Bushnell Elite 6500 (weight) vs. Nightforce 4-16 F!

[MadCowRacer]

I recently got a 6.5CM AR10 and need to put some glass on it. I will be using it mostly for paper punching, but will haul it out hunting as I do all my rifles. I'm planning on using this gun for medium to long distance hunting and shooting (700yrds hunting and 1000 shooting) That being said weight is a concern. The gun is a hefty 10lbs without glass which is where he dilemma comes in.

After reading a boat load of opinions on here the Bushnell elite gets good marks for bang for the buck. It has a wider range of magnification 2.5-16 which would be handy for hunting. The real draw to it is that it weighs 21oz. The downside is that it is 2nd plane focal so it makes the mildot recticle more difficult to use through the magnification range. I also don't have any real world experience with the glass.

The SHV (C556)is 4-14 magnification. 30oz. I have an NXS and have shot with my brothers SHV so I'm comfortable with the glass quality for a long range gun. The extra half pound doesn't seem like it should matter given the weight I'm already at. But I've never had an animal wait for me to get a bipod set up or get into a better shooting position which is where every extra ounce makes me nervous.

Price doesn't matter and my real thought is will the Bushnell satisfy me for clarity at long range. Or is it durable enough (there DMR version weighs much more than their standard Elite). I've been leery of buying Bushnell being underwhelmed with some midgrade rangefinders, and binoculars I've owned or used.

 

[Engineering101]

Mad

I've got two Elite 6500s. Both in 4.5 to 30X. One is on my 338 RUM and the other my 300 RUM. I like that zoom range for hunting. Glass quality is not as good as a Leupold or Nightforce but is acceptable since the scopes don't get fuzzy on 30 power. I have 600 rounds down the tube of that 338 and maybe half that with the 300 RUM and both scopes keep on ticking. That is kind of surprising since they are light and relatively compact scopes. I like the covered turrets that popup to zero but wish it was a true MOA scope. I don't think I would put an NXS on in place of the Bushnells as the zoom range, weight and covered turrets are more important to me than what you gain with a Nightforce. Of course if either one of them ever crapped out I'd be changing my tune but 900 ultramag rounds is a pretty good test is it not? I've also got a Leupold VX-6 and Vortex Viper HS and PSTs. I rate the VX-6 above the Bushnells but they have a lot in common being compact, light and with covered turrets. The glass is significantly better in the VX-6 but as I said I can live with the glass in the Bushnells. I have an inkling that it may not be good enough for you. Check them out and take a look at the 3-18 VX-6. Good luck whatever you decide.

 

[Rich Coyle]

MadCowRacer,

I have a 4 1/2-30X50. So far I have yet to encounter a scope at the range as clear as this one. That would include Swarovski. It is crystal clear throughout its magnification range. Also I bought at least two and maybe three of the 6500 2 1/2-16X. All are gone. The glass is not as good as it's big brother.

Now some more info. The glass is not as good as a VX-6 4-24X52 or Nightforce 12-42X56. It is lighter than either of these by an ounces in the VX-6 and ten ounces in the case of the Nightforce.

Also if you must have a 1FP Bushnell makes a 3 1/2-21X. I have no experience with it.

As far as the 2FP. A range finder is considerably more accurate at range judging than a 1FP scope.

 

[B-P-UU]

I would opt for the Bushnell LRHS in either 3-12 or 4.5-18 before getting a 6500. the LRHS is about the same street price as the SHV F1.

 

[MadCowRacer]

Interesting options and thanks. The bushnell LRHS is an option I didn't look and but interested in. I have a VX-7 sitting around I may throw on to see if I like it compared to the VX-6 (would like a different Reticle).