Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Bushnell Elite 6500 2.5-16x50: Anybody use one?

Has anyone shot with the Bushnell Elite 6500 2.5-16x50? Saw one in the store today and it looked intriguing enough, clear glass, good color saturation and an impression FOV at 2.5x; eye relief at 16x was still good so it got me interested. Any impressions? It'd be going on a 204 Ruger.

I've got one and love it.

What is your application?

Oregon 45,

The following is copied from a thread from Wednesday 12/23/09. Before you get to the "test" I will tell you I have a 12-42X56 NightForce as well as the Bushnell 6500. When both are set on 30X I and others are hard pressed to tell which is better for descerning detail on distant or close (200yard) objects.

.com friends, here's a little info from today's test/comparison. I put the chart on a piece of carboard in the shade of a tree so I could duplicate it later. It took about half hour to be satisfied that I would get the same results next time. For fun the eyebrow clearance is included in inches.

I placed a Mule Deer chart seventy-five yards from the porch. I verified by three reading of the Leica 1200. I did two comparisons. One with everything on 13X because the Minox 13X56 is, you guessed it, 13X. I included only the stuff I had handy at the time. All scopes were removed from the rifles. All the lines could be seen. In decending order of resolving lines:

13X56 Minox binocs instantly better by a mile!
4 1/2-30X50 Bushnell 6500 3 5/16" Only after fussing with the S.F. was it better than the Weaver
6-24X42 Weaver 2 7/8" not a lot better than the Tasco
4-16X40 Tasco 2 5/16"
7-15X35 Nikon binocular How did my beloved end up here?

Since I wanted to play with the Leica 1200 and it is a 7X21, I reset the scopes to 7X and re-did the seventy-five yard test. Things changed a little.

Bushnell 3 3/8" Instantly better than the other like the Minox above.
Leica 7X21 say what?!
7-15X35 Nikon
Weaver 2 13/16"
Tasco 2 3/8"

I hope this is usefull. It was fun to see the Minox 13X56 make such a good great showing.

Edited to add:
Since the scopes were laying on a sand bag there was no stock to hold my head still. The easiest to aquire the target was the Bushnell. The next was the Tasco.

I have one in the 4.5-30x50 with a mildot reticle and I also have a 2.5-16x42 with the tac-knobs and mildot reticle. For the money these scopes are sweet. I own Zeiss conquest and Leupold VX-III and Leupold VX3 rifle scopes. Sitting all these scopes side by side on the rifles they are on looking at the same targets at various yardages I would have to give the edge to the Elite 6500. This is by no means any type of scientific expierement here.. Just a country boy looking through all the glass and making a personal opinion. These scopes are nice. I will have another one in the 2.5-16 power range soon. I really like the tac-knobs and the mildot reticle too.

I have the 4.5-30x50 and it is a good scope.
Over 16X it will not match my old VX III 6.5-20x40 in clarity and, being a second focal plane scope, the mildot ranging function is worthless except at 10X, so you might as well buy as 3200 10X mildot.
Good scope but for serious work, I'll stick with Schmidt or Nightforce.

oldman1942,

Just in case you didn't know, you can send that 6500 in if you still have the receipt and get a full refund. I have a NightForce and the 6500. When both are on 30X everyone who has looked through them can not tell which is cleared. You have a lemon there, .com buddy.

I've got a pair of the 2.5-16x42 mildots and love them. Have one on a custom AR and another on my Savage predator in .204. I have Swaro's on at least a half dozen rifles, but haven't even considered "trading these up". They are great scopes at any price.

Ringman, thanks for the thought, but the scope is fine. I don't know what your friends are looking at but it's probably not an optical evaluation chart that really is critical of any lapse in performance. I got it on that Microsoft deal last year so only have about $600 into it and it's a fine $600 scope. It is not as good as my Schmidt 4-15x50 PH but didn't cost as much either.
IME with scopes you get what you pay for and there are real no "sleepers" out there. Some of the fine classic scopes like Bausch & Lomb and Kollmorgan are actually better than today's scopes in the mid price range. There is a lot of yada, yada about improved this and that but those little old Germans or the guys who built periscopes for the USN had a pride and competence seen in few places today.
Scopes are kinda like women....very few REALLY bad ones but some are better than others. Thanks

oldman1942,

Since I don't have s S&B to compare to, I can't speak to that. But it sure seems to me your predjudice is showing.
In a side by side with the Leupold you are refering to, four of us placed the Leupie after the Bushnell.

Maybe I should tell you the rest of the story. The first 4 1/2-30 was blury above 25X. I sent it in for repair. When it came back it was fantasticly clear up to 30X. But when I checked at 4 1/2 it was blury. I sent it in for a refund. The check even included the insurance I paid. I waited a few months for the pipeline ofnew stuff to clear out and ordered again. This time I recieved the excelent scope I brag about. You should try again.

My wife has been using a bushnell 6-24x50 on her .308 and it is much more clear than the leupold 6-20 on my .308. I am a big fan of the work that bushnell has been putting in to thier optics. My nightforce and us optics scopes have much more clarity than the two I mentioned but if you are looking for a scope around the same price of the bushnells I would definately recommend bushnell over others. Especially since I have haven't broken any of these new bushnells but I have had to send several leupolds back. I even get leupolds at a huge discount.

Actually this isn't the case. If you will do a little work noting the subtension between the dots you'll figure out that The dots also work at 20 and 30x just with 1/2 and 1/3rd the subtension. You could easily work out the subtension and figure out what range the dots would represent at which magnifications...........................DJ

djpaintless,

How quaint of you to bring mathmatics to the discussion. Kinka like logic; tough to refute.

A real objection to those trained on FFP scopes. (Ask the USMC) but I use my Leica rangefinder and have never had the need to shoot big game beyond 400 yards (usually far less) so it's all kinda academic IME.

I'll probably sell my 6500 when I get back to WY as well as the DPMS Sweet 16 it sits on. Just don't need several rifles to shoot P-dogs and a few Yotes.