Author: Roy Finn
Subject: A plea to Bushnell for the 4500/3500 scopes
Posted: April/16/2015 at 11:30
I'd agree that a lot of times if a scope has extra long ER, the eye box suffers. However, if you've ever had the chance to gaze through Bushnell's 2.5-16 x 42, the eye box is fine and it has almost 4" of ER. Point being is that if Bushnell extended the ER out to say 3.75 inches on this model that I'm referring to, the 2.5-10 x 40, I think they could do it with ease without adding a huge ocular to the scope either.
To illustrate my point, here is an "example picture" of what the reticle in question is supposed to look like.
Bushnell 4500
Anyone who has looked through a Bushnell scope with the standard duplex will see that their not even close to a true representation of the actual reticle.
Subject: A plea to Bushnell for the 4500/3500 scopes
Posted: April/16/2015 at 11:30
I'd agree that a lot of times if a scope has extra long ER, the eye box suffers. However, if you've ever had the chance to gaze through Bushnell's 2.5-16 x 42, the eye box is fine and it has almost 4" of ER. Point being is that if Bushnell extended the ER out to say 3.75 inches on this model that I'm referring to, the 2.5-10 x 40, I think they could do it with ease without adding a huge ocular to the scope either.
To illustrate my point, here is an "example picture" of what the reticle in question is supposed to look like.
Bushnell 4500
Anyone who has looked through a Bushnell scope with the standard duplex will see that their not even close to a true representation of the actual reticle.