{"id":24533,"date":"2024-01-17T00:01:15","date_gmt":"2024-01-17T08:01:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/exhaustnotes.us\/blog\/?p=24533"},"modified":"2023-12-27T17:21:41","modified_gmt":"2023-12-28T01:21:41","slug":"exnotes-product-review-4x12-bushnell-banner-scope","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/exhaustnotes.us\/blog\/index.php\/2024\/01\/17\/exnotes-product-review-4x12-bushnell-banner-scope\/","title":{"rendered":"ExNotes Product Review: 4×12 Bushnell Banner Scope"},"content":{"rendered":"
By Joe Berk<\/h6>\n

Bushnell scopes have been around forever and they are kind of a generic scope…just as effective as the name brand medication but at a fraction of the cost.\u00a0 I’ve had several that came with rifles I bought, but I never bought a new one until recently.\u00a0 I’m glad I did.\u00a0 I bought the Bushnell<\/a> Banner 4×12 and it’s a great scope.<\/p>\n

\"\"
The 4×12 Bushnell<\/a> Banner scope. It’s a surprisingly good scope for well under $100.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The story goes like this:\u00a0 I won a Ruger No. 1 in 243 Winchester in an online auction about 15 years ago.\u00a0 The rifle was a 200th year Liberty model, it looked good, and I stashed it in the safe.\u00a0 I shot it for the first time a month ago, and that’s when I learned I had an accuracy issue.\u00a0 The Ruger came with a period-correct 4×12 Weaver (long since discontinued), which provided plenty of magnification but my groups were embarrassing.<\/p>\n

\"\"
The .243 Ruger No. 1 on the range. The rifle is wearing the new Bushnell<\/a> Banner 4×12 scope in this photo.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Let’s go tangential for a second or two:\u00a0 The “4×12” I use above refers to the scope’s variable magnification, which ranges from 4 times actual size to 12 times actual size.\u00a0 With a good scope (one offering optical clarity), you can see the bullet holes in the target at 100 yards when the scope is zoomed up to 12 times actual size.<\/p>\n

\"\"
The Ruger American Bicentennial inscription. It’s on all Rugers made in 1976.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

For hunting, I always prefer a straight 4-power scope (i.e., a nonvariable) because of its wider field of view and the fact that I can still hold a pretty tight group with a 4-power scope.\u00a0 Magnifying the target four times is good enough for hunting.\u00a0 That’s especially true on a deer-sized target, but it’s good enough even on rabbits.\u00a0 I’ve sent a lot of Texas jacks to the promised land with a simple 4-power Redfield on my .30 06 Ruger No. 1.<\/p>\n

The scope companies pretty much all say that you should keep a variable scope at low magnification to acquire the target, and then zoom it up for a more precise aim.\u00a0 But I’ll tell you that’s just marketing hype, it’s laughable, and it’s a lot of baloney.\u00a0 When I’m hunting and I see a game animal, the adrenal glands go into overdrive.\u00a0 It’s all I can do to remember to take the safety off, and I can remember a few times when I forgot to do that.\u00a0 The thought of seeing a target, acquiring it in the scope at low magnification, taking the safety off, lowering the rifle, increasing the zoom, raising the rifle again, reacquiring the target, and then squeezing the trigger is ludicrous.\u00a0 Nope, for hunting purposes, a straight 4-power scope is the way to go for me.\u00a0 On the other hand, when I’m on the range, I just leave the variable scopes at their highest magnification.\u00a0 In short, I don’t need a zoomable scope.\u00a0 But the marketing guys know better, I guess, and that means they weather vane to variable scopes.\u00a0 That’s pretty much all you see these days.<\/p>\n

But I digress.\u00a0 Let’s get back to the main attraction, and that’s the new Bushnell<\/a> Banner 4×12 scope on my .243 No. 1 rifle.\u00a0 This all started when I loaded some brass good buddy Johnnie G sent my way.\u00a0 The rifle would not consistently hold a zero, and even when it did, it shot grapefruit-sized groups.\u00a0 My thought was that the old 4×12 Weaver scope that came with the rifle had conked out, so I replaced it with another inexpensive scope I had laying around (an older Bushnell Banner 3×9 scope that is probably 50 years old).\u00a0 While mounting the older 3×9 Bushnell, I checked both Ruger rings (front and rear) to make sure they were secure.\u00a0 They seemed to be, but they were not (more on that below).\u00a0 I took the No. 1 (now wearing the older model Bushnell Banner) to the range.\u00a0 The accuracy situation did not improve.<\/p>\n

\"\"
The 4-12X Weaver scope that came with the 200th year .243 Ruger No. 1. That scope may still be good; I’ll have to mount it on another rifle to confirm that.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

So I removed the older 3×9 Bushnell and the Ruger rings.\u00a0 That’s when I discovered that the front ring was not secure.\u00a0 It had felt like it was, but it fooled me (which is not too hard to do).\u00a0 Ruger provides rings with their centerfire rifles and they are good, but the rings on this rifle were muey screwed up.\u00a0 The clamp (the bolt with the angled head) on the front ring was mangled, and both the nut and the clamp were gunked up with some sort of adhesive (probably Loctite, but who knows).\u00a0 \u00a0I think what had happened was the clamp could be tightened on the mangled part of the clamp’s angled surface.\u00a0 The buggered-up clamp was not properly positioned in the mounting surface and the caked-on adhesive compounded the felony.\u00a0 Under recoil, the forward ring was moving around.<\/p>\n

\"\"
A Ruger scope ring. Ruger provides two of these with each of their centerfire rifles.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
The Ruger scope ring clamp. It’s a bolt with an angled surface (denoted by the right arrow) that clamps onto a machined crescent on the rifle’s scope mounting surface. The threads on mine were caked with an adhesive.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
The Ruger scope ring nut. It’s what threads on to the clamp shaft in the photo above.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"
The Ruger No. 1’s forward scope ring. This was not firmly mounted because the clamp had been damaged by Bubba gunsmithing.\u00a0 God must love Bubbas; He sure made a lot of them.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

I recut the clamp ‘s angled surface with a file to eliminate the mangled portion and reblued the clamp using Birchwood Casey Cold Blue<\/a>, and I wire-brushed as much of the adhesive as I could from the clamp’s threaded shaft with a bore brush.\u00a0 I then worked the clamp into the nut until I cleaned out the remaining adhesive on the nut.\u00a0 I reinstalled the ring and satisfied myself that this time it was secure.<\/p>\n

\"\"
The Bushnell<\/a> Banner box. The scope was nicely packaged.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
The Bushnell<\/a> Banner’s parallax adjustment ring. These really work.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
The Bushnell<\/a> Banner’s quick adjust focusing rear ring. It’s a nice feature.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
The Bushnell<\/a> Banner’s adjustment knobs after their covers had been removed. These have a nice feel, with a distinct tactile click for each 1\/4-inch adjustment. You don’t need any tools to make these adjustments. It’s first class.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

When my new 4×12 Bushnell<\/a> Banner scope arrived a few days after I ordered it on Amazon, I was impressed with its appearance.\u00a0 I even liked the box.\u00a0 I looked through the scope and was impressed with its optical clarity.\u00a0 These inexpensive Banner scopes have continued to improve over the years, and this one looks great.<\/p>\n

\"\"
The Bushnell<\/a> Banner’s operator’s manual. It contains basic information about mounting and boresighting the scope.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Bushnell<\/a> scope has a lifetime warranty and it came with what I thought was an impressively thick operating manual.\u00a0 The manual is printed in five languages (English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish), so it was only one fifth as thick as it first appeared to be.\u00a0 But it was still a good manual.\u00a0 The scope also came with lens covers, which is a nice touch.<\/p>\n

The Bushnell<\/a> has other features that are important to me.\u00a0 It has a quick focus ring at the rear to focus the reticle, and it has a parallax adjustment feature on the objective end (the front of the scope).\u00a0 \u00a0Parallax adjustment has become increasingly important to me; it minimizes the scope’s susceptibility to slightly different eye positions.\u00a0 \u00a0You adjust for parallax by moving your eye around and making sure the reticle stays centered on the target.<\/p>\n

The Bushnell<\/a> has removable windage and elevation adjustment dial covers, and windage and elevation adjustment can be made by hand (no special tools are required).\u00a0 Each click represents 1\/4-inch of movement on a 100-yard target, which is pretty much the standard on scopes.<\/p>\n

The Bushnell<\/a> has a 40mm objective lens, which I think is about right.\u00a0 It looks right and still allows the scope to be mounted low on the rifle.\u00a0 Some scopes go bigger with 50mm objectives, but I think they look silly.\u00a0 These bugeye scopes have to sit higher on the rifle (which makes sighting through them difficult).\u00a0 \u00a0Nope, for me a 40mm objective is as big as I care or need to go.<\/p>\n

Although I own a boresigting device that mounts on the barrel, I prefer not to use it.\u00a0 The thought of potentially damaging a rifle’s crown, which a boresighting device can do, is not something I want to entertain.\u00a0 I boresight the old-fashioned way:\u00a0 I’ll set the rifle up in a rest, look through the bore (from the breech end) and move the rifle around until a 50-yard target is centered in the bore.\u00a0 Then, without moving the rifle, I’ll adjust the scope’s windage and elevation until the reticle is approximately centered on the target.\u00a0 Once I’ve done that, I’ll fire one shot and see where it hits.\u00a0 I’ve actually done this and had the impact be on the target with that first shot, but it took four shots this time.\u00a0 After each shot, I adjusted the windage and elevation to get the next shot two inches below my point of aim at 50 yards, and then switch to a target at 100 yards to finalize the adjustment.<\/p>\n

\"\"
On the range at the West End Gun Club. The first target is at 50 yards; the second set of targets is at 100 yards. I used the first target for boresighting and initial scope adjustment.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
To boresight the scope, you look for the target through the rifle’s bore. It appears to be a little offset in this photo because it was difficult to get the camera aligned with the bore, but you get the idea. You want the target centered when looking through the barrel.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
I used PPU (PRVI Partizan) 100-grain jacketed soft point bullets for this round of load development. The Ruger has a 1 twist in 10 inches rate. A 100-grain bullet is right at the edge of stability with this twist rate; lighter bullets should be more accurate.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
Another shot of the PPU 100-grain bullets.\u00a0 There’s a long bearing area on that bullet.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
I used two propellants for this test series: IMR 7828 and IMR 4166. The IMR 4166 performed better than the IMR 7828 load and it reduced the copper fouling in the bore.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

For this outing, I had loaded two groups of .243 ammo, both using PRVI Partizan 100-grain jacketed soft point bullets.\u00a0 One load had 43.0 grains of IMR 7828 propellant; the other group had 34.5 grains of IMR 4166 propellant.\u00a0 I used the IMR 4166 ammo last.\u00a0 IMR 4166 was one of those new powders that is supposed to not leave copper deposited in the rifling (I’ll explain why I used the past tense in a second).\u00a0 I wanted to use it to minimize the cleaning after shooting the rifle.<\/p>\n

So how did it all work?\u00a0 The IMR 7828 load didn’t perform well as the IMR 4166 load.\u00a0 The IMR 7828 load was shooting 2 1\/2 to 4-inch groups.\u00a0 Part of that was due to the Ruger’s twist rate (1 in 10), which is marginal for a heavy (for the .243) 100-grain bullet.\u00a0 But I was surprised with the last group of the day, which was with IMR 4166 powder.<\/p>\n

\"\"
The last shots of the day, and the last of the loads with IMR 4166 propellant.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Four of the five shots went into 0.889 inch; the fifth shot opened the group up to 1.635 inches.\u00a0 That fact that the IMR 4166 grouped much better might be due to the fact the propellant may have removed some of the copper fouling (it appeared to have a lot less copper fouling when I cleaned the rifle later), it might be due to the fact that IMR 4166 is a faster powder compared to IMR 7828, it might have been me, or it might be a statistical fluke.\u00a0 You might think this would push me to develop a load with IMR 4166, but unfortunately the powder has been discontinued (I’m on my last bottle).\u00a0 Future load development work for this rifle will be with lighter bullets and other powders with burn rates similar to IMR 4166.\u00a0 Varget comes to mind. I’ll keep you posted.<\/p>\n

I know, I’m digressing again.\u00a0 I started out with the intent to do a product review on the Bushnell<\/a> Banner 4×12 scope, which I think I did, but I morphed into a bit of load development work for the .243 Ruger No. 1.\u00a0 On my intended topic:\u00a0 The Bushnell<\/a> Banner is a great scope, and it performs way beyond what it’s sub-$100 price would indicate (I paid $72 for mine on Amazon).\u00a0 If you’re looking for a good low-priced scope, the Bushnell<\/a> is hard to beat.\u00a0 I like it so much I’m going to by another one for another Ruger, but that’s a story for another time.<\/p>\n

\n

Never miss an ExNotes blog:<\/p>\n

\n