Featured Post

Millett LRS-1


Once again Millett has come out with a new scope. The LRS-1 is the result of trying to get more from the TRS-1 that came out in 2007. I had the TRS-1 for some time and will tell you that it is a good scope, but for the range that I was trying to shoot, it was not up to the task. The TRS-1 for most people will be all the scope they’ll ever need. I was able to dial for a shot out to 1,400 yards without any trouble. The problem for me started when I wanted to shoot farther. I no longer had any elevation to compensate for the bullet drop past 1400 yards. I shoot a Remington model 700 chambered in .300 Ultra Mag and have recently been placing bullets out to 1,900 yards. For this kind of extreme shooting, an extreme scope is needed and Millett is the ticket for the Long Range Shooter seeking incredible optics on a budget. That is where the LRS-1 comes into play. The LRS-1 has an incredible 140 MOA of elevation adjustment, a huge 35mm tube and a monsterous 56mm front objective. It was the only scope up to the job. The LRS-1 scope is a 6×25 power, but it seems to get a little fussy when you are out at 25 power, not much but just enough to notice. I also notice that when you get close to reaching the end of your elevation adjustment the site picture starts to get a little out of focus. I have had the scope for about 3 months at the time of writing this and other than the 25x slight fuzziness, I have not found any issues with this scope. It is very sturdy and has no difficulty finding zero even after a lot of shooting. The best new feature on the LRS-1 is Millett put “come up” lines on your turrets so it is easy to go back to your zero at any time. I did however put up a couple pieces of paper at 100 yards and marked every inch down to 40 inch’s and with my cross hairs on the zero number, dialed 40 MOA and found that the actual click value is .223 vs .250 that Millett claims it is. But most scopes are not exactly what the manufactures claim, there is a difference of only 0.027, not too bad. In fact it’s pretty good. I have to say, for people that are serious about shooting out to very long ranges, accurately, you should give this scope a close look. This is the scope that I personally shoot and would recommend this to anybody. My partner Mike will be buying one as well. He will be soon shooting a Weatherby .300 Mag to replace his .338/06 that blew up in his face while shooting at our 600 yard Steel. Now there is a story of Gods incredible Mercy.


  • Dave McGowan

    Great article on the Millet LRS scope.
    I have a scope comparison question on two different makers
    I have always thought that Millet made a great scope and over
    the years they have improved considerably . Weaver scopes have
    been around a long time and seem to have fallen into disfavor for
    awhile but since being bought up by the Meade company have done
    a turn around and have come out with some great models and as of
    lately had some great reviews. I would just like your “opinion” on
    these two name brand scopes, in maybe all catagories.
    One catagory would be the Millet LRS-1 vs Weaver tactical scope
    which is nothing more than their Grand Slam model with turret knobs
    and mil dot reticle. They are both comparable in price.

    Thank you very much for your time

    Dave McGowan

  • http://longrangeshooter.com Sean

    Hello Dave

    Millett has just been bought by Bushnell so I don’t know what there plan is for the the Millett line of scopes. I have never owned a Weaver so its hard to tell you my opinion on the two. I looked at there site to compare features of Millett and Weaver. The LRS-1 has 140 MOA of internal adjustment which puts it in a class mostly for people that would like to shoot beyond 1,000 yards. The most I could find for a Weaver scope was the Super Slam with 60 MOA of internal adjustment. I could not find how much there tactical scopes have but I would expect that it would be about the same. Other than that the Millett LRS-1 has a 56mm objective over the 50mm that Weaver has, it comes down to how far you would like to shoot. I wish I could give you a comparison on glass quality but I have never looked through a Weaver before. It depends on what rifle you have and how far you want to shoot. If you only want to shoot out to 600 to 1,000 yards than the LRS-1 might be overkill in a way and a Weaver may be more up your ally. One thing I would like to know is how much MOA you use to get your rifle zeroed. That could play a part in how much internal adjustment you need to shoot the desired range you are trying to achieve. I hope this helps if you have anymore questions let me know. You can also join the forums and make a topic and see if any of our user have or have had a Weaver.

  • J.J. Ackermann

    Hi there. The LRS is a great scope. It was used by Truvelo in South Africa to shoot out to 1700m. This was done with a 20mm x 110. The LRS had enough range to dial out that far. A F class shooter used it on 900m and it tracked perfect every click. The reticle could be offered in a more finer cross hair for the F class shooter. Its perfect for tactical work

  • S.E.


    I was curious if you have an update on this scope now that you’ve had it for nearly a year. I’ve read such mixed reviews that it’s hard to tell if the average experience is good or bad.


  • http://longrangeshooter.com Sean

    So far the scope works just fine. Repeatability of the elevation is very good and accurate. Just yesterday I was shooting at distances from 875 yards to 1,932 yards and thought I would go for a shot at a balloon at 1,100 yards to simulate a kill zone on a Elk or deer. Loaded one in the chamber, fired and pop. I decided to fire another round aiming at the bullet hole from the last shot and missed it by 2 inch’s. Every one that has shot with me has or is going to buy one. It is a great scope and I think you will be happy.

  • Steady&Ready

    Still going good with the LRS? I’m curious if yours and your buddies have all still held up to your high recoil rifles. Various reports around the internet forums show on and off problems and some needing sent back to Bushnell within a week or two.

  • http://longrangeshooter.com Sean

    The scope seems to be doing fine for us both. I know two others that I shoot with that just bought them and have no trouble to speak of. I did find one problem which I talk about in this post http://longrangeshooter.com/?p=529

    Other than that I think for the money you cant beat it all though two sets of rings couldn’t hurt if you have a really high recoil riffle.

  • http://http:// J.J. Ackermann

    So far the scope is doing well. An F class competitor used it in England 2009,with great results. The scope is doing well with the .338 Lapua crowd.
    Rings should be of the steel type for really heavy hitters.


  • H Brewer

    I have been shooting out to 1,000 yards with my 270 Sendero and was looking into the Millett LRS is it to much for my needs, should I look at a little smaller scope? I do not forsee me shooting much past 1,200 yards with the 270cal.

  • http://longrangeshooter.com Sean

    The LRS-1 is probably more scope then you need. I would guess you are using about 25 or so MOA for 1,000 yards so having a additional 100+ MOA in elevation adjustment would be pointless unless you plan to move this scope to a bigger gun in the future. The scope is really meant for guns capable of shooting accurately beyond 1,500 yards. I have a 20 MOA base as well and can dial for a shot out to about 2,300 yards depending on the conditions. Now finding a spot to shoot that far is a different story.
    If you have any other questions please let me know.

  • http://http:// H Brewer

    Thanks Sean that is what I figured. I currently use a scope that I hate in low light, and is horrible with glare, it is zeroed at 300 yards and I use 21MOA at 1,000 yards, making almost exactly 25moa total. Is there a good value scope that you would recomend for my needs. This is primarily a target gun, but I do use it for hunting 3-4 times a year.

  • http://longrangeshooter.com Sean

    Millett also makes a buck gold series that is very similar to the LRS-1. The difference is that the buck gold is a 4x16x56 with a 30mm tube and has enough elevation but to much I THINK it has a total of about 75 or 80 MOA of elevation adjustment. Here is a link I just found and its for a good price.

  • JT

    Has anyone looked through one of these since Bushnell has taken over millett?

  • http://longrangeshooter.com Sean

    I guy that I work with just got one a month ago and I cant tell the difference.

  • http://http:// JT

    Great to hear I got 2 buck gold bk30738, as soon as they sell I will be getting one.

  • http://longrangeshooter.com Sean

    Maybe check with H Brewer from above. Also I just added a classified section to our forum if you want to post it there.

  • http://http://http:// JT

    Thanks for all the info I can’t wait to get one of these in Mils. I would post the scopes but I have them on GB already.

  • Mike

    I hope everyone is doing well.I would,for those reading to understand I am not very good with computers.I found this sight by a review post on Midway.I just purchased a Millett LRS model #BK81006.specs;.25 moa clicks,ill mil dot bar.To my disappointment in the bottom of my box there was only a small cleaning cloth.No operaters manual,warranty reg,ect.What I was able to get off of the computer(op manual)does not seem to be correct.I am saying this as a constructive critic.I think the scope needs better tech manual.I do not think the written description of the mill spacing is correct(center to center versus dot to dot,or dot to bar).Also torq specs missing for cap screws(15 to 20 inch pounds?)or clamp bolts.I think they would do good to have Major John Plaster edit the manual.I think the scope has good potential,and deserves better info.I called the factory and must not have been able to talk to the right person(at Bushnell).They could not answer any of my tech questions.I have not been able to shoot for the last 12 years(twins).Family first.I love to reload and shoot long range.This scope is for the rifle(custom built)before the kids.Needless to say why I took the gamble Millet.This rifle is for 1000-2500 yards,hopefully.If the scope will hold up and do what they claim.Sorry for the long post.I look forward to talking to everyone.I am cleaning up my reloading equipment and setting up my RCBS .50 cal press.I read some heated posts.I HOPE YOU GUYS CAN KEEP IT CLEAN AND FUN.I think tech is great,However there is no substitute for Field Craft and Marksmanship.Thanks for Your time,Mike. PS,I need to get up to speed on the new tech.There are more new calibers than you can shake a stick at!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sean-Pomerinke/1584012465 Sean Pomerinke

    I think tech is great,However there is no substitute for Field Craft and Marksmanship.

    You said it right there perfectly.
    I have this scope on my 300 ultra for about a year and a half now and have no troubles other then one small thing….http://longrangeshooter.com/2009/08/the-operational-target-by-boss-accuracy/…..
    I think it should work just fine but you are right about the manual it leaves some to be desired.

  • http://http:// Mike

    I hope every one is well.I was able to talk to the factory tech today.The scope quest for info was even better.Since Bushnell BOUGHT MILLETT,the warranty has increased.The scopes that are boxed in inventory now do not come with paper work.The reason being,is for manufacture cost saving.The bottom linner of box still says paper included,however it is not.I can see thier point.It would be a waste to throw away the boxes until used up.You can get paper work(manual on line).The reason for the no need of warranty registration form,is a no B### S### warranty.All you have to do is send scope back(Tell me I am dreaming).This will drasticly increase the resale value.The manual is generic.I feal that they will ugrade.I can not fully endorse at this time,because I have not tested.If the scope holds up,I think it could be the best scope you could buy for the money.I do not think it would be a good choice for some rifles(4-14 power)would work better for feid of view and fast shooting with good long range.The high power scope is not going to make up for marksmanship.My hands or cold and it is hard to type.I wanted to post as fast as possible to be fair and hopefully help someone before the packaging(box)is corrected.Please shoot these scopes on big boomers as much as you can to test.Out of time,have to go. Mike

  • Johnny Neumonic

    I bought the LRS1 and just got it last week. Took it to the range the next day. The knobs are very mushy, the optics have a foreign object on the lens, don’t know what it is, but every time I squeeze the trigger it jumps around and won’t wipe off. Whether Bushnell owns Millett or not, it’s still made in China and everything that comes from China has virtually no quality control and is crappy at best. Hey, what do you expect from optics for $450.00 that are made in China? I wouldn’t buy this again but will use it until I’ve saved the 2,000.00 I need to buy a NightForce.

  • http://longrangeshooter.com Sean

    Sorry to here that Johnny but before you drop the money on a Nightforce send the scope back and they will give you a new one free of charge. Every company will have a dud now and then including Nightforce. A friend of mine bought a Burris Tactical and ran out of elevation to get it zeroed at 100 yards. Sent it back and the new one was fine. The LRS-1 I have and the 4 other people I shoot with that have one have NO problems at all. Every person so far that has shot with me and used the scope have bought one and said this is the last scope they will every own.

  • JT

    Well, I got a Lrs and have been using it alot. I received it right after my first post from swfa. I will have to say Sean your 100% correct I @ 600 rds with no problems on my lr 308. I can’t wait till the end of this mounth when I will be able to view some distance. The glass is really nice and bright for the $ and my adjs are not anything to complaine about. I will also report that the .1 mil version is correct in adjs to the reticle.