or other high end scopes like nightforce or leupold.
How does the 2.5-16x compare in clarity to:
IOR
Leupold
Nightforce
?
How does the 2.5-16x compare in clarity to:
IOR
Leupold
Nightforce
?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Re: Bushnell 2.5-16x 6500 ELITE VS 3-18x IOR.....
You might want to take a trip over to www.opticstalk.com
They have some serious optical experts on that site who have testing equipment, fancy degrees etc.
IME with scopes you get exactly what you pay for. Folks who tell you a $600 Falcon is as good as a $2500 Schmidt & Bender are just wrong.
My motto has always been. spend at least twice as much for the scope as the rifle as per this $800 rifle with the $2200 scope that shoots 1/2 MOA every time.
Good shooting!
You might want to take a trip over to www.opticstalk.com
They have some serious optical experts on that site who have testing equipment, fancy degrees etc.
IME with scopes you get exactly what you pay for. Folks who tell you a $600 Falcon is as good as a $2500 Schmidt & Bender are just wrong.
My motto has always been. spend at least twice as much for the scope as the rifle as per this $800 rifle with the $2200 scope that shoots 1/2 MOA every time.
Good shooting!
Re: Bushnell 2.5-16x 6500 ELITE VS 3-18x IOR.....
Mr. Humble,
Nice speech, good to know what your motto is. Now how does that drivel answer the posters question????
By the way, I would bet that if you put a $600.00 Falcon on your $800.00 rifle it would still be 1/2" MOA shooter.
Would it work as well in low light, be a strong and robust as your S&B, probably not....
But then again, the poster did not ask how much he should spend; he did not ask about Falcons, nor did he ask about S&B's. He also did not say how much he spent on his rifle, nor what he is using it for. He did ask for a scope evaluation, not about what you think may be an appropriate price point for rifle scopes.
If he lacks the money, maybe you could lend him some. After all your free advise is priceless....
For the OP Dsparil; sorry to hijack your thread, perhaps someone here can answer your question who has actually tried out and compared the above scopes you are interested in.
Bob
Mr. Humble,
Nice speech, good to know what your motto is. Now how does that drivel answer the posters question????
By the way, I would bet that if you put a $600.00 Falcon on your $800.00 rifle it would still be 1/2" MOA shooter.
Would it work as well in low light, be a strong and robust as your S&B, probably not....
But then again, the poster did not ask how much he should spend; he did not ask about Falcons, nor did he ask about S&B's. He also did not say how much he spent on his rifle, nor what he is using it for. He did ask for a scope evaluation, not about what you think may be an appropriate price point for rifle scopes.
If he lacks the money, maybe you could lend him some. After all your free advise is priceless....
For the OP Dsparil; sorry to hijack your thread, perhaps someone here can answer your question who has actually tried out and compared the above scopes you are interested in.
Bob
Re: Bushnell 2.5-16x 6500 ELITE VS 3-18x IOR.....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dsparil</div><div class="ubbcode-body">or other high end scopes like nightforce or leupold.
How does the 2.5-16x compare in clarity to:
IOR
Leupold
Nightforce
? </div></div>
Dsparil,
I have not tested all those scopes side by side myself. But let me pose a hypothical:
Let's say for arguing sake, somebody somewhere ranked the clarity of those scopes as follows:
1) Nightforce
2) IOR
3) Leupold & Bushnell
And the test that ranked those scopes was the ability to count the hairs on a flea's ass @100 yds. And Nightforce was able to count 100% of the hairs. IOR was able to count 95% of the hairs. And Leupold and Bushnell were only able to count 75% of the hairs.
So what would that tell you? That as a viewing device one scope is better than another. But viewing is only one part of a scopes function.
A rifle scope is primarily an aiming device. And scope clarity is only one component that makes one rifle scope better than another as an AIMING device.
Given the above; Nightforce, IOR and Leupold all makes scopes that have FFP MIL/MIL options. Therefore as aiming devices they would be superior to Bushnell which only offers SFP MIL/MOA options.
If your question is not about the ability to range, and ease of adjustment after you range, then you are asking for an evaluation of riflescopes more as binoculars, then for there intended purpose, as aiming devices.
Putting it another way, if Nightforce, IOR and Leupold, DID NOT, make FFP MIL/MIL scopes but only Bushnell did; then even if Bushnell was lacking somewhat in clarity, it would be superior to the other three as an aiming device.
I'm not trying to dismiss your question as irrelevant, but rather that you consider clarity as only one component, abet a very important one, as part of your evaluation of any rifle scope.
Thanks,
Bob
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dsparil</div><div class="ubbcode-body">or other high end scopes like nightforce or leupold.
How does the 2.5-16x compare in clarity to:
IOR
Leupold
Nightforce
? </div></div>
Dsparil,
I have not tested all those scopes side by side myself. But let me pose a hypothical:
Let's say for arguing sake, somebody somewhere ranked the clarity of those scopes as follows:
1) Nightforce
2) IOR
3) Leupold & Bushnell
And the test that ranked those scopes was the ability to count the hairs on a flea's ass @100 yds. And Nightforce was able to count 100% of the hairs. IOR was able to count 95% of the hairs. And Leupold and Bushnell were only able to count 75% of the hairs.
So what would that tell you? That as a viewing device one scope is better than another. But viewing is only one part of a scopes function.
A rifle scope is primarily an aiming device. And scope clarity is only one component that makes one rifle scope better than another as an AIMING device.
Given the above; Nightforce, IOR and Leupold all makes scopes that have FFP MIL/MIL options. Therefore as aiming devices they would be superior to Bushnell which only offers SFP MIL/MOA options.
If your question is not about the ability to range, and ease of adjustment after you range, then you are asking for an evaluation of riflescopes more as binoculars, then for there intended purpose, as aiming devices.
Putting it another way, if Nightforce, IOR and Leupold, DID NOT, make FFP MIL/MIL scopes but only Bushnell did; then even if Bushnell was lacking somewhat in clarity, it would be superior to the other three as an aiming device.
I'm not trying to dismiss your question as irrelevant, but rather that you consider clarity as only one component, abet a very important one, as part of your evaluation of any rifle scope.
Thanks,
Bob
Re: Bushnell 2.5-16x 6500 ELITE VS 3-18x IOR.....
I went to the Houston scope meet and also got to look through the Bushnell 6500 2.5-16 two days ago.
Here are my impressions:
Pros:
1. Glass is very color neutral, like that of the Premier Heritage.
2. Has very good transmission
Cons:
1. ALOT of curvature of field at the mid to low powers. The worst I've ever seen. Bushnell cut corners by using a cheapo eyepiece design. It bends straight lines like my Edmund Scientific RKE eyepiece.
Conclusion: Love the glass and hate its curvature of field. Would pass due to image distortion.
As for Leupold. I own one and the image is bright and clear and lines are straight. A bit of color toning from optics. Like.
Nightforce. Glass results in nice bright color neutral image like the Bushnell 6500 AND the lines re straight. Like.
I went to the Houston scope meet and also got to look through the Bushnell 6500 2.5-16 two days ago.
Here are my impressions:
Pros:
1. Glass is very color neutral, like that of the Premier Heritage.
2. Has very good transmission
Cons:
1. ALOT of curvature of field at the mid to low powers. The worst I've ever seen. Bushnell cut corners by using a cheapo eyepiece design. It bends straight lines like my Edmund Scientific RKE eyepiece.
Conclusion: Love the glass and hate its curvature of field. Would pass due to image distortion.
As for Leupold. I own one and the image is bright and clear and lines are straight. A bit of color toning from optics. Like.
Nightforce. Glass results in nice bright color neutral image like the Bushnell 6500 AND the lines re straight. Like.
Re: Bushnell 2.5-16x 6500 ELITE VS 3-18x IOR.....
Bob, You know I value your opinion, but did you read the first line? My other comments were just IMOs, the folks on Optics Talk have forgotten more about optics than either of us will ever know.
A Falcon is not an S&B and never will be and if you can't tell the difference looking through a $2200 scope vs a $500 one then you should stick with Bud Lite and Night Train Express too!
Bob, You know I value your opinion, but did you read the first line? My other comments were just IMOs, the folks on Optics Talk have forgotten more about optics than either of us will ever know.
A Falcon is not an S&B and never will be and if you can't tell the difference looking through a $2200 scope vs a $500 one then you should stick with Bud Lite and Night Train Express too!
Re: Bushnell 2.5-16x 6500 ELITE VS 3-18x IOR.....
I cannot believe you are dissing NightTrain...sheeesh.
Ive owned both of these scopes. The IOR is a better unit all the way around if you are looking for a robust unit, reticle, glass, knobs.
The bushnell belongs on a basic hunting rifle, IMO. The IOR is also almost 2x the price.
I would compare the Bushy to a VXIII.
I cannot believe you are dissing NightTrain...sheeesh.
Ive owned both of these scopes. The IOR is a better unit all the way around if you are looking for a robust unit, reticle, glass, knobs.
The bushnell belongs on a basic hunting rifle, IMO. The IOR is also almost 2x the price.
I would compare the Bushy to a VXIII.
Re: Bushnell 2.5-16x 6500 ELITE VS 3-18x IOR.....
Mr. Humble,
I had no problem with your references to Optics Talk. Good call. It was the rest I had a problem with.
Of course I know the difference between good glass and not so good. I've owned and used scopes by Zeiss, S&B, Nickel Supra (there's a blast from the past), Lyman, Baush & Lomb, Bushnell, Leupold, Redfield, Weaver, Burris, Nikon, SWFA, Falcon, and more I can't remember.
Am I an "expert" nope. Just 45 years of experience using scopes. And I know the limitations of a Falcon, and it's not an S&B, nor does it pretend to be.
The point being, your Tikka's accuracy has precious little to do with the S&B mounted on top. There are probably more than a dozen scope makes that would do the same damn thing. You could put your S&B on a H&R Topper, but that would not make it 1/2 MOA shooter would it?
Sure you get what you pay for, and that is especially true of optics. But don't look down your nose at someone who has a $1k rifle, and can only pony up the green for a $600. scope. Your opinion on how much one should spend on a scope was uncalled for, and not asked.
You have experience and you have the knowledge to be an asset; use those skills to help educate new shooters and not discourage them by saying "you have to spend twice as much on your scope than you do on your rifle". What kind of claptrap is that? I guess if a shooter orders a new Rifle from GAP or Tac Ops, he won't be able to scope it until someone develops a Tactical scope costing at least $6K......bummer.
If a $1k scope is the best that someone can afford, what do we say to them? Wait another year or two to shoot your damn rifle until you can afford a USO, Nightforce or S&B? "Buy once cry once" is a good slogan, and has a nice ring to it; but what we really should be saying is "buy the best damn optics you can afford".
And sometimes that means you pony up right away and buy that USO or S&B; and other times it means buying that "POS" Falcon, Bushnell, or Nikon.
I hope that is OK with you, Sir.
Thanks,
Bob
Mr. Humble,
I had no problem with your references to Optics Talk. Good call. It was the rest I had a problem with.
Of course I know the difference between good glass and not so good. I've owned and used scopes by Zeiss, S&B, Nickel Supra (there's a blast from the past), Lyman, Baush & Lomb, Bushnell, Leupold, Redfield, Weaver, Burris, Nikon, SWFA, Falcon, and more I can't remember.
Am I an "expert" nope. Just 45 years of experience using scopes. And I know the limitations of a Falcon, and it's not an S&B, nor does it pretend to be.
The point being, your Tikka's accuracy has precious little to do with the S&B mounted on top. There are probably more than a dozen scope makes that would do the same damn thing. You could put your S&B on a H&R Topper, but that would not make it 1/2 MOA shooter would it?
Sure you get what you pay for, and that is especially true of optics. But don't look down your nose at someone who has a $1k rifle, and can only pony up the green for a $600. scope. Your opinion on how much one should spend on a scope was uncalled for, and not asked.
You have experience and you have the knowledge to be an asset; use those skills to help educate new shooters and not discourage them by saying "you have to spend twice as much on your scope than you do on your rifle". What kind of claptrap is that? I guess if a shooter orders a new Rifle from GAP or Tac Ops, he won't be able to scope it until someone develops a Tactical scope costing at least $6K......bummer.
If a $1k scope is the best that someone can afford, what do we say to them? Wait another year or two to shoot your damn rifle until you can afford a USO, Nightforce or S&B? "Buy once cry once" is a good slogan, and has a nice ring to it; but what we really should be saying is "buy the best damn optics you can afford".
And sometimes that means you pony up right away and buy that USO or S&B; and other times it means buying that "POS" Falcon, Bushnell, or Nikon.
I hope that is OK with you, Sir.
Thanks,
Bob
Re: Bushnell 2.5-16x 6500 ELITE VS 3-18x IOR.....
ah ok. that settles it. I'm thinking of selling this current ior I have 3-18x for another one. a non-illuminated version since I'm left handed and I don't much room at all for manipulating my bolt due to the illumination knob sticking over to the left. I don't use illumination so it's something I can easily cut. I was looking at the MOA version of the new 3-18x SH without the illumination. I was just wondering for a moment if the bushnell would be something nice to get since I loved the bausch and lomb I used to have in regards to glass quality(got rid of it due to absurdly thick reticle). Two Bushnells(one backup scope along with one primary use one) but yeah that idea's gone. I love the IOR but I'm also a sucker for the bausch and lomb style scopes, that's why I asked.
ah ok. that settles it. I'm thinking of selling this current ior I have 3-18x for another one. a non-illuminated version since I'm left handed and I don't much room at all for manipulating my bolt due to the illumination knob sticking over to the left. I don't use illumination so it's something I can easily cut. I was looking at the MOA version of the new 3-18x SH without the illumination. I was just wondering for a moment if the bushnell would be something nice to get since I loved the bausch and lomb I used to have in regards to glass quality(got rid of it due to absurdly thick reticle). Two Bushnells(one backup scope along with one primary use one) but yeah that idea's gone. I love the IOR but I'm also a sucker for the bausch and lomb style scopes, that's why I asked.
Similar threads
