliable, tracked, good RTZ, good zero retention. Perfectly functional optical performance for field use. Great hunting scope, great DMR scope.

Yes, I know they sold more of its big brother, but if you don't need 18x max mag, then the weight savings for the 3-12 was great.

Not much that really matches it now.

I have both and both are great.

 

[supercorndogs]

I don't have anything against the 4.5-18, but I think the 3-12 was more on target for a "Long Range Hunting Scope."

 

[JDB55]

I like the LHRSI 4.5-18, put that on my Fathers ar10 and put the Vortex LHT 4.5-22 on mine. Honestly, I'm happy with both, I really like the G2H reticle for close target acquisition and prefer the LHT reticle for anything beyond 4-500 yards, the floating center dot helps.

 

[Dobermann]

I don't have anything against the 4.5-18, but I think the 3-12 was more on target for a "Long Range Hunting Scope."

Yep - I reckon both seemed to fit their own niche well ... interesting we don't have similar mag ranges in other reliable scope offerings in FFP.

 

[Just Macca]

I’ve still got both my LRHS 3-12 and LHT 4.5-22, as @Dobermann said - both fit their role really well.

Hopefully the LRHS gets brought back, or maybe the design gets bought by another company?

 

[VandelayIndustries]

I showed up late to the party and missed out on the 3-12. It’s like trying to win the lotto finding a used one. Really hope they improve upon it and bring it back. Or even do a limited run I’d take one in a heart beat.

 

[MK20]

I have both and nothing else in the market touches them.

@Bushnell

 

[Hondo64d]

When the 3-12 LRHS came out I think there were a lot less people willing to drop 1k on a scope, and most of the market for FFP "tactical" scopes were long range shooters, primarily. I think the crowd here has changed a lot over the years. With the constant drone, of that reticle is too thin, that scope is too heavy, and I can't see the reticle in the dark woods. The 3-12 LRHS/LRTS is exactly what many people are looking for. I think it was just 6 years too early.

I still have the 3-12 LRTSi on my hunting rifle. Absolutely love it. No plans on changing it out.

John

 

[Bucket]

I have 2 of 3-12 and 2 of 4.5-18, all on hunting rifles. I think the 4.5s are a little too high power for hunting if something pops up close, but the 3-12s are great!!
Like others have said, there's really not much else that's like them out there, surprisingly.

 

[Just Macca]

@koshkin for something like the LRHS, which I believe to be a LOW design, who does the patent and design rest with? Bushnell or LOW?

The thrust of my question being, could any manufacturer contract with LOW to have something similar built (I.e. Sig Tango 6 3-18 vs Trijicon 3-18)?

I’m obviously not that person/manufacturer, but an interesting thought, especially if a much loved design is really just sitting there out of production.

 

[jakelly]

I think I own 4 3-12s.

 

[VandelayIndustries]

I think I own 4 3-12s.

I envy you

 

[HousePlant]

For sale on Rokslide: https://www.rokslide.com/forums/thr...ter-4-5-18x44-g2h-illuminated-mil-ffp.249311/

I can't afford to buy one right now (otherwise I would) but it is a great scope, indeed. Hard to find this combination of features. I like the reticle.

I think the problem is, most hunters out there don't get into PRS and other FFP-biased shooting scenarios and never benefit from "FFP Privilege".

 

[supercorndogs]

The 3-12 is like Hen's teeth compared to the 4.5-18.

 

[MarshallDodge]

I really liked the the idea but wanted something more compact for a recce build. Ended up with the 1-8.5 SMRS and am super happy with it. A compact 2-16X version with a 40 or 44mm objective would be a good DMR scope.

 

[7WSMShooter]

My 3-12 will not be sold. Sold a lot of scopes, some I wish I hadn’t.
But the 3-12 isn’t going anywhere.
Don’t know why Bushy isn’t having LOW do another run of those.
Sell it like it was or Maybe bump it up to a 3-15 and put the better ED glass in it.
keep the illuminated ret. and sell a shit load of them.

 

[supercorndogs]

Making a 3-15 would just making another scope, which is fine if its good. Vortex tried with their 3-15 but couldn't figure out which focal plane to put the reticle in.

 

[JDB55]

It's seems to me the market is primed for a 2-12/15x40 or 44, illuminated, FFP, DMR type scope where guys can run an offset rds if they need. Maybe that's a niche group, but you get a lot of hunters/tactical guys in that group and if you do it well to 15x you can get some PRS guys maybe in there as well. The key is to make it compact like others have stated, like 13" compact and around 23-25 ounces. I would buy one immediately with some good Japanese glass at around $1,200-1,600 bucks.

 

[Bevan]

Bring it back, make it lighter if any changes. Pretty good as it was though.

 

[jakelly]

I envy you

I’ve picked them up here and there when they’ve been available. I have a hard time not stock piling the 3-12s and 3-9 SWFAs.

 

[PFG]

I like them 3-12s and I cannot lie…

 

[supercorndogs]

I cant see the point in resigning an old scope just to make it like the other dozen new scopes that dropped yesterday. The key is not trying to compromise and make it for everything. You want something to work very well, design it for that purpose. Also as I recall 549 at Cameraland on the 3-12s. An LRHS2 or pro version could probably be a great scope around 800.

 

[bobke]

Seems like from a comment back a few months in a similar thread, Hollywood 6mm indicated there was a wait/see assessment of sales opportunity for the LRHS/LRTS product lines, as sales never met projections. That said, the absence of a comparable or improved version of this functional capability in their product line leaves a serious gap. Nothing below matches up well, nor does the heavier DMR2 Pro/3, though the Pro and 3 do hold up well for precision work. Don’t see where Bushnell is going with all this, as the crossover market seems to demand a reply. Very pleased with the value/performance quotient the LRHS/LRTS/LRHS2 lines offer, whether 3-12 or 4.5-18, and have a handful of each to fit my needs, but as we’re always looking for better, lighter optics and reticle choices, curious why Bushy seems to be ignoring this range in their lineup.

 

[jakelly]

I cant see the point in resigning an old scope just to make it like the other dozen new scopes that dropped yesterday. The key is not trying to compromise and make it for everything. You want something to work very well, design it for that purpose. Also as I recall 549 at Cameraland on the 3-12s. An LRHS2 or pro version could probably be a great scope around 800.

I very much agree with your key. Good is the enemy of great. Start talking about the need for a lightweight hunting scope with tactical roots and soon you have guys talking about putting it on their AR, then EFR for their rimfire, how they don’t care if it’s 26ozs, but they want daylight bright illumination and 7x erectors, white noise that obscures the actual void. The 3-12 LRHS is what it is because Pat and George focused on a Long Range Hunting Scope not the widest possible sales node.

 

[jakelly]

It was a sweetheart all right - reliable, tracked, good RTZ, good zero retention. Perfectly functional optical performance for field use. Great hunting scope, great DMR scope.

Yes, I know they sold more of its big brother, but if you don't need 18x max mag, then the weight savings for the 3-12 was great.

Not much that really matches it now.

I think the market is maturing. The long view is lifting the wisdom behind the 3-12 over more compromised designs.

 

[Dobermann]

I like them 3-12s and I cannot lie…

Sportsmatch rings? You from the Slide?

 

[PFG]

Sportsmatch rings? You from the Slide?

When something works, it works. Not always the prettiest, but that’s why I over spend on the manners stock. To quickly move the eye away from my scope rings.

 

[supercorndogs]

 

[powdahound76]

A tad lighter/shorter would be awesome.

Have not missed a shot with this scope due to those or the FOV.

Misses are on me.

Really like these in Seekins rings with no cross bolt to snag.
Or Talley LW on a Tikka.
Or a JP 1 piece on an AR.

 

[bobke]

So, given we all have an appreciation for the 3-12 and it no longer appears to be a regular production item in Bushnell’s inventory, along with the alternately capable 4.5-18, are we left with GAP or others who might initiate limited production runs to secure these, or does Bushnell have something working that might fill the obvious void in their product offerings?

 

[PFG]

So, given we all have an appreciation for the 3-12 and it no longer appears to be a regular production item in Bushnell’s inventory, along with the alternately capable 4.5-18, are we left with GAP or others who might initiate limited production runs to secure these, or does Bushnell have something working that might fill the obvious void in their product offerings?

The problem seems to be that Bushnell (and others) don’t seem to believe in the same void. NF is one decent half ass reticle away from having it right. But that might be a bigger dream than any.

 

[supercorndogs]

I would not be surprised if Bushnell would be pretty hesitant to rehash old mistakes.

I like the 4.5-18, but to me, its pretty much the DMR/II/3 with less elevation adjustment.

 

[JDB55]

Bushy 1.5-12x35-40, 13ish inches, 23ish ounces, ffp, illuminated. Is it possible to make something like that work well with the erector ratios, anything like that at all on the market besides March? That would be a sweet optic and something a bit different/unusual to the market. Forgive me if I'm hijacking the thread by throwing out random ideas lol.

 

[supercorndogs]

I think the chances are slim and none, they are going to sink money into designing another scope to fit the same niche, the LRHS flopped in.

 

[Secant]

I have a 3-12 LRTS and a friend has the 4.5-18 LRHS. They are good scopes, but I think they get overhyped because of their closeout pricing. I think guys should remember that the reason these were closed out is likely because they weren't doing so well in the market.

Look at the new LRHS2. My understanding is that the LRHS2 was a special/limited run that started about a year ago, and they are still available. Unless someone knows that they sold like hot cakes and additional 'special' runs were made, it's probably a good indication of the true popularity, and that would be underscored by the understanding that the 4.5-18 was the more popular version of the original models.

My 3-12 is good, but it's good in the context of the almost 50% off retail that I bought it for. I will likely replace it at some point down the line.

 

[stello1001]

I have a 3-12 LRTS and a friend has the 4.5-18 LRHS. They are good scopes, but I think they get overhyped because of their closeout pricing. I think guys should remember that the reason these were closed out is likely because they weren't doing so well in the market.

Look at the new LRHS2. My understanding is that the LRHS2 was a special/limited run that started about a year ago, and they are still available. Unless someone knows that they sold like hot cakes and additional 'special' runs were made, it's probably a good indication of the true popularity, and that would be underscored by the understanding that the 4.5-18 was the more popular version of the original models.

My 3-12 is good, but it's good in the context of the almost 50% off retail that I bought it for. I will likely replace it at some point down the line.

Let me know when you want to replace it. I have the 4.5-18 and a 3-12 but I like the 3-12 better...

 

[supercorndogs]

I have a 3-12 LRTS and a friend has the 4.5-18 LRHS. They are good scopes, but I think they get overhyped because of their closeout pricing. I think guys should remember that the reason these were closed out is likely because they weren't doing so well in the market.

Look at the new LRHS2. My understanding is that the LRHS2 was a special/limited run that started about a year ago, and they are still available. Unless someone knows that they sold like hot cakes and additional 'special' runs were made, it's probably a good indication of the true popularity, and that would be underscored by the understanding that the 4.5-18 was the more popular version of the original models.

My 3-12 is good, but it's good in the context of the almost 50% off retail that I bought it for. I will likely replace it at some point down the line.

What would you say offers the same quality for 500 dollars?

 

[supercorndogs]

A tad lighter/shorter would be awesome.

Have not missed a shot with this scope due to those or the FOV.

Misses are on me.

Really like these in Seekins rings with no cross bolt to snag.
Or Talley LW on a Tikka.
Or a JP 1 piece on an AR.

Comparing the 4.5-18 to others with similar magnification, I haven't figured out how it got a reputation for having a narrow field of view.

I wonder why so many companies still use that huge nut on the cross bolt. Seekins are so clean with their clamp.

 

[Dobermann]

When something works, it works. Not always the prettiest, but that’s why I over spend on the manners stock. To quickly move the eye away from my scope rings.

No shame in the Sportsmatch game - they work, and work well. The arrestor pin is the schizzle for Tikkas.

 

[HaydenLane]

I have a 3-12 LRTS and a friend has the 4.5-18 LRHS. They are good scopes, but I think they get overhyped because of their closeout pricing. I think guys should remember that the reason these were closed out is likely because they weren't doing so well in the market.

Look at the new LRHS2. My understanding is that the LRHS2 was a special/limited run that started about a year ago, and they are still available. Unless someone knows that they sold like hot cakes and additional 'special' runs were made, it's probably a good indication of the true popularity, and that would be underscored by the understanding that the 4.5-18 was the more popular version of the original models.

My 3-12 is good, but it's good in the context of the almost 50% off retail that I bought it for. I will likely replace it at some point down the line.

There’s really no one-to-one replacement at any price point, so I don’t buy the “good at close-out prices” argument.

I have no idea why they flopped, or why the 4.5-18 was more popular, but maybe it is telling that nothing has replaced them from any manufacturer.

Hunters want lightweight scopes and high magnification they won’t use.

 

[Dobermann]

So, given we all have an appreciation for the 3-12 and it no longer appears to be a regular production item in Bushnell’s inventory, along with the alternately capable 4.5-18, are we left with GAP or others who might initiate limited production runs to secure these, or does Bushnell have something working that might fill the obvious void in their product offerings?

The trick is that it would need to be specc'd out with the same components as the Elite Tactical line, and return to previous QC levels.

 

[Dobermann]

I would not be surprised if Bushnell would be pretty hesitant to rehash old mistakes.

I like the 4.5-18, but to me, its pretty much the DMR/II/3 with less elevation adjustment.

Smaller and lighter for the 4.5-18 makes for a better field option, I reckon.

 

[Dobermann]

Bushy 1.5-12x35-40, 13ish inches, 23ish ounces, ffp, illuminated. Is it possible to make something like that work well with the erector ratios, anything like that at all on the market besides March? That would be a sweet optic and something a bit different/unusual to the market. Forgive me if I'm hijacking the thread by throwing out random ideas lol.

Jeff Huber said on Frank's podcast that once you go above 5x for an erector, you start introducing multiple problems ...

 

[Dobermann]

I have a 3-12 LRTS and a friend has the 4.5-18 LRHS. They are good scopes, but I think they get overhyped because of their closeout pricing. I think guys should remember that the reason these were closed out is likely because they weren't doing so well in the market.

Look at the new LRHS2. My understanding is that the LRHS2 was a special/limited run that started about a year ago, and they are still available. Unless someone knows that they sold like hot cakes and additional 'special' runs were made, it's probably a good indication of the true popularity, and that would be underscored by the understanding that the 4.5-18 was the more popular version of the original models.

My 3-12 is good, but it's good in the context of the almost 50% off retail that I bought it for. I will likely replace it at some point down the line.

I have a slightly different take on this ...

It's likely true that people got excited about how much performance you got for the closeout prices; I did, and wish I'd bought a couple more in retrospect.

However, the good reputation (rather than 'overhype') of the scopes existed well before that with the hardcore backcountry hunting crew - primarily because they worked - repeatable dialling, RTZ, zero retention, and functional reticle. We just don't see that in many other scopes in this mag range and form factor.

As for GAP only doing the new run on the big brother, who knows the full story? But if they just went with that one because it sold more the first time, I think that was a mistake.

It takes a while for quality to really be recognised sometimes. Had the 3-12 stayed in the line-up, there's a chance it's reputation might have slowly spread over time ... it could have been a contender.

On the other hand, with the 4.5-16 having sold many the first time, there's a chance that market might be a bit more saturated. That, and the fact that there's a bunch of other 3-15/4-16 offerings that, when put to the test, don't work as well as the LRHS/LRTS lines, but consumers don't know that, focussing more on marketing and 'features'.

 

[Dobermann]

What would you say offers the same quality for 500 dollars?

Yeah, for quality,. that's likely only the fixed SWFA 6x.

But given the 3-12 was usually around $1000 and more, it was still good value at it's original price.