Print Page | Close Window

Bushnell Elite Tactical or 6500 2.5-16x42

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Tactical Scopes
Forum Description: Police and military tools of the trade
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=43249
Printed Date: December/14/2017 at 00:26


Topic: Bushnell Elite Tactical or 6500 2.5-16x42
Posted By: Boomholzer
Subject: Bushnell Elite Tactical or 6500 2.5-16x42
Date Posted: August/04/2016 at 10:55
Greetings,
Does anyone know what magnification the mil-dot properly subtends on for a Bushnell; Tactical Elite 2.5-16x42 or the Elite 6500 2.5-16x42?    I think there is a chance it is at 12x being familiar with some of the older Elite 4200's.  Bushnell's web documentation is very lacking.   Not much of any technical info on the DOA_600 either.

Any observations, opinions, praise or gripes on this optic?




Replies:
Posted By: Steelbenz
Date Posted: August/05/2016 at 12:13
Mine is at 10X.


-------------
"Don't argue with a fool! From a distance you can't really tell who's who!"


Posted By: Boomholzer
Date Posted: August/05/2016 at 13:25
Thank You Steelbenz


Posted By: Boomholzer
Date Posted: August/07/2016 at 13:36
It is indeed 10x.    Is this optic basically the same optical parts (glass, coatings) as the Elite 6500 version?  


Posted By: kesi
Date Posted: June/29/2017 at 08:00
http://www.bushnell.com/elitetest - http://www.bushnell.com/elitetest

Fact or Fiction? Can we believe results of the test or should we take it as a commercial?

(As important as good light transmission is resolution, CA correction, contrast, color and quality of internal adjustments ...)


Edit: I read too

"I have a 2.5-16x50 elite 6500 and I have to say, for the price I was a bit dissapointed. The construction quality is great and the optics are clear, but there is a fish eye effect that I don't see on other scopes (particularly when you adjust the side focus towards infinity) , and on the max magnification there is noticable chromatic abberation (because the exit pupil is so small I suppose?). I don't find much use for going past 10-12 magnification because of this.

The turrets are hand adjustable, which is nice, but they seem too easy to turn for my tastes. Its easy to accidentally click too far. If I had to do it again I'd probably get a Nikon Monarch. Similar features at a much more attractive price."

"fish eye effect" Is this a problem in the range of 2.5-16 ×.. ?


Posted By: Boomholzer
Date Posted: July/05/2017 at 08:55
Originally posted by kesi kesi wrote:

http://www.bushnell.com/elitetest - http://www.bushnell.com/elitetest

Fact or Fiction? Can we believe results of the test or should we take it as a commercial?

(As important as good light transmission is resolution, CA correction, contrast, color and quality of internal adjustments ...)


Edit: I read too

"I have a 2.5-16x50 elite 6500 and I have to say, for the price I was a bit dissapointed. The construction quality is great and the optics are clear, but there is a fish eye effect that I don't see on other scopes (particularly when you adjust the side focus towards infinity) , and on the max magnification there is noticable chromatic abberation (because the exit pupil is so small I suppose?). I don't find much use for going past 10-12 magnification because of this.

The turrets are hand adjustable, which is nice, but they seem too easy to turn for my tastes. Its easy to accidentally click too far. If I had to do it again I'd probably get a Nikon Monarch. Similar features at a much more attractive price."

"fish eye effect" Is this a problem in the range of 2.5-16 ×.. ?

My 2.5-16x42 "tactical" also has pronounced distortion or "fish-eye" especially noticeable at the low-end of the mag range and perhaps CA (or pronounced distortion at the image edge/perimeter) at the high end of the magnification range.

So I would say "yes".




Print Page | Close Window