Soon - Elite Tactical 3

#58
It's a race between this and Burris illuminating the XTR III for me....
giphy-45.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hesperidins and bigdaddydmd
#63
Here's my question. Have you guys reduced the thickness of the reticle?

My second question, do you guys have a program to replace the reticle in the DMRIIi?
 
#71
jl937 said:
We have an image digitizer at work so I did some messing around with it. All guesses, but assuming a 34 mm tube, this is actually pretty close to the form factor of the XRS II at ~14.5-15 inches long and ~56mm objective lense. The mounting areas of the tube are a bit more even front and back than the XRS II which makes me think this new design is more than an updated XRS II.

However if it's a 30 mm tube, the overall length is closer to 13.3-13.8" with a ~50mm objective lense.

Probably going to be wildly off from reality, but fun to guess. Those bold black lines make it hard to discern exactly the limits of the ghosted scope image
Click to expand...
This is feeling like the fan responses to Marvel trailers - fans screenshot parts then make a Youtube video on Thanos will use the XRS to restore balance. :) Love it.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: drwood96, Glassaholic, DevilDoc27 and 2 others
#75
Current ET line does not have a "narrow field of view." They are right in line with other scopes in the same mag range. The only one that looks smaller is the 3.5-21 because it tunnels from 4.5 down to 3.5. Compare it to other scopes from 5-21 and they have basically the same FOV. If you shoot and compare them with different scopes you will see. Or even if you are just crowing about something you read from a spec sheet, you should have seen the FOV specs at the top end were about the same in the scopes you were comparing. Who uses their DMRII at 3.5 power more than 7x+? I would say people who probably would have been better off choosing a different optic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
#76
supercorndogs said:
Current ET line does not have a "narrow field of view." They are right in line with other scopes in the same mag range. The only one that looks smaller is the 3.5-21 because it tunnels from 4.5 down to 3.5. Compare it to other scopes from 5-21 and they have basically the same FOV.
Click to expand...
Many scopes that have narrow FOV at the bottom tend to "pick up" by the top, maybe a topic for @koshkin to address in one of his videos. Whether the manufacturer chooses to use an aggressive field stop or just chooses to design the optics to perform in this way I do not know, but there are some of us who prefer to use the bottom end of the scope for scanning, etc. and for that the FOV has greater importance than magnification. I would rather have a 4-20 that has wider FOV at 4x than a 3.5-21 that has narrower FOV at 3.5x. When you say "compare to other scopes from 5-21" then I think why not just get a 5-20 or 6-24 to begin with? I would venture to say that most who would choose the DMR is because they are thinking of a DMR type of role and they may want to use that bottom end for close and/or moving targets where FOV is going to help more than magnification.
supercorndogs said:
If you shoot and compare them with different scopes you will see.
Click to expand...
I have and felt the DMR series especially was very narrow in comparison to other scopes in the class.
supercorndogs said:
Or even if you are just crowing about something you read from a spec sheet, you should have seen the FOV specs at the top end were about the same in the scopes you were comparing.
Click to expand...
I crow more about my experience behind a scope than I do the spec sheet, but the spec sheet at least gives me an indication of what to expect. The Schmidt 5-25 and NF ATACR 5-25 are two designs that are known to tunnel and have narrow FOV at the bottom but make up for it by 25x; however, look at most other alpha 5-25 designs and you will not see this behavior. Yes, I have heard the argument many times of "I do not use my scope at 5x so it doesn't matter" but like I mentioned above, some like to use their scopes at the bottom for the widest FOV as possible. If I only need an 8-25x scope then I'd rather buy an 8-25x scope that performed better optically than a 5-25 that handicaps me at the low end. So choosing a TT, Minox, ZCO, Kahles etc that all offer better FOV at the bottom than Schmidt and NF is where I gravitate. When I see others looking at these scopes I point out the fact that FOV is narrow on the bottom, but let them choose; I am not going to tell someone they made the wrong choice, we all choose equipment based on our perceived needs for the purpose we intend to use the equipment for. My desire is to simply help people be aware, but the choice is theirs.
supercorndogs said:
Who uses their DMRII at 3.5 power more than 7x+? I would say people who probably would have been better off choosing a different optic.
Click to expand...
If you only need 7-21 then why even buy a 3.5-21 scope? The greater the erector ratio (magnification) the more potential to introduce optical aberrations (this is why 4x scopes tend to perform better than say 6x scopes) so why not stick with something like a 5-20 scope instead of a 3.5-21 because more than likely the 5-20 will outperform a 3.5-21 (given the same general price point).

Just to be clear, I am not saying there is anything wrong with scopes that have narrow FOV values, I am just trying to help the community understand the relationship between magnification and FOV in order to help others make better decisions based on how they intend to use the scope. I owned the original DMR years ago and then I also owned the DMR II when it came out and had high praise for both with regard to price/performance, but I also noted the effect of FOV in that scope and ended up moving in other directions. If Bushnell were to come out with a redesigned 3.5-21x50 that has wider FOV at the bottom and throughout then that would be ideal, but Bushnell will continue to sell plenty of their current 3.5-21's regardless because they are still great scopes for the price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ravenworks, gnochi, beetroot and 6 others
#77
How dare someone point out a legitimate criticism of an optic. lol Surprise, some people use optics through their whole range and not just cranked to the max. I use the bottom end of my optics often enough that narrow FoV can be off-putting, and led to me selling my 5-25 ATACR. Lets just hope Bushnell makes an upgrade in that area, because I am actually excited for this release.
 
#83
Glassaholic said:
Many scopes that have narrow FOV at the bottom tend to "pick up" by the top, maybe a topic for @koshkin to address in one of his videos. Whether the manufacturer chooses to use an aggressive field stop or just chooses to design the optics to perform in this way I do not know, but there are some of us who prefer to use the bottom end of the scope for scanning, etc. and for that the FOV has greater importance than magnification. I would rather have a 4-20 that has wider FOV at 4x than a 3.5-21 that has narrower FOV at 3.5x. When you say "compare to other scopes from 5-21" then I think why not just get a 5-20 or 6-24 to begin with? I would venture to say that most who would choose the DMR is because they are thinking of a DMR type of role and they may want to use that bottom end for close and/or moving targets where FOV is going to help more than magnification.

I have and felt the DMR series especially was very narrow in comparison to other scopes in the class.

I crow more about my experience behind a scope than I do the spec sheet, but the spec sheet at least gives me an indication of what to expect. The Schmidt 5-25 and NF ATACR 5-25 are two designs that are known to tunnel and have narrow FOV at the bottom but make up for it by 25x; however, look at most other alpha 5-25 designs and you will not see this behavior. Yes, I have heard the argument many times of "I do not use my scope at 5x so it doesn't matter" but like I mentioned above, some like to use their scopes at the bottom for the widest FOV as possible. If I only need an 8-25x scope then I'd rather buy an 8-25x scope that performed better optically than a 5-25 that handicaps me at the low end. So choosing a TT, Minox, ZCO, Kahles etc that all offer better FOV at the bottom than Schmidt and NF is where I gravitate. When I see others looking at these scopes I point out the fact that FOV is narrow on the bottom, but let them choose; I am not going to tell someone they made the wrong choice, we all choose equipment based on our perceived needs for the purpose we intend to use the equipment for. My desire is to simply help people be aware, but the choice is theirs.

If you only need 7-21 then why even buy a 3.5-21 scope? The greater the erector ratio (magnification) the more potential to introduce optical aberrations (this is why 4x scopes tend to perform better than say 6x scopes) so why not stick with something like a 5-20 scope instead of a 3.5-21 because more than likely the 5-20 will outperform a 3.5-21 (given the same general price point).

Just to be clear, I am not saying there is anything wrong with scopes that have narrow FOV values, I am just trying to help the community understand the relationship between magnification and FOV in order to help others make better decisions based on how they intend to use the scope. I owned the original DMR years ago and then I also owned the DMR II when it came out and had high praise for both with regard to price/performance, but I also noted the effect of FOV in that scope and ended up moving in other directions. If Bushnell were to come out with a redesigned 3.5-21x50 that has wider FOV at the bottom and throughout then that would be ideal, but Bushnell will continue to sell plenty of their current 3.5-21's regardless because they are still great scopes for the price.
Click to expand...
You are telling me you noticed a functional difference in FOV when using some of these scopes? I didn't. The size of the image you see is very different on these scopes. But the FOV is very close. I doubt too many are flipping all the way to minus power scan either. I don't any way. I probably shouldn't assume everyone else is the same.

DMRII 3.5-21 [email protected]
XTRII 4-20 25.8ft@4
MK5 3.6-18 [email protected]
Tango 6 4-24 26ft@4x
 
  • Like
Reactions: cornhusker86, Glassaholic and lash
#84
supercorndogs said:
You are telling me you noticed a functional difference in FOV when using some of these scopes? I didn't. The size of the image you see is very different on these scopes. But the FOV is very close. I doubt too many are flipping all the way to minus power scan either. I don't any way. I probably shouldn't assume everyone else is the same.

DMRII 3.5-21 [email protected]
XTRII 4-20 25.8ft@4
MK5 3.6-18 [email protected]
Tango 6 4-24 26ft@4x
Click to expand...
The functional difference is not as big as the perceived difference, I think ILya sums up this perception better than I can explain it here:
 
#91
Totoro said:
Just when I thought I had my new scope purchase figured out, this happens!

Marketing at it's finest!
Click to expand...
I've been tracking this thread since start;
As @Dobermann stated, this is the worst approach to marketing of a new range you could do.

Why the BS with "it's coming but we aren't saying when or what it is"? From a business point of view it is beyond stupid.
You do that if you have heaps of stock of the old model to clear - so you don't get stuck with the old models. Same in any industry.
It would appear Bushnell have cleared all the "old" XRS2, etc so there is no damage to own stock flow here from what I can see.

You don't define the reticle designs, magnification options etc of a new range the week (or months) before the new product is in stock and ready to be shipped to retailers.
We all understand that supply chains are a big issue now with COVID19 and actual supply dates may move some.
Even on pre-order most buyers now understand it can be many months, even after launch, til we will actually have a new scope in hand.

Now I'm an avid Bushnell fan; 2x XRS2, 1xHDMR2 and all my hunting rifles are Bushnell scopes.
The only scope I own that isn't Bushnell is an ATACR7-35

Either say nothing (and lose sales to other brands that already have product in the market) or continue with this no detail tease marketing and again lose possible sales on the new Tactical Elite range
or
Give us at least some details on reticle options, parallax range and magnification choices and genuine buyers may hold off to see what the new Bushnell Tactical Elite range is all about.

Otherwise, while Bushnell stuffs around you'll have genuine buyers, even big Bushnell ET fans like me, simply place orders elsewhere.
Just ordered an ATACR 4-20 Mil XT with an ETA of appx October.
@Team RCBS & Bushnell - it could have been a XRS3.......
 
  • Like
Reactions: moosemeat, D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷ and Dobermann
#93
Bushnell, I think ya'll have some good products and I'm in the market; but for goodness sakes, we all know it's an XRS3 with an updated reticle. Please just release the specs and how soon they'll be available. If it looks good, I might just pick one up. There's plenty of competition our there though and I'm not a third grader, so please quit marketing to me/us like this.
giphy-46.gif

Seems to be the new trend in marketing lately, especially in the firearms community....
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanGroves
#95
Yoteski said:
Bushnell, I think ya'll have some good products and I'm in the market; but for goodness sakes, we all know it's an XRS3 with an updated reticle. Please just release the specs and how soon they'll be available. If it looks good, I might just pick one up. There's plenty of competition our there though and I'm not a third grader, so please quit marketing to me/us like this.View attachment 7661687
Seems to be the new trend in marketing lately, especially in the firearms community....
Click to expand...
Okay, but as soon as they put a date on it and something in the overloaded supply chain causes the delay of said release, then y’all are going to be crying bloody fucking murder that scope companies always miss their deadlines and this is just like it always has been. There’s literally no pleasing people, so quitcher bitchin’ and just wait already.

SMDH
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: gnochi, 308pirate, Hollywood 6mm and 2 others
#96
lash said:
Okay, but as soon as they put a date on it and something in the overloaded supply chain causes the delay of said release, then y’all are going to be crying bloody fucking murder that scope companies always miss their deadlines and this is just like it always has been. There’s literally no pleasing people, so quitcher bitchin’ and just wait already.

SMDH
Click to expand...

Okay, so say release date unknown. You're proving my point. If it's vaporware then why say anything at all. Is releasing the specs really that top secret? What is Bushnell going to fundamentally change about scope design that hasn't been done already? It's probably another LOW product with their specs, which like 50 other companies have. Whatever it is, I think it will be a great option, as Bushnell has done an excellent job with their elite series scopes. Bushnell has also been a great supporter of matches throughout the years so kudos to them. I hope they hit this one out of the park and I'll have one on top of one of my rifles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slowworm, TwistedOneinSeven and lash
#97
Let me posit one area where this may benefit the manufacturer. Shooter A has been using brand/model X scope for a number of years, but now Shooter A is wanting to upgrade. Shooter A decides on new model/brand Y and is about to purchase, but Bushnell leaks out that a brand new XRS3 is coming to market "soon", so Shooter A decides to hold off on purchasing brand/model Y and is now willing to wait for the new XRS3 scope. I understand the tease can be frustrating, but I see this kind of stuff all the time in the photography world where manufactures intentionally leak tidbits of information to create a "buzz" and then the rumors and speculations explode, all the while creating more awareness in the industry for what's coming which does cause some potential buyers of another product to hold off a bit to see if the new product better fits their needs.

But here's the thing, I have been an early adopter of a number of scopes and have been pleasantly surprised by some and sorely disappointed by others. While it's fun to talk about what is new, there is nothing wrong with sticking with products that are proven. So while the XRS3 may be a really nice new design, as a brand new release they will demand top dollar and sometimes their are QC/QA issues to work out... point is, there is nothing wrong with sticking to tried and true designs that have proven themselves on the market. Once the XRS3 comes out, will your XRS2 work any less than it has been? Of course not, but marketing departments love to convince us that is not the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: supercorndogs, Deputy617, Dendro and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shayne Ward
Accessories MDT ACC ELITE trade
Replies
1
Views
180
SdotW
S
SkyScrapin
Optics Bushnell Elite Tactical LMSS2 Spotter w/ Badger SLICK
Replies
2
Views
360
SkyScrapin
SkyScrapin
T
Paging Bushnell - Are we ever going to see an Elite Tactical LPVO?
Replies
33
Views
1K
Double aught
D
L
Bushnell Elite Tactical scopes over the years.
Replies
3
Views
429
lwnemesis
L
I
SOLD Bushnell Elite Tactical DMR-3
Replies
9
Views
1K
island66
I
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts