Hi,

I own a Browning A-Bolt .270 Win. and just recently mounted a 3-9 X 40 scope on it. Spent a few months on the Internet researching the various brands and then went to the store. Narrowed the choice down to a VX-I 3-9 or a Bushnell Elite 3200 4-12 or a Bushnell Elite 4200 3-9. All these scopes are very close in price.

Looked through the 3200 first and was not impressed. I was replacing a fixed power 4 X 40 Bausch/Lomb Scopechief which was much clearer than the 3200.

Some customer in the store comes up and tells me that the 4200 3-9 is THE scope to buy so I checked that out. I liked that scope, it presented the mercury vapour lighting in the store in a balanced and crisp image. I decided then and there, for the same price, this 4200 3-9 scope was much better for me than the 3200 4-12. The optics were easily worth sacrificing the 3x magnification difference.

Then I checked out the Leupold VX-I 3-9 and really wasn't that impressed. If that is all I would have had to buy I would have stuck with my Baush/Lomb because it just didn't gather the light and was in 3200 territoty, if not worse.

Then, just for curiosity sake I requested to see the VX-II 3-9 even though it was $100 more than the others and stretching my budget. One look through the VX-II and it was all I needed to see. It was not any crisper or brighter than the 4200 but the tone of the hues presented to me were much prefered over the Bushnell. It gave the mercury light that distinct blue sheen where the Bushnell had a more orange shade to it.

Next came the reticle. The VX-II duplex reticle was much better for my tastes than the Bushnell. The Bushnell large outer posts are too big and square and the cross hairs don't have the sharp "shine" to them like the Leupold VX-II.

Lastly I must say that the above 2 points are a matter of taste but this last point is a clear out asset to the Leupold of which the Bushnell can't even compare. I am talking about the eye relief, the foregivness of the eye relief and the perceived field of view.

First off the eye relief is much greater and not only extends out further, but maintains a full field of view over a greater distance. You look through the scope up close then move it back and it opens up with the Leupy and just keeps on going! As I was moving it back it just kept in full field view and I was wondering just how long this thing is going to remain this way.

Also moving my head up/down or too the side also is much more forgiving than the Bushnell. It maintains a large range without going black.

I must say that I was not impressed with the VX-I nor would I justify or buy a VX-III even if I could afford it. For my money, the 3-9 X 40 VX-II Leupold is a fantastic scope and worth the extra dollars over the 4200, easily.

I didn't even get into warranty or ruggedness, plus keeping my money on this continent and employing some folks honestly. The VX-I is not worth it but the VX-II is.

God Bless,

Corey

Your description of the eye window differences in the Leupold and the Bushnell is one that more shooters should pay attention to.

The apparent difference in colors through the various scopes is due to the lens coatings which can act as a filter or color intensifier. (This is not to be confused with the magnesium floride coatings that increase light transmission.)

Certain manufacturers like to highlight certain colors on the theory that they show game better. In actuality, the color filtering is a sales tool because some eyes prefer the reds (or other hues) highlighted and are "tricked" into thinking that the image is brighter, when it is actually only "tinted" the way their eye prefers. We vary in our preference for colors because we vary in our reception and perception of colors. Very few scope manufacturers admit to skewing colors, but some (like Steiner with their Predator series of binoculars) advertise their "color shift" as enhancing definition.

Think of it as adjusting the "color", "tint", and contrast on your television set. Some people prefer one or the other of the adjustments set more intensly, even if the color reproduced is slightly different from the true colors broadcast. Another example is the filters that photographers use to highlight or tone-down their subject for artistic effect or for better apparent resolution.

In my opinion the best image is the one that transmits colors most truly. But visual preferences are much like audio where some people prefer the "booming" bass and audio "warmth" produced by old-fashioned tube amplifiers to the truer sound produced by solid state circuits. It is a matter of taste.

Stonecreek,

I was in a hurry and had to cut my post short above. I meant to say that the VX-I is not worth purchasing over the 4200 but the VX-II, IMO, is a better value than the 4200.

Yes, you basically said it right when you said that a good scope will present the image in its natural form. The VX-II did just that, where the lighting had its host of natural hues including the blueness from mercury vapours where as the Bushnell gave it an orange tone which I thought didn't seem natural. My eyes just prefered the Leupold.

One thing I did forget to elaborate on is the perceived field of view between the 2 scopes as well. If the 4200 was a true 40mm field then the Leupold seemed closer to 50mm because when looking through the 2 scopes, the Leupy just seems that much larger and I can't explain why. Perhaps it is the larger reticle, I dunno.

Interesting that you touched on one of my serious interests and that is hi-fi audio. While I agree that there are many tube amps out there with "booming" bass or even rolled bass and syrupy highs there are some tube amps that are exceptionally quick, detailed and capture the air, sibilance and complete feel of the recording venue. Much of the secret in tube amps is running efficient speakers with them because the low powered single ended triode amps offer the most musical sound. Solid state circuits are good on paper and acceptable for a world class vinyl rig but running your average digital cd source into an expensive solid state brand name amp basically sounds like sand paper through a meat grinder.

My amp is running 2A3 output tubes of around 2.5 watts only but they are driving a pair of Fostex full range drivers that are 96 db efficient so they don't need lots of power. The secret to good sound in a tube amp is a good power supply design and good output transformers.

www.vaughnaudio.com

God Bless,

Corey