Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting GAP/Sinclair/Bushnell LR Hunter

I used to tease guys here who put $100+ turrets on $300 Leupold's saying it was akin to putting Pirelli P-Zero's on a Ford Pinto.

Watch it, [bleep]...



Travis

Bro, on the new scope being discussed here, it is a pop up, spin and lock down. As far as "Waterprooftittude" these high end Elite Tactical scopes are the real deal. Won't see um in a blister pack at Wally World. Before NF started assembling some scopes stateside, the previous NF were all built in the same factory as these high end Elite Tactical scopes. Those slanty eyed bastards can built a scope rest assured. Just remember, they are an OEM ( Light Optical Works, jp) and they will build anything according to what is spec'd by the stateside contractor, which is all Bushnell and Nightforce are.

So, which line of Bushnell's scopes are the good ones for LR? the Elite Tacticals?



Travis

There are two grades, the Elite Tactical 6500 and the top of the line Elite HDMR which cost hundreds more. The 3.5-21x50 is the one folks are talking about here. The Elite 6500 Tactical is basically a 6500 with tactical turrets. The HDMR is a different animal.


http://swfa.com/Bushnell-25-16x42-Elite-Tactical-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P48270.aspx Weight= 21 ounces


http://swfa.com/Bushnell-35-21x50-Elite-Tactical-34mm-Rifle-Scope-P51676.aspx Weight 30+ ounces
http://swfa.com/Bushnell-35-21x50-Elite-Tactical-34mm-Rifle-Scope-P61358.aspx
http://swfa.com/Bushnell-1-85x24-Elite-Tactical-34mm-Rifle-Scope-P61357.aspx

Thanks.


Travis

ok I think if you look at the jest of what I am saying is those are statements and opinions rather than questions although technically phrased as questions. I have read many of pat's posts I was not referring to him when I made the statement of outside the range shooting but to some others here who seem caught up in group think.

Look bottom line I come here to learn new things. I like to challenge conventional thinking. I actually would rather see people pick apart my opinions and points and prove me wrong. instead of getting mad at them I will thank them for the learning experience. If the mil system is better say why it is, not just learn it and you will see, as an example. Further this scope is being marketed as a hunting scope right?? (yes I am asking a question) how many hunters do you know understand the mil system or even know what a freaking mil radian is?? I can't think of one of the half of dozen guys I hunt with that could tell me what a mil is. I would like to see a dedicated long range high quality scope go mainstream in the market place, much like what nightforce is doing. leupold has burnt its bridge with me.

The problem I see is one from a business stand point. The players involved in the design of this scope, well at least one of them have deep connections to the tactical community. I see them selling scopes to these people primarily which will mean the scopes will be limited production and not sold on a widespread basis, just like bushnell's other high end tactical scopes. most people don't even know they make them. what this will mean and I predict is this scope will be at least as much as a nightforce. bushnell does not have the name to compete at this price point, just like when tasco tried to market the euroclass models. lastly there are 3 companies I know of that are built around long range hunting scopes, their models are specific to long range hunting and marketed as such. I think a company would be smart to look at what these guys have done instead of looking at the tactical community for advice. I think there are good points that the tactical community has and good points the hunting arena has. take a product like the g7 rangefinder, IMO this unit would make an awesome tactical rangefinder. yes it has limitations, yes its not a vectronix. but for 99% of what most guys out there shoot it would be a much better unit for them in most cases than using the new fancy kestrel that just came out. lets leave out 338 lapua shooters and 50 bmg here. The tactical community for the most part isn't aware of the g7 RF and its capabilities.

I think that's a separate issue. The spotter should be speaking in MOA or Mils, making the shooter's life easier, not harder.

yes, they are quite a piece of equipment. If I was going to spend that kind of $$ on a scope, I think it'd be hard to beat.

You said it better than I did.

Yup, agreed.

And spotting is the reason that it's important that the reticle/turrets match, not the shooting. As you say, it's easy to read data, either dial or hold, whether ele or wind, and whether mil or MOA, and fire the shot. But it makes things tidy to be able to spot using either MOA or mil, and dial the same units into the turrets.

Which is exactly what I was trying to get at, though it probably didn't come through very clear.

Use one system, whatever it is. Hard to speak in Mils when your spotter has a duplex reticle in his scope (or no reticle, like a lot of spotting scopes).

When all the shooter has to adjust by is the spotter saying, "half a prairie dog low", or "you hit the lower third of the target, about dead center", it doesn't really lend itself to great precision. If a spotter and shooter spend enough time together, and figure each other out, they can be quite deadly like this.....but it's much easier and quicker to just plop your spotter behind the same reticle type, and start calling shots in a precise manner.

Less BS to contend with = better shooting, especially when stress and fatigue is involved.

Jordan,

Really enjoyed your company at the Icebreaker last spring. Hopefully you can bring along a few of your own rifles next spring(damn border crossing rules).

FWIW guys, Jordan shoots in both mils and moa and makes calls either way depending on who he is spottimg for and what their system is. To be well versed in any longrange shooting/hunting, I think it's important know the in's and out of both systems.

Guys, keep an open mind and keep contributing thoughts and ideas......all of it will be passed on.

I shoot a Mil-Dot in a MOA scope.... never caused me any issues... but then again, I do wear velcro shoes and a helmet... daily.

I get the duribility/repeatability thing.... it's paramount... but it don't take 30oz to make a tough scope. I bounced my .260 all over the cab for pert'near 500 miles of dirt roads in the last couple of days... stuffed it in the pack for another dozen or two... and dropped it once trying to put it back in the pack. Pulled it out this morning, dialed the 13 MOA of ele required (123 amax @3050), gave a little wind... and pounded a volleyball size rock three times at 703... with a 3-9 Leupold Mark AR, status quo... just like it has been for years... just like the other 4 I own. I like 13ish oz, Mil-Dot, and 1/2MOA clicks.... but I'm not trying to put goat twat in the dirt at 1300 yards either. Nice shot by the way George....

Anyone that has any business buying a LONG RANGE hunting scope and using said scope to its capabilities had better know what a mRad is or be willing to learn. Guys dropping over a grr on a scope make sure they know. Those that don't get what's coming to them.

I can't think if 6 guys off the street that knows what an "ECM re-flash" is but you bet your arse every mechanic knows what one is. Same here. The guys who shoot long or are willing to actually learn to shoot long know what a mRad is. This isn't for the "blister pack scope on a Savage Axis" crowd.

At this price point and with this pedigree - it's not for people who don't really know what they're doing or aren't on their way to learning - SERIOUS shooting at serious ranges by serious shooters.



Can you tell me what would be a great long range HUNTING scope that ISN'T a "tactical" scope? What "tactical scope" doesn't work at all for hunting?

Bushnell isn't looking to compete with guys trying to decide what to put on granddad's old 7mm Mauser for deer this fall. They're entering a niche market that's populated by people who believe in testing over brochures and AREN'T tied to perceived name recognition. People who can use such a scope and have the skill to do so aren't going to let the name on the box deter them, they want results. And if the results are good - the name isn't going to stop them from using it. See "Super Sniper" scopes. Stupid name and it's not S&B, Nightforce, March, or even Leupold but people buy and use the models that work.

You're essentially saying Ferrari can't make money on cars because too many people buy Corollas. It's not about those that buy Corollas but those that are in the market for Ferraris (or a Lotus or whatever)

Lotsa schit,is supposed to do lotsa schit and an intent is often far separate from that which transpires in actuality. I prolly don't have as big of an inherent hard on for Bushy as most folks,because I gun an open mind and couldn't zook a B&L 2.5-10x on my beloved 378Wby. I've seen me dabble a smidge.

The Mall Ninja Crowd is always trying to reinvent the wheel with JipJap bullschit that bears no fruit. Weren't long ago,one could 'em make 'em cry by laughing at their beer tab turret locks and the like. They is a very [bleep] tender lot and the only thing most of 'em shoot,is their mouths. I savvy it all and take it for what it's worth,which is oblivious hilarity.

I hear tell,that Zipperheads can build fair to middlin' camera lenses too. They gots leetle fingers and can build intricate schit,if you bump wages to $.37 an hour.(grin) I get it,got it,use it,in many avenues and joyfully. Many slight the sanctity of Chinktitude,but I've always looked at it akin to Yankee Ingenuity and fret results,not semantics. You couldn't begin to fathom how little of a schit I give,in who made it...nor the flipside in how heavily I weigh how it actually performs.

There's a plethora of wares that others can get by with in their AO,that I simply cannot and if all else were equal(which it ain't),inclement weather would greatly tip the scales alone. Folks who don't fret Waterprooftitude from the first pitch,cain't savvy,because they are clueless in it's ability to reliably puke schit. I'd like to see the glass flailed about,some intel regarding it's ability to retain a zero during the melee and most importatly,see how she swims underwater. If only because less that,all things is Fluff.

I like to order my own pizzas and stocks too.(grin)

Good post Andrew

I think the gist of this is that statements, opinions and questions can all be in jest.

...and Boxer.

Deadwood was one of my favorites

I think you are ignoring where bushnell's past forays into the high end tactical scope market have went. these scopes were heavily influenced by the people at snipers hide. 34mm tubes and all, which very very few people need a big honkin scope tube like that. are they selling alot of these scopes?? I could be wrong but I doubt it. G7's nightforce scope is a scope specifically marketed as a long range scope and its not a tactical model, neither are the graybull or huskemaw scopes. so actually none of the scopes marketed for long range hunting are tactical or have a tactical pedigree. NOW could they be used as such, emphatically yes quite well I think. if a company does not get their product in stores it will never be a huge success. make a scope that is simple and easy to explain to the average joe. keep in mind the average joe is who is making the buying decisions at these stores. Nightforce gets their product in front of the consumer despite having some very technical features. I just see this project as being no different than the other bushnell tactical models. that I personally have never been able to actually get in my hands despite.

here is what I would change specifically about this prototype because there are actually many features I really like. have a MOA based model, 36 moa in one turn, and have the turret only operate in that one turn, 1/3 moa clicks. simple reticle with 1 moa hold offs on the horizontal, maybe one mark above or below horizontal line on the vertical post, for a short and or long range zero, lastly SFP reticle. price the scope at or slightly above $1k and I will be one of the first to buy one. there thats it and actually not all that much different than what they have already done.