I sat in a sporting goods store tonight with about 40 different scopes and could not believe that the 3200 and 4200 Elite Bushnells were so nice and sharp? I definitely preferred them to my Burris and Leupold scopes.....what is up with that? They are half the cost.

I am looking for a scope for my new custom 6.5X55SE

Don't put too much faith in what you see while sitting in a store, I haven't shot too many deer while sitting in a store.

I've had two of the bushnell 4200's, one a 6x24, the other a 2.5x10. I wasn't real impressed with either of them. The optics were okay, but they were both very critical of the eye relief and head position. It made it hard to get a sight picture without "fishing" when first mounting the rifle. The 6x24 got replaced by a weaver grand slam 6x20, and the 2.5x10 got replaced with a leupold VXII 3x9, both of which are nicer scopes than the 4200's.

boltman,

Get your eyes checked.

$bob$

okay LDHunter....what do you think about these scopes?

I think if you search this forum, 24 Hour and others, you will see eye relief is often mentioned as a problem with the 4200's. I have one in 2.5x10. The optics are bright and clear, but I had to mount it on my light recoiling 25-06 because of the eye relief issue. I will not buy another one -- S40

quote:

Originally posted by LDHunter:
boltman,

Get your eyes checked.

$bob$

They get checked twice a year when I go in for my FAA medical. For ten years before that they were checked every year on my flight physical for the Marine Corps. I've never read over 20/15 and once spotted an F-16 at 13 miles during an engagement.

I think my eyes are doing OK. My opinion stands on the 4200's. I bought them, didn't like them, now they're gone. Enough said.

quote:

Originally posted by 333_OKH:
okay LDHunter....what do you think about these scopes?

I think that the 4200 series quite simply has the best glass and coatings in the industry for any rifle scope under a thousand and it's better than most over a thousand. I've shown a hell of a lot of people the difference and it it's extremely rare that I run across anyone that disagrees with me if their eyes are any good and if they've actually looked in "field conditions".

I also think that if you want a low parallax for any scope you'll have to precisely align your eye behind it and that good target scopes will force that.

I also think that if you need more eye relief than what their new side focus line offers then you have a rifle fit problem and not a scope problem.

http://www.bushnell.com/general/riflescopes_elite4200_42-6242p.cfm

I've never found eye relief to be a problem with ANY rifle/scope combination I ever used but with rifles offering HEAVY recoil I get cautious really quick.

OH yeah.... I also think that boltman needs to get his eyes checked...

$bob$

I think you saw what is simply the case. Leupolds and some Burris are no better or maybe not quite as good as those 4200's. Why? Got to have good enough glass and coatings to manage it. So the question really becomes, why are those other brands more expensive yet no better?

For field conditions that Rainguard is a big plus too.

what about the Bushnell 3200 and 4200s against the Zeiss Conquests????

I have (4) Zeiss Conquests and (2) 4200's. I prefer the Zeiss, but for the money the 4200's are a VERY good scope.

I bought a new Bushnell 4200 1.5-6 x 36mm.
I used it for a week and returned it.
It had two problems I could not live with.

First the minor problem, the cross hairs mostly the vertical one look wavy like the wire was not stretched tight the wavy look was front to back not side to side like a rippled potato chip.
I did not pick up on this problem until I had the scope outside under bright sunlight.

The second problem was the real deal breaker.
Eye relief, it was long as most scopes but the eye relief was critical. You had to put your eye just at the right sweet spot. I usually had to make my face hunt for it a bit. If I moved off just a little the image developed black half moon cresents at the edge of the image.
For me this made the scope very slow to use.

I am not a optical design engineer but I suspect the fact the this scope has a 4x erector where as most scopes use 3x erector might have some thing to do with it.
I believe optic design is a series of compromises weighted by the manufacture to favor certain criteria.
These two problems pushed this scope out of the running for me.

I got a Leupold VX-III 3.5-10x40mm and have what I believe to be the same eye relief as the Bushnell gave but I do not have the critcal eye relief problem. I can carelessly flop my head on the stock and get a perfect sight picture.

The 3200s are not as clear to my eyes as the Leupold scopes and not even in the same field as Zeiss or Nikon. I base that observation on trying to find small bullet holes in paper at 200 yards and by looking at thick brush at a distance on a clear day. I've found that by focusing on birds or vermin at 200 + yards in thick leafy brush will really bring out the optical quality of a rifle scope.

Reloader

Yall correct me if I am wrong on this. I think that Bushnell was part of Bausch & Lomb untill a couple of years ago. I have heard that the 3200 and 4200 are still made by B&L with the Bushnell name on them. The reason was the Bushnell has a better name in the outdoor circles than B&L.

I had an 1992 B&L 3200 6x9 that got droped and bent. I replaced it with a 4200 2.5x10 on my 7lb Savage thin barrel 300wm. I love this scope. I have no trouble with
eye relief. IMHO they are the best scopes under $500.00

quote:

Originally posted by boltman:
...and once spotted an F-16 at 13 miles during an engagement.

Yeah but you have to spot them at 50 miles to matter. You are already in flames at 13.



John

Dick,

Bushnell made all the rifle scopes for B&L several years before B&L got nervous when all the gun manufacturers were getting sued. They asked Bushnell to take their names off all rifle scopes due to fear of being named in a lawsuit.

So now we only have Bushnell rifle scopes but they're the same scopes they made with the B&L name on them anyway at least in the Elite series.

They're also still made in Japan. I just bought one of the new 6-24x40 Mil-Dot Elite 4200 side focus models and it sports the "made in Japan" claim proudly. I dunno who actually makes them to spec for Bushnell but I would assume Haako or is that Hakko? Or for all I know Bushnell owns their own factory.

Anyway... I'm still a Bushnell fan and have several of their Elite 4200 series units but have lost interest in the Elite 3200's and the Trophy scopes.

Good equipment with a lifetime warranty and I'm hell on scopes... I should know...

$bob$

I'd like to weigh in on this. I have a 1.5-6x40 4200 and love it. I am very impresed with the optical quality and I believe they are the best scope for the dollars spent. I also own VXIII's, Burris Signature Selects & Zeiss Conquests and enjoy them also. But, I would not hesitate to buy another 4200 and will do so when my varmint AR is finished. I'll put a 4-16 or 6-24 with side focus on it.

I have a 3200 3-9x40 with Rain-Guard on my -06 Mtn Rifle and love it. Probably wouldn't have bought it but I was standing at the WM sports counter 4 years ago when the salesman posted a $95 clearance sticker on it; too good to pass up! I find the optics as good as my Leupolds, better than my old Redfields and Weavers which were made back when they were made right.

Never had problems with any scope's eye relief, I mount my scopes as far forward as needed and hold the rifle tight to fire.

Never have to hunt the exit pupil. Long practice makes all my rifles rise to my line of sight when they come up.

I don't use rifle scopes to glass the area, that's for binoculars, and usually look thru the scope only a few seconds before the rifle goes off and game goes down. I couldn't tell any difference if I used a $2K Swarvoski so the Bushnell's very good optics are more than sufficent for me. I suspect Bushnells are plenty good for most others too, if they could get over the desire to spend a lot for shiney toys and paper specifications. :-)

Light Optical Works in Japan makes Bushnell Elite's, and stop talking how good they are because I don't want the price to skyrocket like Leupolds!

They are a great value and I will keep buying them if they stay priced that way.

strange. ive been hearing (or reading) so much about these bushnell elites and the burris being so good and much cheaper. yesterday i went to a shooting store and took a bunch of the scopes outside and spent a long time looking through them all at a variety of ranges, targets, lighting, etc.

i was very disappointed in both the burris fullfield 2 and the bushnell 4200. they were definitely not as clear or crisp as the leupold and the nikon monarch beat all of them. of course, none of these compared to the zeiss conquest. the light gathering on the first 4 was pretty much the same and the difference was in the clarity and focus. the zeiss was MUCH brighter than any of these and the quality of the picture was amazing.

since i cant quite afford the zeiss, ill be spending my money on the nikon. the lower quality of the bushnell just isnt worth the savings.

Mike,

Get your eyes checked...

$bob$

quote:

Originally posted by dick broussard:
Yall correct me if I am wrong on this. I think that Bushnell was part of Bausch & Lomb untill a couple of years ago. I have heard that the 3200 and 4200 are still made by B&L with the Bushnell name on them. The reason was the Bushnell has a better name in the outdoor circles than B&L.

quote:

Originally posted by LDHunter:
Bushnell made all the rifle scopes for B&L several years before B&L got nervous when all the gun manufacturers were getting sued. They asked Bushnell to take their names off all rifle scopes due to fear of being named in a lawsuit.

B&L made their scopes up until they licensed them to Bushnell with the provision that the B&L name would be phased out. The Elite 4200 and 3200 scopes and several former B&L binoculars and spotting scope models are now made by Bushnell. The reason B&L actually divested in sports optics is they thought that relationship might hurt their other divisions. As in an ANTIHUNTING ANTISHOOTING market decision.

I would never buy a Bushnell Elite 4200 or 3200 riflescope. There is more to making an optical rifle sighting instrument than clear, bright optics. My eyes are just fine thank you.