Putting a Bushnell scope on a Weatherby would be enough to make Roy roll over in his grave.
Only until he checked out how good some are now.
Originally Posted by Illurian00
In most things , particularly optics, you get what you pay for.
This is an internet myth. I purchased four Swarovski z5 5-25X52 for about $1,500 each. Not one had glass as good as the three Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50's which cost less than a grand.
This must be the 200th time you've stated this and again you're in the minority. Having owned both brands and models there is NO WAY IN HELL and Bushnell compares to a Swaro. You should schedule an appt with an eye doctor.
It's odd that everyone who has compared them in my presence says the same thing I do. In fact one of my friends who HAD a Swarovski z6 5-30x50 brought it to my house to compare. Instantly he said, "I always thought that scope was not very good." He sold it asap.
By the way the vision in my shootin' eye is 20/20. The vision in the other eye is 20/15. So you stick to your prejudice and I'll stick to the facts discovered by those who use optics charts to compare optics.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
If you buy a $39 Bushnell at Walmart you get what you paid for! If you buy a 4200 Elite you get a good decent scope! I believe they are one of the only companies that offer Raingaurd which works.
This company has stayed in business for many years by supplying the demand for $50 scopes and binoculars. How many companies have you seen go out of business and the warranties are now worthless??
I have an Elite 4200 1.5x6x36 and find it to be a very nice scope. I'd say that the only drawback I see is the eye relief could be better.
I have the LRHS, and was amazed at the amount of eye relief. It's the only scope I've ever mounted that got the comment "Holy smokes that's a lot of eye relief!" the first time I looked through it. The standard there is Leupold, of course. It feels like it has twice the eye relief of any scope over 6x I've ever used, which is saying something with the mag range of this optic.
Optical quality is above the price point.
Am I completely sold on the scope? Not yet. Too new. Out of the gate, the adjustments are just too stiff. I know, I know, everybody wants them stiff. Until you actually use the scope in cold weather with old hands. The parallax is funky -- works, but is out of sync with the dial. It also changes faster per rev near the end of the range of motion.Bottom line, I have to adjust it by eye, and not the dial. Which is not a real big deal, because if your're actually hunting there's time for that during a LR shot. The illuminated reticle works, but I've never shot with it and could care less about it (it just happened to be a feature of the one I got). Night hunting is legal here now, so maybe I'll get to try it.
It does deliver a lot of performance for the $. Optically, twice the scope my Viper was, 4 times the scope my Loopy VX 3 LR was, and better than my friend's Elite 4200 (Dennis says. He's the pickiest optics user in the world). Better than my Minox 5-25, the prior best scope I'd ever owned (optically).
I do not entertain hypotheticals. The world itself is vexing enough. -- Col. Stonehill
Putting a Bushnell scope on a Weatherby would be enough to make Roy roll over in his grave.
Only until he checked out how good some are now.
Originally Posted by Illurian00
In most things , particularly optics, you get what you pay for.
This is an internet myth. I purchased four Swarovski z5 5-25X52 for about $1,500 each. Not one had glass as good as the three Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50's which cost less than a grand.
This must be the 200th time you've stated this and again you're in the minority. Having owned both brands and models there is NO WAY IN HELL and Bushnell compares to a Swaro. You should schedule an appt with an eye doctor.
It's odd that everyone who has compared them in my presence says the same thing I do. In fact one of my friends who HAD a Swarovski z6 5-30x50 brought it to my house to compare. Instantly he said, "I always thought that scope was not very good." He sold it asap.
By the way the vision in my shootin' eye is 20/20. The vision in the other eye is 20/15. So you stick to your prejudice and I'll stick to the facts discovered by those who use optics charts to compare optics.
You sound exactly like a guy I know who loves Tasco World Class scopes. He will tell you all day long how much better they are than high end scopes he has used. He'll also tell you about how many buddies he has converted over to Tasco from Leupolds after they see how much better his scope is in low light. Eventually you learn to just tune him out. While his cheap scopes may work for him, they aren't the quality of many of the higher end optics that he thinks are junk just because of the cost. The same guy will also argue all day with you about how his Jennings pistol is better than a "overpriced" Glock. Lol
All of that said, Bushnell scopes range from crap to excellent depending on what you buy. They offer soo many different lines. Everything from $30 package deal scopes to several thousand dollar optics. As long as you go with one of their decent lines they have some good offerings. What's your budget?
Has anyone noticed that "Ranting" posted 5 of the first 8 posts but hasn't replied since........
Don't feed the TROLLS, Please!
"Camping places fix themselves in your mind as if you had spent long periods of your life in them. You will remember a curve of your wagon track in the grass of the plain like the features of a friend." Isak Dinesen
It's odd that everyone who has compared them in my presence says the same thing I do. In fact one of my friends who HAD a Swarovski z6 5-30x50 brought it to my house to compare. Instantly he said, "I always thought that scope was not very good." He sold it asap.
By the way the vision in my shootin' eye is 20/20. The vision in the other eye is 20/15. So you stick to your prejudice and I'll stick to the facts discovered by those who use optics charts to compare optics.
Asking for a Bushnell endorsement without Ringman spewing his cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski is like expecting to walk into a pig sty and not see flies. You ought to give those eyes back to the bat that donated them to you...
It's odd that everyone who has compared them in my presence says the same thing I do. In fact one of my friends who HAD a Swarovski z6 5-30x50 brought it to my house to compare. Instantly he said, "I always thought that scope was not very good." He sold it asap.
By the way the vision in my shootin' eye is 20/20. The vision in the other eye is 20/15. So you stick to your prejudice and I'll stick to the facts discovered by those who use optics charts to compare optics.
Asking for a Bushnell endorsement without Ringman spewing his cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski is like expecting to walk into a pig sty and not see flies. You ought to give those eyes back to the bat that donated them to you...
Fascinating you didn't notice I posted my shootin' eye is 20/20 and the other eye is 20/15. But if "cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski" happened at the same time I compared the Swarovski with Bushnell and Nightforce why did the Swarovski come in third since the same "cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski" looked through the other scopes as well? Why did the "cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski" show the Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 display more vibrant colors than either the Swarovski or the Bushnell? I wanted the Swarovski to win because it is the lightest high magnification scope I could find. Two trips to the repair shop and the last one was down the road.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
It's odd that everyone who has compared them in my presence says the same thing I do. In fact one of my friends who HAD a Swarovski z6 5-30x50 brought it to my house to compare. Instantly he said, "I always thought that scope was not very good." He sold it asap.
By the way the vision in my shootin' eye is 20/20. The vision in the other eye is 20/15. So you stick to your prejudice and I'll stick to the facts discovered by those who use optics charts to compare optics.
Asking for a Bushnell endorsement without Ringman spewing his cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski is like expecting to walk into a pig sty and not see flies. You ought to give those eyes back to the bat that donated them to you...
Fascinating you didn't notice I posted my shootin' eye is 20/20 and the other eye is 20/15. But if "cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski" happened at the same time I compared the Swarovski with Bushnell and Nightforce why did the Swarovski come in third since the same "cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski" looked through the other scopes as well? Why did the "cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski" show the Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 display more vibrant colors than either the Swarovski or the Bushnell? I wanted the Swarovski to win because it is the lightest high magnification scope I could find. Two trips to the repair shop and the last one was down the road.
I’m sure you are a nice guy at Bingo night, but you are out of your league here. Posting about which impaired eye you looked out of has no bearing on your pathetic analysis. Why you continue to make a ridiculous comparison every time Bushnell or Swarovski comes up, only shows how myopic you really are.
You are the only person you have convinced, continuing with your sophomoric studies on optics only proves your lack of experience, not to mention poor vision...
It's odd that everyone who has compared them in my presence says the same thing I do. In fact one of my friends who HAD a Swarovski z6 5-30x50 brought it to my house to compare. Instantly he said, "I always thought that scope was not very good." He sold it asap.
By the way the vision in my shootin' eye is 20/20. The vision in the other eye is 20/15. So you stick to your prejudice and I'll stick to the facts discovered by those who use optics charts to compare optics.
Asking for a Bushnell endorsement without Ringman spewing his cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski is like expecting to walk into a pig sty and not see flies. You ought to give those eyes back to the bat that donated them to you...
Fascinating you didn't notice I posted my shootin' eye is 20/20 and the other eye is 20/15. But if "cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski" happened at the same time I compared the Swarovski with Bushnell and Nightforce why did the Swarovski come in third since the same "cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski" looked through the other scopes as well? Why did the "cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski" show the Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 display more vibrant colors than either the Swarovski or the Bushnell? I wanted the Swarovski to win because it is the lightest high magnification scope I could find. Two trips to the repair shop and the last one was down the road.
You are the only person you have convinced, continuing with your sophomoric studies on optics only proves your lack of experience, not to mention poor vision...
Except the guy who brought his Swarovski z81 and Swarovski z6 over to compare. He right away sold his z6 because it was definitely not in the same league at the Bushnell 6500, much less his other Swarovski.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
It's odd that everyone who has compared them in my presence says the same thing I do. In fact one of my friends who HAD a Swarovski z6 5-30x50 brought it to my house to compare. Instantly he said, "I always thought that scope was not very good." He sold it asap.
By the way the vision in my shootin' eye is 20/20. The vision in the other eye is 20/15. So you stick to your prejudice and I'll stick to the facts discovered by those who use optics charts to compare optics.
Asking for a Bushnell endorsement without Ringman spewing his cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski is like expecting to walk into a pig sty and not see flies. You ought to give those eyes back to the bat that donated them to you...
Fascinating you didn't notice I posted my shootin' eye is 20/20 and the other eye is 20/15. But if "cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski" happened at the same time I compared the Swarovski with Bushnell and Nightforce why did the Swarovski come in third since the same "cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski" looked through the other scopes as well? Why did the "cataract impaired analysis on Swarovski" show the Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 display more vibrant colors than either the Swarovski or the Bushnell? I wanted the Swarovski to win because it is the lightest high magnification scope I could find. Two trips to the repair shop and the last one was down the road.
"Pride is the only disease that makes everyone sick except the one that has it"
Except the guy who brought his Swarovski z81 and Swarovski z6 over to compare. He right away sold his z6 because it was definitely not in the same league at the Bushnell 6500, much less his other Swarovski.
O.K. so I was wrong, there are 2 of you that don’t have a clue. I bet it is a riot to watch you parking a car when you can’t tell a parking spot from the drive thru at Wendy’s...
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/63b8KsVp/DSCN4329.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qMjL6f8C/27-FD3-F35-D9-CF-4-FC0-AE24-D01508-F7-AF1-C.gif)
