Rifle Scopes Bushnell Engage

[TonyTheTiger]

I almost got interested in these scopes, specifically the 2.5-10 and 3-12x offerings as an affordable option suitable for SPR type rifles. Then I noticed they're only available in MOA. There may not be anything wrong with MOA based reticles and turrets but I'm a MIL guy and I won't even consider re learning MOA units for one oddball scope in the stable.
Seems like an epic fail on Bushnells end, in the current era of options I think it's dumb to alienate a portion of your potential customers before the scopes hit dealer shelves. I went as far as emailing Bushnell to tell them this. The answer I received was more or less, "no MIL for you, we gave you MOA and you're gonna like it!"

 

[SubOptimal]

I really don't understand the issue unless you are dealing with a scope with a mixed reticle and turrets. MOA and Milliradians are both angular measurements. Any ballistic calculator can build a range card for you using either mils or MOA adjustments. You can pick up a cheap laser rangefinder at a sporting goods store and it will get you close enough to clang a steel target. I'll grant you that the finely divided sub tensions on most of the mil reticles can make ranging easier and out there further than 500 yards, it may make wind holds, provided you can read the wind, a bit simpler but people were using MOA reticles and turrets for a lot of years and tons of animals from prairie dogs to elk and even Dahl sheep using nothing more than a plain set of cross hairs and a steady hand.

 

[supercorndogs]

"An epic fail," because its not what you want. Boo Hoo. Want a popsicle. LOL.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

I speak in MIL, I think in MIL, everyone who will ever spot for me will be relaying information MIL's. I didn't say MOA was bad, I said I'm not using it and every other scope I've considered buying in the last 4 years has the option of either. If every ice cream shop in the country had vanilla and chocolate would you open a business and only offer chocolate?

 

[supercorndogs]

No, but I would move along rather than spending time crying about it. People might think I am a big ol cry baby, if I was crying about ice cream.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

Who is crying? I created a thread in which I said I thought Bushnell missed the mark on a new product. I told them so and they told me to pound sand. I'm over it and won't be buying the scope. I was curious if anyone else had thoughts to add on the scopes.
FWIW half the threads in the optics forum are about people that like 8 of 10 features in a scope but stated the 2 features they didn't care for. They don't get accused of crying every time they disagree with a manufacturers decisions.

 

[steve123]

I've been saying for years it'd be cool to have a compact and lightweight 3-15 or 4-20 1" FFP hunting/tactical scope in mil with capped windage and elevation but finger adjustable turrets, this is for the short rifles. It doesn't need to have a huge amount of travel or large objective. Just great glass, reticle and close focus.

I've owned the March 3-24x42, have the S&B 5-20 on a biathlon 22 - "it's too big for it but much prefer it over March" and owned various other scopes. Overall S&B comes out on top.

 

[supercorndogs]

LRHS, LRTS Great medium sized FFP mil hunting scopes with great glass, and a small over all size. The new Nikon tactical might be worth a look, but I don't think they have a FFP version. I hope they do a 2-10 of the Nikon, SFP would be fine, it would make a great hunting scope. The LRHS has served my purpose very well for a few years now, hunting and shooting. 3-12 is not very big.

I probably shouldn't be grilling you. i still feel shame for Vortex and their Razor hunting scope, that can't be had in mil. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

 

[TonyTheTiger]

I've always thought the 2-12x ish variable scope market has been under served. Its about as close to a jack of all trades scope as you can get. I'm aware of the NF and PST gen 2 offerings but I'm in the market for a scope for my 7 year old that wants to get into mid range shooting so I'm not gonna drop a lot of money on one.

 

[Steel+Killer]

I agree with the OP 100% I looked at these scopes and I also had the same thoughts. It's not that anyone is crying about them only being offered in MOA, but it's more about Bushnell missing/not realizing that there is a huge market for mil based scopes specially with target and tactical type scopes. I honestly could care less I don't have a dog in the fight I am very happy with my NF and Vortex scopes in mil and probably wouldn't buy one anyway, but it does seem odd that they were not offered in mil.

 

[supercorndogs]

I've always thought the 2-12x ish variable scope market has been under served. Its about as close to a jack of all trades scope as you can get. I'm aware of the NF and PST gen 2 offerings but I'm in the market for a scope for my 7 year old that wants to get into mid range shooting so I'm not gonna drop a lot of money on one.

Athlon has a 2.5-15 I was looking at. My favorite I have owned was the ffp mil/mil 2-10x36 weaver tactical. I was wondering about the PSTII also. They have a new 2-10 also about a 50ft FOV and sub 1k.

 

[SubOptimal]

Here is a thought, gather a few investors, a couple of million should get you started and open your own scope company and build/sell what you like. Let us know in a couple of years how that worked out.
If you don't think that an outfit the size of Bushnell didn't properly do their market research before releasing a new product on the market you are seriously deluded. You may not fit in their demographic but they have been in business for quite some time and know who buys what. No one scope is going to be all things to all people.

 

[Steel+Killer]

You may very well be correct, but I do know this from what I can gather seems like the mil version of most new scopes sell out way faster than the MOA version and yes I am talking about scope meant for LR and ELR shooting not talking about scopes geared toward hunting......just saying. This is just from what can tell and I am not biased one way or the other MOA and MIL based scopes both accomplish the same thing in the end.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

Here is a thought, gather a few investors, a couple of million should get you started and open your own scope company and build/sell what you like. Let us know in a couple of years how that worked out.
If you don't think that an outfit the size of Bushnell didn't properly do their market research before releasing a new product on the market you are seriously deluded. You may not fit in their demographic but they have been in business for quite some time and know who buys what. No one scope is going to be all things to all people.

I don't need to do that. Athlon already did and it's working out great for them, and their customers are happy with all the options. And if you really think companies don't tell people what they want and expect them to be happy with it look at Leupold's business model. They've been ten years behind and claiming to be cutting edge for years. Not sure what your problem is though...

 

[SubOptimal]

I don't need to do that. Athlon already did and it's working out great for them, and their customers are happy with all the options. And if you really think companies don't tell people what they want and expect them to be happy with it look at Leupold's business model. They've been ten years behind and claiming to be cutting edge for years. Not sure what your problem is though...

In fact, I have no problem other than I happen to like Bushnell scopes and was considering this one, actually the 4-16. At the price point, it appears to be a pretty nice scope, and I like the reticle.
Now, if you had actually purchased one of these scopes and found yourself unable to use it for some reason other than it not being offered in a mil reticle with mil turrets, I would note that and move on. A review from a spec sheet? Nigga, Please.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

I don't have a problem with Bushnell, I was also considering one of these scopes and I like the reticle. I'm sure it's a very usable scope and didn't claim to have anything like a review for it. My main point of contention is that almost every other manufacturer making an effort to keep up with the times marketing an optic in this category has both MIL and MOA options. There's nothing wrong with the metric system but if I go to my construction job tomorrow with a metric tape measure I will not be able to communicate with anyone. This is the equivalent as far as I'm concerned.

 

[SubOptimal]

As soon as you stop thinking of the radian as a linear measure and think of it as an angular measure, that problem will go away. No matter which set of units you use, the relationship to a circle is always the same. Minutes of angle, and radians are the measure of the same thing, segments of a circle. The linear relationship doesn't come into play until you try to measure distance on a target and translate that to clicks on your turrets. With a nicely divided reticle the whole point becomes moot. What you want to know is how far you have to change the angle of your barrel to get the bullet to hit where you want it to. Whether that angle is divided into 3600 segments for a full circle or 1000 segments for a 1/2 circle is immaterial. Let's assume 1/4 MOA clicks and 0.1 miliradian clicks on the two different scopes. If you plan on adjusting to move POI based on observations through your scope, provided the turret is following the reticle, you measure the angle between the desired impact point and the observed, previous impact point and adjust the turrets or hold accordingly. Now, if your spotter is calling your corrections in mils and you are working with a MOA scope, you have a little math to do. If your spotter is calling corrections in inches, you need a new spotter or spotting scope.
BTW, the Engage is classified by Bushnell as a "Hunting" scope. Damn few hunters use anything other than MOA and from my observations at over 60 years of visiting ranges, a goodly proportion of hunters are happy with minute of pie plate for accuracy, only shoot their guns once a year and some have been on the same 20 round box of ammo for 5 years now.

 

[supercorndogs]

There are plenty of people here who understand angular measurements, that would not buy a scope in MOA.

 

[SubOptimal]

I'm not saying that many don't want an MOA scope. I'm saying that it really does not matter. I find that I can easily adjust my turrets or hold with whatever scope happens to be on my rifle at the time. I'm no math whiz and hate doing mental gymnastics. That's why I go to the range and develop a range card for my scope and my load and whatever gun the scope is mounted on. I even have one scope that has a BDC reticle on it calibrated for a 145g 308 bullet at 2600 FPS. It still serves me well for my 6.5x47 Lapua at ranges out to 300 yards. I haven't tried the gun at 500 yet and probably won't. But I know where the bullet will go within reason.
Here is the thing, despite the huge number of members we have here who are enamored of the mil system and FFP scopes, we represent a very small minority of the shooters out there. We should be thankful that the tactical side is so well represented in the scope market.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

I thought I saw somewhere on the Bushnell website that the Engage series was geared towards both hunters and long range target shooters. Hunters don't need that reticle or target turrets or even 30mm tubes. I also hate doing mental gymnastics. Specifically, this scope would be going on a 7 year olds rifle for shooting to 600yds regularly and I'll be spotting with MIL based reticles. He doesn't even know the math required to convert that to MOA and he's got more important things to learn. You seem to think I don't understand how to use both systems. I do. But that's not the point at all, the point is with all the options today I see no reason to use both systems, and I refuse to use them in tandem.

 

[SubOptimal]

Ya know, Tony, had you been this specific in your initial post, our banter never would have happened. From my point of view, I take scopes as they come. I often buy used guns that already have a scope attached. I grew up in the 50s and 60s with nothing but a 4x Weaver scope, MOA of course, on my 22. I had to learn to use radians when I studied trigonometry in school and that made the adjustment easy for me when I got my first mil scope. I know how valuable a good spotter can be as I worked with one when I shot IHMSA, we had open sights at that time and he called my shots by impact position on a known distance and known size steel target. Communication is the key and you certainly should be seeking a scope that will be compatible with your calls.
Good luck to you and kudos for bringing another young man into our sport.