Rifle Scopes Bushnell 6-24 and 3.5-21?

[Its only light]

Hey guys. Questions just keep rolling into my head. Since they are really subjective I cant really research so just gotta ask for first hand experience.

Im looking at the 6-24 with g2 and the 3.5-21. Is the glass quality of these two scopes equal or is glass upgraded in the 3.5-21?

Common sense tells me it is better in the hdmr but I also think maybe the extra price is for the turrets and 34mm tube etc?

Anybody ever compare these two? I like the 6-24 power range better since I never go below 6x anyways. Any info is appreciated.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[jtrax]

Again...SWFA HD 5-20x50.

 

[Its only light]

Lol more curious on the 6-24 quality than anything here. Would make a good sub $1000 scope if glass is good

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[Shortcut]

3.5-21x50 !!!! No doubt about it.
There is nothing other than the illumination and price that would make the 6-24x50 more interesting. The 3.5-21x50 is a pro scope in every way possible.

 

[BoilerUP]

I can't speak to a direct comparison (maybe ask Scott @ Liberty Optics) but the Elite Tactical 6-24x is good kit.

 

[Joop]

If you're the same guy from Alabama who likes HK .45s and posted this on another forum yesterday, then this may sound familiar:

I have both (except my 3.5 is the ERS with ten mils per rev and zero stops). The differences are going to be in the tube diameter. The 34mm tube gives more adjustment range (you'll have to look elsewhere on the net for exact adjustment ranges, as Bushnell never seems to list these correctly, or even in a way that can be understood in some cases). Also, the DMR seems to have better glass, in my opinion (not a huge difference, but I can see it). Also, the DMR has a wider power range. Depending on what type of shooting you will be doing, the 3.5x could come in handy on the low end, where the 6x may still be a bit much. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with the 6-24x50. It's a great scope for the money and I love mine. But, if you go with the 3.5-21, it's money well spent, as well.

Also, I now have both scopes right in front of me and with the current lighting, I don't notice any difference in the image. However, I'm looking through a dirty window (both set at 15x and at about 700 yards) and the sun isn't even completely up yet. In better lighting/viewing conditions, I still think that the 3.5-21 is a touch better. I'm also seeing that it appears to have just a slightly wider FOV. If you can spend the extra money on the DMR, you won't be sorry. But, if you want to save a few bucks and don't care about the low end of the magnification, I think you'll be happy with the 6-24, as well. If you're buying the 6-24 just for the extra 3x at the top end, I'm not so sure that this alone is justification for getting it. My 3.5-21 will do everything at 21x that the other can at 24x and I don't feel like it's a limitation, at all.

 

[tthompson_21]

I also have both, and agree that the 3.5-21's glass is a TINY bit better, but for the money the 6-24 is pretty tough to beat. The locking turrets are a nice feature on the 3.5, but not 100% necessary for my applications. Either will do you fine, and I always tell myself that if I cant get it done with one of these, I'm not going to get it done with anything.

 

[precision308]

I know the 6-24 is along the same line as the 3-12 Bushnell. I own a dmr and a 3-12. One thing that would concern me is that the 3-12 has a very tight eyebox and if the 6-24 is similar I would not purchase. Everything else on the 3-12 is acceptable fot the price. The dmr does not seem to have any eyebox issues.

 

[Joop]

I know the 6-24 is along the same line as the 3-12 Bushnell. I own a dmr and a 3-12. One thing that would concern me is that the 3-12 has a very tight eyebox and if the 6-24 is similar I would not purchase. Everything else on the 3-12 is acceptable fot the price. The dmr does not seem to have any eyebox issues.

I have a 3-12x44, also and it's definitely tighter than both the 6-24 or 3.5-21.

 

[delixe]

I've owned several of each and an XRS.
I still own a 6-24. The glass is the same in all of them, to my eye.
I don't have a problem with the eyebox in the 6-24.

 

[TRAAV]

Ive had the 3-12 and the eye box was very tight. I still have the 6-24 and 3.5-21. I feel that the glass is not quite as good as the 3.5-21 but still really good for the money.

 

[Rogue111]

I have the 6-24 & looking through the 3.5-21 the other day I just couldn't justify the extra money for it. They are both excellent scopes & its really up to you if the differences are worth the extra cost. Optic clarity seems to be pretty equal between the two, just my $0.02.

 

[DOA]

Again...SWFA HD 5-20x50.

He was asking about Bushnell not SWFA. While the SWFA may have clearer optics, its inferior reticle and less than stellar turrets leave a lot to be desired.

 

[HK45USER]

If you're the same guy from Alabama who likes HK .45s and posted this on another forum yesterday, then this may sound familiar:

I have both (except my 3.5 is the ERS with ten mils per rev and zero stops). The differences are going to be in the tube diameter. The 34mm tube gives more adjustment range (you'll have to look elsewhere on the net for exact adjustment ranges, as Bushnell never seems to list these correctly, or even in a way that can be understood in some cases). Also, the DMR seems to have better glass, in my opinion (not a huge difference, but I can see it). Also, the DMR has a wider power range. Depending on what type of shooting you will be doing, the 3.5x could come in handy on the low end, where the 6x may still be a bit much. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with the 6-24x50. It's a great scope for the money and I love mine. But, if you go with the 3.5-21, it's money well spent, as well.

Also, I now have both scopes right in front of me and with the current lighting, I don't notice any difference in the image. However, I'm looking through a dirty window (both set at 15x and at about 700 yards) and the sun isn't even completely up yet. In better lighting/viewing conditions, I still think that the 3.5-21 is a touch better. I'm also seeing that it appears to have just a slightly wider FOV. If you can spend the extra money on the DMR, you won't be sorry. But, if you want to save a few bucks and don't care about the low end of the magnification, I think you'll be happy with the 6-24, as well. If you're buying the 6-24 just for the extra 3x at the top end, I'm not so sure that this alone is justification for getting it. My 3.5-21 will do everything at 21x that the other can at 24x and I don't feel like it's a limitation, at all.

Nope that was me that asked over there.
I'm going with the 3.5-21
Thanks for your replies.

 

[seanhagerty]

You wont regret your choice.

 

[ridenrunwv]

He was asking about Bushnell not SWFA. While the SWFA may have clearer optics, its inferior reticle and less than stellar turrets leave a lot to be desired.

I like SWFA optics also but it's starting to get like the Glock thing with them on this forum. Ask specifically about a Springfield, S&W, CZ, etc and get buy a Glock comments from everyone. Ask about specific scope, buy an SS HD. Just saw it on a different thread too.