Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Starbuck" data-source="post: 2472281" data-attributes="member: 120719">Mike:I briefly had the LHT in reference. Had high hopes for it, but like you, I wasn&#039;t sold on it. Didn&#039;t care for the reticle below say 6 or 8x, didn&#039;t like that it didn&#039;t have a rev counter on the elevation, didn&#039;t like that the turret is 6 mil per rev - should be 5, 10 or 15 , and didn&#039;t care for the feel of the turrets. I know all of this is subjective and not definitive on its own, but just contributed to a general feeling. I didn&#039;t give one a lot of use, but read a few reports about them not tracking the best, so moved on. I have an NX8 2.5-20. I like it, but I can see where guys knock it for the view. Tough to describe the nuance of it without looking at, but the best way I can state it is that the view is optimized so that the reticle and target are most visible. The background sometimes suffers. It bothers you more when just looking through it because you&#039;re not focused on a target; when you&#039;re shooting it&#039;s fine. You just gotta remember that it&#039;s a feature rich scope in a small package so there&#039;s going to be trade offs. People have also reported a critical eye box, but I haven&#039;t noticed it being a problem at all on a good fitting stock. To me it&#039;s not really a point and shoot at close targets in heavy cover kind of scope, anyway. One option that hasn&#039;t been mentioned yet is the Bushnell LRHS 2 from GAP. I have a couple of these scopes in both 3-12 and 4.5-18, and while I&#039;m always trying different scopes, I still rank the Bushies right up there. LRHS 2 is not lit, but the reticle is designed so that you really don&#039;t need it to be in order to use it at low X. This saves some weight. If you don&#039;t care for the &quot;doughnut&quot;, the LRTS can be had lit, and it is more of a traditional ffp reticle. Overall, they&#039;ve been great scopes for me, and they get a lot of things right in design and build.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Starbuck, post: 2472281, member: 120719"] Mike: I briefly had the LHT in reference. Had high hopes for it, but like you, I wasn't sold on it. Didn't care for the reticle below say 6 or 8x, didn't like that it didn't have a rev counter on the elevation, didn't like that the turret is 6 mil per rev - should be 5, 10 or 15 , and didn't care for the feel of the turrets. I know all of this is subjective and not definitive on its own, but just contributed to a general feeling. I didn't give one a lot of use, but read a few reports about them not tracking the best, so moved on. I have an NX8 2.5-20. I like it, but I can see where guys knock it for the view. Tough to describe the nuance of it without looking at, but the best way I can state it is that the view is optimized so that the reticle and target are most visible. The background sometimes suffers. It bothers you more when just looking through it because you're not focused on a target; when you're shooting it's fine. You just gotta remember that it's a feature rich scope in a small package so there's going to be trade offs. People have also reported a critical eye box, but I haven't noticed it being a problem at all on a good fitting stock. To me it's not really a point and shoot at close targets in heavy cover kind of scope, anyway. One option that hasn't been mentioned yet is the Bushnell LRHS 2 from GAP. I have a couple of these scopes in both 3-12 and 4.5-18, and while I'm always trying different scopes, I still rank the Bushies right up there. LRHS 2 is not lit, but the reticle is designed so that you really don't need it to be in order to use it at low X. This saves some weight. If you don't care for the "doughnut", the LRTS can be had lit, and it is more of a traditional ffp reticle. Overall, they've been great scopes for me, and they get a lot of things right in design and build. [/QUOTE]

Verification