Ive mentioned this a few times and have been wondering why Bushnell has not added their 2.5-16x as part of EITHER of their new lines of scopes.
Right now I see their Elite Tactical split into the following groups.
1) "old 3200 with new glass"
* 5-15x (LRS)
* 10x (LRS)
2) "ol 4200 with new glass"
* 3-12x (LRS)
* 6-24x (ERS)
3) "modified 6500's"
* 2.5-16x (LRS)
* 4.6-30x (ERS)
4) "4200's enhanced"
* 3-12x FFP, illum, mil turrets, new reticles (LRS)
* 6-24x FFP, illum, mil turrets, new reticles (ERS)
5) "6.5x erector enhanced"
* 1-6.5x sfp, ffp, illum, multi reticle, matching turrets (SMRS)
* 3.5-21x ffp, multi reticle, 34mm, locking mil turrets.
(DMR) (HDMR) (ERS)
6) "long erector, top of line"
* 1-8.5x sfp, ffp, illum, multi reticle, 34mm, matching high speed turrets (SMRS)
* 4.5-30x ffp, multi reticle, 34mm, zero stop, locking 10 mil turrets (XRS)
So, my question remains...
Why have they not updated the 2.5-16x model in either lineup?
Is it easier to improve upon the 3-12 because it was originally part of the same line as the 6-24x?
There are so many pleased with the newer 3-12, I just dont understand why they wouldnt apply the same options to a scope that covers that entire mag range but offers a slightly lower bottom and additional 4x on top.
I own a 2.5-16 from the tactical not 6500 line and think it would have been a great candidate for matching turrets, improved reticle choices and possibly illumination. Additionally, between the tactical and 6500 line they made both 42 and 50mm objectives.
As is, it has 120 moa of elevation so It may have been a good candidate for the same line as the 6-24x. Spending the money for 34mm, locking turrets etc... may not make sense as the DMR is similar in mag range (but more appealing to most). If kept under $1,000 I think it would have quite a following.
Any clues why they havent entertained this idea? Anyone else interested in this concept?
Right now I see their Elite Tactical split into the following groups.
1) "old 3200 with new glass"
* 5-15x (LRS)
* 10x (LRS)
2) "ol 4200 with new glass"
* 3-12x (LRS)
* 6-24x (ERS)
3) "modified 6500's"
* 2.5-16x (LRS)
* 4.6-30x (ERS)
4) "4200's enhanced"
* 3-12x FFP, illum, mil turrets, new reticles (LRS)
* 6-24x FFP, illum, mil turrets, new reticles (ERS)
5) "6.5x erector enhanced"
* 1-6.5x sfp, ffp, illum, multi reticle, matching turrets (SMRS)
* 3.5-21x ffp, multi reticle, 34mm, locking mil turrets.
(DMR) (HDMR) (ERS)
6) "long erector, top of line"
* 1-8.5x sfp, ffp, illum, multi reticle, 34mm, matching high speed turrets (SMRS)
* 4.5-30x ffp, multi reticle, 34mm, zero stop, locking 10 mil turrets (XRS)
So, my question remains...
Why have they not updated the 2.5-16x model in either lineup?
Is it easier to improve upon the 3-12 because it was originally part of the same line as the 6-24x?
There are so many pleased with the newer 3-12, I just dont understand why they wouldnt apply the same options to a scope that covers that entire mag range but offers a slightly lower bottom and additional 4x on top.
I own a 2.5-16 from the tactical not 6500 line and think it would have been a great candidate for matching turrets, improved reticle choices and possibly illumination. Additionally, between the tactical and 6500 line they made both 42 and 50mm objectives.
As is, it has 120 moa of elevation so It may have been a good candidate for the same line as the 6-24x. Spending the money for 34mm, locking turrets etc... may not make sense as the DMR is similar in mag range (but more appealing to most). If kept under $1,000 I think it would have quite a following.
Any clues why they havent entertained this idea? Anyone else interested in this concept?
