Swarovski / Bushnell / Nightforce comparison

[serial # 001]

On the November day I compared them the sky was totally overcast with an occasional sprinkle.

I purchased my first Bushnell 6500 in 2009. I sent it back for warrantee work because it was blurry above 25X. When it was returned it was great on the top end but the lower magnifications were blurry. I returned it to Bushnell for a refund accordng to their one year of satisfaction guarentee. After a few months I purchased another, the present one, which is better than any other scope I compared it to for daylight hunting; except my NightForce.

At the range I have compared this Bushnell with many Leupolds, Burrises, Nikons, a couple Swarovskis, and others. None so far are as sharp or bright as this Bushnell except a Minox 62mm spotting scope. With both set on 30X the Minox produced a barely sharper image. Since none were as good as the Bushnell and none were as variable as the Bushnell I decided to purchase a more competitive Swarovski to compare with. I already owned the 12-42X56 NightForce in the following comparison.

I compared a Swarovski Z5 5-25X52 with my Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50 and my NightForce NP-R2 12-42X56. It took about two hours to complete the comparison. I made an "eye" chart with five lines on an 8 1/2X11 copy sheet, laminated it to keep it dry, and taped it to a cardboard box. The lines are 9/32” wide with 9/32” spaces between the lines. After setting the box out I drove down the road a ways.

With the trusty Leica 1200 in tow I stepped back from said test sheet till I could no longer distinguish lines. In other words it looked like a grey rectangle on the page. The Leica read 40 yards. The lines were crystal clear in the 7X21 monocular (To my surprise the Leica made the lines with ease out to 236 yards.). I drove down the road a ways.

The test idea was to see at what range I could no longer see lines, but a grey rectangle and then turn the scopes up and focus them and record the magnification setting. After reading the following and thinking about the cost, which would you keep? After this comparison I returned the Swarovski for a full refund. Last week I ordered another because it is lighter and has better low light performance than the Bushnell; but it does not compare with the NightForce for low light use.

Here are the yardages and magnification results:

202 - Swaro: 5 1/2, Bush: 4 ½ with ease
236 – Swaro: 6 Bush: 5 ½
309 – Swaro: 8 ¼ Bush: 7 ½
393 – Swaro: 10 Bush: 10 ½
470 – Swaro: 14 Bush: 15
521 – Swaro: 16 ½ Bush: 15 ½ Night: 12
572 – Swaro: 17 ½ Bush: 17 Night: 12 ¼
690 – Swaro: 24 Bush: 24 Night: 18
706 – Swaro: 24 Bush 24 Night: 18
724 – Swaro: 25 Bush: 27 Night: 20

The day was quickly closing so I think the ability of the Swarovski’s low light superiority over the Bushnell started to come into play at the 724 yard range. I am sorta impressed with the Leica 1200 reading the bush next to the box above 572 yards. But the biggest surprise came at 202 yards. If I didn’t know they were lines, I couldn’t make them out with the Swarovski on 5X and yet the Bushnell showed them with ease on 4 1/2X. Who would have guessed it?

 

[RonAKA]

One interesting part is that I believe the Bushnell Elite line and Nightforce are made by the same factory - Light Optical Works in Japan, along with others, such as Weaver and Vortex.

 

[xring]

oo1 , interesting approach and interesting results . That's a lot of work . The Elites have always been considered as having excellent Optics but limited Vertical adjustment which can be compensated for in several ways . I look at Resolution too . You can find that Resolution depends on a lot of variables : Lighting , Scope Power , Center or Edge of Optical Field , etc. etc . Of course there are other considerations too : eye relief , reticles , running the box , and on & on . Since I only shoot in bright Sunlight , Resolution in that condition interests me the most . Dawn or Dusk hunters would Test in those conditions .You could get a Resolution Target ( various sized Lines and Spaces ) , set it up at whatever Range works for your Scope Power ( I use 100 Yards but can come in much closer ) , align all the Scopes on a board or box with "V" cut-outs and do fast AB Tests . I do almost all my Tests at 15X or 16X because almost all my Scopes overlap at that Power , and I use a lot of Fixed Powers . It is surprising how good some of the "old" Scopes really are .

 

[serial # 001]

xring,

You have peeked my interest about resolution. I have another chart with lines like you describe. It has ten lines. The wide one is 1” and the thinnest is 1/16”. There is a 3 /32” space next to the 1/16” line and then a 3/32” line. Next to that is a 1/8” space with a 1/8” line next to that proceeding up to the 1” space next to the 1” line. How do I look for resolution with this chart?

Eye relief is not something I measure. But eyebrow clearance is something I did measure, though, with the Bushnell at 3 1/8” three times and the Swarovski at 3” three times. A very nice feature of both is there is no change from 4 ½-30X or 5-25X respectively.

I purchased another Z5 ‘cause I really like the lighter weight and the low light performance. I put out the line chart and drove down the road again. When I ranged it, it was 208 yards. This time the Bushnell was on approximately 5 7/8X and the Swarovski was on 6 3/4X. The light was different this time so I am not surprised at the difference. I didn’t proceed farther since they started out so close to the previous results.

 

[xring]

001 , Lens Resolution is graded on how many Line Pairs can be "resolved" by your eye under a stated set of Conditions . This is a little fuzzy because of ones own eye , but since most of us don't have the use of Equipment giving the MTF ( Modulation Transfer Function ) of the Lens System , it still is very valuable . Here's what you do : Googol Resolution Targets , Resolution Charts , US Airforce 1951 Target , etc ......and you will get tons of Targets you can use . The usefulness of these Targets depends on how good a Printer you have . If you look at the line Pairs with a good quality magnifier , you will see the edges look like a cloud and are not perfectly sharp . They will still be usable if you have a half-way decent printer . It you want really good Resolution Targets , you can order them from various sources , but they often run $100 or more . Zeiss has them , and so do some of the Riflescope Companies , and Optics Companies with Targets with edges which look sharp at 1000X and run hundreds of bucks . Anyway , as I recall , the 1951 Airforce Taget has something like 6 Big Groups of bunches of different sized lines and spaces . You set the Target up ( I only do it on a bright day ) and determine the Finest line pair group you can see ( see that the lines and spaces are separated ) . Finer than that , you will not see the spaces . You then look thru another Scope ( set at the same Power and sighted on the same Target Group ) , and see if you can Resolve finer lines and spaces . You will have to play around with the overall size of the Target and the Scope Power you are Testing . You can also go down to Kinkos and Blow-up or Shrink the overall size of the whole Target . When you make a copy of a copy you will also suffer some line edge degradation , but the Target should still be usable . Writing this is way more difficult than actually doing it ...and I tend to be long winded . You need a rock solid rest too . Sandbags work , and so does cutting "V" notches in a weighted down cardboard or wood box . I probably forgot something , but hope this is somewhat clear .