Heck of a long range scope review

[MTPoleKat]

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/19/tactical-scopes-field-test-results-summary/

This gentleman did a whale of a job on a honest review of long range precision rifle scopes. Worth a read if it's what your into.

 

[schmalts]

Nice review. It's good to see one that I own myself and still recommend listed as the best value scope of the bunch. For some reason though some have a hard time getting past the Bushnell name, but the Elite series is a much better scope than the rest of the Bushnell line and made in Japan based on design from when the licensing agreement was with Bausch and Lomb. Recently Bushnell Elite came out with the LRHS (long range hunter) that is getting great reviews and will be a big seller for them. If you are interested in them give me a shout.

 

[sbhooper]

That is a great review. I would like to see one similar on more "normal" hunting scopes. I have a Bushnell Elite 4-12 on a 7 mag that is a great scope. It is not as bright as my Leupold, but still a very good scope for the money spent.

My wish list has to include a Nightforce.

 

[Point Creep]

I just bought a bushnell lrhs. After seeing one in use all last fall. Great scope.

 

[e300winmag]

I have a nightforce NXS and two vortex razor HDs. I purchased the razor HDs for significantly less than MSRP. I feel the glass for my eyes are similar and I am very happy with the razor HDs and will continue to buy them as I need them if i can continue to find them at a discounted price

 

[pseshooter300]

Interesting read

 

[MN Public Hunter]

OK, I'm no expert, but I will be looking for a scope so I read this. How can this be a "long range" test, when this is the only distance talked about in the whole article is the comment below"

"The optical clarity tests were all conducted in an indoor, controlled environment using eye exam charts and other standardized optics charts at 100 yards. The eye exam charts were similar to what an eye doctor would use to test visual acuity, and I scored the size of letters and accuracy testers could read through each scope."

Did I miss the part where he used the scope at 600+ yards? What does he believe to be "long range"? And this was all done indoors?

Granted, I myself would never pay this kind of money for a scope, but this leaves a few questions into the validity of the "tests" in my eyes.

 

[1_pointer]

I just bought a bushnell lrhs. After seeing one in use all last fall. Great scope.

For the 300 RUM? If so I'm interested to hear how it works for you. Their eye relief specs have me a bit cautious as I'd like one for my 338 Win. Thinking prone or tough angles might end up with me getting bonked...

 

[MKotur325]

Definitely a cool topic. I do like how 3 Nightforce optics ended up in the top 6 for optical clarity. I'm not sure how I feel about 6% of the total score being based on available... Especially when 6% separates 1st place from 6th place.

Other than that, it looks like a well done and definitely good to see someone take the time to experiment with these optics.

As far as being able to use the optic at long range, 600+ yds. IMHO, and from my experience shooting to 1200 yds at steel, there's nothing at 600+ yds that cannot be evaluated with proper tools and techniques. When he tested optic travel and accuracy to 20Mil, that's enough elevation to push my .308Win with 175 Federal GMM to 1325 yards at 3500' at 50 degrees. Optical Resolution and optical clarity is not going to change at 600yds vs 100yds. Anything beyond that is just paralax adjustment which is possible on each of these optics.

Not all testing was done indoors, Some of the optical and mechanical tests were performed outdoors such as FOV and Adjustment testing. Optical quality testing was done indoors so that there would be no change in lighting conditions between the 6 testers testing the 18 optics in three tests. I'm sure this was an exhaustive process and took several hours possibly across multiple days. This IMO is the only way they could have accurately and honestly tested 18 optics with multiple people in this depth, without changing lighting conditions. The USAF low contrast line test is designed to test low light performance of optics in a controlled environment.

I also wish that he had an FFP Nightforce ACATR to test, with the new reticles and FFP option, this should now be in the top five. I really like the look of the new 4-16x42 ACATR F1. This might be my next top shelf optic, if I can convince myself that it's $1000 better than an HDMR...

 

[schmalts]

Not all testing was done indoors, Some of the optical and mechanical tests were performed outdoors such as FOV and Adjustment testing. Optical quality testing was done indoors so that there would be no change in lighting conditions between the 6 testers testing the 18 optics in three tests. I'm sure this was an exhaustive process and took several hours possibly across multiple days. This IMO is the only way they could have accurately and honestly tested 18 optics with multiple people in this depth, without changing lighting conditions. The USAF low contrast line test is designed to test low light performance of optics in a controlled environment.
.

Yep. You do not have to be testing optical performance at a long range. Short range testing eliminated variables such as humidity and heat waves. Contrary to belief there are no "magic coatings" that can eliminate heat waves or humidity. You can test optics at 20 yards given the fact you are using high detailed small print to try and read, and see what optics can read the smallest readable print. Now testing the tracking of a scope is something different.