Rifle Scopes Bushnell Elite 3.5-21x50 DMR for 20% hunting and 80% long range?

[FreshDK]

Greetings guys!

I'm so fortunate that my dad would like to buy me a new rifle scope for completing my education. A rifle scope that should fit a long distance rifle I'm in the progress of (re)building (Howa SA 308w), but I can't really decide what I should get. I would like to use the rifle 80% for paper shooting 50-1000 meters and 20% for deer hunting 20-200 meters.

After researching and reading tons of reviews I found the Bushnell Elite 3,5-21x50 to be interesting. Nice zoom range, ffp reticle, good tracking, exposed target turrets and decent glass. My only concern is the combination of FFP reticle with the large zoom range. With the G2 reticle it seems the lines are very very thin at low power, which I would use for hunting purpose, and therefore I doubt if i will be able to see the reticle in low light?

Is it impossible to use this scope for hunting or should i go with something "less" tactical for my desired use. Something like the Viper HS-T 4-16 sfp, Trijicon Accupoint 5-20x50 perhaps.

Also what is the difference between the Bushnell Elite 3,5-21x50 DMR, HDMR and ERS?

P.s. I'm from europe, so you can't rely on the prices to be the same over here. For instance the Bushnell DMR is almost the same price as the Trijicon, which not seems to be the case in the US

/FreshDK

 

[Cobracutter]

It would make a great hunting scope. Keep in mind there is no illuminations, It's heavy, and will use 34MM rings. If you can live with that, it is fine.

There is also a 3-12x44 Hunting/tactical model with better turrets, zero stop, better glass and a modified G2 that people seem to be happy with.

 

[FreshDK]

Weight and 34mm rings are not issues to me. It's more the lack of illumination when hunting I'm concerned about because the reticle is so thin at 3-6x magnification.

But I guess there is no perfect scope for all purposes and I could get a more suited 1,5-6 scope for hunting.

Still searching though for the differences between DRM, HDRM and ERS versions of 3,5-21 Bushnell Elite Tactical?

 

[19Scout77]

DMR/HDMR...Same scope except HDMR has Horus reticle. ERS same scope except zero stop and 10 mils elevation per revolution rather than 5.

 

[FreshDK]

Thank you for clarifying!

Does anyone have a suggestion for a scope that would be better suited for my need in the same price range or is Bushnell the way to go?

Bushnell is actually same price as Vortex PST in europe, and Trijicon 5-20 is a bit more expensive..

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

The G2 reticle is very thin/fine/faint below 6 power or so in that scope. Also, while that scope goes down to 3.5x, it has tunneling below about 4.75x so in terms of usefulness it is more like a 5-21x. On the positive side, it is a much nicer, better made scope than the Vortex PST series.

Better options - if you can find a Steiner Military first generation 4-16x50 they are VERY nice scopes and were recently selling here for as little as $1299, an absolute steal. Another option might be the Burris XTR genII series, any of the 3-15x50, 4-20x50, or maybe 5-25x50, depending on your balance between long range and hunting. All of these are illuminated.

 

[silentheart]

Or you can look into Bushnell ers 6-24x50. It has illuminated reticle. I like mine et6245f.

 

[Cobracutter]

They make the 6-24 and the 3-12 iin illuminated mil dots if thats your thing.

Personaly I would rather have the G2 reticle and no Illum than the MD w/ illum.

Illumination is overrated unless its used as a red dot or for reflex firing with a quickness IMO.

 

[samnev]

They make the 6-24 and the 3-12 iin illuminated mil dots if thats your thing.

Personaly I would rather have the G2 reticle and no Illum than the MD w/ illum.

Illumination is overrated unless its used as a red dot or for reflex firing with a quickness IMO.

I agree with ^^^^^. All of my Nightforce scopes (7) have illuminated reticles that I have rarely used excerpt for the NXS 1-4X with the FC-2 reticle which i occasionally cause as a red dot @1X. That's why I recently went to the Bushnell Elite FFP G2DMR 3.5-21X50 scope. I bought 2 for the price of 1 Nightforce. Are the Nightforce scopes, no. But for the price it's hard to beat. only down side as noted above is the weight with the 34mmm tube and rings plus the lack of illumination if you need it which I do not.

 

[FreshDK]

The G2 reticle is very thin/fine/faint below 6 power or so in that scope. Also, while that scope goes down to 3.5x, it has tunneling below about 4.75x so in terms of usefulness it is more like a 5-21x. On the positive side, it is a much nicer, better made scope than the Vortex PST series.

Better options - if you can find a Steiner Military first generation 4-16x50 they are VERY nice scopes and were recently selling here for as little as $1299, an absolute steal. Another option might be the Burris XTR genII series, any of the 3-15x50, 4-20x50, or maybe 5-25x50, depending on your balance between long range and hunting. All of these are illuminated.

Steiner does not seem to be an option for me. Cheapest model I can find is about twice the price of the bushnell and I don't think it's worth it? Will look into Burris, but they don't seem to be that easy to find either..

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

If you want to list out any other brands/models that are available and reasonably in the price range, that would let us narrow down the recommendations.

 

[FreshDK]

The list is:

Bushnell 3,5-21x50 HDRM FFP - 1075€
Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50 FFP - 825€
Trijicon Accupoint 5-20x50 SFP - 1400€
IOR 3-18x42 FFS Mil/Mil - 1350€ (Gen 4)
Meopta ZD 4-16 SFP - 1175€
Leupold Mark 4 LR/T 4.5-14x50 SFP - 1500€
Bushnell 3-12x44 FFP - 800€
Sightron S TAC 2.5-17.5X56 IR SFP - 1100€

That's about all the scopes I have found relevant.

It would be a no-brainer for me if the illuminated 3-12 Bushnell was 4-16 instead. Illuminated reticle for hunting purpose and still possible to go ~1000 yards.

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

Of your list, the Bushnell DMR is by far the best value. Most of your prices are very high considering the exchange rate, but that one is only a little higher than here. The potential issue with it is the reticle thickness at low magnification. After that, I would take a close look at the IOR and Meopta.

 

[goosed]

I'm just guessing here, but you're hunting distance is limited to 200m because you're hunting in a heavily wooded area?

Long range paper punching and close range hunting in wooded areas are opposite ends of the spectrum for scopes.
You are going to be making compromises, which is more important to you?

 

[CanPopper]

I have both the Trijicon and the Bushnell HDMR. For hunting, the Trijicon would be the better scope since it has a thicker reticle with daylight and low light illumination. I agree the reticle on the Bushnell would be really hard to see at low power. I can barely see mine in bright light at 3.5x for the Bushnell.

Now for long range, the table flips. The Bushnell ends up being better. The Trijicon does not have much elevation. I counted 62 MOA's of elevation on mine. Depending on the rifle you will get, it may or may not be enough. A friend of mine runs the Trijicon on a Lapua Mag and its elevation can get him out to 1000 yards. But that does depend on your rifle and round.

If you want the perfect hunting/long range scope, then that scope is the March 3-24x42. It is light, compact, reticle visible from 3 through 24x, 120MOA/33 mils of elevation, and can also be purchased with illumination option. Let's just say my rifle that used to have the Bushnell HDMR now carries a March. The March is a no compromise scope with glass as sharp as the very best scopes.

 

[FreshDK]

Of your list, the Bushnell DMR is by far the best value. Most of your prices are very high considering the exchange rate, but that one is only a little higher than here. The potential issue with it is the reticle thickness at low magnification. After that, I would take a close look at the IOR and Meopta.

Welcome to Europe You should think some of the euro made scopes were cheaper over here, but that does not seem to be the case either. Agreed that Bushnell is most value for money, but i dont know if the faint reticle at low power is a deal breaker.

IOR looks like an old russion tank with 35mm tube and Meopta has that stupid parrallax adjust ring on the front.

 

[FreshDK]

I'm just guessing here, but you're hunting distance is limited to 200m because you're hunting in a heavily wooded area?

Long range paper punching and close range hunting in wooded areas are opposite ends of the spectrum for scopes.
You are going to be making compromises, which is more important to you?

Spot on! Here in Denmark it is difficult to ever be able to shoot deer past 200.

Problem is that I would like to do both despite I shoot much more paper than i hunt. Just having graduated after six years at uni leaves it a bit in the future to afford any kind of luxury items.

 

[FreshDK]

I have both the Trijicon and the Bushnell HDMR. For hunting, the Trijicon would be the better scope since it has a thicker reticle with daylight and low light illumination. I agree the reticle on the Bushnell would be really hard to see at low power. I can barely see mine in bright light at 3.5x for the Bushnell.

Now for long range, the table flips. The Bushnell ends up being better. The Trijicon does not have much elevation. I counted 62 MOA's of elevation on mine. Depending on the rifle you will get, it may or may not be enough. A friend of mine runs the Trijicon on a Lapua Mag and its elevation can get him out to 1000 yards. But that does depend on your rifle and round.

If you want the perfect hunting/long range scope, then that scope is the March 3-24x42. It is light, compact, reticle visible from 3 through 24x, 120MOA/33 mils of elevation, and can also be purchased with illumination option. Let's just say my rifle that used to have the Bushnell HDMR now carries a March. The March is a no compromise scope with glass as sharp as the very best scopes.

How bad is the Trijicon reticel at 1000 yards? I got a 20moa rail, so according to my calculations I will be able to go to 1000 yards with a hold over. The March looks fucking perfect, but wow it is expensive!

 

[goosed]

Problem is that I would like to do both despite I shoot much more paper than i hunt. Just having graduated after six years at uni leaves it a bit in the future to afford any kind of luxury items.

I was not trying to imply you can't do both with a single scope; you certainly can. I was simply trying to determine which direction to go with recommendations. I have yet to find a scope that does everything perfectly with zero compromises contrary to some of the rhetoric you will find.

Let's just say hunting is your priority and let us focus on that first. Hunting inside 200m you don't need much magnification to hit a roughly 20cm(8") vital area consistently. Instead, the focus should be on field of view gained by lower magnifications. Don't take my word for it or most hunters(most are clueless)... take a look at what professional 3 gunners are using for their optics shooting 20-200m+. The difference between field of view with a low end of 1x(~30m) vs 3x(~10m) is monumental. Finding you're target in dense cover, following a moving/running target and getting on target in that moment between the head going down and looking straight at you are all easier/quicker with a larger field of view. While the focus should be on field of view don't forget about a reticle. An easy see reticle in all conditions is just as important. The best field of view does nothing for you if your reticle does a disappearing act in dense cover, clutter backgrounds and/or long dark shadows from tall trees.

Now you still want to reach out a hit paper at 1000m as well as your priority of hunting so a 1-4x isn't going to cut it. However, a 2-10x/2-12x/etc. in SFP might be a great series of compromises. Obviously, if your priority is paper targets at distance a 4-16x/5-25x/etc. in FFP scope might be a better option as a more difficult time hunting and a few missed opportunities isn't a big deal. I hope that helps clarify a little why I was asked about your top priority.

 

[CanPopper]

Here is a video I did of the Trijicon 5-20x50:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPWPz1aiZbI

Another choice maybe the SWFA 5-20x50 if you are too price sensitive for the March. This scope is generally considered to be the main competitor to the Bushnell DMR scopes in terms of prices and features. You can also get it with illumination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T86hAJ7BfQ
SWFA SS HD 5-20x50 Tactical 30mm Riflescope

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

From other discussions on this forum, I don't think the SWFA SS scopes are available outside the USA.

 

[FreshDK]

From other discussions on this forum, I don't think the SWFA SS scopes are available outside the USA.

Correct, SWFA is not an option. However, being used to sfp scopes the trijicon reticle doesnt seem that thick?

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

No, it doesn't look too thick. Nothing wrong with the Trijicon if that seems to be a good fit for your needs.

 

[FreshDK]

I was not trying to imply you can't do both with a single scope; you certainly can. I was simply trying to determine which direction to go with recommendations. I have yet to find a scope that does everything perfectly with zero compromises contrary to some of the rhetoric you will find.

Let's just say hunting is your priority and let us focus on that first. Hunting inside 200m you don't need much magnification to hit a roughly 20cm(8") vital area consistently. Instead, the focus should be on field of view gained by lower magnifications. Don't take my word for it or most hunters(most are clueless)... take a look at what professional 3 gunners are using for their optics shooting 20-200m+. The difference between field of view with a low end of 1x(~30m) vs 3x(~10m) is monumental. Finding you're target in dense cover, following a moving/running target and getting on target in that moment between the head going down and looking straight at you are all easier/quicker with a larger field of view. While the focus should be on field of view don't forget about a reticle. An easy see reticle in all conditions is just as important. The best field of view does nothing for you if your reticle does a disappearing act in dense cover, clutter backgrounds and/or long dark shadows from tall trees.

Now you still want to reach out a hit paper at 1000m as well as your priority of hunting so a 1-4x isn't going to cut it. However, a 2-10x/2-12x/etc. in SFP might be a great series of compromises. Obviously, if your priority is paper targets at distance a 4-16x/5-25x/etc. in FFP scope might be a better option as a more difficult time hunting and a few missed opportunities isn't a big deal. I hope that helps clarify a little why I was asked about your top priority.

Thank you for elaborating I would say my top priority is target shooting since that's what the rifle is going to be used most for. I would like the rifle to excel in Danish hunting style field competition (unknown target sizes at unknown distances, moving and static targets, different shooting positions etc. Normally distances are between 50-350m) and for bench shooting ~1000 yards.

 

[BigMahi]

The list is:

Bushnell 3,5-21x50 HDRM FFP - 1075€
Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50 FFP - 825€
Trijicon Accupoint 5-20x50 SFP - 1400€
IOR 3-18x42 FFS Mil/Mil - 1350€ (Gen 4)
Meopta ZD 4-16 SFP - 1175€
Leupold Mark 4 LR/T 4.5-14x50 SFP - 1500€
Bushnell 3-12x44 FFP - 800€
Sightron S TAC 2.5-17.5X56 IR SFP - 1100€

That's about all the scopes I have found relevant.

It would be a no-brainer for me if the illuminated 3-12 Bushnell was 4-16 instead. Illuminated reticle for hunting purpose and still possible to go ~1000 yards.

Have you considered the Nightforce NXS F1 3.5-15x50? Its FFP, illuminated, and retails for around 1700 Euros (little more than the Leupold Mark 4). If you have considered it, why didn't it make it to your list? Just wondering.

 

[FreshDK]

Have you considered the Nightforce NXS F1 3.5-15x50? Its FFP, illuminated, and retails for around 1700 Euros (little more than the Leupold Mark 4). If you have considered it, why didn't it make it to your list? Just wondering.

I haven't considered it because 1700 is too much. 1500 is also a bit too much, but that might be possible if the 1500 euro scope was the obvious right choice.

 

[BigMahi]

Keep an eye for the cost of rings the scope accepts. For some reason 34mm rings are much more expensive than 30mm rings.

Will you be shooting competition long range? If it's mostly target/benchrest, then I would go for a SFP. The reticle is easy to see at low magnification and you'll be ranging at max power at fixed targets.

The only benefit of FFP is ability to range with a wide field of view (e.g. moving targets or searching targets). Otherwise, it makes more sense to go with SFP.

 

[FreshDK]

Keep an eye for the cost of rings the scope accepts. For some reason 34mm rings are much more expensive than 30mm rings.

Will you be shooting competition long range? If it's mostly target/benchrest, then I would go for a SFP. The reticle is easy to see at low magnification and you'll be ranging at max power at fixed targets.

The only benefit of FFP is ability to range with a wide field of view (e.g. moving targets or searching targets). Otherwise, it makes more sense to go with SFP.

I can get 34mm Warne rings fairly cheap, so that is not the biggest issue in case of 34mm tube.

I will be shooting

Benchrest 100-1000m
Deer hunting ~200m
Danish Hunting style field comp (unknown target sizes at unknown distances, moving and static targets, different shooting positions etc. Normally distances are between 50-350m)

Between these I prioritize Danish hunting style competition highest.

 

[goosed]

I would like the rifle to excel in Danish hunting style field competition (unknown target sizes at unknown distances, moving and static targets, different shooting positions etc. Normally distances are between 50-350m) and for bench shooting ~1000 yards... I prioritize Danish hunting style competition highest

I was about set to recommend a Bushnell 2.5-16, vx-6 or Trijicon, but to me... that little bit of information above is game changing.

For me during competitions simple is smart, end of story. I would instantly knock anything off the list that doesn't have FFP, matching reticle/turrets, and zero stop. Can you compete without those 3 things... sure. However, it isn't as quick and mistakes are easier to make.

Just going off your list above Vortex and IOR, imo, would be the only considerations. The DMR does have a zero stop in the ERS version, but I would never hunt with mine as the reticle is far too thin at low power for me. I might lean a little more towards the floating dot and better zero stop on the IOR, but I never owned either myself

 

[maxfly]

I have both Bushy w/g2 and the trij. Wouldnt even consider the trij if you are going to the woods with it. Had two 5-20s with (red) illuminated dot. One took a slight tumble (2 feet) onto indoor outdoor carpet and bent the tube. Brother in law, oh well. Sent it back to trij and they replied back that it couldn't be fixed. That was it, end of story. Both scopes were under one year old. They would sell me another for 40% off msrp. No thanks.
First year with the Bushy and havent had it hunting but just ran with some high dollar scopes to 700 yds on my 308 and she kept up nicely. Have another on the way.
Goosed makes good points however^

 

[BigMahi]

I was about set to recommend a Bushnell 2.5-16, vx-6 or Trijicon, but to me... that little bit of information above is game changing.

For me during competitions simple is smart, end of story. I would instantly knock anything off the list that doesn't have FFP, matching reticle/turrets, and zero stop. Can you compete without those 3 things... sure. However, it isn't as quick and mistakes are easier to make.

Just going off your list above Vortex and IOR, imo, would be the only considerations. The DMR does have a zero stop in the ERS version, but I would never hunt with mine as the reticle is far too thin at low power for me. I might lean a little more towards the floating dot and better zero stop on the IOR, but I never owned either myself

I second the IOR.

It's a tough call because hunting <300M you want ~3x power. Targets out to 1k you'd want 12-15x power. Danish hunting style calls for FFP.

The IOR has greater field of view (34 ft at 3x) than the Bushnell (25ft at 3.5x). The IOR is also 5 ounces lighter and slightly more compact. I'd also look at the Bushnell LRS 3-12x44 which is illuminated. Valdalda is a European company so perhaps you get better value pricing-wise. The prices you have to pay for some of the other scopes is much higher than what you'd pay in America, after converting to EUR.

 

[FLS]

I have used my Bushnell with the G2 reticle to take a couple of deer this season here in SC. It's a great long range reticle , but kind of thin to hunt with especially in low light. If you shoot deer in low light get the illuminated version.

 

[FreshDK]

I was about set to recommend a Bushnell 2.5-16, vx-6 or Trijicon, but to me... that little bit of information above is game changing.

For me during competitions simple is smart, end of story. I would instantly knock anything off the list that doesn't have FFP, matching reticle/turrets, and zero stop. Can you compete without those 3 things... sure. However, it isn't as quick and mistakes are easier to make.

Just going off your list above Vortex and IOR, imo, would be the only considerations. The DMR does have a zero stop in the ERS version, but I would never hunt with mine as the reticle is far too thin at low power for me. I might lean a little more towards the floating dot and better zero stop on the IOR, but I never owned either myself

I second the IOR.

It's a tough call because hunting <300M you want ~3x power. Targets out to 1k you'd want 12-15x power. Danish hunting style calls for FFP.

The IOR has greater field of view (34 ft at 3x) than the Bushnell (25ft at 3.5x). The IOR is also 5 ounces lighter and slightly more compact. I'd also look at the Bushnell LRS 3-12x44 which is illuminated. Valdalda is a European company so perhaps you get better value pricing-wise. The prices you have to pay for some of the other scopes is much higher than what you'd pay in America, after converting to EUR.

It's a tough decision, yeah! Been reading alot the recent days and by doing that I feel less confident in any purchase really. Guess it's possible to find some issues with more or less all second tier brands.

ERS version is too expensive here in Europe. Best price i found is 1999€!

I will take a closer look into the IOR 3-18x42. I really think I will appriciate a large FOV. Last comp I participated in (with a borrowed scope 5x min) I blew a 50 meter post big time. We had too shoot fast appearing boar targets that randomly appeared for 2-3 sec at the time. We had to stand with our rifles lowered off the shoulder and first lift it after the target appeared. Having 5x as the lowest magnification I really had a hard time to aim before the target disappeared. I tried a second time with my mates 1,5x scope and then I suddenly shot close to max points in contrast to close to no points..

 

[Eric B.]

Fresh,
After paying the outrageous Danish import duties and taxes you should get the Bushnell Elite 4.5 - 30 x 50 XRS II with the ED glass. That scope is far better than equally priced scopes.
I compete in local long distance courses with a Bushnell ERS 3.5 - 21 x 50 and H59 reticle and wish I had that XRS II scope on my 6.5 Creedmoor RUGER Precision Rifle.

For hunting here in Nevada I have a 6.5 PRC Browning X-Bolt Pro with a Bushnell Elite LRTS 4.5 - 18 x 44 with illuminated G3 reticle. Great for hunting but marginal for competition. The small G3 "Christmas tree" reticle is better for hunting and in those situations I often need a lighted reticle. But my shots will never exceed 800 meters unless I'm shooting at antelope so I don't need an H59 or Tremor 3 or 4 reticles.

The LRTS is discontinued but many are still for sale. The newer LRTS version is coming out soon (with a different model name) if you decide it is for your needs. It will still have a 30 mm main tube and likely the 44 mm objective lens.

 

[BadDogPSD]

Good info, but you bumped a post from 2014.