Rifle Scopes Impressions: NF 2.5-10x42 vs. Bushnell LRHS?

[DarinR]

I am quite familiar with the Nightforce NXS line and have used them since the only place I could find one was Gary's Gun Shop in Sioux Falls back around 2000 give or take. I just got in a couple of the new Bushnell LRHS scopes and my first impression has been great. The glass clarity and tactile feel of the elevation knob feel to me to be quite comparable to the Nightforce models, especially the 2.5-10x42. I have not compared them in low light yet and haven't had any range time with the Bushnell yet. I expect the tracking and dependability to be comparable to the NXS line.

Has anyone compared the the LRHS to the NF 2.5-10x42 or any other NF? I would like to know how you believe they compare.

Thanks,
Darin

 

[Hondo64d]

I haven't had a NF, so can't make the direct comparison. I do have an LRHS so can make some comparisons to other scopes I have/had. The tracking is superb, dead on. The clicks are the most positive I have had, better than the Vortex HS-T and SWFA SS. The large numbers and marks are much appreciated. The glass is VERY good, just a hair under the Zeiss 6x42 Diatal I previously had and in nearly dark conditions, better than a 3-9 Conquest I currently have. Much better glass than the SWFA SS and noticeably better than the Vortex HS-T. The reticle is very crisp. My only complaint with the reticle is that it is not bold enough to use it's long range features in low light. I loose the hold off marks against a tree line at about sunset +20, which is when I start seeing most of the critters I hunt in the places I hunt. I guess my eyes may be aging, but I cannot make effective use of the reticle at less than about 6x. The christmas tree is completely unusable at sunset+ 20 if I am observing animals against a tree line, which is where they are usually coming from. I really would like to see the reticle and hash marks subtend about .1 mil thickness. This is a long range HUNTING scope. .1 mil may sound like a fat reticle, but it would only obscure 3.6" of vitals at 1k yards and would be much more visible during the last few minutes of legal hunting light. Another option in the 3-12 magnification range would be 2nd focal plane. It would subtend correctly at 12x and with very quick math, would still be usable at 6x and 3x whereas with its current 1st fp reticle, I can't even see the marks at 3x. For short range stuff, the donut helps and the post are very bold. The scope is very robust and seems to be built like a tank which accounts for the 26 oz weight. I have NO concerns about this scope not being able to take some abuse and keep on ticking. A bit heavy for a light weight hunting rifle, but fine on a true long range rig which is gonna be heavier by virtue of the task it is built for.

Still not perfect, but probably the best long range HUNTING scope available, and at current street prices, is an absolute bargain.

John

 

[jakelly]

I talked to psinclair the other day about the LRHS, and he commented on a side by side comparison with senderoman's 2-10x42. The consensus between the small group of eyes present that day, viewing the very small sample size of those two mass produced scopes, was that glass was pretty much a push, maybe the Bushnell by less than a nose if you had to pick a winner.

As far as durability and function goes you couldn't vote against Nightforce, yet I have not personally heard of a LRHS breaking.

Basically you are getting one of the best products ever made in either case. One is lighter and illuminated, the other is cheaper, with a touch more mag, and FFP- take your pic according to your desires.

 

[steve123]

I've owned NF 2.5-10x24, F1 and a couple 5.5-22's.

I recently sold the 2.5-10 to replace with the LRHS. IMO the glass is much better on the LRHS than that 2.5-10. Controls feel a little more solid on all the NF's but the 10 mil knobs on the LRHS are very nice. The illume system on the 2.5-10 was probably my favorite of any scope I've owned. I prefer FFP and like the 12x more than 10X so I like the LRHS better in most aspects in comparison.

The F1 was a excellent scope. Nothing really to complain about. The LRHS is still more appealing to me when considering price.

I'd take a March 3-24 over the LRHS any day, only problem is it's twice the price. I wish March would come out with a christmas tree reticle similar to GAP's G2. If they were to do that I'd sell some of my other scopes to buy one or two.