Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Bushnell 6500?

Dave,

I have two of the Elite Series with Rainguard; one is the 3200 series, a 3-9x40, and the other is the 4200 series, a 2.5-10x40. I agree, the Rainguard is amazing.

While I haven't had the chance to handle a 6500 I did do some shooting the rain last weekend (more of a mist) and my uncle was using his 4200 with Rainguard. Pretty impressive, I must say I can honestly see the appeal and furthermore the optics on that scope are very nice . . . no doubt the 6500 is a step up as well.

As for Leupolds answer (rain cote lens), what a complete joke. Why would I want to spend 50 bucks or so to have an extra lens (further reducing the optical qualities on the scope) when I can get a scope with rainguard? Leupold is asleep at the wheel and quite frankly much of their line is unchanged and overpriced for what you get - basically you pay for the name. Albeit they have top notch CS and still a decent product but the competition is passing them by - look no further than a Conquest for an eye opening experience . . .

If you were to go out and get a 3-9x40 Leupold new, it would set you back 300 or so, then if you wanted their "Rain Cote" kit you can now tack on another 80 bucks. You can buy a brand new 4200 3-9x40 with the Rainguard feature (free) for 249. Rainguard actually increases light transmission by about 1% (which is nothing BTW) but we don't know how the Rain Cote additional lenses effects the performance. In my opinion, if you want to compare something from the Leupold line-up to a 4200, you would have to start at a VX3 level or higher. I have not seen a 6500 yet up close and personal. I leave that up to the folks here that actually own them to provide honest commentary.

80 bucks, think I'll take a pass. They're threaded alumi flip up covers are nice however - but again overpriced for what you get . . . we're just seeing the marketing machine at work. And if you drink the green and gold KoolAid you can't/won't have an open mind about anything else.

Elite 6500 scopes are very similar to Elite 4200 in terms of image quality (which is not a bad thing at all since Elite 4200 scopes produce an image that is much better than people give them credit for). Resolution, contrast and stray light suppression are very good. There is no tunnel vision and the image really snaps in.

Equally importantly, Elite 6500 is one of the most user-friendly scopes I have seen yet. The eyerelief is long and flexible at all magnifications (measured out right at 4 inches). Knobs are easy to reset. Side focus is smooth and not too light.

The magnification range while very large does not do all that much for me on a scope of this type, to be honest, but certainly does not hurt. More importantly, if you are looking for good low light visibility, get the scope with the Mil-Dot. The MilDot reticle in the 2.5-16x42 scope that I looked at was sized very nicely to both be very visible in low light and yet thin enough to comfortably shoot groups.

ILya

I got the 92% figure some time ago from Barsness. I got the 94% figure from his book, which tested the old VariXIII's from long ago. Leupold's VXIII's are even better. From time to time somebody has posted some later euro tests of the VXII which usually show them to test at least 92%, often a bit more.
I would have believed they, the Elite 4200 series, were better at resolving an image just a few years ago. But after discussing proper focusing techniques with Barsness, I've come to discover there is very little difference between them. Barsness himself says that the only real differences are weight and eye relief. E

I've seen "bright days" where the Mil-Dot will do well enough during twilight. But on "dark days," heavy cloud cover, dark timber, etc. they often fade out a good 15 mins. before the end of legal shooting hours. That's why many makers now offer their Mil-dot reticles with a lighted option.
The other thing is that side focus scopes are not as bright as their counter parts w/o such options. One of the reasons why you don't want that option on a hunting scope as a rule. E

The advantage to having a add on lense with rain cote is that you can remove it when not needed. This, in the long run, will save it from being degraded by routine cleaning. When you do wear out the coating, you simply buy another. If you wear out the coating on the Bushnell, you are out of luck. E

Yeah - I'd really worry about wearing out the outer coating, happens all the time . . .

Would you want an extra rain cote lens on your Leica binoculars? I think not. Same parallel and again it's marketing hype but in all actuality very little practical application. Why are Zeiss, Leica and others coming out with lenses that disperse water? Leupold's so far behind the curve here it's not even funny. Sure as hell a better idea than an extra lens any day of the week.

That is a good point Eremicus. I know that several years ago Bushnell advertised that they made the Rainguard coating "10X tougher" than the original formula, whatever the heck that means. I guess there are advantages to both systems depending on how you would look at it. With the Rainguard, it's always there. I guess with the Leupold system it's just one more thing you need to bring along. In all honesty, the 80 dollar premium turns me off. You have to admit, that is a bit steep.

Roy

Or you could just send the scope back to have it re-coated and it's good as new.

Roy,

Obviously, they added crushed diamonds to the coating!

Two negatives I find with Leupold's add on lens system are :

1: every lens you add, you loose a percentage of light transmission no matter how good the glass and coatings are. American/Euro/Pacific rim made brands are not exempt as the laws of physics do not cease to exist.

2: the Leupold rainguard type lens will trap ambient air between the lens and may fog between the outer add on lens and the ocular/objective lens.

Just my $.02 .

I clarified that to more accurately reflect your experience, E. Some Mil-Dots from other brands are quite good in low light. Maybe when you've seen one in a 6500 your input would be useful.

Of course in this case, the 6500 might be better than a Leupold in low light even with the extra lens as many brands are.

E, You obviously don't have the slightest clue about what you are talking about here. You've never even looked through a Elite 6500 with a Mil-Dot reticle have you? Much less in the evening...............................DJ

A fine reticle guys is a fine reticle. Nicer on the target range, but not nearly as useful in the field. You still persist in believing there are "secret formulas" that make scopes from different makers much different. Those fancy tests that DEVA has done over the years with high quality test equipment tell me that there is really only the smallest differences in optical performance.
I haven't tested alot of scopes during low light conditions. But JJHack has. As well as doing alot of night hunting both here in the dark Pacific NW and in Africa. He says the heavier reticles make a difference at least sometimes. That's what I've seen as well. E

And once again, the optics forum starts sliding back into the toilet.......

For the same reasons as before......

Pointless dribble by folks with to much time on their hands has hi-jacked a meaningful thread. I read a review of the 6500 in Ourdoor Life that was very favorable but stated the the image clarity was degraded by the extra lense required to get the magnification range. Does anyone else confirm or deny this observation? It seems like a great scope and less expensive than the Swaro.

Talk about pointless dribble.......

I really wanted to know if anyone had used the 6500, and what they thought of it.

I - don't - care - how - it - compares - to - a - loopie.