Elite 6500 4.5-30, is it good?

[jtoews110]

I'm slowly building a 264. It's chambered in 264 Pacnor, just a tight chambered 264 win, 31 inch med plama 1-8.5 twist poly rifled barrel, onto a savage 111 small shank. that is it so far.

I need to know if the Bushnell 6500's would work well. recoil won't be bad with that heavy barrel, and even a 20 MOA base with this scope should be lots. My question is, with the 20 moa base will I be able to zero @ 300 yds and how well do the turrents on the 6500 trakc and function??

Also, anybody have any experiance with the Bell & Carlson stocks for a savage. how did the magazine function?? were you able to keep the clip?

Just a few questions. Be finishing it with duracoat in an artic camo pattern for a coyote/LR whitetail deer rig.

Jason.

 

[geargrinder]

Yes, the 6500 is good. I've shot mine on my Savage 112 in 300win and my Rem 700 in 338 RUM. No problems yet with the recoil. The glass is good and clear, even on 30x. Tracks very well. I was mounting it on both rifles with 25moa rails and was able to zero about an inch high at 100 yards.

Which B&C stock? I've heard good things about the medalist line. Since I'm a lefty the B&C's were not an option for me. I use a Stockade Tactical/Pdog Special. It is basically an A5 type clone with a full aluminum skeleton. It was only $200 unfinished. Mine is blind mag.

 

[ScottBerish]

These are a decent choice. Being new, there isn't a whole lot of field data on them, but high end Bushnells are always a safe bet, low end ones are usually a bad bet.

Scott

 

[6.5x300]

I've read conflicting reports reguarding total internal elevation adjustment on the 4.5-30. Somthing like 50 MOA total, 25 up and 25 down if mounted on flat base. Can anyone verify? Would like to here more about scope though from someone who has one. Otherwise it looks like a great scope. Now if they would just make one with target turets and more MOA adjustment. Why is it that it only has 50 MOA adjustment? I think their 2.5-16 model has more, can anyone explain this?

Thanks

Good shooting

 

[gyesko]

I have the 6500 and use it for longrange mounted on eavy magnum no problems so far and am satisfied with quality and function.

 

[Wabird]

6.5x300, yes the win/elev. adjustments are a total of 50moa. On mine (4.5-30), windage was exactly 98 clicks in each direction.
Elevation was not so consistant: 98 clicks up, 123 clicks down.
Clicks are precise to read and feel
Glass is excellent, though at 30x the image is somewhat dim due to the exit pupil.
Magnification ring is smooth.
Mil-dot is true at 10x.

 

[edge]

Bushnell claims 80 MOA elevation and windage.

edge.

http://www.bushnell.com/general/riflescopes_elite6500_65-4305md.cfm

 

[geargrinder]

Bushnell claims 80 MOA elevation and windage.

edge.

Bushnell Outdoor Products

Nope, it is a bit deceiving. Look up in the data boxes. 50" of adjustment @ 100 yards.

In the description I believe they are referring to the 2.5-16's. They are the ones with 80 MOA.

My 4.5-30 has 52.5 MOA of adjustmen for elevation and windage.

 

[Iron Worker]

I have both a elite 4200 and 6500

I've compared my 4x16x40MM elite 4200 to my 2.5x16x50MM elite 6500 side by side. I think the glass in the 4200 is slightly better? I could see the bullet holes at 100 better then the 6500.

 

[edge]

geargrinder, you're right that it a bit deceiving!

I had a friend that had problems with the 2.5-16x elite 6500.

At 16x they were not clear at all. I had been thinking about the 4.5-30x but he kind of scared me away. I'll wait to hear more good things before I jump in.

edge.

 

[ScottBerish]

geargrinder, you're right that it a bit deceiving!

I had a friend that had problems with the 2.5-16x elite 6500.

At 16x they were not clear at all. I had been thinking about the 4.5-30x but he kind of scared me away. I'll wait to hear more good things before I jump in.

edge.

Guys,

I've posted this before. Where Bushnell compromised on the 6500 was the optics.

Once you learn to trust my judgement, it'll all be good. I do this as my profession. With your satisfaction as the underlying mission.

Scott

 

[WildcatB]

Guys,

I've posted this before. Where Bushnell compromised on the 6500 was the optics.

Once you learn to trust my judgement, it'll all be good. I do this as my profession. With your satisfaction as the underlying mission.

Scott

Just because the resolution is lower doesn't necessarily mean they compromised on optics. A general rule in optics is when you increase the zoom range the resolution decreases. Bushnell's 6500 Elite's have the largest zoom range on the market. They are just bound by optical properties. Optics makers are getting better at closing this quality gab but it will always exist to some extent.

Look at photography lenses who resolution is objectively measured. Here's a link to a site compares different camera lenses. Look for the MTF data: Photodo - Photographic lens specifications, guides, discussion and reviews

 

[ScottBerish]

Well, IOR has a 6x zoom range and their optics are pretty darn good, and the 7x zoom range 4-28x56 suffers none of the optical shortcomings that the you mention wwhen compared to the 4x siblings.

I am not a scientific optical expert, but I do have the ability to tell good glass from great. Even if bushnell did not change the optics, from the 4200, the limitations that you mention results in a compromise in the optics to the enduser.

However, I beleive they did not use the 4200 glass. Why? Because they don't say so in any literature on the scopes. Would they not boast, "the brightest scope in the world, AND the widest zoom range??"

Thanks for the link, you can't ever learn too much.

Scott

 

[edge]

Guys,

I've posted this before. Where Bushnell compromised on the 6500 was the optics.

SNIP

Scott

Do you have a link to your previous comments regarding Bushnell?
Do you find the glass inferior to the 3200 and 4200 line, or the mechanical system, or is it just that the 6.5x is just too much and results in a dark view?

Thanks for the input.

edge.