Muley Hunter

I wouldn't either, but how else can I make a point if they don't believe me?

I didn't look anything up when I made the original statement. I just knew it from experience.

I give you the same challenge. You say the VX2 is better. How are you going to prove it? I have a different opinon, and i've had both scopes. How do you convince me i'm wrong?

chaded

Muley Editedn by JW - bashing fellow poster rule #2

You have talked repeatedly about having very poor eye sight on here so you would be the last person I would ask about differences between quality of glass. I can find however much information I want on the internet to support my scope of choice.

Omega45

I have both scopes that are mounted on guns. The VX2 has clearer glass then the XLT. Just because the glass is Asian does not mean its all the same. The XLT does not have 5" of eye relief like you have posted.

The Nikon Omega does not even have their claimed 5" eye relief. The eye relief of the Nikon Omega is indeed more then a Bushnell Trophy XLT though.....yes I have a Nikon Omega mounted on a gun also.

You are a good Googler. I'll give ya credit for that.

Muley Hunter

Funny! I got Omega and chaded posting.

Not going to argue with you guys. I feel the glass is close enough to not notice a difference. Some others feel the Bushnell is better glass. I won't claim that, but it seems as good.

Doesn't have 5" of eye relief? Wrong again.


http://www.bushnell.com/hunting/rifl...oa-250-reticle

Omega45

Just because the manufactor lists 5" does not mean it actually has 5". Google up some more info, post other peoples targets, list other peoples load data. I'll let you keep on keepin on now.

Muley Hunter

I have the scope mounted on my gun right now. The scope is so far forward that the Butler Creek lens cover interferes with the hammer. I had to turn it up out of the way. That's more forward than a Leupold that claims to have 4" of eye relief. Bushnell says it has 5" of eye relief. I think they know more than you do about their own scope.

You sure don't accept defeat well.

All you can do is talk about Google, and the links I posted. How about talking about what's in the links. They back up what I said before I had to find links to back up what I said.

Don't you use Google, or is it too hard to figure out?

The bottom line is everything I said is not wrong, and I didn't need Google to say it. maybe you should post some links backing up what you say, or am I just suppose to believe you? I can show you guys saying in reviews that the glass in the Bushnell is better than a VX2. You can probably show the same thing in reverse. Like I said in the beginning. It's a matter of opinion. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the Leupold cost twice as much. It should have better glass. Too bad it doesn't.

Muley Hunter

I had to think about this, because I wasn't sure what you were talking about. You must mean when I posted a target Carlos did. I believe it was 300yds with a CVA to prove the gun were accurate. I don't shoot 300yds with a muzzleloader. Not many guys can. However, Carlos is an ex sniper, and gets everything from a gun that most can't. I make no apologies for posting his target. It made the point that a CVA is accurate which was my goal.

It's not my style to post my range reports. I tried it once, and chaded accused me of not shooting it. So, it's unlikely you'll see anymore.

I'll tell you what. If you ever get to Colorado give me a call. We can go to the range, and see how it turns out.

Muley Hunter

Guess I can respond to this. Yes, blind in my right eye, but since you don't need vision in both eyes to see if glass is clear. Have you noticed you only use one eye to look through a scope?

So, we're talking about the eye that I have sight in. I need glasses to see up close, and different glasses to see distance. I can't wear either one when using open sights, so I end up with no glasses. Everything is a little blurry, but that's better than wearing one of the glasses.

However, none of this affects using a scope, because I can focus both the reticle and the target. With a scope I have 20/20 vision, and can easily tell good glass from bad glass.

Make sense youngster?

ronlaughlin

It has been my experience that the power setting of the scope has to be turned to a certain value so that the BDC marks correspond to the point of impact of the load one is shooting.

Myself, i abandoned using a BDC reticle, when i learned from actual shooting that the power of the scope had to be reduced to make the various lines of the reticle fit the actual point of impact. It irritated me to turn the power of the scope down, when shooting long range. What good is a variable power scope, if one can't use the highest power to shoot the longest ranges, was how it looked to me. So.. the scope i owned with the BDC reticle, was sent back to the manufacturer for them to change the reticle to a standard duplex cross hair, and change the elevation dial to utilize a CDS dial engraved for the particular load i was hunting with at the time.

stude 283

Muley,
If what you say is actually true would it not defeat the whole purpose of a variable scope? The whole idea is to have a lower power for in close shots and a higher power for longer range. If the scope is only accurate at the highest power why not just use a fixed power? I guess we have all been duped into wasting our hard earned money on useless variable power scopes.
by the way the scope in question moves 4" horizontally and 6" vertically between 2 and 8 power at 50yds.Not normal!