Moderators: Canuck
Bushnell 1-8 x 24
one of us
Just looking for opnions...AR version for use on a hunting rifle
Posts: 2598 | Location: Phone: (253) 535-0066 / (253) 230-5599, Address: PO Box 822 Spanaway WA 98387 | | Registered: 16 April 2013Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Bushnell use to be good. Recent experiences with both the product and their "customer support" makes me run when Bushnell is mentioned--got rid of ALL Bushnell stuff.
Posts: 3258 | Location: san angelo tx | Registered: 18 November 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Well...I was looking at the offerings for a 1-8. Number of Chiense, but I wsouldn't knowlingly buy a pair of pliers from China.

Soo...The Leupold...gotta be kidding almost 4K...No axe to grind, but the bean counters must think that High price MUST mean a superior product.

Both Zeiss and Swarovski are about a grand less..No brainer! But not for the application.

This is for my own Mini 14 I'll use Alaska Arms QD rings.

The 1-8 is made in S. Korea. Koreans are kinda kicking butt in the appliance and cell phone field, not to mention the autos from Korea

Dunno, might just take a $300.00 gamble and see where it leads. Thanks for a heads up!
Posts: 2598 | Location: Phone: (253) 535-0066 / (253) 230-5599, Address: PO Box 822 Spanaway WA 98387 | | Registered: 16 April 2013Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of sambarman338
posted Hide Post
I don't know the particular scope, at all, Duane, but use the general rule of thumb with variables that less is more.

As you may have noticed, I don't like scopes with constantly centred reticles (bar, maybe, the old Pecar Champion fixed powers) but, since there's nothing much else new now, you have to take what you can.

The problem is that the whole erector set, power scroll and reticle is usually contained within the articulated erector tube, hinged at the back somehow, with the front end suspended on spring(s). In tbe case of variables, the power scroll etc should be made of brass because any lubrication would eventually smudge the lenses. This all adds mass to be thrown around under recoil. For many decades it seemed any power multiple beyond 3x was rare and even the post-war German 1.5-6x scopes seemed miraculous.

I don't know how Bushnell manage that 8x multiple but bet it involves more weight and complication. So, apart from the Swarovski Z5 and Z6 ranges with their helical erector springs, I wouldn't trust anything with more than a 3x or 4x multiple.
Posts: 4263 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I agree with Sambar that a variable magnification optical instrument with a wide range of magnification is going to have some unavoidable and inherent challenges. First, the eye relief and optimal eye distance will have to change significantly over that range, or else the field of view will be greatly compromised. Keeping the focus intact over the full range is also a challenge which can theoretically be overcome, but mechanically it is iffy.

Even the old "standard" of a 3X range is actually exaggerated: The actual magnification of most 3-9X Variables is about 3.3X to 8.6X, or more like 2.5 times than 3 times. So my guess is that the "1-8X" instrument is probably more like 1.5-7.1X or something in that range -- which is still a big stretch for an optical instrument to perform within the parameters expected of a riflescope.

I can make no comment on the quality of the Bushnell or any other of the "wide range" variables, but, like much of the advertising hype, Christmas tree reticles, dial-a-deer adjustments, and "newly discovered superior lens coatings", I regard the wide-range variables as more of a marketing gimmick than an actual advancement in optical gun sights.
Posts: 12794 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  

Copyright December 1997-2021

Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia