I decided to do this comparison because I had a hard time finding information on the SS vs the 3200 10x40 mildot when I was considering buying the SS.
I just recieved a used Tasco Super Sniper 10x42 from a CGNer here. I swapped it for a Bushnell Elite 3200 10x40 that I have on my AR-15. I still have a couple 3200 10x40s on different rifles and I thought a comparison might be useful for those out there considering different "budget" options for tactical or distance shooting. I suspect this SS is one of the older generation of SS scopes.
They are at similar price points. The Elite 3200 runs about $240 plus tax. The Super Sniper (SS) is typically a bit more ($400-600 all in) due to the premium they demand north of the border, since we have a limited supply and its all essentially second hand dealing. Still these prices are well below the premium tactical scopes out there at $1200 to $$
$$.
Elite is a 1" scope tube, the Tasco a 30mm tube. This may affect range of reticle adjustment (haven't checked fullrange travel yet), and theoretically could affect brightness.
On that note, brightness is similar with maybe a very slight edge going to the SS. Colour and contrast are more "natural" on the SS than on the Bushnell, the Bushnell having slightly enhanced colour/contrast, and tending to a slightly "amber" tone. This is very likely due to the coatings used on the optics.
The Bushnell has fixed parallax (100yrd) with no AO and shooting closer means living with some minor parallax and a slightly out of focus image. The SS has AO and focuses with it allowing good imaging as close as 20 yards, specific adjustment points are marked for the AO out to 500 and then to infinity.
Both have very good, clear reticles with apparently accurate mil-dots. Both have excellent turrets with good gripping surfaces, although of slightly different design. The Bushnell turrets seem to have a more pronounced/positive "click" when moving. Also they seem to require a larger movement of the turret per click, but this may just be me. Both seem to be consistent/accurate with movement of the reticle when moving the turrets. I would rate them essentially equivalent, in quality here.
This isn't strictly a scope quality issue, but also relates to rings and rails. The scope came with the rings off the previous rifle and when mounted on mine after shipping was within 2 clicks windage of dead on. Elevation was obviously different considering ranges were likely different too. So the system seems to be pretty darn effective when considering the rifles while of the same calibre were totally different manufacture/design.
Overall I'd say they are very comparable with a slight edge going to the SS if you want to shoot regularly at distances less than 100 yards. Otherwise the Bushnell Elite 3200 is better $ value for my money.
That said, many of my rifles get used at ranges from 50 yards or less so the AO is very handy for me, so I'll probably be thinking of picking up another one at some point in the future.
Cheers!
I just recieved a used Tasco Super Sniper 10x42 from a CGNer here. I swapped it for a Bushnell Elite 3200 10x40 that I have on my AR-15. I still have a couple 3200 10x40s on different rifles and I thought a comparison might be useful for those out there considering different "budget" options for tactical or distance shooting. I suspect this SS is one of the older generation of SS scopes.
They are at similar price points. The Elite 3200 runs about $240 plus tax. The Super Sniper (SS) is typically a bit more ($400-600 all in) due to the premium they demand north of the border, since we have a limited supply and its all essentially second hand dealing. Still these prices are well below the premium tactical scopes out there at $1200 to $$
$$.Elite is a 1" scope tube, the Tasco a 30mm tube. This may affect range of reticle adjustment (haven't checked fullrange travel yet), and theoretically could affect brightness.
On that note, brightness is similar with maybe a very slight edge going to the SS. Colour and contrast are more "natural" on the SS than on the Bushnell, the Bushnell having slightly enhanced colour/contrast, and tending to a slightly "amber" tone. This is very likely due to the coatings used on the optics.
The Bushnell has fixed parallax (100yrd) with no AO and shooting closer means living with some minor parallax and a slightly out of focus image. The SS has AO and focuses with it allowing good imaging as close as 20 yards, specific adjustment points are marked for the AO out to 500 and then to infinity.
Both have very good, clear reticles with apparently accurate mil-dots. Both have excellent turrets with good gripping surfaces, although of slightly different design. The Bushnell turrets seem to have a more pronounced/positive "click" when moving. Also they seem to require a larger movement of the turret per click, but this may just be me. Both seem to be consistent/accurate with movement of the reticle when moving the turrets. I would rate them essentially equivalent, in quality here.
This isn't strictly a scope quality issue, but also relates to rings and rails. The scope came with the rings off the previous rifle and when mounted on mine after shipping was within 2 clicks windage of dead on. Elevation was obviously different considering ranges were likely different too. So the system seems to be pretty darn effective when considering the rifles while of the same calibre were totally different manufacture/design.
Overall I'd say they are very comparable with a slight edge going to the SS if you want to shoot regularly at distances less than 100 yards. Otherwise the Bushnell Elite 3200 is better $ value for my money.
That said, many of my rifles get used at ranges from 50 yards or less so the AO is very handy for me, so I'll probably be thinking of picking up another one at some point in the future.
Cheers!
