Today I used the chance to compare a Bushnell 4200 6-24X40 with a Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50. I pointed the 6500 at some deer antlers in the woods 131 yards away and turned the magnification up till I could definitely see the third point on one of the antlers. It was on 8X. Then I switched to the 4200. I could make out the third point on 7X.

I put both scopes on 24X then switched to the 1956 military optics chart. I could make out #4 in the third smallest chart with the 4200 and #6 in the second smallest chart with the 6500. What a fantastic difference!

Of course the 6500 can go down to 4 1/2X for more field of view and up to 30X for a closer look than the 4200 can with 24X. But for the money the 4200 is the better value.

Yeah, that 4200 6-24x40 is a great scope, a real value compared to some others.

Thanks for posting.

DF

RDFinn,

I did that, too. In fact I purchased two 4-16X 4200's and three 2 1/2-16X 6500's. I sold all the 2 1/2-16X's. They are just not as good as the 4200's. While we're at it I also had a Leupold VX-3 4 1/2-14X50 I sold because it fell behind the 4200's.

But as far as comparing scopes, I have to compare what comes my way. The two above came my way so they are what I compared and posted about. To me this is good info for folks who might have a chance to pick up a used 4200 in good shape.

The fellow who brought the 4200 took off a Vortex 6-16X to install the 4200. I have yet to see a Vortex I would buy.

4200's are tough acts to follow. I just located a new 3-9 with the Firefly reticle and it's on it's way to me.

is this the Elite 4200?

I got some bushnell and baush lomb 4200's $ 4000's great optics. The 6500 I"ve played with left me very unimpressed

I had the 50mm SF model, 6-24x50 Tactical, and wasn't that impressed but the 40mm version with AO or SF still have a great reputation with airgun (AO) and some rimfire shooters (AO or SF).

Yep.

DF

I have a 6500 2.5-16x42 on an HS SPL .240. I like the 2.5X for off hand shooting, killed a nice Pronghorn in NM, offhand at 80 yds. It was the only shot I was going to get. The low power made it easier for me to hold the gun steady.

At 16X, the eyebox gets critical and in dim light, I have to crank the power back a bit to see. The 50mm version may be better at dim light, but I've never handled one of those.

I have no experience with the higher powered 6500's and can't comment. I do have some experience with the 4200 Elite 6-24x40 discussed above.

DF

I picked up a 6500 Elite 6.5-30 a couple of years ago; it has the mil-dot reticle. I didn't expect any power over 20 to be worth much but got it at a good price. Put it on a 223AI.

I have not had a 4200 to compare with but this scope has impressed me with very bright optics to my eye--I would equate to a Conquest--repeatability and even very usable higher powers in the high 20's.

Explain how the power of the scope made you steadier?I bet you are not physically steadier than at high power.Being on high power only magnifies how unsteady you really are.

Yep, something about perception becoming reality.

No steadier at 2.5X, just seems that way. You don't see your wigglies as bad and mess up trying to overcorrect. Just aim and make the shot.

Good point.

DF

Here's the first five shot group fired at 100 yards with the "new to him" 4200 I help him install. He is delighted with its performance over the Vortex. Talk about post sell!

Hard to not be pleased with that.

Bet he is happy.

Good to have friends to help out...

DF

To me, the 4200s are real sleepers for the price they usually go for. Got them on a couple of Pre-64 70s that in both cases, replaced more expensive scopes. Have had no experience with the 6500s.

John

john843,

I believe my 6500 4 1/2-30X50 is what the engineer had in mind. It is clear from 4 1/2 all the way to 30X. When I compared it with my Minox 13X56 for low light performance it lasted two minutes longer than the larger optics. (For those who don't like comparisons of a scope with a bino, disregard this post. Your negative comments will not influence me to stop.)

About 10 years ago I decided to just get crazy on a lot of X's (power) for what was going to be a dedicated varmint rifle. Wanted a Leupold 8.5-25X, but couldn't afford it, so I started checking other brands. Found out most of them were right up there in price too, so I ended up with a Bushnell 4200 8-32X40. Was blown away by its "clarity" (about as technical as I'm going to get on optics.. although I love reading your tests on scopes that I have, or have considered).

Since then, I also bought a 6-24X40, and a used 4-16X40. Love all three. By the way, changed my mind on the varmint rifle, discovered the extra X's don't bother me at all, in fact come in handy at times, and now the 8-32X sits on a CZ 455, the 6-24X sits on a Ruger 10/22, and the 4-16X sits on a Rem 870 slug gun. I have other more "suitable" scopes, but I like those pretty well.

Hey Ringman,

I have an Elite 4200 Firefly 2.5x10 on my 22 and love it. I also have 5 6500 Elites 4.5x30 that I use on my hunting rifles and really like them also. I had a few Vortex's but after my pissing match with them got rid of them. I was not that impressed with the Vortexes.

i just bought my second 4200 6x24x40. i really like these scopes.i just mounted it this week on a lefthanded 788rem in 6mm. i'm planning on stretching it out to 500yds this week. its a heavy barrel 1-12twist and is shooting the 70gn nosler varmagedon very well at 100yds. i also have a b&l 3000 5x15x50 that is a nice scope.

Not to worry Rich as I don't make a habit out of telling folks that they can see better with both eyes open compared to one. The important thing here, to me anyway, is folks telling others about their real world experience using Elite scopes.

4200's suck ass.

that is an interesting counterpoint. I don't have one but wondered why?

They'd be skookum if they had any eye-relief and an AO to remove the parallax.

thanks I actually found one I was thinking of buying due to the rave reviews above.

The ones I have are on mild kickers due to ER. The big scopes do have A/O.

To me, they're a lot of scope for the buck.

DF

My point was that I had major parallax issues with the 2 I owned and I should need an AO on a 3-9x.

Eye relief sucks and there is no good reason to put up with it.

I didn't mention the 6500 because I've never held or smelled one.

That's just it, you may actually wiggle more with higher magnification because the point of aim-eye-brain-nerve-muscle-point of aim-eye-... feedback loop over reacts.

It looks like the 4500 series added the AO and has a 3.9" eye relief, at least with the 4-16.

Did you see a price?

DF

No. It was on the Bushnell website, looking at the specs.

But, there is this:
http://swfa.com/Elite-4500-C12810.aspx

I'd like to compare a 4500 next to a 4200.

DF

Only difference I saw right off the bat was different turret knobs.

I got to compare the Japanese 4200 Elite 3-9x40 with the Chinese Limited Edition 3-9x40. Here are side by side photos of the two. Does the 4500 turrets look more like the Chinese version or the Japanese version? Limited Ed is left and bottom.

DF

Neither. Under the caps were stainless looking round knurled type knobs.

Do you like the 4500 turrets more than the 4200 version?

DF

Yes. Easier to grab.

Just got the new Elite and the Firefly reticle is slightly different but still great looking for low light. Looks like a euro #8.

you have the 4500? does it have adjustable parralax focus? Is it made in Chini. ?

No an Elite 3-9 x 40. No Elites are made in China.

The Limited Edition is Chinese.

When I compared the 3-9x40 Limited Ed. with the Elite 4200 3-9x40, I couldn't tell any difference in the glass. The Chinese version was slightly longer and slightly heavier. It had A/O, the Elite didn't. That could explain some of the weight difference. Overall it was a great scope.

DF

Can you post a pic of it here?

Scope or reticle ?

I have an old type Firefly and would like to see a photo of the new Firefly. I know that type picture can be difficult to take.

But, you da man when it comes to such things...

DF

Best I could do bro.....

RDFinn,

That's a spectacular reticle. Fat and fine.

Yup. Should be great or low light Rich.

That's a super reticle. Much better looking than the older Firefly.

Can you post a pic of the whole scope as well?

The old Firefly was a three staged reticle, a "triplex" sorta.

Like Rich, I think this one is great, plenty thick and plenty fine.

Does it glow in the dark after being charged with a flashlight like the old one?

DF

Yes. I found these by doing a google search. Bushnell part # E3946.

Thanks.