I've had 2 Bushnells that I have inadvertantly acquired because they arrived attached to a good gun. The optical quality of each was such that I literally threw them away--as in trashcan. I am not a wealthy guy, and I'm sure I could have recouped some cash for those scopes by selling them, but I could not lower myself to do such a deed to another hunter.

The used market is where to go to get a reduced price on a good scope.

i had a B&L 4200 that would not hold zero on a 270. I went with leupold and swarovski after that. Less problems with Leupold and I'd go with them any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

If you can get a copy of the recent RIFLE magazine article on scopes, I think it was a couple issues back, you will be enlightened. It's the best article I have ever read on scopes, as it was written by a smith who makes his living building heavy caliber rifles (and fixing them when the clients bring them back.) So his evaluation is based on ongoing tracking, not just a typical gunwriter's two day test.

The key take-aways were:

1. Swarowski is head and shoulders above the rest. The way to go if money is no object.
2. Leupolds very good but they do fail, just like the others. Quite frequently, in fact. The best thing about Leupold is the factory will fix or replace them no questions asked.
3. Steer away from variables and heavy scopes on big rifles.
4. Weavers, old steel tube models, are the best value for money. The new Grand Slams are getting good reviews too.
5. Bushnell (the high end ones) are the best budget/Asian scopes by far.

You can't generalize about Bushnells because they make a $50 scope and a $400 scope. The cheap ones obviously are not the ones to put on your DG rifle, they are designed for 22s. The high end scopes have proven to be very tough.

Personally, I think Leupold is a good scope but overrated. You are paying for $15-20/hr made-in-the-USA labor and a bunch of commercials.