Is the "new" Bushnell Elite 3500 3-9x40 just a rebadge of the Elite 3-9x40 scope? The dimensions are the same but I cant find much info on the new scope, I guess I will call Bushnell and see what they have to say.....Might be some good sales in the old Elite scope if anything has changed, these are excellent scopes for the money.............Hb

I agree with Hillbilly on the Elites. Here in leupold land it is not real often they get much positive attention but I've found them to be solid glass for the money. I've got several pre-64 Winchesters and one thing I particularly like about them is the occular has slightly less diameter than the standard Leupolds and allows me to use a little lower ring/base combo. Bolt clearance has been a bigger issue than bbl./obj clearance. Except for 2 to 2 1/2 ozs. more weight, I don't feel like I'm giving up anything using the Elites over my VX2s.
John

If any of them I've ever used/owned had useful or as advertised eye relief, I might have kept some of them. I've even measured under 2" of eye relief, on scopes they credit with over 3". Sure, decent glass and light weight, but between the eye box issues and Bushnell service, it's not worth it to just get some decent glass, that's matched or bettered elsewhere, in a useful platform.

My thinking, 4200's were a good bit better than 3200's.

Not sure if that persists with the 4500/3500 series, as I haven't handled either.

ER with the older series were a bit tight for big kickers, otherwise a lot of glass for the buck.

DF

I've got some from the Legend HD line. They're really good IMO. Only downside to the 4.5-14x44 (mil-dot) one I have is it's a bit heavy, but I didn't buy it for a hunting scope. A little more eye relief is all you get comparing it to my VX-1...and it's a touch sharper IMO. Both very good, really. It'll be interesting to look at the new Bushnell "X"500 lines.

I had the opportunity to compare a Limited Edition (China) with an Elite 4200 (Japan), both 3-9x40. The glass was about a wash, the Chinese version slightly longer and slightly heavier. It had parallax adjustment and I thought it was about as good as the 4200.

I'm wondering if the Limited Edition was a transitional series between the 3200/4200 and 3500/4500 series, or were the new scopes designed from the ground up?

DF













[img]http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f35/rush2830/BushnellElites007.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f35/rush2830/BushnellElites008.jpg[/img]

Dirt, great photos and comparison. Thanks.
I thought I read somewhere that while that version (LE) was made in China, the rest of the Elite series continues to be done in Japan. I have a 3200, 4200, and the more current one that just goes by Elite 3-9X40, all Japanese. I hope Chinese manufacturing is not going to be the case.
John

I've also got a LE Elite in 3-9x40. Very good glass IMO.

I'd like to see a comaprison between the 4200 and 4500. I've never been a 3200 fan, have handled some, don't own one. I have several 4200's and a 6500, all good stuff, IMO.

DF

Just checked on line. The 4500 is shorter than the older 4200 but still has a 6" tube for easy mounting. Looks like the ER is pretty short, as in 3.3" and the weight is 16 oz. I wish Bushnell could get their ER's longer.

In comparison, the VX-3 3.5-10x40, although no 4X power range like the Elite, has a 4.4" ER and weighs 12.6 oz. Now the Leupy costs more, but where ER and weight are important, it out classes the Elite by a good margin. The VX-3 has a 5.8" tube and will mount on a LA easily, especially with its long ER.

The Elite's ER is over an inch less than the VX-3 and it weighs 6.4 oz more. It's a good glass for the buck and I use my Elites on mild recoiling rifles.

DF

I get sick of hearing eye relief problems, if your shooting an ubber magnum yeah put on a different scope. with the elite 3x9x40's I have owned if your having a problem with eye relief you either have the scope mounted wrong or your holding the gun wrong. this applies to anything less than a 300 mag, although personally I wouldn't have an issue with a 300 mag and an elite. people forget the very distinct downside of eye relief and there is. simply by having the scope further from your eye the image seems smaller for one and for 2 eye placement is more critical the further out you are. when I switch out to say a leupold after using nightforce or an elite. it always feels like I need more scope power. if lots of eye relief was great a scout scope would be the way to go. lots of bushnell bashers out there and eye relief is the biggest complaint. nightforce has similar eye relief specs as bushnell does. noone knocks them for it. Nightforce IMO has the best optical formula of any scope I have used.

People do put them on big boomers.

Not me...

But, they seem to get by with it.

Why put a 3" ER scope on a .300 Mag and not use a 4" ER scope?

DF

I like Bushnell Elites and have several mounted on my rifles. I have a practice to make sure the scope stays at the end of the visor of my ball cap and then I don't have to worry about getting hit with the scope.

I taught my kids that way when they were young and learning to shoot. Seemed to work well for them as well. The Elite series are great scopes for the money.

Dan

The problem with Bushnell has never been the specs for eye relief. It's been meeting them. IME. 3" is fine. When you spec 3", but are under 2", across the mag range, Someone could have problems with even a .243. It's got beans to do with form, gun, ability, mount, etc. If it ain't enough, or even what it says it is, that's a problem. Maybe the latest stuff is totally different. I've got other stuff and ain't worried about it.

I've owned 6 Elites and not one of them had "2 inches of ER". All have been at least 3 and depending on the power setting, 3.5" of ER. Those are 2.5-10 x40 I'm referring to. The first thing I noticed different on the 4500 were the turrets which are taller and very easily finger adjustable. Can't remember if they had a zero reset feature. The " Limited" version is not an Elite, and it is, in fact made in China. I believe it is now a member of the Legend family.

I don't know what to tell you as I've no recent copy of a VX3 3.5-10 x 40, but about a year ago John Basness had two brand new samples of that scope and both had a measured ER of 3.3"-3.7" of ER. That means one of two things. Either both you guys are way wrong or Leupold's quality control is much worst than I ever thought.

I hadn't seen JB's report, was going by Leupold specs.

DF

I guess I should have said I think Leupold is generous with their ER claims. Heck, they don't even claim their 4x has 4.4" of ER.

RD,

Are the 4500 turrets pop up like the Legend? Check the photos I posted. I've not yet examined a 4500 and am currious.

DF

I just saw the 4500 for the first time at a LGS, and I don't think they are, but I don't recall trying to pull them up either. I just rmember I liked them a lot more than the older version on my 4200's cause they were taller. Not tall like a target turret, just tall enough to be easily turned and seeing the adjustment scale on the side instead of on top. Says on Bushnell's website that the new turrets are resettable to. That's a plus for certain.

A lot of guys are puzzies too and apparently get scope eye quite often. I've never had a problem with the B&L or bushnell Elite series ER... Same goes for the new Zeiss Terra line. Oh know, wait for the whiners and snivelers. SLM, Scotty (steelhead). Come on, I'm waiting....

If fairness, everyone has their own comfort measure for what they want or need for ER. Today, with all the lightweight rifles out there, more ER is probably needed unless you're getting then in mild recoiling rifles. I happen to like rifles that typically weigh around 7.5 pounds or slightly more in my rifles chambered for 280 Ackley and 30/06, so I really don't need 4 inches of ER. Last year I got banged by my 50 cal ML that was wearing a Leupold 1.75-6 scope and it hurt like hell. That scope was one of Leupold older "shorty" models that didn't have the rubber ring around the eye piece either. IIRC, Leupold stated that scope to have 3 3/4 th's inches of ER at 6X. I was shooting the rifle in warmer weather and w/o a hunting jacket which is why I probably never noticed the ER needed prior to that. That same day, I also got brushed by my 300 WM which is a 9 lb rifle all up. That day was one of the reasons I bought that Leica ER scope that has a solid 4" of ER across the power range. Problem solved, regardless of what I wear clothing wise to the range from that day on.

I've had a few eyebrow stitches in my 50+ year long career as a Loony.

Once you've been "bit", you tend to be more careful and more sensitive to ER on kicking guns.

My "Weatherby" eyebrow was from a hot loaded 45-70 Marlin and I had one of those Widefield Redfields mounted a bit too far back. I was shooting heavy bullets pretty fast (young and stupid) and it took several sutures to close the laceration.

I learned that a 300 gr. 45-70 bullet at around 1,850 fps kills'em just as dead and beats up the shooter a lot less...

DF

Funny and true. Head wounds don't stop bleeding very easily either even if they are small. That 50 cal Knight ML kicked harder than any rifle I've owned and it was heavy too. 3 pellets and a 250 or 300 gr Barnes MZ bullet was quick death on whitetails though and it was very accurate.

One after thought, on that new Bushnell, they are still using a reticle that is to fine for low light. Bushnell !!!!!!!! Bring back the Firefly......please !

Yep, a scalp laceration can bleed like a stuck hog...

They usually look worse than they are and can be scary, especially when it's you...

DF

Most often more eye relief equates to a friendlier eye box or easier target acquisition- however you want to phrase it.
Not much of a issue shooting paper or sniping varmints but important trying to pick up a critter you jump up close.
There is more to eye relief than not whacking your eye brow.

Dirtfarmer,
That is the velocity I did with cast 300 grainers in my .454 revolver.

My eyebrow busting load was a heap more powerful that the one I now use...

DF

Seems I remember reading that ER is extended at the expense of FOV, a function of optical engineering.

I recall Bushnell coming out with their 6500 1.25-8x32, a 30mm, 15.8 oz DG type scope. As I recall, Dom (writing frog) was very critical of this scope. Bushnell specs said 6" ER, some write ups used a 5" ER value. At 1.25X, the FOV is 60'. A VX-6 1-6 has a low power FOV of 116', even the VX-6 2-12 has a low power FOV of 57'.

1.25X isn't that far from 1X, but the comparitive FOV is almost half the VX-6. So, for the extra 1" (or 2") ER, they gave up a bunch of FOV, which is an important consideration in a DG type scope.

Apparently the 6500 1.25-8x32 was not that well received.

DF

Dirtfarmer,

I am delighted with the 42' field of view of my 6500 2 1/2-16X42.

Rich, that scope was on my top pics when I was looking for a new scope for my 300 WM. IMO, it's "fine duplex" knocked it out of the running and I went with the Leica ER which has a bolder reticle. Honestly, I would have been even happier if it had a slightly bolder reticle, but because of it's superb glass, it's reticle lasts just a little longer into darkness than if it had, say just very good glass like the Elite 6500 does. Because of the intended uses of that scope, it's reticle is probably designed correctly seeing how it goes up to 16X at the top end.

In the Gun Writers section, John Barsness just did an article that very topic that's referred to as the optical triangle. Basically what it means is there is a balance between ER, FOV and magnification. Some would think that the size of a scopes objective lens would have a bearing on FOV, but I don't believe it does as you can check the specs on Leupold's website and compare two similar scopes with one having a 40mm obj and the other a 50mm obj. Generally, as ER increases, FOV decreases and naturally as magnification increases, FOV shrinks as well.

The good news is that now scope makers are finding if they monkey around with the ocular assembly (size mostly) they can get around the standards once set by this optical triangle. You'll see many new scope are coming out with much larger ocular assemblies, which allows them to use larger lenses with different grind angles to get more ER while still getting good FOV figures. Unfortunately, these larger ocular assemblies create a new set of problems, the most of which is bolt lift clearance. I originally had a 30mm set of low rings for my Rem 700 300 WM, but the bolt clearance was to close to work properly when wearing hunting gloves. I went to Leupold's QR med height rings and now it is perfect, while still sitting low enough to get a great sight picture when you throw up the rifle to your shoulder.

That's my number one complaint...the field of view.

I got rid of a Vortex Viper 2-7 because to my eye it was like looking through a paper towel tube.

I just picked up a Bushnell Elite 2-7 and the view is better but not that large, round, edge to edge view I'm used to seeing in a low powered scope. Optics are great though.

I like mine, too.

I really like the 2.5X, which is great for off hand shooting. I killed a nice Pronghorn last August, Kiowa Grasslands/NM at 80 yds. It was the only shot I had and I nailed him.

Here it is on an HS SPL, .240 in a Hunters Edge.

DF

Now THAT is one frickin sweet rig. Always liked those HS actions and their barrels are excellent too. It that a CeraKote finish or Black-T ?

In all my years of shooting I got scope bite once. Because I was a micheavous teenager and with some buddies showing off my gun actually aimed out my bedroom window, we lived in the country. Anyways I didnt know that much about shooting hp rifles then and was holding the gun wrong. All this whining about er learn to correctly setup your gun and shoot it right

I've never been overly concerned with FOV in my rifle scopes. I can't tell you what any of mine are to this day. I kind of put that scope characteristic in the same category as edge sharpness and color rendition.....really a non issue with me.

Since maybe 10% of my total rifle shooting occurs at the bench, I do value eye relief, as sometimes us hunters find ourselves in peculiar shooting positions.

Seems HS puts one finish on the exterior, another in the action. I'll have to research it, don't remember the specifics.

They do make their barrels in house, cut rifling as I understand. HS barrels look very good thru the Hawkeye borescope, not too unlike Brux, Krieger, etc. And they shoot about as well. I understand they also make pressure testing barrels for bullet and powder companies.

HS even builds their own trigger in house. It's all steel and has cut outs so everything is in the open and can be seen. Sorta the best of both worlds, a Remington type trigger, but with parts exposed, like the old M-70.

I researched the .240 thoroughly, ran a bunch of load combos thru this gun until I found the "sweet" load, which is a 100 gr. NPT over MRP with 210 Fed. That load is sub half inch at 400 yds., using brass made from .25-06 W/W cases with a special CH4D die.

That process was covered on an earlier Fire post. I'll find the link if you're interested.

DF

JG, you been using that VX-6 2-12x42 so long you don't remember what a bad scope looks like...

DF

Haha! You got me there DF.......spoiled me pretty good I'll admit, about like you and those badassss rifle/scope combos you've got!

I think it looks great on that rifle. As I remember HS is one of the only, if not the only, who makes their action completely from SS. I'm thinking 17-4 or 15-5 (which means nothing to me) and a 416 bolt body. Apparently he is the only guy who knows how to get around the dredged "galling" issue that all the other custom makers say you can't get around it using all stainless in an action. Guess he must be a metallurgical genius. IIRC I think he uses a "guide grove" on one of the bolt lugs. I guess Dirtfarmer can tell us whether or not the action is smooth or not. I'm sure the coating helps with the galling issue too. I think at one time you used to be able to buy the actions separately, but I'm not sure if you still can.

It's very smooth, RD.

DF

Somehow, I'm still sitting I my seat and wasn't blown away. I can't say I'm thrilled with the HS stocks as my personal favorites are McMillan's, especially the Mountain Rifle pattern that I had McMillan custom fit to my Hart barreled 30/06 back when McMillan had the time to do unusual requests instead of what they do today do to their workload.

NICE!

Trim and slick.

The HS SPL (stands for sporter/light) wasn't that light. The HS stock, while bull stout was a heavy club at 42 oz, thick thru the grip. The 26 oz McM Hunters Edge really transformed that rifle. I got it unpainted, did the glass bedding, even filled in the bolt handle slot. They had it bigger than I desired, so I glassed it in and cut a new bolt handle slot. I then sent it back to McM to be painted brown with black specks. I'm pleased with the finished product.

DF

I don't buy scopes often enough to have thought about eye-relief differences between brands and so when I bought my .300 Magnum 3 years ago, I put an Elite 3-9x40 on it. I've dinged my forehead maybe a dozen times since, although I've just about got myself trained not to do it anymore.

When it comes to scopes, I'm a "price point" shopper. Bushnell occupies a sweet spot between the Tasco, Simmons, and Burris lines on the low side and Nikon on the high side that is just right for me.

In spite of what I said above about not buying scopes often, I did buy an Elite 4-16x40 about 2 months ago, and liked it well enough to buy another just last week.

Getting head whacked by a scope a dozen times could become a scenario for developing a flinch.

Your brain reacts in anticipation of a very possible painful stimulus.

I'd put that scope on a light recoiling rifle and mount a longer ER scope on the .300 mag.

DF

It hasn't though. I concentrate 100% on sight picture until the rifle fires. About half of those were on game shots even though most of my rounds are fired on the range -- usually when I am too excited to remember to pull the buttstock firmly into my shoulder.

But, what would be a 3x9 with good eye-relief that doesn't cost more than $350?

A used Leupold would have a longer ER.

The new VX-2 is a great scope, isn't that far behind the VX-3. A 3-9 should be pretty close to your budget. For me, I'd add the CDS.

DF

So, I guess what you are saying is that are no NEW 3-9x40 scopes of at least Bushnell quality with greater eye-relief for $350 or less.

Yes, the VX-2 3-9x40 is being sold at Cabelas as we speak for $299. I'd shop around if I was looking for one.

I mounted one on a light, hard kicking .300 WM for a friend and he's tickled pink, loves it.

To me, the VX-2 glass in in the same class with 4200 Bushnells. I haven't handled the 4500 series. I never liked 3200's.

DF

Back to Bushnells, I thought the numeric designations had to do with the power. So a 3200 was the same quality as a 4200, just available in different power ranges. Is that not correct?

I will check out the VX-2s, thanks for the tip on that.

For example, if you look at the Bushnell website, it lists:

3500 - 2-6x32, 2-7x32, 3-9x40, 3-9x50, 4-12x40

4500 - 2.5-10x40, 2.5-10x50, 4-16x40, 6-24x40, 3-32x40

6500 - 2.5-16x42, 2.5-16x50, 4.5-30x50

But they all appear to have the same quality-related features.

Consider this:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...opta_MeoPro_3.5-10x44_Rifles#Post9746802

That's a good deal.

One of the best deals I've seen was $350 3-9x40 Conquests when they were closing them out. My bud and I bought two and got free shipping, as the order was over $500. And no sales tax.

DF

Well basically yes. The 3200/3500 have a 3x zoom range (3-9, 4-12 etc), the 4200/4500 have a 4x zoom range (2.5-10, 4-16 etc) and the 6500 have a 6.5 times zoom range. There is a difference in the glass quality even though they list all of them as having FMC (Fully Multi Coated), UWB coatings (ultra wide band coatings) which in this case Bushnell claims to have improved or widened the "visible color spectrum" the human eye can see, all lines are now Argon gas charged vs nitrogen charged and they all have the improved version of Rainguard HD that is more durable and repells water and fog better too. So where is the improvement then ? Light transmission. The 3500 claims to have a 91% level of light transmission and the 4500 and 6500 have, I believe, 95% light transmission. You have to remember that there are tons of grades of glass used today, the amount of polishing each lens gets varies greatly and the number of coatings each lens gets after all the grinding and polishing is done also varies quite a bit. Some of the high end euro glass, for example, can get as much as 60 layers of coatings and all this translates into time and final performance of the scope, bino or spotter. Obviously all this translates into final cost as well.

All right, RDFinn! Thanks for all that information.

Note the absence of the 6500 1.25-8x32 previously discussed.

DF

I've had two Bushies, a 3200 3-9 and a 4200 1.5-6.

The 3200 was okay, but the eyebox seemed a little tight, making it a bit harder to use in the woods. I liked the 4200 very much, even though it was pretty big. Wish I still had it.

One problem for me with Bushnell has been the styling. They just don't quite look as simple and classic as the Leupold. That applies to a lot of Euro-glass as well. At least it appears that they've dumped the little gold stars.

I've never had a problem with a Bushnell scope, so I can't comment on their service department in that respect, but I had major trouble with them with a red dot. Turn-around time was pretty slow, considering all they did was replace the POS with another POS that was DOA (twice). Finally, they sent me a scope in exchange, which has been fine.

Regarding the 6500 2.5-16x40, it tends to run out of light on higher power at twilight. The solution is to crank the power down a bit and then it's OK. The eyebox can get a bit tight at max power.

I don't like 50mm objectives in general, but with the 2.5-16, 50mm may be preferable to 40mm. I haven't compared the two, just thinking 50mm may perform better in dim light.

DF

I've got a 3200 on my Steyr 300 WM and never had the slightest problem with ER. Killed lots of game and carried it on rugged elk hunts etc. The 3200 has held up well and I've never started a new season having to shoot more than one shot to sight it in. It has always held its zero. Matter of fact, I wish I had more of them.

I like all my bushnell elites but I like the 4x16x40 4200 the best for deer hunting. the 2.5x on the 6500 sure is nice in deer dog running counties in va. lower power sure helps when they are moving.

I have a few
2- 4200 4x16x40AO
1-elite 4x16x40AO SAME AS 4200
1- 6500 2.5x16x42SF
1 - 4200 6x24x40AO
1- B&L 6X24X40AO SAME AS BUSHNELL 4200
1-3x9x50 elite

all have rainguard.here are a few of mine