Bushnell elite tactical 6-24×50 g2dmr FFP .. opinions guys?

Forums Optics, Scopes, Rings, & Mounts Bushnell elite tactical 6-24×50 g2dmr FFP .. opinions guys?

  • Views : 2518
  • Link

    RichardUK
    Participant
    Member

    “Cookie”“Also don’t forget it’s generally called parallax not focus, so blur is not the issue. Bad parallax means just because the cross hairs are where you want them, the rifle may not be pointing at the right place – that’s a miss. Good parallax means the cross hairs are pointing at the same place the rifle is pointing – that’s a hit.”

    Incorrect. It is called focus, with the error in focussing being called parallax.

     

    I beg to differ.

    You’ll notice that the following high end scope manufacturers don’t call it the focusing ring, they call it parallax adjustment. That’s because the main thing the shooter is after when twiddling the dial is to correct for parallax. Like you say blur won’t make you miss, but parallax error could and I think you will agree that having a blurred picture ain’t so bad, but missing is a different matter.

    http://www.schmidtundbender.de/en/products/police-and-military-forces/5-25×56-pm-iilp.html

    http://www.zeiss.co.uk/sports-optics/en_gb/hunting/riflescopes/victory-riflescopes/victory-v8-riflescopes.html#models

    http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/razor-hd-gen-2-45-27×56-riflescope-with-ebr-1c-mrad-reticle

    ​Quite often it’s called a focusing ring because that is what you are doing – focusing, but what you’re really after is getting rid of that pesky parallax error that could make you miss your shot. That said when you twiddle the dial you are adjusting focus and you are adjusting parallax, so you could call it either.

    Of coarse, the other thing you can do to avoid parallax error, is to make sure your eye is lined up centrally with the scope. But that’s sometimes easier said than done. Easier just to have sufficient parallax adjustment range.

     

    Link

    Michael
    Keymaster
    Keymaster

    Does anyone have a picture of that reticle? The one on SWFA’s site isn’t very clear.

    http://swfa.com/Bushnell-6-24×50-Elite-Tactical-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P51670.aspx

    Link

    SPDRCER
    Participant
    Member

    Here you go Mike.

    Link

    pheelgood
    Participant
    Member

    Sexy.. to bad it’s out of my price range.. holy moly

    Link

    Michael
    Keymaster
    Keymaster

    “SPDRCER”Here you go Mike.

    
Thats nice, but why did they make the holdover hashmarks like a x-mas tree instead of like a grid? Seems less useful for small holdover with heavy winds.

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    @pheelgood … we always find the money for our passion, even when we don’t have it ^^ look !! I’m a student and soon, I’ll be a happy broken student lol

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    http://swfa.com/Bushnell-45-30×50-Elite-Tactical-34mm-Rifle-Scope-P79371.aspx
    @michael you have the grid style on this one, but it ain’t the same price ^^

    Link

    RichardUK
    Participant
    Member

    Well getting back to the scope. It certainly does look like it has all you would want for both the hold-off and the doping style of shooting. Illuminated rectical would be nice though. I don’t understand why these guys don’t quote the parallax/focus range, but assuming it has a sufficient range of adjustment, I’d certainly consider it. Maybe worth spinning off an email to their tech support people to make sure about the focus range, but other than that it should be added to the list of contenders. 

    Here’s a couple of YouTube reviews of a similar model scope (which has an illuminated rectical parallax 25yrds to infinity)

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member

    Yep thanks @richarduk =) that’s excatly what I was gonna ask: all in all would you recommend the scope =] 
    Thanks for your predictive answer ^^ 

    Link

    Cookie
    Participant
    Member

    RichardUk

    I have watched part of your referenced video.

    1.12-1.20 refers to parallax being a condition created by object image not in focus with reticle.
    4.00 to 4.04 refers to changing the focal distance by changing the side focus.
    4.10-4.14 Refers to non-adjustable front/side focus.
    6.43-6.48 Tom Grehsam corrects himself, approved of by the Leupold guy, to call it adjustable objective rather than parallax adjustment.

    S&B webpage refers to “Parallax compensation may be adjusted…” 
    Zeiss page refers to “parallax compensation”
    Vortex’s product manual states “Parallax Correction”

    You can call adjustable focussing devices “parallax adjustable device” if you want, but it is wrong because focussing is the key element and comes first….and parallax arises when there is an error in that focussing. Try forgetting the word parallax and replace it with the word “error”, which is what parallax is, and think to yourself would I want an error ADJUSTING device on a  scope? I suggest not, as what anyone would want is an error REMOVAL device on a scope. The focussing adjustment, objective or side, is that error REMOVAL device.

    I point out that your previous reference to “bad” and “good” parallax does not make sense. A contradiction in terms. Parallax is an effect, an error, and therefore there cannot be anything good about it…..it is all “bad”; if you choose to use that term.

    Also, you can have a situation whereby blur can exist in the scope but because the reticle, albeit probably unknown to the shooter, is correctly lined up with the target there is no parallax; therefore your reference to “blur equals parallax error” is a mistake.

    Link

    james.dean
    Participant
    Member


    At approx 2+ minutes, he talks about the minimum range for focus (and it’s written on the wheel) –> 25 yards =]

    Link

    RichardUK
    Participant
    Member

    “james.dean”Yep thanks @richarduk =) that’s excatly what I was gonna ask: all in all would you recommend the scope =] 
    Thanks for your predictive answer ^^ 

    
For me personally I’d want the scope to parallax/focus down to 10yrds. Other than that the scope has it all (though I’d go for the version with the illuminated recticle shown in the YouTube videos). Certainly you want a reticle with windage markings just so you can dope or hold-off as circumstances dictate.

    Link

    RichardUK
    Participant
    Member

    “Cookie”RichardUk

    I have watched part of your referenced video.

    1.12-1.20 refers to parallax being a condition created by object image not in focus with reticle.
    4.00 to 4.04 refers to changing the focal distance by changing the side focus.
    4.10-4.14 Refers to non-adjustable front/side focus.
    6.43-6.48 Tom Grehsam corrects himself, approved of by the Leupold guy, to call it adjustable objective rather than parallax adjustment.

    S&B webpage refers to “Parallax compensation may be adjusted…” 
    Zeiss page refers to “parallax compensation”
    Vortex’s product manual states “Parallax Correction”

    You can call adjustable focussing devices “parallax adjustable device” if you want, but it is wrong because focussing is the key element and comes first….and parallax arises when there is an error in that focussing. Try forgetting the word parallax and replace it with the word “error”, which is what parallax is, and think to yourself would I want an error ADJUSTING device on a  scope? I suggest not, as what anyone would want is an error REMOVAL device on a scope. The focussing adjustment, objective or side, is that error REMOVAL device.

    I point out that your previous reference to “bad” and “good” parallax does not make sense. A contradiction in terms. Parallax is an effect, an error, and therefore there cannot be anything good about it…..it is all “bad”; if you choose to use that term.

    Also, you can have a situation whereby blur can exist in the scope but because the reticle, albeit probably unknown to the shooter, is correctly lined up with the target there is no parallax; therefore your reference to “blur equals parallax error” is a mistake.

    
Hi Cookie

    Lets just say that when you twiddle that dial, you are changing focus and you’re simultaneously changing the parallax. That’s why some companies call it the parallax dial and others the focus dial. Really both names are valid. When I twiddle that dial, what I’m looking to do is correct for parallax error, so I call it the parallax dial. But from time to time I also call it the focus dial. Neither is wrong.

    Link

    RichardUK
    Participant
    Member

    “james.dean”
    At approx 2+ minutes, he talks about the minimum range for focus (and it’s written on the wheel) –> 25 yards =]

    
I believe he said “has a parallax knob”. But like I say, said knob also changes focus.

    Perhaps as this sub-topic is raising so much interest, someone should start a new thread called ‘Focus dial or Parallax dial?’. I’d be interested to see how it turned out, but I for my part have said as much on this topic as I care to.

    Link

    Nathan
    Participant
    Member

    Both of my Sightron scopes (Sii Big Sky 4-16×42 and  Siii 3.5-10×44 ) have 10yd parallax and actually focus as close as 12 feet. The eyebox on Siii 3.5-10 will ruin you for most other scopes.

    Link

    Cookie
    Participant
    Member

    RichardUk, I note that you’ve refrained from dealing with my points yet have changed your position. Please substantiate your assertion that there are companies who call it a “parallax dial”. I’d be interested to see such.

    For those beginners who’ve recently come to shooting and who’ve found this thread, as a basis to learn the simple basis behind the subject, I suggest they read my last post or carefully read the descriptions on the actual websites of any major manufacturer/brand.

    MOD EDIT: Nobody has to substantiate anything for anyone. Let’s move on.

    Link

    RichardUK
    Participant
    Member

    “james.dean”Yep thanks @richarduk =) that’s excatly what I was gonna ask: all in all would you recommend the scope =] 
    Thanks for your predictive answer ^^ 

    
I’ve now created a thread called ‘Ideal rifle scope competition – Scope with highest score wins’. It lists scope features with points allocated for each feature. The idea is that if you are thinking of buying a scope, you can go to that thread, calculate the score of your chosen scope and see how it compares with the score of the other scopes. Maximum score is 42. By way of example I’ve put in a couple of scopes, one the Hawke Sidewinder 30 (gets a score of 30) and a Schmidt & Bender scope (gets a score of 35).

    Link

    hunterroark
    Participant
    Member

    May I suggest you try an Aeon Scope. Budget priced and very effective. http://aeonscopes.com/
    I have several 8-32 x 50. mill dot rect.   Hunter $300.00 USD
     

Viewing 18 posts - 21 through 38 (of 38 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.