Differences between BUSHNELL 3200 3-9x40 and the 4200 3-9x40?

S

sgt.rock

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
159   0   0
Location
Yellowknife, N.W.T.
Can someone please tell me the differences between these two? Why spend the extra cash on a 4200? Please fill me in. I love my 3200's. Have had the chance to buy several 4200's over the years, but balked when I saw that they LOOK so much alike, plus the 4200 is more expensive, and I've never had a 3200 fail me for any reason. (especially on my hard kicking guns, they just keep on ticking and ticking).
So please fill me in on what makes the 4200 worth the extra cash. (And don't say glass quality, because I've had enough of the 4200's in my hands to directly compare to a 3200 and the glass was the same. )
 
Night and day.

the 4200's and up use Bausch and Lomb glass. The glass is not the same, your just not comparing them fairly. The 3200's have 90% light transmission and the 4200 are up at 95%, the difference at first and last light is very substantial. If your punching paper at the range in the daytime or just looking through them in a store, your not not going to see much of a difference. The rainguard coating on the 4200 is also very functional and worth paying for. I own and use a 3200, 2x4200s & one 6500 along with other higher quality optics(Sightron, Kahles and an older Swaro) to compare them too. My 3-9x40 3200 is on a remington 597 22 and I think they are suited for each other in terms of quality and performance.
 
Last edited:
sgt.rock said:
The 3200's also have the rainguard coating. Just wondered if there was a more radical difference for the money.
Click to expand...


Bushnell states that the 4200 series has up to 95% light transmission due to fully multicoating (all lens groups that interface to air) as opposed to the 3200 series only claiming 90% light transmission due to not multicoating all lens groups but just having multicoated lenses. They key word missing in the 3200's data sheet was "fully" in front of multicoating.

Nothing more radical than better glass. Glass quality is always going to be the major cost factor.
 
Thanks for the info. will have to give the next 4200 I see a better Looky Looky. And try to "challenge" its view in lower light settings. Stores are horrible for comparing scopes anyways.
 
Canadian_Zuk said:
Night and day.

the 4200's and up use Bausch and Lomb glass. The glass is not the same, your just not comparing them fairly.
Click to expand...

Both are made by LOW in Japan. The glass/coatings in the 4200 is better, the main tube is stronger and made with different alloys, and it uses a one piece tube. That's the differences I've found from my previous research.

The Bausch & Lomb name was used by Bushnell for their high end line. After some time they dropped the name all together and called that line Bushnell Elite 3200 and 4200. Now everything is just called "Elite".
 
Neither.
It's suppose to be better than the 4200........so I'm told.
I've looked through them and I sure like the skinnied up version
of the Mulit X reticle.
Never been a big fan of big arms cluttering up the lense.

Slaymoar said:
If I'm getting the new elite scope is it a 3200 or a 4200?
Click to expand...
 
I seem to recall reading that the 4200 series has an extra lens element in it which supposedly increases sharpness. Maybe google it?

When you're comparing scopes in the store, don't look through them at the hot blonde over in the camo lingerie department...try to find the darkest, dingiest corner to look into. Even better if you can look towards it with a bright light source between you and the target. Differences in lens quality are more apparent under poor lighting conditions, and/or when dealing with glare or flare from the side. Almost anything looks okay in perfect conditions.
 
Both are discontinued for two years now and have been replaced by the Elite. it's more in the 4200 range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom