Ruger Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

Registered
Joined
2,106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
My son bought a new rifle and needed a scope for it. I just so happened to have a new Bushnell Banner in the closet that I bought on clearance, so I let him have it to put on his rifle. It's a 6-18x50mm with an AO.

We just got back from sighting it in and I wasn't pleased with it at all. I know it's a cheap scope, but there are better cheap scopes. The crosshairs are not straight in the scope. (Didn't notice until mounted on the rifle) It won't track like it's suppose to and it's not very clear or bright in low light. I looked through my 42mm objective Burris scope after messing with the Bushnell and it was brighter than the 50mm Bushnell. After owning some decent scopes now, I don't know that I can go back. (I bought this one before I owned my good scopes) On the bright side, it did seem to hold zero once you magically found the bullseye with the crosshairs.

Just thought I'd share. If anyone is looking at the Banner series Bushnell....... save a few more dollars and buy a Redfield Revenge or Nikon Prostaff.
 

Viceroy 馃煩馃煩馃煩
Joined
3,255 Posts
Thanks for the review. I think Burris products (to which you compared the Bushnell) are excellent value. I like the Burris Fullfield II scope on my Ruger Mark II rifle more than any of the Leupolds I have ever used.
 

Registered
Joined
629 Posts
My son bought a new rifle and needed a scope for it. I just so happened to have a new Bushnell Banner in the closet that I bought on clearance, so I let him have it to put on his rifle. It's a 6-18x50mm with an AO.

We just got back from sighting it in and I wasn't pleased with it at all. I know it's a cheap scope, but there are better cheap scopes. The crosshairs are not straight in the scope. (Didn't notice until mounted on the rifle) It won't track like it's suppose to and it's not very clear or bright in low light. I looked through my 42mm objective Burris scope after messing with the Bushnell and it was brighter than the 50mm Bushnell. After owning some decent scopes now, I don't know that I can go back. (I bought this one before I owned my good scopes) On the bright side, it did seem to hold zero once you magically found the bullseye with the crosshairs.

Just thought I'd share. If anyone is looking at the Banner series Bushnell....... save a few more dollars and buy a Redfield Revenge or Nikon Prostaff.
I have both a redfield and a bushnell banner scope. The redfield in my opinion is a far better scope but for the money my bushnell has been very good. Ok the optics aren't brilliant but it does the job on my hunting .223 rifle and has held zero with no problems.
 

Banned
Joined
3,158 Posts
I have some older (60's) vintage Bushnell scopes that are still performing as they should. I have a few newer ones on 22 rifles that are okay. You get what you pay for nowadays. I don't mind spending more money on quality optics though.
 

Registered
Joined
2,106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thanks for the review. I think Burris products (to which you compared the Bushnell) are excellent value. I like the Burris Fullfield II scope on my Ruger Mark II rifle more than any of the Leupolds I have ever used.
When I was looking at a scope for my 700 Remington, I had some requirements that I wanted met. I wanted turrets that returned to zero, a 30mm tube and a mildot reticle. I thought I had found what I wanted in a Nikon Prostaff 5 (I think). After finding one in the store and checking out out, I liked it. It wasn't perfect, but I thought that it was as close as I was going to get. Before I bought it, I decided to go to Academy and check out what they had. I looked through a Burris there. It didn't take long to decide against the Nikon. I was very surprised how nice their optics are. I found and bought a Burris MTAC 3.5-10x42mm. It has capped resetable turrets that return to zero, a 30mm tube and a mildot reticle. I haven't worked with it yet, but initial impressions are good.
 

Registered
Joined
293 Posts
^^^ I'm curious what you didn't like about the Nikon. I bought a couple on clearance a while back and have been very pleased...clear, clean and bright glass for the money...no issues sighting in nor holding zero.

I guess I'll have to look at Burris next time if they are even better at a similar price point. Thanks!
 

Registered
Joined
5,282 Posts
I guess I'd be hesitant to condemn Bushnell products across the board. Cheap scopes tend to be very hit or miss. You could probably go around to several stores and pick up examples of the exact same scope and you might find that one will be really good, another might be terrible, and the rest are just middle of the road.

Also, what kind of shooting does your son do that he wants/needs such a powerful scope? Keep in mind that optical quality, or lack thereof, becomes more obvious as magnification increases. Mediocre or poor optics on a 3-9x scope will be less noticeable than on a scope like the one you have.
 

Administrator
Joined
22,163 Posts
Scopes are made in China, Philippines, Japan and some expensive ones in Europe. Some are assembled in the US but the key is where the glass is made. Japan makes good glass but some of the Chinese stuff is just a waste of money. On another forum a member contacted Zeiss and asked where the parts were manufactured. The answer:

Dear _______,

Thank you for your inquiry to Carl Zeiss.

First, we are glad that you enjoy our products and are a fan of Zeiss!

Just as with any other international company, we receive parts from all over the world. While I am not aware of where each individual part in our products comes from, I can say that regarding our Conquest line, our parts come from Germany and are assembled here in the United States. We cannot use "made" in the United States as the Conquest scopes are in fact "assembled" here from parts that come from Germany. The glass is German, as well as some of the other components of the scopes. Again, not every individual part comes from Germany, just as not every Ford or Chevy is completely "Made in the USA".

Regarding the assembly location, the Conquest line is in fact assembled here in the continental United States. More specifically, they are assembled in New York.

Hoping to be of service to you we kindly ask you to contact us again should you need further assistance.

Sincerely,
Justin Minter
This dates back to 2013 and I had purchased a Zeiss Conquest prior to that. The glass in a scope is what makes the scope. Anyone can make an aluminum tube and put turrets on it. Incidentally the Zeiss is clear over the entire field of view and great in low light. Hey spend some of your hard earned money on good stuff as you can't take it with you. ;)
 

Registered
Joined
6,355 Posts
I have an old Weaver B4 scope that my dad used hunting in the 1960's; at the time, it was considered to be a good quality rifle scope. It's still in excellent condition, no dings and the lenses are clean, but it's very dim compared to even a bargain scope of today and the edge of the (very limited) field of view is distorted and color-fringed. This isn't to say that your Bushnell scope isn't disappointing, but to remind us that not too terribly long ago people paid good money for scopes that weren't any better and were happy to have them. Now, we are in the fortunate position of complaining that a "reasonably priced" scope isn't as clear or bright as we would like.


Jim
 

Registered
Joined
2,106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I guess I'd be hesitant to condemn Bushnell products across the board. Cheap scopes tend to be very hit or miss. You could probably go around to several stores and pick up an examples of the exact same scope and find that one might be really good, another might be terrible, and the rest are just middle of the road.

Also, what kind of shooting does your son do that he wants/needs such a powerful scope? Keep in mind that optical quality, or lack thereof, becomes more obvious as magnification increases. Mediocre or poor optics on a 3-9x scope will be less noticeable than on a scope like the one you have.
His needs were an available scope. Lol. He needed one and I had that one in the closet. I told him before we put it on that he needed to save his money and buy him a different one next year because it wasn't suited for his needs.
 

Registered
Joined
2,106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
^^^ I'm curious what you didn't like about the Nikon. I bought a couple on clearance a while back and have been very pleased...clear, clean and bright glass for the money...no issues sighting in nor holding zero.

I guess I'll have to look at Burris next time if they are even better at a similar price point. Thanks!
I didn't care for the gold colored crosshairs and the mushy clicks on the turrets.
 

Registered
Joined
2,106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I have an old Weaver B4 scope that my dad used hunting in the 1960's; at the time, it was considered to be a good quality rifle scope. It's still in excellent condition, no dings and the lenses are clean, but it's very dim compared to even a bargain scope of today and the edge of the (very limited) field of view is distorted and color-fringed. This isn't to say that your Bushnell scope isn't disappointing, but to remind us that not too terribly long ago people paid good money for scopes that weren't any better and were happy to have them. Now, we are in the fortunate position of complaining that a "reasonably priced" scope isn't as clear or bright as we would like.


Jim
I understand, but if that's all that was available, you had the best thing to work with. We don't have to settle now. I decided to buy it on a whim and I wish I would have left it on the clearance rack.
 

Registered
Joined
6,355 Posts
I understand, but if that's all that was available, you had the best thing to work with. We don't have to settle now. I decided to buy it on a whim and I wish I would have left it on the clearance rack.
I understand - I'm not saying that you're wrong (you aren't - it's perfectly reasonable to think that the scope you bought is substandard). I was just remarking that the quality we think today is a rip-off was pretty much state-of-the-art fifty years ago.


Jim
 

Righteous Dude
Joined
21,694 Posts
I've bought a few bummer optics. It's frustrating. I have decent optics now. I finally sprung for an Aimpoint. It better deliver!
 

Registered
Joined
2,106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I understand - I'm not saying that you're wrong (you aren't - it's perfectly reasonable to think that the scope you bought is substandard). I was just remarking that the quality we think today is a rip-off was pretty much state-of-the-art fifty years ago.


Jim
Oh, okay. I see what you are saying.
 

Registered
Joined
464 Posts
If you spend the money up front the initial cost is annoying but you will forget about in a week and every time you use it you will smile. If you go cheap you will pat yourself on the back for the so called barging and it will make you mad every time you use it.
 

Registered
Joined
673 Posts
Bargain scopes are seldom a bargain.

What you eventually do is buy inexpensive scopes, discard them (at a loss) and buy better scopes. That is what I did. After a variety of Tascos and other scopes at that level, I eventually converted to Leupold, Nikon and Weaver scopes for modern scopes with the occasional Redfield 3200 Fecker and Unertl for historically interesting and still high quality scopes.*

These days, I seldom sell a scope. My fine quality scopes just move from one rifle to another as I still search for the perfect rifles(for me).

*Nothing looks finer or works better on an older rifle than something like the Redfield 3200 I bought a few years ago for $450:

 

Registered
Joined
10,156 Posts
Buy a Nikon Prosfaff scope with their BDC reticle you will not Find a better scope for your money spent. I have two of them, & wished I had more!!! Burris Full Field & the USA made Redfields are also very nice. Good Luck!!!
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top