New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 6500 Opinions
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

6500 Opinions

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2008 at 20:21
peashooter View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: December/07/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 9
   I am in the market for another scope.  I have been eyeing up the Bushnell 6500 2.5-16X42.  I have several 3200s and one 4200, but I have never even seen a 6500 up close and personal.
 
  Any opinions good or bad on the new 6500 would be greatly appreciated.  Or, if you think there is other scopes better than the 6500 for about the same $$, I'm all ears/eyes.
 
Thanks
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2008 at 21:44
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13882
652164MD Bushnell 2.5-16x42 Elite 6500 30mm Rifle Scope                                                                          Bushnell 2.5-16x42 Elite 6500 30mm Rifle Scope
SWFA: $699.95
More Info... Buy Now
Nice scope -- also worth consideration are these:
TR22 Trijicon 2.5-10x56 Accu-Point 30mm Rifle Scope                                                                          Trijicon 2.5-10x56 Accu-Point 30mm Rifle Scope
  • Matte
  • Amber Triangle
  • 30mm
SWFA: $806.95
More Info... Buy Now
8707 Kahles 4-12x52 Helia CL Multizero 51733, Matte finish, plex reticle, 1" tube, side focus, fast focus eye piece, allows you to zero your scope at five different ranges, close to new condition. $1,392.00 $799.95
8630 Kahles 3-10x50 Helia CL Multizero 51723, Matte finish, 1" tube, plex reticle, side focus, fast focus eye piece, allows you to zero your scope at five different ranges, close to new condition. $1,315.00 $749.95
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 10:33
Big Squeeze View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
GOOGLE NINJA

Joined: August/30/2007
Location: Anaheim, Calif.
Status: Offline
Points: 3143
Originally posted by peashooter peashooter wrote:

   I am in the market for another scope.  I have been eyeing up the Bushnell 6500 2.5-16X42.  I have several 3200s and one 4200, but I have never even seen a 6500 up close and personal.
 
  Any opinions good or bad on the new 6500 would be greatly appreciated.  Or, if you think there is other scopes better than the 6500 for about the same $$, I'm all ears/eyes.
 
Thanks
................Before I can give an opinion, what is your rifle, cartridge, game and the majority of your hunting distances in yardage and the terrain?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 10:54
peashooter View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: December/07/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 9
Originally posted by Big Squeeze Big Squeeze wrote:

Before I can give an opinion, what is your rifle, cartridge, game and the majority of your hunting distances in yardage and the terrain?
 
 
     Good point,  I guess I'm not sure which rifle I will mount it on.  I just purchased a Colt HBar II in 223.  Don't know it I will mount it on this rifle or swap it with another rifle.  If it doesn't go on the Colt I will mount it on either my 300WSM, 30-06 AI or 280 AI.  So, I guess I don't really have a home for it yet. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 11:56
Big Squeeze View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
GOOGLE NINJA

Joined: August/30/2007
Location: Anaheim, Calif.
Status: Offline
Points: 3143
Originally posted by peashooter peashooter wrote:

Originally posted by Big Squeeze Big Squeeze wrote:

Before I can give an opinion, what is your rifle, cartridge, game and the majority of your hunting distances in yardage and the terrain?
 
 
     Good point,  I guess I'm not sure which rifle I will mount it on.  I just purchased a Colt HBar II in 223.  Don't know it I will mount it on this rifle or swap it with another rifle.  If it doesn't go on the Colt I will mount it on either my 300WSM, 30-06 AI or 280 AI.  So, I guess I don't really have a home for it yet. 
.................If you`re going to mount it on the 223 and use it for longer range varmit hunting the 6500 is a good choice.
 
Aside from varmit use or long range target scoring, I`m just not a big fan of the 6500. 16x on the high end for your 300 WSM, `06 or 280 under any hunting conditions or hunting distances, is too much imo.
 
Like on another thread on which some vigorous debate occured regarding magnification, I don`t want to start a pissing contest here, so I will carefully craft my verbage here and try to avoid one.
 
A few well written authors who`s pieces I`ve read over the years, along with a percentage of experienced hunters will tell you, that as you increase magnification, you will also increase the scope wobble, which we all have and is out of our control. When the scope wobble is increased, it causes more delay in getting off your shot. 
 
These particular experienced hunters and writers, including myself, have taken deer sized game and larger at the longer distances of 400-500 yards and a little more, with the power setting at no higher than 6x, with some even using less power. Of course, it also depends on the condition of one`s eye-sight as to the best level of scope power.
 
While many have the higher variables that go up to 12x, 14x and 16x, I`ll bet that for their kill shots (except smaller varmits), the power settings are set well below the max magnification.
 
While the 6500 has very good glass and a very wide magnification range from the low to the high, other than for varmit use/target scoring, it is a less practical scope to use on a hunting rifle for deer and larger game. It is also larger and a few ounces heavier than the 2.5x8`s and 3x9`s.
 
If going on your 300, `06 or 280 and you`re willing to spend the bucks for a 6500, I instead would opt to cut the magnification down and go with a real nice 2.5x8 or a 3x9 in comparable or better glass.   
 
 
 
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 12:17
peashooter View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: December/07/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 9
   Sounds good BigS.  I know what you mean by too much magnification.   However,  I handload for all of my rifles and a good high power scope adds to my ability to find that perfect load.  This is one reason I am interested in the 6500.  Low magnification for everyday use and hunting and high mag for load development.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 12:41
Big Squeeze View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
GOOGLE NINJA

Joined: August/30/2007
Location: Anaheim, Calif.
Status: Offline
Points: 3143
Originally posted by peashooter peashooter wrote:

   Sounds good BigS.  I know what you mean by too much magnification.   However,  I handload for all of my rifles and a good high power scope adds to my ability to find that perfect load.  This is one reason I am interested in the 6500.  Low magnification for everyday use and hunting and high mag for load development.
............Good point!.......Interestingly though, there was an online article at one of the major magazine websites. The author compared his group sizes using the same loads with the same rifle, with a 1.5x scope and a 35x scope @ 100 yards. Very little group size difference.
 
On the other hand, for load developing at 100 yards and beyond, I wouldn`t even use a low 1.5x.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 13:14
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
The beauty of the 2.5-16x magnification range is that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE 16x.  If the scope fits you size-wise, go for it.  Use 10x to 16x for target shooting and 2.5x to 10x for hunting.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 13:31
dougedwards View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: April/16/2008
Location: Williamsburg, v
Status: Offline
Points: 213
I have the Bushnell 6500 in 4.5-30x50 configuration and I use the 23-30x powers only for spotting holes in targets beyond 300 yards.  Other than that the exit pupil is much too small to be extremely useful for any kind of hunting that I do.  I won't mention that the higher powers could be used to scrutinize the heads of whitetails at a distance to see which one you might like to take.  That is what binoculars are for.Big Smile
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 17:31
Jon A View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: March/14/2008
Location: Everett, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 660
Originally posted by Big Squeeze Big Squeeze wrote:

While many have the higher variables that go up to 12x, 14x and 16x, I`ll bet that for their kill shots (except smaller varmits), the power settings are set well below the max magnification.

Thank you.  That's all the clarification I was asking for.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 17:37
Jon A View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: March/14/2008
Location: Everett, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 660
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

The beauty of the 2.5-16x magnification range is that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE 16x.

Exactly.  If there's some other reason one doesn't like the scope and decides that magnification is not wanted badly enough to compromise on the other aspect (whatever it may be) that's a good reason to choose differently.  Being able to crank it up if desired; the scope having extra capability over a 2.5-10X, etc, is not in my opinion.

Then again, I made my "kill shot" this season on 15X...so what do I know.        Bandito
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 18:12
jonoMT View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: November/13/2008
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 4618
It's true you don't have to use all the magnification but I'd go with the lowest top-end magnification you really think you'll need. Consider for example a 2.5-10X Diavari vs. a 3-12X. (I picked these because Zeiss should be able to keep the size and weight down if anyone can). Just going the next size up means 2.3 additional ounces, 1.24" additional length and a 56mm objective so your scope has to sit higher.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 18:41
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12712
Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

The beauty of the 2.5-16x magnification range is that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE 16x.

Exactly.  If there's some other reason one doesn't like the scope and decides that magnification is not wanted badly enough to compromise on the other aspect (whatever it may be) that's a good reason to choose differently.  Being able to crank it up if desired; the scope having extra capability over a 2.5-10X, etc, is not in my opinion.

Then again, I made my "kill shot" this season on 15X...so what do I know.        Bandito


Big Grin


Thunbs Up



Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 19:47
rifle looney View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2553
This is like watching the show( the best of the west). kinda and kinda not.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 20:01
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
Originally posted by jonoMT jonoMT wrote:

It's true you don't have to use all the magnification but I'd go with the lowest top-end magnification you really think you'll need. Consider for example a 2.5-10X Diavari vs. a 3-12X. (I picked these because Zeiss should be able to keep the size and weight down if anyone can). Just going the next size up means 2.3 additional ounces, 1.24" additional length and a 56mm objective so your scope has to sit higher.


That is a completely orthogonal consideration.

You are picking a scope based on size, weight and mounting height, not based on magnification range.

If you get two scopes of very similar size and weight, where one is 2.5-10x and the other is 2.5-16x, which one would you pick?

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 20:06
Narrow Gap View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: August/16/2006
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 125
If it was me I would pick the scope that has the best coatings on the lenses and the best light transmission.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 20:08
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
For example, Elite 6500 2.5-16x42 is the same length as Elite 4200 2.5-10x40 and is one ounce heavier.  It is actually smaller and lighter than 2.5-10x50 and 4-16x40 versions of Elite 4200.

Elite 6500 2.5-16x42 is about the same size as Nikon Monarch 3-12x42 and 4-16x42 and is a little bigger than 2.5-10x42.

If you look at different scope offerings you will see that the 30mm Elite 6500 2.5-16x42 is comparable in size to most of the 1"  tubed scopes out other with top end magnification greater than 10x.  Most of the 30mm tube scopes out there are heavier than the Elite 6500 and comparable in length.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/28/2008 at 20:13
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
Originally posted by Narrow Gap Narrow Gap wrote:

If it was me I would pick the scope that has the best coatings on the lenses and the best light transmission.


Light transmission by itself is pretty unimportant.  You definitely want to have good coatings.

One of the things that top notch coatings allow you to do is to have more sophisticated optical systems that deliver better performance without undue internal reflections.

For example, with Sightron scopes, I think S2 Big Sky has extra three or four optical elements inside compared to regular S2.  However, top notch coating throughout make sure that this extra complexity does not result in any real penalties.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/29/2008 at 12:31
jonoMT View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: November/13/2008
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 4618
Koshkin, I see your point and those are good examples of scopes. I'd definitely go with the 6500 2.5-16x42 over the 4200 since the one extra ounce wouldn't matter much and the glass is probably better. However, my point was that, in general, more magnification usually comes with more weight and length and a lot of the scopes that get up into the 16X+ range seem to come with bigger objectives. So it doesn't seem orthogonal to me to reconsider one's choices given other attributes. There are hunters I know who just think bigger is better without regard to usability in the field.

My recent purchase of a Nightforce 2.5-10X32 was made because I want a scope that will be durable, have reliable tracking, decent optics and relative compactness. The main tradeoffs were: weight, potentially less low-light performance, and price.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/29/2008 at 13:04
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
Originally posted by jonoMT jonoMT wrote:

Koshkin, I see your point and those are good examples of scopes. I'd definitely go with the 6500 2.5-16x42 over the 4200 since the one extra ounce wouldn't matter much and the glass is probably better. However, my point was that, in general, more magnification usually comes with more weight and length and a lot of the scopes that get up into the 16X+ range seem to come with bigger objectives. So it doesn't seem orthogonal to me to reconsider one's choices given other attributes. There are hunters I know who just think bigger is better without regard to usability in the field.

My recent purchase of a Nightforce 2.5-10X32 was made because I want a scope that will be durable, have reliable tracking, decent optics and relative compactness. The main tradeoffs were: weight, potentially less low-light performance, and price.


In terms of image quality Elite 6500 and Elite 4200 are pretty similar.  Aside from magnification range Elite 6500 has a few advantages: longer and more flexible eyerelief and easily resettable knobs.

The point I was trying to make, is that when choosing scopes we should look at the specifics of each scope.  If you generalize that 30mm scopes are always much bigger and heavier than 1" scope, then you will not notice that some scopes are clearly not subject to this generalization.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/29/2008 at 14:51
jonoMT View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: November/13/2008
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 4618
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

If you generalize that 30mm scopes are always much bigger and heavier than 1" scope, then you will not notice that some scopes are clearly not subject to this generalization.



Too true! I spent a lot of time wading through details to find a scope I liked...and probably overlooked some possibilities. In fact, I almost completely missed that IOR had the 2.5-10x42 Tactical, which came really close to meeting my criteria. I realize it would be a daunting task to keep updated but it would nice to have a searchable database for objective, length, weight, reticle selection and target knobs (maybe FOV and eye relief too). I'd leave it up to the viewer to ferret out the more subjective criteria like how good the glass is or a scope's durability).

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/29/2008 at 15:02
Jon A View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: March/14/2008
Location: Everett, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 660
Originally posted by jonoMT jonoMT wrote:

My recent purchase of a Nightforce 2.5-10X32 was made because I want a scope that will be durable, have reliable tracking, decent optics and relative compactness. The main tradeoffs were: weight, potentially less low-light performance, and price.

Let us know how you like that Nightforce, it looks like a very nice little scope.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/29/2008 at 15:03
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

Originally posted by jonoMT jonoMT wrote:

My recent purchase of a Nightforce 2.5-10X32 was made because I want a scope that will be durable, have reliable tracking, decent optics and relative compactness. The main tradeoffs were: weight, potentially less low-light performance, and price.

Let us know how you like that Nightforce, it looks like a very nice little scope.

nice little spendy scope at that, nothing like the premier you have though jon that thing is nutts! looks like a telescope on top of your aboltII!
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "6500 Opinions"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Bushnell Elite Tactical or 6500 2.5-16x42 Boomholzer Tactical Scopes 3
Bushnell 6500 Elite Tactical 2.5-16 x 42 MD fireroad Optics For Sale 1
Bushnell 2.5-16x42 Elite 6500 30mm Blueboy Rifle Scopes 9
Bushnell 6500 2.5-16x50 info needed? M77 Rifle Scopes 2
Bushnell 6500 elite 2.5x16 Fotis Optics For Sale 2
Bushnell 2.5-16x42 Elite 6500 Marine24 Rimfire / Airgun 20
BUSHNELL ELITE 6500 DOA 600 RETICLE FOR SALE KIMBER8400AT Optics For Sale 5
Bushnell 6500 or Leupold vx6??? Fotis Rifle Scopes 11
Monarch vs. 6500 cutler686 Rifle Scopes 6
Bushy 6500 or VX6 Leupold? Fotis Rifle Scopes 2


This page was generated in 0.328 seconds.