which scope would you use?
- Thread starter 6.5x55swm
- Start date
- Location
- British Canuckistan
while there are cases where one scope is better then another, sometimes they're so close that it's up to personal preference. I'd say look through the Bushnell he's thinking of and see what you find.
the VXII isn't premium Leupold...but neither is the Bushnell Elite 3200...or 4200 for that matter, but you start hitting the higher end items that they provide and you will start getting some very nice glass, but at that point, it's not comparing apples to apples, you're comparing a $600 scope to a $300 scope and that's not fair comparison.
the VXII isn't premium Leupold...but neither is the Bushnell Elite 3200...or 4200 for that matter, but you start hitting the higher end items that they provide and you will start getting some very nice glass, but at that point, it's not comparing apples to apples, you're comparing a $600 scope to a $300 scope and that's not fair comparison.
I have had the same Leupold 3x9x40 VXII on my .300 mag hunting rifle for about 12 years. Before that it was on my .270 for about 6 years. Once the rifles were sighted in I never touch the adjustment knobs ever.
One time I went ass over apple cart and landed full weight on top of the rifle that hit scope first, on the elevation cap on a large rock. I figured the scope would be screwed. I set up a target at 100 yard and squeezed off a round, I called shot right, POI was 1/2 inch right of POA.
A hunting buddy loaned his .300 mag with a 3x9x40 VXII to a guy he works with. The rifle was in a gun boot on an ATV when the guy rolled it several times at high speed. ATV was a right off, the gun boot was ripped off the ATV by the impact and the guy ended up spending the night in the hospital. When he got the rifle back it didn't have a scratch and printed a nice 3 shot coverleaf at 100 yards right where buddy aimed it.
So what scope would you use?
One time I went ass over apple cart and landed full weight on top of the rifle that hit scope first, on the elevation cap on a large rock. I figured the scope would be screwed. I set up a target at 100 yard and squeezed off a round, I called shot right, POI was 1/2 inch right of POA.
A hunting buddy loaned his .300 mag with a 3x9x40 VXII to a guy he works with. The rifle was in a gun boot on an ATV when the guy rolled it several times at high speed. ATV was a right off, the gun boot was ripped off the ATV by the impact and the guy ended up spending the night in the hospital. When he got the rifle back it didn't have a scratch and printed a nice 3 shot coverleaf at 100 yards right where buddy aimed it.
So what scope would you use?
They both good like the other fellows mentioned. But hands down "IF" you ever have an issue, the Leupold warranty is second to none. Back in your hand in around 2 weeks. Bushnell is hot and cold. I've had good and back luck with them, mostly bad!!
- Location
- AB foothills
What is your extended experience with the scopes you mention in your post? Less than a month ago you were asking to be educated on rifle scopes:
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2198320&postcount=1
I guess one never knows who he is getting advice from on the internet
- Location
- British Canuckistan
having used telescopes and binoculars intensively for 5 years astronomically, and with several private conversations between myself and several other members of CGN, I've found that most of my knowledge applies...so it's just common sense. while the use and the form factor is somewhat different, the glass is the same and the prism's are the same. let's call it a transferable skill.What is your extended experience with the scopes you mention in your post? Less than a month ago you were asking to be educated on rifle scopes:
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2198320&postcount=1
I guess one never knows who he is getting advice from on the internet
- Location
- AB foothills
having used telescopes and binoculars intensively for 5 years astronomically, and with several private conversations between myself and several other members of CGN, I've found that most of my knowledge applies...so it's just common sense. while the use and the form factor is somewhat different, the glass is the same and the prism's are the same. let's call it a transferable skill.
Ohhhhhh well, five years watching the stars with telescopes and binoculars should make you an expert on rifle scopes, forgive my ignorance.....
So what is your first hand experience using the scopes the origional poster mentioned? How is the durability between the two? What is your opinion of the different glass clarity and lens coatings? How does the eye relief compare between the two? Also, what is your opinion of the warranty between both companies mentioned?
Please give us your personal experience not what you read on the web somewhere.
- Location
- AB foothills
Oh, and just so that we the readers of your vast knowledge of rifle scopes MR. Friendly are 100% clear, please inform us of how many scoped center fire rifles you have owned. This information will help reassure us that you know what you are talking about when it comes to rifle scopes.
From reading a few of your posts it would seem that you have never actually owned a scoped center fire rifle, but maybe I am wrong.
From reading a few of your posts it would seem that you have never actually owned a scoped center fire rifle, but maybe I am wrong.
One thing I've noticed is everyone keeps saying the Bushnell is a good deal. I actually didn't think it was a fantastic deal. Maybe they've come up in price over the last few years and people are remembering the past? I'm not sure.
The top of the line Bushnell the 6500 is meant to compete with the VXIII/ Zeiss Conquest range of scopes. I looked at the 6500 before buying the Conquest and Leupold. They weren't that much cheaper. The scopes were long, and they still had that Tasco look to them. The glass looked pretty good. I'll give it that, but the reticle choice sucked. For the price difference I'd definately go with higher end. Maybe if the Bushnell elite 6500 was significantly less I'd look at it. But not at it's current price point.
As an alternative to the 4200. I'd look at the Falcon Menace, and the Burris scopes.
The top of the line Bushnell the 6500 is meant to compete with the VXIII/ Zeiss Conquest range of scopes. I looked at the 6500 before buying the Conquest and Leupold. They weren't that much cheaper. The scopes were long, and they still had that Tasco look to them. The glass looked pretty good. I'll give it that, but the reticle choice sucked. For the price difference I'd definately go with higher end. Maybe if the Bushnell elite 6500 was significantly less I'd look at it. But not at it's current price point.
As an alternative to the 4200. I'd look at the Falcon Menace, and the Burris scopes.
- Location
- British Canuckistan
crazy_davey...he asked which see's better. that relates to optics. I don't know the mechanics of a riflescope as well as I do binoculars...but the prism inside is the same as in a binocular. that's what I know.
reading reviews and thoughts and shared opinions on the forums too, I've seen the 3200 Elite is popular and comparable to the VXI or II from Leupold.
was what I said wrong, CD? if not, get off my back already.
reading reviews and thoughts and shared opinions on the forums too, I've seen the 3200 Elite is popular and comparable to the VXI or II from Leupold.
was what I said wrong, CD? if not, get off my back already.
Last edited:
- Location
- British Canuckistan
and that's just it...Chinese optics can be very good optics and if you're willing to pay for it, as good as what comes out of Japan and Europe (which doesn't happen much, being China is known for 'cheap' optics)...the difference with bino's that come from Japan and Europe is the mechanics are superior, which for a lot of people can make or break the optics. what good is having premium lenses in something that's all plastic and clunky?
what's also very important to consider is the coatings on your glass...is it ruby (absolute crap and worse then non-coated optics) coated? is it multi-coated? broadband coated? fully mulit-coated? fully broadband multi-coated? there's actually no regulation as to what those definitions mean, so a lot has to do with the name of the company and what they're known to produce.
at the same time, is it just the primary lense that's coated? what about the prisms? it's VERY important that your roof prism is phase coated. what about the eye piece? these things all work up to how much light is transmitted. there's a lot of factors to consider when buying your optics that most people aren't aware of...it seems that perhaps the situation is the same in astronomy. if you can get a 10x50 bino for $25, why would you buy a 10x50 for $300? why would you buy a 3-12x40 that costs $700 when you can get one for $50?
I've a friend who just bought himself a pair of $200 hunting bino's (forget make/model) but he compared them against his buddies Bushnell Elite's and he said the Elite's were brighter, but that he's happy with em...the extra $100 the Elite's have make that difference. money does matter and it's a personal decision to see whether you want 95% the optical quality and 50-75% the mechanical finish for half or less the half the price of the premium options.
I have no doubt the Bushnell Elites and a Leupold VXII (which I own) both have sufficiently clear optics. I'd put more weight on durability, especially if I was scoping a magnum rifle, and that's why when I had to make this choice I bought the Leupold VXII. If someone told me that they had a scope that had a few percent more light transmission over the other, or it was slightly sharper at the edge, I'm not sure it would mean that much to me. This isn't a camera lens where that would clearly give one the edge over the other. Nor am I trying to see in the dark with it, or use it to spot game. While I can appreciate good bright clear optics, there is a diminishing return.
Last edited:
- Location
- British Canuckistan
I agree with you there GP based just on the common sense line that Bushnell products often aren't as good as other mainstream lines (both optically and mechanically) that don't focus on providing budget optics. sure Leupold has some very affordable equipment, but I haven't seen them produce much in the way of crap (I've looked through a whole host of both Bushnell & Leupold as well as read reviews of optics guru's like Ed Zarenski who's got hundreds of reviews under his belt) like Bushnell. unless something proved that a Bushnell product was above reproach and produced a diamond in the rough, I would more then likely consider something else.
besides, if you got something called Leupold, you have bragging rights whereas if you say you have Bushnell, you'll get rolled eyes and shrugs cause they're known for cheap optics rather then quality optics like Leupold like was previously noted.
- Location
- British Canuckistan
that's interesting Stuart...being if you have optics without a prism, the item being viewed is reversed (what you see left would actually be right) or flipped or worse, reversed and flipped. upon some quick googling and reading, you use an erector cell to act like your prism in a rifle scope, it seems. it's also interesting to note that prism is a term applied to anything that corrects an image, whether it's an actual prism like I assumed, or a mirror prism like you find in telescope diagonals (which is just a high quality slanted mirror [90°] or mirrors [45°]).
there you go dave, these are the things I want to learn about!
- Location
- British Canuckistan
antiques are a totally different matter, even if compared to modern optics. and perhaps 'boasting rights' was to strong a term...but Leupold is a name known for quality whereas Bushnell is not, even if they do provide some decent options, 'cheap' is the first thing that comes to mind. perhaps that is my bias being most of my experience is with binoculars.
