NightForce vs Bushnell 6500

[Rich]

.com friends,

The fellow at work finally compared my two scopes. The NightForce is a 12-42X56. The Bushnell is a 4 1/2-30X50 6500 model. Saturday was clear and bright here near Grants Pass, OR.

He said he ranged a pine cone 600 yards from the porch. He placed the scopes on the porch ledge for stillness. The Bushnell was much easier for him to see through. I told him about "eye box". He concluded the Bushnell had a much better eye box. (I noticed the same thing when I compared all my scopes. The Bushnell was the easiest to get a full field of vies.) To him there was no noticable difference between the two at that range.

He then switched to about 3/4 of a mile out in the open country instead of the trees. He said here it seemed the NightForce had the slightest edge in clearness; almost not noticable. Even though the temp was no more than 65 degrees, he did noticed he could make out the "heat wages" easier with the NightForce.


I asked him if he compared them with his 12X50 Nikon binocs. He said they were about the same except in the 3/4 mile test. Unequivically stated the 12X50 Nikons were brighter than either of the rifle scopes. Maybe 50 MM per eye helps.

He liked the Bushnell for a hunting rifle and said it was definately more practical. But said if he had a long range target or varmint rifle he would choose the NightForce. He liked them so much he forgot to bring them back today. Can I have a word of pray from a believer or two?

[LeeInSC]

All other things being equal, at the same power, the optics with the larger lenses will be more clear, because the same area viewed is being view through more area, which means better resolution.

A fixed scope will be more clear, because it has less lenses to interfere with light transmission.

The way I compare scopes is to get them rock steady and view the same optical resolution test charts to see what I can read and lines I can distinguish. Zeiss makes these, and there are standard ones used by the Air Force to test optics (going back to the WWII days of photographic recon missions). You can do the same with an eye chart, or a magazine page that has different sizes of type on it.

At long range, look at things like hog wire and chain link fence.

Next, look into the shadows at 400 yards or more, on a sunny day, across an open field, into the woods.

Lastly, go back to the test targets you viewed in good light, and check them as the light fades.

For example, in bright light, my Burris Fullfield II and my Bushnell Target 40mm scopes were as sharp as my 3-9x40mm Zeiss Conquest, 3-9x36 Zeiss Diavari, and my 3-9x36mm Swarovski Habicht Nova. But the Diavari and the Nova could distinguish colors better deep into the shadows, and they could resolve images right up to dark, after the Burris and Bushnell no longer could.

At 6x, my Zeiss 6x42mm was more clear, brighter, in all light, than any of the variables at 6x.

[Greybeard]

I switched to fixed 6x42s several years ago and never have looked back. Brighter, lighter, simpler, and less things to go wrong. Greybeard/

[Rich]

LeeInSC,

After reading your post and the others, I clicked off and started typing something for my brother. While I was typing a thought occured. Comparing optics the way you describe, and I have done, definately tells us what is best. But, for the guy who wants something that is beter than average, and still not going to break the bank, comparing optics at 500 - 600 yards in the woods looking at a pine cone or pine needles at 200 yards shows that a lesser dollar can be spent and still have very nice stuff.

When I compared my Bushnell 4 1/2-30X50 with my 13X56 Minox at a snag about a mile away, with both on 13X of course, I concluded there was no difference. I was delighted. But then I made the mistake of putting up an eye chart at 75 yards back in the trees in the shade like you said. What an eye opener! The Minox was a mile ahead of the Bushenll. The Bushenll was a mile ahead of the 7X21 Leica with both set on 7X. The Leica was better than my 6-24X42 Weaver which was better than my 4-16X40 Tasco. It took a lot of adjustment to make the Weaver better than the Tasco. The beloved 7-15X35 Nikon binocs were definately better than the Weaver and the Tasco, but not a good as the 7X21X Leica. So I purchased some 6.5X32 Vortex Raptors binocs which are better than the Leica 7X21.

See what you did?!

[Bushman]

The January 1998 issue of Rifle magazine posted an acuity chart on the back page that I placed out under the trees in the back yard and watched through a bunch of my scopes into full dark. That's how you can tell what you've got, not scoping a mounted deer head cross a brightly lit sporting goods store. My 42mm Zeiss scopes beat my 42mm Swarovski scope and they all beat a 36mm Leupold. The biggest surprise was how well a 1.5-5x20 Leupold Vari-X lll hung in there with them. As much as I wanted to see the fine lines on the acuity chart, that heavy Duplex cross hair in the smaller Leupold was very visible into last light and beat the regular duplex cross hair in the larger 2.5-8x36 Vari-X lll in low light.

I remember shooting a deer at first legal light under an overcast sky under evergreens and seeing that cross hair in that 2.5-8x36 Leupold was a challenge. Probably why it is riding on my 10/22 these days instead of my 7mm-08.

Rich, I'm kind of surprised that the Leica didn't fare better. I can read a newspaper across the yard with my 8x32 Leica's and they have some kind of resolution. I do like those pocket size binocs though. My 10x25 Swarovski's went up the mountain with me and the bigger binocs stayed home because in the black timber, an elk looked pretty big even unmagnified.