I spent the last part of 2014 shooting a Nightforce 2-25x56mm F1 BEAST. I had to send the BEAST back since my T&E period with it was over. The next year will be a busy shooting year for me with the PRS series starting up in a couple of months and I am hoping my bullet making dies will show up any day now. I decided that while the BEAST was a great optic and Nightforce has two really good optics debuting this year (F1 ATACR models in 4-16x and 5-25x) I wanted to shoot something that is within most people's budgets. Instead of shooting on a T&E program I bought one of the Bushnell HDMR 3.5-21x50mm with H-59 reticle for my competition and bullet development work.

The Bushnell HDMR showed up at my house last week:




I spent several days trying to decide how to mount this scope. I wanted detachable mounts as I will shoot this as my sole optic this year between a number of guns. At first I considered the MagMount I used on the BEAST because it could be used on an AR platform or on any of my bolt guns. The issue with that mount is it sits 1.35" over the rail so it can interface with night optics (not important in my recreational time). That made it too tall to be comfortable with my sporter stocks. I decided it had to be mounted lower and with conventional rings because none of the mono-mounts would allow it to get low enough to work with the sporters. I took a set of feeler gauges and used them to gap the distance between the top of the base and the bottom of the scope tube (to which I added half the diameter of the tube) to determine the minimum ring height. The minimum height needed to ensure that the objective would clear my heaviest barrel (Krieger HV contour) and the magnification ring would clear the rear of the M-1913 rail ended up being .920". That left my only real choice as Vortex or Seekins. Seekins makes the Vortex Precision Matched Rings so really they are one and the same. I can't put Vortex Rings on a Bushnell scope so I went with Seekins. I also chose the 6/4 combo since this is a heavy scope with higher inertia than smaller, lighter optics. Hopefully these will help this sight stay put:




With the 6-screw ring up front I could not mount the scope far enough forward to obtain the proper eye-relief without the front ring partially hanging off the front of the base when using the Murphy Ti base. With the Nightforce 20 MOA base (which has a little more real-estate) it worked fine:


With the rings reversed I could use them on either base and have 100% contact with the rail. In this configuration I torqued the cross-bolts to the prescribed 55 in-lbs and wiped down the bearing surfaces of the ring halves with denatured alcohol to ensure a non-slip surface with the scope tube:


I explained my normal mounting method when I wrote the thread on the Nightforce BEAST. I decided to try another method that is less subjective; I can ensure the gun is level but even using a plumb line I have to decide if the reticle is square. In the picture above I used the same feeler gauges I used to determine ring height to set the adjustment housing square with the base. I siliconed the ring cap-screws and tightened them snug with the feeler gauges in place until I was ready to apply final torque. I was able to pull them free with just slight resistance. I applied the prescribed 20 in-lbs and gave everything a final wipe down.

I can't say that this method is more or less square than the other method. I can say it removed my opinion of what was square in relation to the plum line. When I checked it by leveling the gun then checking against the water tower it looked straight to me. So, if you have to do any scope mounting without access to a plumb line then I think setting the adjustment housing square is a much more sure method than trying to use a level on the turrets.

All that is left is to test the optic to make sure that the adjustments track properly and that it will hold zero. I attached it to one of my match guns in .308 Win that is a solid performer and I have a lot of ammo for:


I have shot four of these over the past few years on guns I have worked on for friends and my partner shot one all last year while I was shooting the Nightforce scopes. I expect it will do well; they all have. Dollar for dollar I'm not sure there is a better deal going.

The weather here is about to turn cold and rainy again so after knocking out some chores today I made a run for the range about an hour before dark this evening. The goal was to get the rifle zeroed quickly and to shoot a "Tall Target Test" to see how the adjustments were faring. I normally like to do this with windage also but I knew I wouldn't have time and honestly since I hold for wind with the reticle it didn't matter to me all that much. I drew the target it at the house with the knowledge that the benches to the targets on my range are actually 94 yards instead of 100yds. When I got to the range the target was hung using a level so that the leveled scope could track with the leveled target. The test was shot with a half-inch dot as the target. I fired three shots from each lot at 0, then dialed on 1 MRAD (3.438 MOA) increments, fired two shots, and repeated until I had 10 MRAD (34.38 MOA)dialed on.

I got the gun set up on the BR equipment and took a couple of pictures since the pictures on the workbench didn't turn out so hot due to lighting and color contrast:



Using the feeler gauges to determine a height of .920" for the rings was pretty spot on. I have just enough clearance for the magnification ring to clear the scope base and for the objective to clear a Krieger HV contour (Benchmark barrel though) and still use a lens cap:



Both elevation and windage turrets lock when in the down position:



Pulling up on the turrets unlocks them:



The parallax knob is firm but moves smoothly and the yardage markers are pretty close to where they need to be although you will always have to do some fine tuning:



I had two boxes of Federal Gold Medal Match .308 Win with 175gn SMK. Knowing that between zeroing and the test I would switch boxes I checked to see if I had matching lot numbers. I did not so I knew I would be switching lots during the test. I zeroed with one lot then checked it against the other lot. In the control target you can see the POI shift between the two lots. Lot 1 is marked with and "X" on each bullet hole while the three shot from Lot 2 are naked. I measured the POI shift so as to be able to calculate how it would affect the test when I switched lots. There was roughly .1 MRAD shift between the lots and it was all vertical to the 6 o'clock. Having established a control group with each lot of ammo I began the test by shooting at 1 and 2 MRAD:





On this portion of the target you can see where I calculated HI, LO, AVG, ES, and SD for the adjustments:







In all the scope tracks pretty well. None of the test showed exactly 1 MRAD of adjustment but all are closer than half of the .1 MRAD the scope can adjust. If you look at the calculations the ES for all adjustments is a hair over .1 MRAD, the average is 1.006 MRAD, and the SD is .037 MRAD. That is pretty close to perfect and it maintained it all the way to 10 MRAD which will take a 175gn SMK in a .308 Win to about 950 yards in this part of NC. For the price point I would say that is very good precision and accuracy.

Nice posts, thanks for sharing your results! Good luck this season and let us know how you fare.

Yes, thanks for sharing!

While cleaning up in the gun room today I noticed I had not finished set-up on this optic. Since it does not have a locking diopter I mark the housing and fast-focus eye-piece with a paint pen:

Great write up, I'll look for your other work.

How do you like the KRG chassis?

I am going to try and order one for a SA 700 in 243 I just got.

Big Wonderful Wyoming,
I copied this text from the PM I sent you but decided to post it here also since there isn't a lot of info out there on these chassis:

I like the KRG pretty well. If I were doing it over again I would likely go with the W3 over the X-Ray for balance purposes. I came home from a trip with the Army and needed a stock quickly for a match and the X-Ray was available. I used a much heavier barrel than what balanced out the gun because it was what I had on hand at the time; I could have cut it to 18" and had it balance out but I chose 23" so I could setback and re-chamber. I also left the barrel longer as I intended to drive 190gn SMK out of this gun since I shoot some matches that require either .308 Win or 5.56x45mm NATO. I have another action getting chambered with a Med Palma in .243 Win that will also go in that stock and I'm curious to see how it handles. Being front heavy hasn't been the end of the world with the .308 Win. The only off-hand shot I have had to take in a match lately was at 100m after a 500m advance and shoot. I shot an 8 out of 10 with a hit at 3 o'clock about 2" from the center of the bull on a B-27 target. In general the gun has done really well for matches and I attribute that largely to good stock fit.

If I were building another match gun I would get the W3 as it will balance out the Med Palma or M-24 contour most guys use for practical rifles or in my case on that barreled action a Benchmark barrel with Krieger HV contour. It has more adjustability and finer adjustments. The other option I have considered is finding someone selling the Gen3 butt-stock to upgrade to the Gen4. That would give you the pros of the W3 but allow you to keep the X-Ray chassis and lighter forearm skins. The only other thing I would consider changing would be the cheekpiece (on both the X-Ray and W3) to the adjustable cheekpiece mount so I had lateral adjustability as it is pretty narrow and has a right hand bias. In my opinion the Spigot Mount is a must for these as it moves the bipod further forward and lowers the gun so you can get really flat behind it. I'm 5'9 and 175lbs so I need the gun lower. If you are a heavier, barrel chested guy you might be ok without the spigot as you will be higher off the ground.

Compared to other chassis and thumb-holes I really like it. It has a little longer reach to the trigger than an AI chassis. I like the shelf over the grip as it allows for a more neutral grip compared to my work guns like the XM-2010. I have never used the McM A-Hole. I'm not a fan of thumb-holes but the only ones I have ever shot were some Boyd's Thumbholes on a friend's gun and a Mastin stock on a Palma gun that another friend has.

Truth be told, I'm a diehard fiberglass man. I shoot a McM Game Scout on my LR hunting gun and the A-3 on my match guns. I'm about to get a Manners T6. That said, I am very happy with the KRG and would buy it again or a variation already mentioned above if the opportunity arose.

Bushnell has these through www.promotive.com for right around $1000.

You have to be a military, fireman or police to join promotive and get the Bushnell deal. Some government agencies also get it, some state agencies. Dept of Interior, Forest Service, blah, blah, blah anyway you get the point.

I had kind of discounted them, but this is the umpteenth review I have read about what a great scope this is. So I think I need to give it a shot.

Get in touch with Bushnell directly if you want the G2DMR reticle because they will give you the same pricing and I believe Promotive only offers it with a Mil-Dot reticle.

Thanks!

If you fall into the LEO/MIL category you can do the same from Nightforce and Leupold directly.

Promotive has Steiner, Zeiss and Bushnell.

And yes I want the Horus reticle! Good to know!

The H-59 is a little more but significantly cheaper than anywhere else you find it for sale.

Speaking of the ESR who makes the stock for it?

It looks kind of CADEX like. Is it a fully Remington product?

It is supposed to be a Remington made product. It looks like a blend of Cadex and JP to me. They keep saying it will be released by Remington to the public as the RACS chassis. I like it just fine but doubt I would pay what they are going to charge for it.

This isn't the $5000 chassis is it?

I have yet to handle one polish style, nor a CADEX.

A couple people are making 700 chassis based on using a AR butt stock. I don't think I like that at all.

Today was the first sunny day we have had lately. It was about 46°F and winds were only about 6mph from my 5 o'clock. I wanted to do a Return to Zero Test and a Recoil-Proofing test with the HDMR:



For the Return to Zero test I left the HDMR on the .308 Winchester match rifle I did the initial testing with. I conducted the test with 5 rounds fired as quickly as the process allowed. I loaded and fired the cold bore, made note of impact, dialed on 10 MRAD of elevation then brought it back to zero, I went both left and right 5 MRAD and brought it back to zero. I followed the same process for each shot. Shift from Cold Bore to Center of Mass for entire group was .1MRAD and the total precision for the group was .588 MOA. I don't think you can ask for much better than that:


In an attempt to see how it holds up to recoil I swapped the HDMR over to the Green Beanie .451 Smokeless Muzzleloader to give it a thrashing:



I popped the HDMR off of the match gun and swapped it over to the muzzleloader. I made no sight correction to demonstrate the ability of the Horus H-59 reticle to provide feedback. Knowing I would end the test with the 300gn Match Hunter I loaded and fired one round at the Return to Zero target in the middle of the board. You can see the impact in the first picture; it is about 3 inches below and 6 inches left of the 300gn Match Hunter group in the lower left of the picture. I used the reticle to measure point of impact from point of aim; correction was 5.5 MRAD of elevation (UP) and 5.6 MRAD of windage (RIGHT). I have a surplus of the 250gn Ballistic Extremes that I used to shoot in my NULA M209 muzzleloader so I started with them. I knew they only shot fair in this gun so I knew we were on track when the produced their usual 1.5ish MOA. I then loaded and fired 3 of the 300gn Match Hunters which produced a solid .280 MOA and the POI was right where it should have been from the first shot correction. Accurate adjustments and consistent POI through SML recoil is a PASS:


With those two tests finished I can definitely say the Bushnell HDMR is as mechanically sound as anything I have used from Nightforce, Leupold, Vortex, US Optics, or Kahles. The only thing left to do is test the optical quality. I have ordered a Phone Skope adapter for the HDMR so I can post good pictures through the optic.