We're going to update it to 100 yards since that's more the standard for rifle scopes.
- Thread starter Team RCBS & Bushnell
- Start date
Can you tell us FOV @ 30X and/or 25X to be able to compare to some more scopes?
That would be great, I just ask that you not follow the same route as the XTR III and make us wait 2+ years for illumination
That's strange, yes, I see you've updated all the FOV numbers, but when I first purchased my DMR II I grabbed the numbers then and they showed:
| 25.3' @ 3.5x and 5.1' @ 21x |
But according to what is posted on the site currently they are exactly the same.
Here you go.
*NOTE - The thick bar on the bottom milling marks is only applicable to the DMR3, it's not on the XRS3. On the DMR3 it's only visible around 3.5-5.5x, or at 30MIL down.
Yeah, they must have been rounded down at some point. After we dug through the specs we're putting the exact spec again on DMR3 and it'll reflect on the site tomorrow. It'll be this as taken direct from the spec/build sheet:That would be great, I just ask that you not follow the same route as the XTR III and make us wait 2+ years for illumination
That's strange, yes, I see you've updated all the FOV numbers, but when I first purchased my DMR II I grabbed the numbers then and they showed:
25.3' @ 3.5x and 5.1' @ 21x
But according to what is posted on the site currently they are exactly the same.
| Field of View (ft.@100yards) | 25.5 ft. @ 3.5x - 5.1 ft. @ 21X |
|---|
Sfp lightweight 2-12 with a big fov and a daylight bright dot please. The March 1.5-15 was so close......
Love my SMRS2 pro.
Love my SMRS2 pro.
You had me until the .25 line spacing. What was the rationale for that?
It's still a G reticle which isn't a .2 grid reticle and we wanted to build off what people liked with the G3 reticle but give them .25 inside 1 for a little more refinement.
I'd guess less clutter overall while still giving ample hold references. I've actually got time behind the G4P reticle, and I loved the .25s.
What's a G reticle? GAP?
You would have gotten one more degree of refinement if you used .2 line spacing vs .25 right? I just don't get it. Any useful division of .2 is still a whole number, or at least a number in the tenths place. Turrets are in whole numbers or tenths, ballistic calculators same thing.
Ill just leave it at that, I don't want to derail your thread.
You would have gotten one more degree of refinement if you used .2 line spacing vs .25 right? I just don't get it. Any useful division of .2 is still a whole number, or at least a number in the tenths place. Turrets are in whole numbers or tenths, ballistic calculators same thing.
Ill just leave it at that, I don't want to derail your thread.
G2, then G3, and now G4P - Yeah, developed alongside GA Precision. We've got some stuff coming with George talking about it. Hopefully it's ready to publish very soon. I'll share it here when it's good to go.
I really never understood the adoration for .2 line spacing and find it unnecessary busyness. You want .2? It’s just to the left/right of the hash mark. It’s a rare situation indeed, if ever, that .2 is more useful than .25.
But reticles truly are a very personal thing, so I can understand you wanting what you may be used to using.
I spent a lot of time with the original msr reticle. I never had a problem breaking it up into quarters, or holding over into space. Its like you said, I've just grown to prefer the .2 divisions. They are very easy to divide, and match the turrets and ballistic programs.
I'm in for a DMR3 to join my HDMR CR, well done Bushnell, and thanks for the VIP program and listening!
The reduced throw effort on the (25y!) parallax and mag rings is extra goodness, as is the multi lever spots, looking forward to hearing more about those locations as a lefty that shoots between 10x--15x mostly. Gonna go take a peek at the spotter again
The reduced throw effort on the (25y!) parallax and mag rings is extra goodness, as is the multi lever spots, looking forward to hearing more about those locations as a lefty that shoots between 10x--15x mostly. Gonna go take a peek at the spotter again
If you multiply the FOV by the Magnification (as taken from the specs) then divide by the magnification you want to compare you will be very close.
Try with both sets of specs, if the higher Mag/FOV gives a signifcantly larger number then it means the scope tunnels and the lower Mag/FOV numbers wont be accurate, (the DMR 2/3 for example).
The higher Mag/FOV will be more prone to rounding errors but should be close enough to get a rough comparison.
Will be in for an XRS3...
...but also interested in a lightweight 2-12 if your counting heads
(and another thanks! for the mil discount program)
...but also interested in a lightweight 2-12 if your counting heads
(and another thanks! for the mil discount program)
Curious to see what this reticle looks like in the DMR3, the double .05mil should make it nicely visible at lower magnification.
If they double up an SMRS2 1-6.5 type it could be a 2-13. Nice eyebox and field of view. Sfp, 18oz, exposed low pro elevation and capped windage, and most importantly a Stryker/Credo/G2 nuclear bright dot.
I've looked at those. Capped elevation but that's not the end of the world. I seriously considered the 1-6 also but people go back and fourth on if the illumination is daylight bright with some insisting they are and others saying it depends on model and even color of the dot or when it was made.
Ffp would be great but doesn't that usually mean more weight, tighter eyebox, and much more expensive to illuminate? I'd also prefer a LOW scope. I have several and always feel like I've gotten my moneys worth while Leopold reviews are love them or hate them.
I have a razor lht 3-15-50 and the eyebox is good enough that indoors where you can see the dot its surprisingly easy to use both eyes open but the illumination washes out. Daylight bright dots seem to be trickling down into much cheaper scopes these days and I'm hoping to see it coming out in some higher magnification options. My understanding is its not expensive to do on a wire reticle.
The VX6hd has the ZL2 elevation turret and some of the non HD have a ZL turret too.
The FireDot reticles are most definitely daylight bright and works exceptionally well.
Thanks I'll look into that. Leopold stuff seems to go on sale a lot and can be had pretty reasonably if your patient. I recently got my first offset dot setup and it's nice but its occurred to me that the eyeboxs on a lot of newer mid power scopes is good enough why not just put the dot in the scope? They're putting nuclear bright dots in scopes like the px4, Stryker, Credo HX etc that are under 800$ so its obviously not just a high end feature anymore.
Eta looked at the exposed turret model on their site and that looks really slick. It appears to be only availability in duplex because Leopold but that's the closest I've seen to what I'm looking for.
Eta looked at the exposed turret model on their site and that looks really slick. It appears to be only availability in duplex because Leopold but that's the closest I've seen to what I'm looking for.
Last edited:
I can’t understand why scope companies just don’t roll them out with illumination. FFP models in particular.
I’ve been wanting to upgrade my XTRII. The XTRIII comes out, no illumination. These new Bushnells come out, no illumination. Both scopes look awesome otherwise, but my XTRII is illuminated and I don’t want to give that up!
It’s almost like scope companies have been infiltrated by animal rightists and aren’t including illumination because there are those of us that like to smack fur early in the morning and late in the evening (that oughta give the conspiracy theorists something to chew on over the weekend).
Admittedly, I don’t have much trouble with my 6x SWFA on my AR, but dang it, I want illumination!
Oh well, I bought a boat a couple weeks ago, being poor, it’ll be Black Friday before I fret a scope again. Maybe somebody at Bushnell or Burris will get their crap together in the meantime.
Rant off.......
I’ve been wanting to upgrade my XTRII. The XTRIII comes out, no illumination. These new Bushnells come out, no illumination. Both scopes look awesome otherwise, but my XTRII is illuminated and I don’t want to give that up!
It’s almost like scope companies have been infiltrated by animal rightists and aren’t including illumination because there are those of us that like to smack fur early in the morning and late in the evening (that oughta give the conspiracy theorists something to chew on over the weekend).
Admittedly, I don’t have much trouble with my 6x SWFA on my AR, but dang it, I want illumination!
Oh well, I bought a boat a couple weeks ago, being poor, it’ll be Black Friday before I fret a scope again. Maybe somebody at Bushnell or Burris will get their crap together in the meantime.
Rant off.......
Meh…
Illumination adds a little more complexity, and you have to spend time tweaking things to get it just right. Plus illumination isn't as much of a priority to many shooters as it used to be.
If you were confused about illumination wait until you here about reticle offerings. I don't understand the marketing behind only offering a Mil optic. Especially considering that Bushnell is hoping (I'm assuming) to compete with the Vortex razor gen 2 and Leupold's Mk5 directly. Both of the aforementioned optics offer a pretty wide variety of Mil and MOA reticles. Obviously I don't think their goal is compete with the ATACR or the S&B series optics, or at least it isn't priced that way, so why split your targeted market into 2 parts knowing that customers will go elsewhere in an already saturated market. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Probably because %80 of the people that use this type of optic uses mils.
Maybe they are trying to convince everyone that MOA and IPHY are gay and people should stop using them.
You probably were being conservative, but it's still a business and every dollar that doesn't come in goes out to another one of your competitiors.
Wasn't aware that Bushnell could afford to forfeit 5% of its potential customers lol. Maybe I haven't checked Vistas fin stmts for the quarter.
Vista owns a bunch of ammo companies. I'm sure they are doing ok.
They lost money in '19 and '20. Wasn't talking about their overall condition but upon review their optic sales is only a piece inside less than 26% of total rev so I guess what they do is comparable insignificant when looking at the overall company.
Illumination is something we're finding in our research with MIL/LE that they're wanting less and less. I'll leave that at that. As far as for the general market, our sales history of XRS II vs the illuminated model tells us a lot less people than you'd think are willing to pay the price difference for it. Given the choice of what the cost difference is for scopes at this level, they seem to vote for the option without illumination.
Match Pro seems to buck the trend slightly on percentage, it's a ~10% increase in price. But 10% on that is only $50, and sales are telling us that way more are going with illumination, but it's only a 50-dollar bill difference. If you don't need to hit the Base Class dollar amount, it makes sense for most to spend the $50. 10% on $1500-$2000 is a different story - At least for us, historically.
The XRS3 and DMR3 were built first and foremost for competition like PRS and LE/MIL use, not hunting. If you use these for hunting that's great, but we were focused on bringing an unmatched value/performance to the comp/LE/MIL segment. We know a ton of hunters want illumination give the option - I would. We make a ton of lower-priced options with illumination for hunting like the Engage and Prime, and we even made illuminated options for Forge. One of our best-selling illuminated scopes in the last year would probably be the Engage 3-12x56. It was made for Europe, but we brought it here and people seemed to love it. We're just waiting on more to arrive.
That said - Illumination isn't off the table for these. We're looking at it. A lot has to go into it to make something return, and we'd have to have a good case for doing it, and we are looking at it. I just wouldn't expect anything for quite a while if we do. There's other things coming for ET that we know folks want.
As for MOA - It just isn't happening for Elite Tactical or Match Pro unless we decide to make an F-Class or Benchrest scope some day.
Match Pro seems to buck the trend slightly on percentage, it's a ~10% increase in price. But 10% on that is only $50, and sales are telling us that way more are going with illumination, but it's only a 50-dollar bill difference. If you don't need to hit the Base Class dollar amount, it makes sense for most to spend the $50. 10% on $1500-$2000 is a different story - At least for us, historically.
The XRS3 and DMR3 were built first and foremost for competition like PRS and LE/MIL use, not hunting. If you use these for hunting that's great, but we were focused on bringing an unmatched value/performance to the comp/LE/MIL segment. We know a ton of hunters want illumination give the option - I would. We make a ton of lower-priced options with illumination for hunting like the Engage and Prime, and we even made illuminated options for Forge. One of our best-selling illuminated scopes in the last year would probably be the Engage 3-12x56. It was made for Europe, but we brought it here and people seemed to love it. We're just waiting on more to arrive.
That said - Illumination isn't off the table for these. We're looking at it. A lot has to go into it to make something return, and we'd have to have a good case for doing it, and we are looking at it. I just wouldn't expect anything for quite a while if we do. There's other things coming for ET that we know folks want.
As for MOA - It just isn't happening for Elite Tactical or Match Pro unless we decide to make an F-Class or Benchrest scope some day.
Here's a dumb question: can you see a non illuminated reticle with an nvd? I've never used one.
What are the costs associated with manufacturing a MOA reticle optic alongside a MIL optic?
If costs > revenue potential, there’s no value to do so.
It’d be interesting to see how many Razor IIs are sold in MOA vs. MIL; seeing the frequent blowouts of MOA-based tactical optics by various vendors tells me the demand in the civilian market just doesn’t exist.
If costs > revenue potential, there’s no value to do so.
It’d be interesting to see how many Razor IIs are sold in MOA vs. MIL; seeing the frequent blowouts of MOA-based tactical optics by various vendors tells me the demand in the civilian market just doesn’t exist.
Well I wasn't just talking about MOA exclusively either, conversation was a bit sidetracked. The G reticle made its return without the Horus and Tremor options that were available on the older series. Would be interesting to see the breakdown on those as well. I know the G series is in house so there are certain incentives involved, but the other 2 are popular as well in the Mil field.
I agree, also would like to see the Mk5 breakdown.
Exactly. People seem to think that it's a near zero cost proposition to make an MOA version and MIL version of an optic. It's not.
You're totally on the correct path there on how it gets decided whether or not to make something. Agreed that it would be interesting. The sales differences on the Nitro & Forge models, which were basically all available in FFP and SFP and with two different reticles for each, were very low on MOA vs MIL. We really did consider making an MOA version of the Match Pro, but ultimately decided against it.
The G3 outsold the H59 and Tremor by a huge factor. Not denying that they're very well-known and popular reticles. For us the G3 is what people were mostly buying. People wanted a floating dot though, among other things, so that's why the G4P is here.
I suppose I get it, and understood it even when I made that post. It’s cheaper and more efficient to order 1,000 units of one thing than 500 units of 2 different things or 250 of 4.
Most of these scopes will never look at fur (and most guys are running Mil’s, myself included). It’ll be strictly steel and paper in broad daylight (which is how my .22BR/XTRII gets used 80% of the time).
I’d still love to look at one to see how the reticle looks at 6x in low light (the SCR-MIL disappears against a dark background). I think everything else would be an improvement over my XTRII. The extra X’s would even put it over an XTRIII for me.
Most of these scopes will never look at fur (and most guys are running Mil’s, myself included). It’ll be strictly steel and paper in broad daylight (which is how my .22BR/XTRII gets used 80% of the time).
I’d still love to look at one to see how the reticle looks at 6x in low light (the SCR-MIL disappears against a dark background). I think everything else would be an improvement over my XTRII. The extra X’s would even put it over an XTRIII for me.
I appreciate the feedback. I understand this is a Bushy celebration conversation and most of the people here are excited about the new products. I like the XRS3 specs and still may purchase one when they come out. Wasn't and still am not trying to discourage anyone from buying or piss off the VSTO team, was just curious about what y'all saw that led you in that direction and what your potential customers were thinking about it. Not many glaring changes besides reticle offerings made to the new line outside of upgrades to materials and coatings (no locking turrets on this vs old gen 2 for example). Appreciate the feedback
CQD
