lightstream vs bushnell

[bengarzy]

These scopes have been specialy built to Alans exacting standards with cost coming second regardless and then someone who obviously has little understanding of either the rifle or scope puts himself forward as an expert and writes the sort of drivel we have above, STRANGELY ENOUGH BEN ON FURTHER INVESTIGATION THE GUN IS ONE OV YOURS,THE LAD WHO HAD IT REGGED GOT IT DONE BY YOURSELF,AND HAS SAID HE HAD TO SHIM HIS OWN SCOPE WHEN HE GOT IT BACK,SO HE COULD ZERO ,NOW IM NOT NO EXPERT LIKE YOUR SELF,AND MAY BE IM SHI#E AT TYPING ,BUT THE GUN THAT CAUSED THE INITIAL PROBLEM,WAS KNOCKED SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE ,POINT BIENG EVEN AN EXPERT CAN OVER LOOK CERTAIN THINGS. PERRY

You obviously are NOT an expert as you would realise a REGULATOR conversion would NOT affect the zero, just consistency and shot count.
Also you have previously stated you found (eventualy) the rifle had had a"knock" which had caused the problem,hardly anything to do with me I think even you will agree.
Yes I do stock Light-Stream scopes but your test would have drawn the exact same comments from me regardless of what name was on it, it was a thoughtless and ill concieved piece you wrote so lets leave it at that.

Ben

[Gary C]

Having looked through pretty much every Bushnell and the Lightstream, I'd go Lightstream every time.

I'll no doubt get the "scope snobs" jumping up and down on me but sorry chaps, Bushnell isn't the marque it was.

[baz]

Having looked through pretty much every Bushnell and the Lightstream, I'd go Lightstream every time.

I'll no doubt get the "scope snobs" jumping up and down on me

I have had that a few times too, I havent looked through a Lightstream but I have had a Nightforce which when I likened it to Bushnell optics a couple of NF owners almost had a sheetfit In fact the 4200 had better optics than the £1k+ NF I was using

I like Leupolds, jap made, medium priced, but one thing I need is long eye relief on some guns and the 6.5-20x40 has that along with varmint ret so I like them

Ben, I must get up to see you and look through one of these Lightstreams to see what the fuss is about

Baz

[nurek]

Ben, I must get up to see you and look through one of these Lightstreams to see what the fuss is about

Baz, if I remember correctly, I have read somewhere that you had a Weaver Tactical. The Lightstream is very similar to it, if not identical to the 4.5-14x44 Weaver Tactical. These are very nice scopes and I like both.

[baz]

Baz, if I remember correctly, I have read somewhere that you had a Weaver Tactical. The Lightstream is very similar to it, if not identical to the 4.5-14x44 Weaver Tactical. These are very nice scopes and I like both.

I did have a Weaver Tactical, nice optics as you say

Baz

[rapidpaulus]

Have to say,i had a look through a lightstream today a 5-20-50..was very crisp optics..cheers mike..

[andy_scouser]

Having looked through pretty much every Bushnell and the Lightstream, I'd go Lightstream every time.

I'll no doubt get the "scope snobs" jumping up and down on me but sorry chaps, Bushnell isn't the marque it was.

Sorry Gary, putting the scopes side by side at Tawd Vale, I really can't agree with you. Granted I was comparing with a bushnell 4200, but not in the same league if you ask me.

[Dave Ramshead]

You obviously are NOT an expert as you would realise a REGULATOR conversion would NOT affect the zero, just consistency and shot count.
Also you have previously stated you found (eventualy) the rifle had had a"knock" which had caused the problem,hardly anything to do with me I think even you will agree.
Yes I do stock Light-Stream scopes but your test would have drawn the exact same comments from me regardless of what name was on it, it was a thoughtless and ill concieved piece you wrote so lets leave it at that.

Ben

The problem on TARGETZERO'S gun was caused by incorrect barrel to breech alignment, which may have been caused while being reassembled after the non standard metal finish had been applied.

To give you an idea of how "out of true" the barrel alignment was, the muzzle end of barrel touched the fill end of the air tube when the figure 8 bracket was removed.

The downwards tension on the barrel was so great, it caused the figure 8 bracket O ring to compress on the lower edge - leaving daylight to be visible on the upper edge.

Mechanical problems aside, it's a disgrace that someone like you should stoop so low as to have a pop at someone for grammer & punctuation - his opinions are as valid as the next unhappy customers.

[TARGETZERO]

[bengarzy]

The problem on TARGETZERO'S gun was caused by incorrect barrel to breech alignment, which may have been caused while being reassembled after the non standard metal finish had been applied.

To give you an idea of how "out of true" the barrel alignment was, the muzzle end of barrel touched the fill end of the air tube when the figure 8 bracket was removed.

The downwards tension on the barrel was so great, it caused the figure 8 bracket O ring to compress on the lower edge - leaving daylight to be visible on the upper edge.

Mechanical problems aside, it's a disgrace that someone like you should stoop so low as to have a pop at someone for grammer & punctuation - his opinions are as valid as the next unhappy customers.

How has "Non standard metal finish" got any thing to do with any work I may or may not have done to this rifle, I dont do any metal finishing and the barrel would be bent in the condition you describe, certainly not from me.
I mentioned the way it was written because it was terrible!


Ben

[mildot]

Can we forget the bickering and consentrate on a review of the scope! After all thats what this tread is for......