I know these two scopes differ in price by about 500$ and that the ERS has additional features, but does anyone know if they share the same glass? I've been trying to read various reviews but I have seen any make a clear distinction between the glass on the two scopes. Some reviews say the glass is average, some say it is fantastic, even nearing NF and S&B quality.
Bushnell DMR vs ERS 3.5-21x50 FFP scopes ...
- Thread starter Tikka223
- Start date
I'm also interested in Bushnell's offerings
Also looking at a Sightron SIII too
You can find several videos on Youtube re the Bushnell ERS and others
I would like a Nightforce, but that's kinda rich for my budget
Also looking at a Sightron SIII too
You can find several videos on Youtube re the Bushnell ERS and others
I would like a Nightforce, but that's kinda rich for my budget
Right, the ERS is the more expensive version of the DMR. The ERS does have some nice features but with a sticker that seems to be at least 500$ above the DMR, I think I can do without the ERS ... Unless the ERS has better glass, that changes things.
I asked a Bushnell rep about this once and was told they have the same glass, that it is just the turrets that are different.
DMR- 5 mil per revolution, no zero stop.
ERS- 10 mils per revolution and a zero stop.
I will ask again at SHOT.
This is a good article you might find interesting:
http://snipershide.scout.com/story/1490218-vortex-optics-factory-tour-scope-testing?s=541
DMR- 5 mil per revolution, no zero stop.
ERS- 10 mils per revolution and a zero stop.
I will ask again at SHOT.
This is a good article you might find interesting:
http://snipershide.scout.com/story/1490218-vortex-optics-factory-tour-scope-testing?s=541
Indeed. So long story short, it's how well the scope is engineered and assembled that makes the real difference. I suppose that answers my question then. I'm assuming the internals of the DMR and ERS are the same and thus most likely manufacturer in the same place as well. But then again you know why they say about assuming.
I think the big takeaway from it is this paragraph:
This is why the opinions about glass quality you read are often worthless, and why you get completely opposite reviews about the glass quality of a particular scope. Most will get behind two scope, only adjust the parallax knob and then compare them. If they haven't adjusted the ocular, it can affect the image quality and even the magnification. The Precision Rifle Blog guy made this mistake and said that an S&B 3-27x really only went to 22x. The scope was sent to S&B, and they found that was incorrect, that he had not adjusted the ocular correctly. This is why his whole section on glass quality should be taken with a grain of salt. The scopes were not being adjusted properly for each user. Was the the glass quality of one really better than the other, or was one just not adjusted properly? Maybe one is more forgiving than the other in terms of adjustment, we really don't know...
Also, if you really want to compare two scopes evenly, the erector needs to be centered. The clearest part of a lens is it's center, and your eye is naturally drawn to the center of the crosshair. The further you move ways from the center of a lens, the more things like chromatic aberration start to show up. If one scope is close to the center, it will likely have a better image than one that is close to its limits. That isn't a fair comparison.
This is why the opinions about glass quality you read are often worthless, and why you get completely opposite reviews about the glass quality of a particular scope. Most will get behind two scope, only adjust the parallax knob and then compare them. If they haven't adjusted the ocular, it can affect the image quality and even the magnification. The Precision Rifle Blog guy made this mistake and said that an S&B 3-27x really only went to 22x. The scope was sent to S&B, and they found that was incorrect, that he had not adjusted the ocular correctly. This is why his whole section on glass quality should be taken with a grain of salt. The scopes were not being adjusted properly for each user. Was the the glass quality of one really better than the other, or was one just not adjusted properly? Maybe one is more forgiving than the other in terms of adjustment, we really don't know...
Also, if you really want to compare two scopes evenly, the erector needs to be centered. The clearest part of a lens is it's center, and your eye is naturally drawn to the center of the crosshair. The further you move ways from the center of a lens, the more things like chromatic aberration start to show up. If one scope is close to the center, it will likely have a better image than one that is close to its limits. That isn't a fair comparison.
I have both scopes. Body/zoom/tube is the same on both. I think it's a very good quality glass. Really. I tried many scopes in my life and this one compare to many good quality brands out there. For me the price range was why I got one. And did not want to pay for features I would not use.
I have the ERS. The turret system is totally different. The body of the scope is the same but the internals are not. Quality is better/feature with the ERS. CLicks are sharp and it tracks perfectly. Zero stop is also a plus. Yes 10 mils / rev. I just like that better because I shoot past 600 meters often. Guys who shoot 300 meters will not need that feature as much.
The coating reflection on the lens is not the same color. My HDMR was a blue purple color and the ERS more greenish. It must be something to do with the coating used. Both made in Japan.
When adjusted perfectly ( cheek height, eye relief ) they both have a very good and sharp image. I like both. But the ERS have a slight edge for me because of the extra features I need for long range and competition. Better glass? Maybe. Can't tell for sure.
Oh and I was told that the paralax adjustment on the ERS has more range.
G2DMR reticule is awesome BTW.
Cheers.
I have the ERS. The turret system is totally different. The body of the scope is the same but the internals are not. Quality is better/feature with the ERS. CLicks are sharp and it tracks perfectly. Zero stop is also a plus. Yes 10 mils / rev. I just like that better because I shoot past 600 meters often. Guys who shoot 300 meters will not need that feature as much.
The coating reflection on the lens is not the same color. My HDMR was a blue purple color and the ERS more greenish. It must be something to do with the coating used. Both made in Japan.
When adjusted perfectly ( cheek height, eye relief ) they both have a very good and sharp image. I like both. But the ERS have a slight edge for me because of the extra features I need for long range and competition. Better glass? Maybe. Can't tell for sure.
Oh and I was told that the paralax adjustment on the ERS has more range.
G2DMR reticule is awesome BTW.
Cheers.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Very good points and goes to show that not everyone that does reviews KNOWS how to set up a scope.
One of the biggest flaws I see in scope comparison is the object they are viewing. Many will use a standard object with little distinct features. Say they are looking at a car... do you see the car? Yep... nothing really to differentiate cause anyone is going to see the car.
What I use is a hand railing and chimney on homes over 1000yds away. There is no doubt that the are plenty of straight equally spaced lines and everyone understands what they are looking at.
But in comparing many scopes, my question is always... "what do you actually see?" I have yet to look through a scope that couldn't make out the shape of the chimney or the white lines of the rail.
Where most fail is being able to resolve the grid of these objects. To actually resolve and differentiate the detail that make up these patterns. Some will even bend the image so the objects are curved... which of course they are not.
So many scopes will see the rectangle that is the chimney, with blotches of colour that are the bricks. If it is a scope, odds are you can see this.
Scopes that many call very good glass, will show the grid that is the grout lines but they are faint. There will be the blotches which are the bricks, then a line, then a blotch. In this class, better scopes will give clear colour distinctions from brick to brick and within the brick itself.
Even better will clearly resolve the grout lines so they are sharp and distinct. You can see where they start, end and even if they do not line up with the next line. When highlighted with good light, each brick is clearly resolved in colour with the typical pattern easy to see.
Top tier glass under clear air and good lighting... you can see the texture and shadows in the grout line. Texture, lumps and bumps of the brick.
What do you see?
Jerry
Awesome, thanks!
I've been trying Google with not much success. Anything notably new from Bushnell for 2015?
Yes! They released a 4.5-18x44 version of their Tactical Hunter. This is a light mil/mil FFP scope also spec'd by GA Precision's George Gardiner that has a modified G2 reticle in it. Tom Fuller of Armageddon Gear, a PRS shooter that Bushnell sponsors, was telling me that he likes it so much that he will be running it on his PRS rifle. Stay tuned for a report about it in the Shot Show 2015 forum.
Last edited:
Can anyone tell me what the parallax yardage markings are on their ers? I have the dot only version and when I adjust parallax free I'm at a different marking then I'd expect at some ranges. Just curious as to what bushnell intended the graduations to mean.
The parallax yardage markings rarely work out exactly on any scope, even on the higher end stuff like S&B...
Patiently waiting for the MIL LRHS to show up at plainSight Solutions........the MOA version is available in Canada. MIL version December.
