Bushnell 6500 VS Weaver Tactical
Correction: I said twice in this writing the Weaver "Signature" series. Signature is a Burris line of optics. Weaver scopes compariable to the scope in this writing is the "Grand Slam" series. I have just now corrected the mistake.
I would like to start by saying I am by NO means an expert in anything. I'm just a guy who likes to shoot using good glass. And I wanted to share my impression between these two scopes.
Bushnell 6500 VS Weaver Tactical 1st impression
Well, The Bushnell 2.5X16X50mm 6500 arrive yesterday. On first look it is a nice little (realtively speaking) scope. Just over 13" long and 20 oz. It feels lighter than the specs suggest but I did not weigh it. As usual from the high end Bushnell line the optics are bright and clear. When I got to work this morning I compared the two in the title.
Weaver 4.5X14X44mm Tactical scope. 1st plane mil-dot reticle According to Weaver it is compareable to the "Grand Slam" line of optics.
Condition:1-1\2 years old and has been in the field about 4-5 times in windy, dusty and one time drissily conditions
Bushnell 2.5X16X50mm 6500 side focus. Mil-dot reticle set at 10x According to Bushnell, the same optics as the 4200 line but with a 30mm main tube.
condition: brand new yesterday first time out of the box.
Holding in my hand were how I got my 1st impressions.
The Weaver is about an inch longer but a wee bit lighter. And both feel well balanced and of very good construction. Very solid feel to them. Either can easily be use as a club if one needed to defend themself.
The Weaver was very smooth, no grit or sticky feeling as I adjusted from high to low power settings.
And enough resistant to let you know it will not drift one way or the other thoughout your hunt or target shootings but will adjust when you want it without moving the rifle.
The Bushnell on the other hand felt slightly gritty and stiff. I was surprised since it is their new flagship model and brand new out of the box. But that has been my experience another Bushnell product Elite 3200 5-15X40mm.
But not the same as the 5-15 Legend. Go figure?!
AO adjustment: Since, for the most part, the markings on AO adjustments are estimates I did not check the ranging ability or either . For precision range finding I use a Nikon Prostaff 550. I know the purest will cringe but hey spend the $1100 one a couple scopes and do your own comparison
The Weaver AO was consistant with the power adjustment. Very smooth but enough resistance for confidence.
The Bushnell's side focus was also very smooth but enough resistance to hold in place while performing field and/or target work.
Only slightly better was the Bushnell. Which was the big surprise. After reading so much about how the high end Bushnell scopes were so great I expected it to be a one look noticeable difference. The objects viewed were from far away spotting scope ranges to 100 yards.
I went back and forth several times viewing different objects in different shaded areas from AND the Bushnell has a 50mm objective lense compared to the 44mm of the Weaver.
User friendly: Bushnell for the excellent side focus
Optics: Bushnell by a very slim margin
Adjustment feel: Weaver was the clear winner.
Fit and finish: tie
My personnal feeling: I like fit. I like function. I like smooth and precise controls. I very much like the feel of the Weaver. At this point in time, Even if price were not the issue, I would buy a Weaver Grand Slam scope before the Bushnell. And a sponser of this forum (which I have NO affiliation with) has great prices on the Grand Slam line.
The next test will be field work (ground squirrels) which is scheduled for the end of June.
Last edited by MK9; June 12, 2008 at 03:50 PM.