Ok, before I start I want to make it clear that this is not a "apples to apples" test, it is meant to be quite the opposite. We all know a $3500 piece of glass will perform better than a $1400 one, but how much better? I have owned and tested many optics over the years from USO to S&B to Premier to Leupold to you name it, but what does one do if they want what the "big boys" use but don't have a 3K plus optics budget? Here is where this story started.
I ran Premier Heritage optics for the last few years, recently switching back to a S&B 5-25 P4f on my primary tactical match rifle for this season. Late last year I had a situation that required running a optic that was loaned to me, a Bushnell 3.5-21 G2DMR. I had no time with this optic before a 2 day tactical match, literally mounted it up the morning of the match, zeroed it, signed in and started sending rounds down range. My first impression of the Bushnell was more of a "why the hell don't I run these", or sell the S&B and buy 2 DMRs and have cash left over for that mater?
So, now to the optics; test optic #1 is a S&B 5-25 P4f CCW with DT turrets, and test optic #2 the Bushnell 3.5-21 G2DMR. First thing you will notice about the Bushnell next to the S&B is how compact it is, 13.2" long vs the 15.5" for the S&B. The S&B looks like a stretched limo next to the Bushnell, but we are also talking about a 25x optic vs 21, as well as a 56mm objective vs a 50mm which will effect performance, I'll touch on that in a minute. Both the Bushnell and S&B run the stout 34mm tubes, side focus, and FFP mil based reticles, features that are a must for me in the world of tactical match shooting, with the exception of tube diameter. The S&B comes in at 32oz, the Bushnell at 32.5oz, so we are at a tie on weight despite the Bushnell's more compact size. One of the many nice features about the S&B with CCW elevation turrets, all of the controls are CCW, from the magnification to the focus to the turret, this is a nice feature and it becomes very intuitive to operate when the pressures on. The S&Bs DT turret offers a massive 14 mils on the first rev, with a total of 26 mils if your base allows, with zero stops. My test rifle has a integral 20 MOA base, I am only able to utilize about 19.2 mils before it runs out of adjustment, plenty for the 243. To be able to utilize all 26 mils of the S&B your rig will most likely require a 40 MOA base. The Bushnell's biggest Achilles heel is its lack of elevation, 5 mils per rev and no zero stop, better count your turns and reset to zero when you get off the line. The Bushnell offers a very nice locking turret design, pull it up and turn, push down to lock, very easy. The Bushnell has fairly solid clicks, but seem fairly vague and mushy compared to the S&B, but you always know where you are. Both the S&B and the Bushnell passed a rigorous box test with no issues, tracking was spot on for both optics well out past 1K yards. Both optics offer a marked side focus, numbers and actual focus distance seem to be spot on for both the Bushnell and S&B. Both optics have similar eye relief, 3.7" for the S&B and 3.75" for the Bushnell, so they would both be well suited for heavy recoiling rifles.
Now on to the glass; is there any question who the winner is here? Its the S&B, and by a margin. Glass on the S&B is astounding, color and clarity are hard to match, as well as the S&Bs low light performance, this is where the 56mm objective pays off. Even on 25x, the S&B is bright with a very forgiving eyebox. A testament to Bushnell, the glass is good, even sitting behind the Bushnell for a solid day of shooting you come off the optic with no eye fatigue. Color is better than average on the Bushnell, optics are very clear, as good as many other high dollar and mid priced scopes I have owned. The Bushnell does tend to get very dark above 19x, I would consider it a 3.5-19x because it is nearly unusable above that, eyebox gets very small and that coupled with the darkness makes spotting impact very difficult above 19x. One annoying feature of the S&B is how the optic "tunnels" when magnification is adjusted below 8x, about 7.5x and down it becomes very noticeable, the Bushnell will start to tunnel around 4.5x, which is isn't much of an issue. Glass quality seems to be a big debate in tactical optics, but I feel it is not the deciding factor in deciding a scope, there are many other features that should be considered far more important.
Reticles; I am a huge fan of the Bushnell's G2DMR reticle, it is a very well thought out mil based reticle, fine enough for small targets, .5 mil hash marks and even breaks down to .2 on the outside of the vertical and horizontal, great for ranging. The fine outer hash marks actually give the appearance of a duplex style reticle on low magnification which helps considerably. The G2DMR also offers the mil "tree" for windage and elevation holds. I dial for elevation and hold wind and don't find the tree feature very useful, but it does come in handy when engaging multiple targets at varying distance if you don't have time to dial. Now to the P4F reticle of the S&B, this is the 2nd S&B I own with the P4F and I think it could use .5 mil hashes in the intersection of the reticle, vs the 1 full mil center. The S&B also offers .5 mil hash marks and has .2 mil breakdown for a full mil on the outsides of the reticle. Illumination, your not going to get it with the Bushnell, S&B does offer a 10 position rheostat, which in all honesty I have only used a few times for night stages, but it wasn't a game changer.
So what's my take after going from S&B to Bushnell and back again? Simple, if you can afford the S&B, buy it, if you cant I would run the Bushnell and not think twice. The reality is the S&B won't make you shoot any better or help you win matches. As long as you can count your revs and don't get lost with the Bushnell, you can be just as competitive with either optic. Bushnell now offers a 10 mil version but it will run you an additional $550, so now your in the $2K range of optics, but the Bushnell can still hold its own at that price point.
A few pics, I will replace the reticle pics with ones at the range, when my camera is charged...
side by side
P4f @ 5x
P4f @ 20x
G2DMR @ 5x
G2DMR @ 20x
Kirk R
I ran Premier Heritage optics for the last few years, recently switching back to a S&B 5-25 P4f on my primary tactical match rifle for this season. Late last year I had a situation that required running a optic that was loaned to me, a Bushnell 3.5-21 G2DMR. I had no time with this optic before a 2 day tactical match, literally mounted it up the morning of the match, zeroed it, signed in and started sending rounds down range. My first impression of the Bushnell was more of a "why the hell don't I run these", or sell the S&B and buy 2 DMRs and have cash left over for that mater?
So, now to the optics; test optic #1 is a S&B 5-25 P4f CCW with DT turrets, and test optic #2 the Bushnell 3.5-21 G2DMR. First thing you will notice about the Bushnell next to the S&B is how compact it is, 13.2" long vs the 15.5" for the S&B. The S&B looks like a stretched limo next to the Bushnell, but we are also talking about a 25x optic vs 21, as well as a 56mm objective vs a 50mm which will effect performance, I'll touch on that in a minute. Both the Bushnell and S&B run the stout 34mm tubes, side focus, and FFP mil based reticles, features that are a must for me in the world of tactical match shooting, with the exception of tube diameter. The S&B comes in at 32oz, the Bushnell at 32.5oz, so we are at a tie on weight despite the Bushnell's more compact size. One of the many nice features about the S&B with CCW elevation turrets, all of the controls are CCW, from the magnification to the focus to the turret, this is a nice feature and it becomes very intuitive to operate when the pressures on. The S&Bs DT turret offers a massive 14 mils on the first rev, with a total of 26 mils if your base allows, with zero stops. My test rifle has a integral 20 MOA base, I am only able to utilize about 19.2 mils before it runs out of adjustment, plenty for the 243. To be able to utilize all 26 mils of the S&B your rig will most likely require a 40 MOA base. The Bushnell's biggest Achilles heel is its lack of elevation, 5 mils per rev and no zero stop, better count your turns and reset to zero when you get off the line. The Bushnell offers a very nice locking turret design, pull it up and turn, push down to lock, very easy. The Bushnell has fairly solid clicks, but seem fairly vague and mushy compared to the S&B, but you always know where you are. Both the S&B and the Bushnell passed a rigorous box test with no issues, tracking was spot on for both optics well out past 1K yards. Both optics offer a marked side focus, numbers and actual focus distance seem to be spot on for both the Bushnell and S&B. Both optics have similar eye relief, 3.7" for the S&B and 3.75" for the Bushnell, so they would both be well suited for heavy recoiling rifles.
Now on to the glass; is there any question who the winner is here? Its the S&B, and by a margin. Glass on the S&B is astounding, color and clarity are hard to match, as well as the S&Bs low light performance, this is where the 56mm objective pays off. Even on 25x, the S&B is bright with a very forgiving eyebox. A testament to Bushnell, the glass is good, even sitting behind the Bushnell for a solid day of shooting you come off the optic with no eye fatigue. Color is better than average on the Bushnell, optics are very clear, as good as many other high dollar and mid priced scopes I have owned. The Bushnell does tend to get very dark above 19x, I would consider it a 3.5-19x because it is nearly unusable above that, eyebox gets very small and that coupled with the darkness makes spotting impact very difficult above 19x. One annoying feature of the S&B is how the optic "tunnels" when magnification is adjusted below 8x, about 7.5x and down it becomes very noticeable, the Bushnell will start to tunnel around 4.5x, which is isn't much of an issue. Glass quality seems to be a big debate in tactical optics, but I feel it is not the deciding factor in deciding a scope, there are many other features that should be considered far more important.
Reticles; I am a huge fan of the Bushnell's G2DMR reticle, it is a very well thought out mil based reticle, fine enough for small targets, .5 mil hash marks and even breaks down to .2 on the outside of the vertical and horizontal, great for ranging. The fine outer hash marks actually give the appearance of a duplex style reticle on low magnification which helps considerably. The G2DMR also offers the mil "tree" for windage and elevation holds. I dial for elevation and hold wind and don't find the tree feature very useful, but it does come in handy when engaging multiple targets at varying distance if you don't have time to dial. Now to the P4F reticle of the S&B, this is the 2nd S&B I own with the P4F and I think it could use .5 mil hashes in the intersection of the reticle, vs the 1 full mil center. The S&B also offers .5 mil hash marks and has .2 mil breakdown for a full mil on the outsides of the reticle. Illumination, your not going to get it with the Bushnell, S&B does offer a 10 position rheostat, which in all honesty I have only used a few times for night stages, but it wasn't a game changer.
So what's my take after going from S&B to Bushnell and back again? Simple, if you can afford the S&B, buy it, if you cant I would run the Bushnell and not think twice. The reality is the S&B won't make you shoot any better or help you win matches. As long as you can count your revs and don't get lost with the Bushnell, you can be just as competitive with either optic. Bushnell now offers a 10 mil version but it will run you an additional $550, so now your in the $2K range of optics, but the Bushnell can still hold its own at that price point.
A few pics, I will replace the reticle pics with ones at the range, when my camera is charged...
side by side
P4f @ 5x
P4f @ 20x
G2DMR @ 5x
G2DMR @ 20x
Kirk R
Last edited:
