What do you think Bushnell and Night Force

BigUglyMan said:
I agree wholeheartedly. Though I'd probably go with the NP-R1 or NP-R2. I kinda wish I had bought one in 5.5-22x for my ATRS 300 WM. Not that the Mark 4 on it was a bad choice (3.5-10x40 TMR), but I think more power might not have been a bad thing.

Don't go FFP. I know you can range at any power, but what you end up with is an unusable reticle at low power and a horrifically coarse reticle once you jack the power up. Thanks, but I'll take my reticle the same at all power levels.

As for diameter, you might as well go with the 56mm objective. For a hundred or so bucks more it's worth having.

And go 5.5-22x. You get more internal adjustment that the 8-32x and 22x is very shootable from field positions where 32x will be jitterier.
Click to expand...

Good advice IMHO.

If you needed FFP you would already know it...You might also be looking at S&B for this sort of application...FFP is not for benchrest or varmints.


The 5.5-22 will do everything you need and is a great place to start. Not tot take anything from the other scopes, but I think they are a bit less versatile and are a bit more application specific.
The 12-42X56 is a great scope, but it doesn't strike me as the ideal application for a 338Edge.
 
The Nightforce is far superior in my opinion. I have a Elite 4200 4-16X50 and it is garbage compared to my 5.5-22X50 NXS.

The bushnell is like looking through the bottom of a Coke bottle compared to the Nightforce.
 
Blygy said:
The Nightforce is far superior in my opinion. I have a Elite 4200 4-16X50 and it is garbage compared to my 5.5-22X50 NXS.

The bushnell is like looking through the bottom of a Coke bottle compared to the Nightforce.
Click to expand...

Interesting...

My B&L 4-16X50 optics are at least comparable to any Nightforce I own. Perhaps I own an exceptional copy?

IMHO the best all around scope B&L has built and I intend to keep mine. The optics don't black out at high power settings and are far more comfortable to shoot behind as compared to the B&L 6-24X40. My 6-24X40 copy was unreliable, tracked poorly, had a distorted 1/8 min dot, and was an optical POS.


As Jerry mentioned all optics have a colour cast. B&L has a nice neutral balance that most find pleasing while Leupold has a warm cast that some mistake for dim optics. Nightforce has a blueish cast that bothers some people while S&B has well.....a flawless balance.:D
 
Aside from the clarity of the two, if you want a scope you can run over lengthwise with a truck, the nightforce seems to be ok.

My gunsmith was telling me that he just recently finished a gun for a guy and the first week he had it he ran over it lengthwise with his truck. The scope was a NF and it crushed the sunshade and broke the bolt handle and left tire tracks from the tip of the barrel across the scope and right to the tip of the buttstock. He shot the gun after as the scope looked in one piece, glass was still clear. It was off target a couple inches but still works reliably and the gun still shoots a 1/4 inch group.

If its the guy I'm thinking it is I'm pretty sure he is on CGN, he should post some pics if he reads this post.
 
I have 2 bushnells, 2 nightforce and 1 swarovski.
It would depend on what you mount it on and what you need it for.
The nightforce you mentioned must be the NXS to be that expensive, consider the BR model that's alot cheaper if it's not too heavy a caliber your shooting.
The Bushnell 6-24x50 is decent too and is very affordable.
I like the resettable knobs for making easier changes and coming back to settings.

M.
 
MagnumPeanut said:
Aside from the clarity of the two, if you want a scope you can run over lengthwise with a truck, the nightforce seems to be ok.

My gunsmith was telling me that he just recently finished a gun for a guy and the first week he had it he ran over it lengthwise with his truck. The scope was a NF and it crushed the sunshade and broke the bolt handle and left tire tracks from the tip of the barrel across the scope and right to the tip of the buttstock. He shot the gun after as the scope looked in one piece, glass was still clear. It was off target a couple inches but still works reliably and the gun still shoots a 1/4 inch group.

If its the guy I'm thinking it is I'm pretty sure he is on CGN, he should post some pics if he reads this post.
Click to expand...

There is a picture floating around of a Nightforce with an AK-47 bullet hole on the tube that remained functional (thought powder adjustment ring was stuck).

To say that they are impressively constructed is a gross understatement.

I have a couple of 2.5-10X24s and have a 2.5 -10 X 32 picked out for a new hunting rifle. They are without question the toughest hunting scope you can buy.

They look cool too!:D
 
Considering that the scope tubes and glass are near identical between these products, inflicting similar stress on the scope will yield similar results.

For a time (maybe still), NF were/are made at the same Japanese factory that made the Bausch&Lomb Balvars, then 4000's, now called Bushnell Elite 4200's. This vendor is one of the best in the world and many companies subcontract their production.

Big reason why the glass between the NF and some Elites are so similar/identical.

I totally agree that some Bushnells have wonky optics. Is it QC? or just volume to make a price point? All I know is it is not the best way to make a 'high' end product.

When the Elites are good, they are great and right there with some of the best. however, you do get the occasional dud. Warranty seems to be good though, albeit slow.

Is it worth the near 4 fold premium to get a NF? I would rather spend 1/2 and get the Sightron SIII if/when they get some new reticles.

I would love to put a Sightron next to a S&B and compare them. The S&B was one of the nicest scopes I have ever looked through but these SIII's are pretty darn good too.

Jerry
 
I love my 4-16x40 4200. It has just a plain multi-reticule which makes it tuff for on the fly ranging, but other than the very limited reticule options, I think I will shoot my 4200 for a while and maybe get one with a better zoom and reticule and bump this one to a hunting rifle. I've looked through it and a nightforce and other than the zoom they both look great. The multi-reticule is fairly thin so I have no complaints really.
 
mysticplayer said:
Considering that the scope tubes and glass are near identical between these products, inflicting similar stress on the scope will yield similar results.

For a time (maybe still), NF were/are made at the same Japanese factory that made the Bausch&Lomb Balvars, then 4000's, now called Bushnell Elite 4200's. This vendor is one of the best in the world and many companies subcontract their production.

Big reason why the glass between the NF and some Elites are so similar/identical.

I totally agree that some Bushnells have wonky optics. Is it QC? or just volume to make a price point? All I know is it is not the best way to make a 'high' end product.

When the Elites are good, they are great and right there with some of the best. however, you do get the occasional dud. Warranty seems to be good though, albeit slow.

Is it worth the near 4 fold premium to get a NF? I would rather spend 1/2 and get the Sightron SIII if/when they get some new reticles.

I would love to put a Sightron next to a S&B and compare them. The S&B was one of the nicest scopes I have ever looked through but these SIII's are pretty darn good too.

Jerry
Click to expand...


Being made at the same factory really means very little. Made to what specifications? I truely doubt that a NF tube is made to the same precision, thickness or even dimensions as a Bushnell scope tube.
 
Since a 30mm scope tube is a 30mm scope tube, the only difference has to be towards the interior. If the scope has a thicker scope tube wall, it means smaller lenses which can affect its ability to transmit light and/or limit elevation/windage adjustment.

I really don't think anyone wants to saw some big dollar scopes up to see what is inside.

The internal mechanicals could have more metals instead of plastic but that is shared by both brands. That dirt cheap Elite 3200 is OEM on Barrett 50's. Says alot about how they are constructed. Now why can't they make some 4200's with that type of simplicity? fixed 16, 20 or 24X with 75 to 100mins of adjustment - yeah, that would sell.

I don't believe in hammering scopes or dropping them onto concrete floors to test their durability. But I have bounced a few Elites while hunting with no issue or loss of zero.

What does that prove? Nothing really. Both NF and Elites are made to very high standards and both do work very well. I bet their alloy tubes are made from the same stuff and their finish is the same too. For lenses and coatings, I really don't think there is much difference here either as the Japanese pretty much have that all figured out.

Many consider the Rainguard one of the industries best coatings. it certainly meets the highest levels of single surface light transmission (was from a optics report so you can take that info anyway you want).

Lense resolution at high mag is the one big compromise that Bushnell sometimes makes. But NF also looses some at full mag too. In fact, the NXS I was comparing got down right distorted at the lowest mag...strange. Sightron SIII is the only of late that doesn't.

I fully concede that NF is one of the most progressive optics companies and is doing a superb job of making niche market products for the widest range of users. This is the only company that feels ALL shooters are their potential customer and make products to suit. Leupold is very similar but not with the same performance vs $$$.

Most of the Japanese companies just think hunters are their one and only audience and give little thought to the match or tactical shooter (no big fat knobs and a mil dot reticle isn't all that we want). Pity, as this is what has propelled NF to great heights.

But companies like Bushnell and Nikon are offering such great products for a fraction of the price. That is huge with consumers.

Each year, Nikon and Bushnell ease gently towards more diverse product lines despite the emails and suggestions from shooters like me.

Sightron seems to be taking heed and with their success on their SIII lineup, maybe, just maybe, they will be the next to support such radical engineering tricks as etched glass reticles and FFP and a couple of big fat knobs :)

Jerry
 
Generally you provide useful insite into these topics, but I think that in your zeal to hype your product line you are omitting alot of real detail.
Again, all tubes are not equal. You are suggesting that outside diameter is a measure of quality, when you must know that this is really just a constraint. The tube construction, thickness, and material all represent factors that make one 30mm scope more durable than another.
Secondly, while resolution is very important in a scope, it is not the only measure of quality. Will the lenses survive hard and repeated recoil forces? Are adjustments repeatable? Is the reticle going to seperate or break?

Nightforce shows you what they do: http://www.nightforceoptics.com/TECHNOLOGY/technology.html

There is no doubt that if you are on a budget and all you can afford is a Bushnell scope, it will work.
However, you pay more for quality, and the increases in performance on a high end scope are both real and measurable. The question for the customer is really only whether they are worth the $$$
 
My 'zeal' is from shooting these scopes for many years. I have been saying the same things long before I ever was able to sell them. My comments are based on actual comparisons and they include not just my observations.

The reason I sell them is because I truly believe they are great products. The fact they are also relatively cheap is a huge bonus. There are alot of products I do not bother offering cause I just don't see the point.

You bring up valid points about what makes a scope survive and this applies to any product or brand. There were a number of big dollar hunting scopes that failed when put on a muzzle braked rifle due to not being designed to accept negative G's. Good scopes except for that construction omission...Ooops.

All Elite 4200's are air rifle capable and I am sure you know that means alot as far as durability and repeatability is concerned....

If your useage requires extreme abuse, maybe the NF will survive better then a Bushnell but at that point, why not go straight to a S&B. WAY better optics and they seem to be built tough. Not a huge difference in price.

I shoot for fun, hunting, and for competition. My needs don't involve extreme punishment but quality mechanicals and optical resolution ARE important. I dial up alot and at the multiple distances I shoot, sticky ajustments would drive me insane. The Bushnell Elites I own and use have proven their mechanical reliability or else why would I bother using them?

The adage of good optics costing money can have some merit but sometimes do you get what you pay for?

As you said, let the consumer decide for they are the only judge of their wallet.

Jerry
 
Forget them both and go Leupold. I got a 6.5-20 power Mark 4 used for 1000. Best thing I ever did and with the TMR recticle its kinda like a Nightforce
Just my 2 cents
 
Nothing wrong with leupold, except they only go up to 25X. I have Leupold and Nightforce. When Leupy starts making target scopes with proper long-range magnification, I'll be in heaven.

Once you've shot 1000M with a 42X scope, you'll never use a 20X again.
 
When I was buying my last scope (for a .223) I was at Frontier (a Board sponsor) and was looking though the 6500 and a Falcon FFP. I wear glasses and at about 150 yards I could not see a noticeable difference that would make me spend the extra for the 6500. I wasn't looking at anything at 1000 yards, as I don't have any intention of shooting that far. I never compared them at similar long range distances.
 
I think I am going to go with the Night Force I have gone this far with it theres no need to cut corners now just hope the rifle will be ready for early fall for my first moose hunt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom