Bushnell vs Falcon

[In the pipe]

Hi Guys,

Im looking for some opinions on the following two scopes. Im looking to build a semi-custom varmint/target rig for use out to 400yrds, shouldnt be much farther than that. From the threads Ive found on here both the Bushnell Elite 4200 and the Falcon Menace series seem to get good reviews. I am looking at the Falcon Menace 4.5-18x56mm and the Elite 4200 6-24x50mm. My questions would be along the lines of:

Which one would you choose and why?
Are these overkill for what I want to do?
Is there something I missed?
Is the Bushnell worth the extra cash?
Any insights from your own experiences would be great.

Looking forward to your responses.

Thanks.

 

[Grantmac]

The Falcon has 15MOA per revolution of the turrets and 75MOA total adjustment which makes it perhaps a little bit better/easier to work with for extended ranges. Perhaps a quick read of the reviews on snipercentral would give you all you need?
Cheers,
Grant

 

[Ratzilla]

I was debating between those two a little while back. I went with the Bushnell. The bushnell was supposed to have better glass(95% transmission). I also liked the target turrets and the ability to have adjustable zero.

I'd still like to buy a falcon later on for a different rifle though...but until then...

 

[Epoxy7]

All of the new Falcon's are now 94 percent light transmission or better including the 4.5-18x 56mm IR (The reviews for the 4.5-18x only have the older 92% models)
Not 95% but still very close. Also the larger objective helps make them seem brighter.

I'd give the nod to the Bushnell 4200 for glass. But only slightly. The Falcon has more features. The only thing about the Falcon is the maximum magnification is 18x and that model isn't a one piece tube (The 4-14x FFP model is a one piece). The reticle choices on the Falcon are better than the Bushnell. I really like the ML-16 reticle, which is very close to the NP-R1 on my NF scopes.

If you're looking for a good bargain scope then the Falcon is it. Otherwise I'd go the next step up and avoid the Bushnell. At least for varmint/target work. For hunting it's a different story.

 

[chajam]

They are both good scopes. I would say the falcon has slightly better glass than the bushnell.Eye relief is better with the bushnell.Target turrets work better in the cold with bushnell.mp20 reticle on falcon is better than the bushnell. Take your pick both do the job just fine.

 

[bigstickpilot]

I have a Falcon 4-14 with MP20 reticle and love it. One point to consider is the Falcons are a 30mm tube, while some of the Bushnells are 1 inch and some are 30mm. This may or may not matter to you.

 

[In the pipe]

I have a Falcon 4-14 with MP20 reticle and love it. One point to consider is the Falcons are a 30mm tube, while some of the Bushnells are 1 inch and some are 30mm. This may or may not matter to you.

Does this make a difference in something other than the rings you need? Are there special requirements for mounting a metric scope? Does it affect quality?

 

[Epoxy7]

Does this make a difference in something other than the rings you need? Are there special requirements for mounting a metric scope? Does it affect quality?

You generally get more MOA adjustments for long distance shooting with a 30mm tube over the 1" tube.

The metric scope is only with regards to the turrets. An MOA scope is 1/4" per click at 100 yards. A metric one is 1cm per click at 100 metres (I'm pretty sure that's right ). It makes absolutely no difference for mounting. The advantage is with matching a metric reticle to metric turrets. Less calculations.

I forgot about the eye relief. With the 18x scopes you do notice this. Mine are mounted on .22 rifles and .223 so I didn't think about it.