I would say it leans more toward the target side simply because the reticle is finer at low power. Not saying it won't work fine for hunting but you might want to use it on 5X-6X on the lowest if there was a chance of 50 yard shots,especially in low light. I would rate their 3-9HD as a better pure hunting scope and always prefer the Mill quad reticle with mill adjustments on any. Always remember that the 3-9 will likely be $450 on Black Friday. and cal also sometimes be found in the sample list for same.

I still prefer the Bushnell 3-12 LRHS overall to either for better reticle,eyebox,adjustments, and better designed hunting turrets with a zero stop. You can sometimes find a used one around $700-800. That's what I gave for mine and I've seen others right after I bought mine.

There is also a Bushnell LRTSi 3-12 that is same but offers illumination. Only thing about it is that the GAP sale will get you a 4.5-18 at half the price with a small weight penalty.

RHC What guns and scopes do you actually own? You quote a lot of specs but do you actually own those scopes or are you just quoting reviews of others who do own them? Just curious.

That's the reason I suggested a scope built for dialing, and a scope with a reticle that keeps you from it.

Swarovski's TDS reticle makes it a fine no-dial option for long range shooting, and it will typically be brighter at dawn and dusk than any scopes not made by Schmidt-Bender or Kahles,

Neither. He just internet trolls websites and spews what the latest talk is about.

Yes,I've owned the SWFA scopes, 3-9 HD and 10X. Currently don't have one because I use the Bushnell LRHS 3-12 which I own and prefer. I've owned just about every Zeiss,Leupold,Kahles hunting scope over the years. Currently only own one Zeiss Diavari, 2 Leupold and one Kahles. I bought a Swaro Z5 with a BT a couple years ago to try on a light weight rifle and still use it. I've also tested the Nioghtforce NXS 2.5-10X32 fairly extensively.

How does the SWFA 3-15 fit into the mix?
https://swfa.com/swfa-ss-3-15x42-tactical-rifle-scope-11.html
https://swfa.com/swfa-ss-3-15x42-tactical-rifle-scope.html[/quote]


I would say it leans more toward the target side simply because the reticle is finer at low power. Not saying it won't work fine for hunting but you might want to use it on 5X-6X on the lowest if there was a chance of 50 yard shots,especially in low light. I would rate their 3-9HD as a better pure hunting scope and always prefer the Mill quad reticle with mill adjustments on any. Always remember that the 3-9 will likely be $450 on Black Friday. and cal also sometimes be found in the sample list for same.

I still prefer the Bushnell 3-12 LRHS overall to either for better reticle,eyebox,adjustments, and better designed hunting turrets with a zero stop. You can sometimes find a used one around $700-800. That's what I gave for mine and I've seen others right after I bought mine.

There is also a Bushnell LRTSi 3-12 that is same but offers illumination. Only thing about it is that the GAP sale will get you a 4.5-18 at half the price with a small weight penalty.[/quote]




RHC What guns and scopes do you actually own? You quote a lot of specs but do you actually own those scopes or are you just quoting reviews of others who do own them? Just curious.[/quote]

Neither. He just internet trolls websites and spews what the latest talk is about.
[/quote]


Naw,I'm not nearly as full of myself as you are.

It’s not much of a concern of mine because it’s sitting on a HMR 6.5. I haven’t noticed the eye relief being different enough from my other scopes for me to be concerned about it. As far as for the heavy recoiling rifles I don’t know as I see no need for them for the shooting and hunting I do. I don’t hunt anything that a 300 could kill any deader than a 7-08. Actually the only magnum rifle I shoot is a 257wby

RHC saves us the trouble of finding reviews on whatever scope we are interested in buying. He has already tested all of them and he knows any scope which can't hammer a nail like a Nightforce is a POS.

Just doing my part to try to make this a great site,like all you other smart asses.

How does one test a Nightforce without owning it outright? According to your previous message, you prefer a Bushnell over a Swaro? Really? You must be loaded with money to own just about every Zeiss, Leopold & Kahles scopes there is. I call BS on that.

I had a friend loan me a Nightforce for a month for evaluation. No,I'm not loaded,but I do like to sell and trade and try different scopes. When I say I've tried just about all I don't mean every mag range but every model, Diavari, Conquest, Conquest HD5, Terra. VX2, VX3, VX6,

Yes,the Bushnell LRHS is a better scope overall than a Swaro Z5,maybe you don't know that because all you know about Bushnell is blister pack Walmart scopes. The LRHS glass is just as good as Swaro. The adjustments are much more tactile,There is greater adjustment range,and in my opinion the FFP reticle is more useful at long range. There is no reason it shouldn't be since they are at the same price point and Swaro elevates the price greatly simply because uneducated folks such as yourself don't know any better.

Did that make you feel better, insulting someone you've never met? I bet your head blew up after writing that post. I simply call BS on your previous statement. You didn't say you had tried the scopes in question but had owned them. Those are a lot of high end, not to mention high dollar scopes you're talking about. I do my research before making a purchase. If I had your money I guess buying and selling may be the ticket, as well as shooting at the range, I don't know. To think I sent you a 35rem reloading die for free and on my nickel. If you have any more silly ass comments you feel you need to make, feel free to come over and make them face to face instead of hiding behind a computer monitor. Now run along and go play.

We really appreciate your contributions RH. Really. Especially the insight on how we are all morons for having a Swarovski scope instead of a Bushnell. I'm gonna put all my swaros and zeiess in the classifieds so I can replace them with the higher quality Bushnell scopes. I won't bother with trying to sell my leupolds as your insight has taught me they're worthless.

No, you never sent me anything. Sorry you got offended but I didn't speak any differently than you did. Yea, it gets a bit aggravating since all I was trying to do was to help someone and give them my personal opinions on stuff I own and have used,and all I get for it is insulted. So sorry that you couldn't take back a little of what you were dishing out.

I have owned 3 different Nightforce NXS scopes, Nightforce ATACR, Zeiss Diavari with target turrets, vortex viper, and zeiss conquest with target turrets.

I have looked through, compared and shot with Burris XTR 2's, swarovski X5I's, a few different Bushnell tactical scopes, Nightforce SHV's, Vortex razor Gen 1 and Gen 2's, and I'm sure a few others.

The NF scopes are as tough as they come. They track true, glass is good and they are great all around scopes but they do lack in late evening visibility/clarity when compared to scopes like swaro, S&B, zeiss diavari and I'm sure some other high end scopes. In all of my time hunting with NF scopes I never felt like they cost me a shot due to glass quality. I would (and probably will) own more NF scopes down the road.

The Vortex viper that I owned tracked true but it didn't have the glass quality/clarity that I wanted. A good friend of mine had one and sent it back multiple times because it wouldn't track true. I seen it happen first hand more than once.

The zeiss conquest tracked true but didn't have the internal adjustment that I wanted. Glass quality/clarity is good for the money.

The Zeiss diavari has tracked true but in all honesty I haven't really stretched it out as far as I'd like to yet but every adjustment Ive made has been spot on. Glass quality/clarity is great but it doesn't have as much internal adjustment as a lot of other LR scopes do. Since its on a flat shooting rifle it will get out further than I'll probably ever take it.

The Burris XTR's and Bushnell tactical scopes are great target scopes but to me they did not have very good glass quality/clarity especially late evening but they do track true from what ive seen.

The NF SHV line doesn't impress me all that much in any area.

I have a few buddies with swarovski X5I's and they track true, glass quality/clarity is great and are amazing in low light/late evening.

The razor Gen2 is better than the Gen1 IMO but both are tough scope with good glass. I would put the Gen2 up there with the NF NXS line as far as glass quality/clarity.


With all of that being said I am a hunter that enjoys shooting long range. I don't compete in any matches or competitions just me and a few buddies that like to get together and shoot long range in the off season and have a good time. After owning, shooting and comparing all the scopes i have had the opportunity to mess around with I wanted scopes with really good glass quality/clarity for hunting but also something I could shoot long range. My primary hunting rifles have a zeiss diavari 6-24x56 with Illuminated reticle on one and I have a 5-25x56 Swarovski X5I on the way for the other rifle. I have a LR 308 rifle as well that will need a scope if it doesn't sell. It won't be a primary rifle and won't get shot very much so I doubt I'll go crazy on the scope. Ive been wanting to play with one of the Nikon black X1000's so that may be a good gun to try one out on.

I own one of the Nikon black x1000’s and for the money it’s a good scope imo. Glass is pretty good and seems to track true. Haven’t used it much but works good so far. It’s the 6-24x50 model.

Random thoughts from me.... Debating the finer aspects of these different model I'm not sure many would like my opinion. The scopes are good, not great and over priced. I am not sure who makes them but it is likely Japanese made by Light Optical Works if they are truly good scopes....and truth be told on that you are likely being overcharged once you break $1k.

If you want the best get a Schmidt and Bender.

My thoughts on a hunting scope.... needs to be in the 2-3-4x range on the bottom end. Anything with more power on the low side is not going to get it done for a hunting scope as a general use scope unless it is tailored to a specific setup like a specific shooting house or mountain side.

And just remember I can do anything you can with a fixed 10x out to 1200 yds. maybe further at the range. So at some point you gotta ask yerself if you are overpaying for something you don't really need in the first place.

Anyone interested in a S&B,needs to call and talk to Doug at Cameraland NY. You can get one a lot cheaper than you might think.

I have asked this question in the past and herd nothing but crickets.

Why do Kahles, S&B some Zeiss, have such a good name when they - at least the ones I have shot have - been cloudy and /or did not have edge to edge clarity? The Kahles and S&B both looked distorted unless the target was directly in the center of the sight picture. It's the same type of distortion I've seen in lower end scopes. Both were cloudy or at least not as bright as my Vortex PST scope. The Zeiss - I believe it was a Diavari - was just distorted.

This may not be the norm, but it's all have to go on. I am by far no expert when it comes to scopes, but I know what looks clear and bright to my eye.

I have a buddy with a Swaro Z6 he got this past Christmas that is distorted on the edges on the high end of the zoom range too.

It just seems to me, for the price they command, they would be perfect. I mean heck, my Vortex PST is clear edge to edge throughout the zoom range and clear for less than 1/3 the price.

I have not noticed this with any of the ones that I have, but mine are all older ones with 30mm main tubes