Bushnell 3200 2x7 or Leupold Rifleman or Burris FF II

S

Shakky

Regular
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Location
Newmarket, Ont.
I want to put a new scope on my .35 Whelen and I was thinking of going with a Bushnell 3200 32mm 2X7 but I'm wondering if I should just go with the 3x9 40mm it should be a brighter scope in low light conditions correct? Now I see Bass Pro has the Leupold Rifleman on for the same as I can get a Bushnell 3200 for so now I'm considering that one as well. I wouldn't be shooting past 300 yards max. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I have a 3200 2-7 on my 35 Whelen and a Leupold Rifleman 2-7 on my 35 Rem. and they are both nice scopes. If you plan on close quarters shooting too ..... I would go with the 2-7 as opposed to the 3-9.
 
The bushnell is probably a better optic, but the Leupold has a better warranty - your call.

The rifleman line is really nothing special - made for the type of guys who think Bushnell banner and trophy scopes are "good".
 
I have the Bushy 2-7 x32 on my AR, and it is a good compact scope. It can be a tough go at 300 yards, but it is quite possible. The optics are pretty good for the money.

If you have more long distance shots (greater than 50 yards), then I would look towards the 3-9 x 40 as a better bet. You will get better light and a touch more view of what you want to see. Just spend good money on the rings as well. They are a good scope, and deserve good rings. :)
 
Thanks for the replies. They are sold out of the Rifleman. So now I can spend $230.00 on the Bushnell 3200 or $250.00 on a Burris Fullfield II 2x7. Is the Burris worth the extra $20.00?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom