Elite 4200...Didn't realize what I was missing
- Thread starter coltfan
- Start date
I've got one of those and agree they are every bit the match of the Leupold for clarity and light gathering. Eye relief isn't quite as forgiving as the Leupold but they are excellent scopes at a lower price.
I think your days with sanity are done....
I've had a number of Elite 3200 and 4200 scopes, and while they are well built, high quality and reasonably priced optics, they don't stand up to a Leupold in the clarity department, at least not through my eyes.
I switched an Elite 3200 for a VXI of similar size and magnification, and found it to be a vast improvement.
My rifles which once wore Elite 4200's now sport VXIII's.
Optics don't HAVE to be a subjective thing. There are simple and widely available tests for evaluating the consistency, clairity/resolution and light transmission of optics. Leupolds AREN'T anything special in the optics department, nothing a good bushnell, burris or most other manufacturers can't match.
Where the competition truly occurs is in the customer service area, and to a lesser degree, the durability of the scopes.
It's up to the end user to decide how much importance they place on each of the above items, and decide which scope offers them the most value. For example - if you're not worried about how long it takes to have a scope repaired in the (rather unlikely) event it breaks, then you can save a few hundred bucks by going with the cheaper makes
Where the competition truly occurs is in the customer service area, and to a lesser degree, the durability of the scopes.
It's up to the end user to decide how much importance they place on each of the above items, and decide which scope offers them the most value. For example - if you're not worried about how long it takes to have a scope repaired in the (rather unlikely) event it breaks, then you can save a few hundred bucks by going with the cheaper makes
I have a 4-16x50 A/O 4200 elite and although it works just fine....it is no where near the quality of a Leupold VXII or VXIII. The eye releif is a big deal as is the clarity at LONG RANGE. Yours is a 1.5-6 so distance really isn't a big factor but out past 300 yards focusing on a dirt pigs head just poking out of its hole is dahm tough with the 4200 but my Leupold does it very nicely and with amazing clarity. I own 7 Leupolds and 1 bushnell....the next scope I buy will be a Leupold...the next scope I sell will be a Bushnell! The Mark 4 I have is by far the best scope I have ever shot with
No, it's NOT. Eye relief is GREATLY misunderstood, it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the 'quality' of a scope. It's one of those things that just *is* - any scope manufacturer could pick any arbitrary eye relief to build to. Long, short, whatever, it doesn't cost anything. The VAST majority of manufacturers pick a medium eye relief as the shorter it is, the better the image (less stray light to enter your eye). The ONLY time a long eye relief is necessary is with heavily-recoiling guns, which is why almost all manufacturers only produce scopes with generous eye relief in lower magnifications.
Long eye relief is generally received positively by end users as it minimizes the problems caused by incorrect mounting. It's still far preferable to have the scope properly mounted to fit you, in which case it doesn't matter what the eye relief is. (Actually, as noted above, there is a small benefit in using the shortest eye relief you can get away with).
While on the topic of proper mounting, you can get exceptional results from even the cheapest scopes by ensuring it is optically centered. What this means it to mount it such that the windage and elevation adjustments are at the middle of their ranges. If the rifle is primarily used for long range shooting, this means using an elevation-added base so that the center of the optics translates to much further down range. Using Burris rings with the plastic inserts is a great to achieve this. The reason this works so well is because even with cheap scopes, the optics are much much more consistent at the center of the lenses. Lenses can be made very cheaply indeed if they use a spherical shape. This shape, though, means lots of nasty distortion and lack of clairity the further you get from the centre. Aspherical shaped lenses offer much more consistency at the edge of the glass (but not the centre), however they cost many many times as much as non-shaped glass.
Last edited:
For the price differnce I will stick with my bushnells. I have always had great customer service with them too. I am not saying that my elites are the best, but they have never let me down and I can see just as well through them as I need too. If the higher end scopes are clearer (witch I am not saying they arn't [ I really couldn't see a differnce when I compared...actually a cheaper scope won my comparison test for clarity] they may be lets say...7% clearer and 5 times the price. In my world that doesn't make sence. Don't get me wrong...I like nice things. I was a engineer in the automotive industry for years so I know about quality and quality parts. The only scope I would buy living here in Canada is a leopold (lower end cause the higher end products are not that much better in equal incraments) and bushnell.
This is just my opinion....Of course its peoples own opinion on what they buy but I would be hard pressed to find a better built scope for the money than an elite series or a VX-1. Both are guaranteed for life too!
IMO Buying a VX-111 is like buying a extra large soft drink when I bought a small......BUT there are free refills!
George
This is just my opinion....Of course its peoples own opinion on what they buy but I would be hard pressed to find a better built scope for the money than an elite series or a VX-1. Both are guaranteed for life too!
IMO Buying a VX-111 is like buying a extra large soft drink when I bought a small......BUT there are free refills!
George
Well, FWIW, I own a couple VX-III's, a couple 4200's, a 3200, a couple jap B&L ScopeChiefs, and a few Burris scopes, as well as some of the new Millet's and an assortment of other cheapies. From where I stand, the Burris FF's offer by FAR the best bang-for-buck, although the reticle adjustment isn't the most robust ever (the higher end Burris's are another story altogether, they're bullet proof)
True, but if you're whacking yourself in the head with a 7 - 10lb gun of moderate recoil (perhaps up to a 338 or so) and a 3-4" ER, then there may be issues with LOP and stock fit as well as mounting. Going with a long eye relief scope is not really addressing the root problem, only the symptom.
Oh, and if you're whacking yourself in the head with your dirtpig gun, I certainly hope the pigs you're shooting are a mile away
Oh, and if you're whacking yourself in the head with your dirtpig gun, I certainly hope the pigs you're shooting are a mile away
Last edited:
Oh, and if you're whacking yourself in the head with your dirtpig gun, I certainly hope the pigs you're shooting are a mile away
For the record, i've never been bit by a scope, not a leupold, a B&L, a Bushnell, Simmons. swarovski or Ziess
Confidence in a product means a lot to some people. I just picked up a Leupold VX-ll rimfire for my 10/22. It was almost twice the cost of the rifle itself. Even at that price I feel at ease because I know the product is quality and won't let me down, and that means a lot to me.
prosper makes a few excellent points in his posts.
That being said, when I look through various scopes, I certainly can SEE the differences. Clarity at the edge of the FOV is a big one. Brightness is another.
WRT eye relief, it's not the length, but the RANGE of that eye relief that's important to me. With the Leupold's longer eye relief, I've got more 'wiggle room' after mounting the gun before the image darks out at the edges. More forgiveness if you will.
There is certainly nothing wrong with Bushnell Elites. For the record, none of the ones I had ever failed me in any way, and the Rainguard coating is like magic if you happen to breathe on your lens and fog it.
That being said, when I look through various scopes, I certainly can SEE the differences. Clarity at the edge of the FOV is a big one. Brightness is another.
WRT eye relief, it's not the length, but the RANGE of that eye relief that's important to me. With the Leupold's longer eye relief, I've got more 'wiggle room' after mounting the gun before the image darks out at the edges. More forgiveness if you will.
There is certainly nothing wrong with Bushnell Elites. For the record, none of the ones I had ever failed me in any way, and the Rainguard coating is like magic if you happen to breathe on your lens and fog it.
Prosper isn't shooting a 35 Whelen, 300 RUM or 375 RUM is my guess with a Tasco, bushnell or Burris FFII. You want to teach me something about optics there Prosper, your best off packing what you've read and bring it out to the firing line. I've had 3200's ....couln't get a clear picture past 200 yards ...PERIOD! I own a 4200 4-16x50 on my 243 WSSM and I mount all my scopes in Burris Signature series DD rings and bases which are all optically centered with signature shims. My Sako 75 Varminter wears Sako OptiLocks as well. That 4200, although a good scope and ideal for cross over use as a deer / varmint scope due to its 4X erector does not have the clarity that my VX II 6-18x40 A/O does out at 350 yards where the bullets are smacking dirt pigs in the face. Facts are facts.....you can read all about how great each manufactures scope are...but I've had he majority and sold many....but stick with the leupold. My Mark 4 4.5-14x50 LR/ ILL M1 TMR is off the chart for picture clarity, eye releif and toughness and has indexed lenses. It serves dual use on my Sako 75 260 Rem in the summer for wackin pigs and then moves over to the 300 RUM for LR moose hunting. Thats why I choose to maximize the eye releif of my scopes....you can rarely have too much....but too little sure is a PAIN!!! Specially when your working off a bipod or bench. Gee what happens when your Bushnells have the rainguard coating worn off the lenses from cleaning over the years? Do they warrantee that???? Ah NO. Leupolds you just by a new set of filters that screw on. Funny how it took Bushnell 4 years to catch up to the industry with the side A/O's and are only offering on one 6-24x40 model scope eh! What a pain putting butler caps on the front A/O design Bushnell uses.....oh Leupold figured out how to avoid those issues with their front A/O design of what....10 years ago. Don't get me wrong, Bushnells are okay..but sure not fine. I get 4 weeks vacation a year and spend as much of that as I can hunting...so I'm not gonna take a chance with anything breaking or disappointing me in the feild. I shoot with Leupold, never let me down.
Optics are a fine line of a few major equations. Though Leupold scopes are infact excellent with eye relief, they give up field of view to do so. In order for a scope to have a good field of view, the eye relief suffers. you cant have both, but some manufacturers have found an excellent mix of both.
Bushnell has not. i have owned, or shot quite a bit 3200's in 2-7x32, 3-9x40 and 50. have a 4-12x40 AO, had a 5-15x50 AO that is just what Chilly says. OK. all but the 5-15 were nearly impossible to see a 30 cal or less hole at 100 yards clearly on paper, or a dirtpig out at 250 odd yards and it falls short. does that discount it as a viable scope? No. for the average low recoil hunting rifle, it would do just fine. Ultimately, it all comes down to what is best for you. but if ever you get the chance to give em an apples to apples side by side... your opinion might change. Mine did.
I learned that for crisp CLEAR optics,bushnell scopes are not IMHO the best choice in the price range. I've never owned a 4200, but I've shot quite a few and they are clearer, and adjust more positively than a 3200, they are still about equal to a late Scopechief in clarity.
Though Leupold scopes are not perfect by any stretch, But my 6.5-20X40 I can see my group clearly at 300 yards when it was on my 25-06...
When you can see whiskers on a piggies face at 285 yards, you'll see why the extra couple bucks are worth it. For a good mix of eye relief, clarity, and FOV, I like my Burris Signature 3-9. But... its heavy... real heavy...BURRIS FF's are excellent for the buck, but Have also failed a few hunters I know personally... Neither would hold POI on a sluggun, and one was on a 300 WSM. That could have been just the luck of the draw, but has made me cautious of them.
(thats another story)
IMHO, Leupold scopes offer quite a few advantages to either bushnell scope.
First... Warranty. anyone who has dealt with leupold for warranty knows what im talking about. Rarely do they fail, but if/when they do, your in the best hands period! Most (like myself) that have dealt with bushnell for warranty work have been less than satisfied, and I aint easy to please.
Secondly, in an apples to apples comparison, comprimable VXII and III's weigh up to half a pound lighter than the same magnification Bushnell 3200 or 4200.
Eye relief. Though the leupold scopes give a bit up to the bushnell in FOV, Eye relief is important in anything capable of 20 ft lbs of energy in a 7.5 lb package. try shooting a 4-12 bushnell 3200 on a somewhat factory remington 300 RUM. The scope had more blood on it than the rifle did. Combinations like that make people afraid of rifles that recoil rather than bad scope combinations.
At the end of the day, if your happy with it cool.
But I dont know if I agree that its a superior product...
Bushnell has not. i have owned, or shot quite a bit 3200's in 2-7x32, 3-9x40 and 50. have a 4-12x40 AO, had a 5-15x50 AO that is just what Chilly says. OK. all but the 5-15 were nearly impossible to see a 30 cal or less hole at 100 yards clearly on paper, or a dirtpig out at 250 odd yards and it falls short. does that discount it as a viable scope? No. for the average low recoil hunting rifle, it would do just fine. Ultimately, it all comes down to what is best for you. but if ever you get the chance to give em an apples to apples side by side... your opinion might change. Mine did.
I learned that for crisp CLEAR optics,bushnell scopes are not IMHO the best choice in the price range. I've never owned a 4200, but I've shot quite a few and they are clearer, and adjust more positively than a 3200, they are still about equal to a late Scopechief in clarity.
Though Leupold scopes are not perfect by any stretch, But my 6.5-20X40 I can see my group clearly at 300 yards when it was on my 25-06...
When you can see whiskers on a piggies face at 285 yards, you'll see why the extra couple bucks are worth it. For a good mix of eye relief, clarity, and FOV, I like my Burris Signature 3-9. But... its heavy... real heavy...BURRIS FF's are excellent for the buck, but Have also failed a few hunters I know personally... Neither would hold POI on a sluggun, and one was on a 300 WSM. That could have been just the luck of the draw, but has made me cautious of them.
(thats another story
) IMHO, Leupold scopes offer quite a few advantages to either bushnell scope.
First... Warranty. anyone who has dealt with leupold for warranty knows what im talking about. Rarely do they fail, but if/when they do, your in the best hands period! Most (like myself) that have dealt with bushnell for warranty work have been less than satisfied, and I aint easy to please.
Secondly, in an apples to apples comparison, comprimable VXII and III's weigh up to half a pound lighter than the same magnification Bushnell 3200 or 4200.
Eye relief. Though the leupold scopes give a bit up to the bushnell in FOV, Eye relief is important in anything capable of 20 ft lbs of energy in a 7.5 lb package. try shooting a 4-12 bushnell 3200 on a somewhat factory remington 300 RUM. The scope had more blood on it than the rifle did.
Combinations like that make people afraid of rifles that recoil rather than bad scope combinations. At the end of the day, if your happy with it cool.
But I dont know if I agree that its a superior product...
Last edited:
BTW prosper, an optically centered scope isnt going to help with 3 inches of eye relief on a 300 or larger magnum if its under 10 lbs... Eventually you might wear the mark of the Half moon clu
). I agree with you that Eye relief is greatly misunderstood. But, In the days of one size fits all resale value first rifles that most folks own, proper fit and stock design has fallen by the wayside. Most guys hunt with box stock rifles not knowing what a good fit is until they stumble on it shooting someone elses gun, or by trying different rifles at a gunshop... there isnt one mold for a rifle fit, But most stocks are made that way.
Good thing riflescopes arent...
). I agree with you that Eye relief is greatly misunderstood. But, In the days of one size fits all resale value first rifles that most folks own, proper fit and stock design has fallen by the wayside. Most guys hunt with box stock rifles not knowing what a good fit is until they stumble on it shooting someone elses gun, or by trying different rifles at a gunshop... there isnt one mold for a rifle fit, But most stocks are made that way.Good thing riflescopes arent...
Well, let's see here, you assume way too much about me. I have a 338 WM with a japanese ScopeChief 4-12x40, a 378 wby with a burris FF-II 3-9x, a 30-06 with a frikkin bushnell Banner that I occasionally use at the range to hammer gongs at 200-500 yards, and an assortment of 4200's in various configurations and Leupold varix-III's and VX-III's on my varmint guns - all of which have been used to splatter 2" wide gophers at 300+ yards. And lets not forget about my dedicated gong-hammerer M-305 with a 3200 mil-dot 10x. And a few professional camera lenses that are probably worth more than two or 3 of your best rifle scopes put together.
And to quickly address a couple of your other disjointed points:
-rainguard - if you're cleaning off the multicoatings from your lenses then your cleaning them wrong. YOU wrecked the scope through misuse, why should warantee cover that? I'd prefer my scopes not to be artificially expensive because of the price of replacing user-damaged scopes.
-eye relief - yes, you CAN have too much. Refer to my previous posts. Why do you think that EVERY OTHER manufacturer out there chooses to build a more moderate eye relief when it doesn't offer a penny of savings? And, of course, you shouldn't need extended eye relief on something as small as a 300RUM if it fits you properly
-side AO - actually, it's a rather new technology across the board, and has only recently caught on with consumers. Bushnell now has three models. Most the other manu's have very limited side-AO models. AO in itself is a whole other topic; suffice to say, fixed AO on scopes 10x and less is perfectly adequate for hunting.
-As far as leupolds not breaking down - sure they do. Their service is first rate, but betting that a Leupold won't break under field conditions where another scope of comprable quality won't is just silly. Besides, while hunting, you're far more likely to drop the gun and damage the scope that way (or accidentally twist the turrets). No scope is safe from that.
BTW prosper, an optically centered scope isnt going to help with 3 inches of eye relief on a 300 or larger magnum if its under 10 lbs... Eventually you might wear the mark of the Half moon clu
Good thing riflescopes arent...
Agreed. But you're just re-stating what I said earlier - that fitting a long eye relief scope to compensate for a poorly-fitting stock (and/or poor scope mounting) is treating the symptom, not the actual problem. A shorter eye relief scope on a properly set up right is far preferable than ignoring the root problem and shooting an uncomfortable rifle with a scope mounted a half-mile away.
Realize that I'm NOT trashing Leupold scopes. They're excellent scopes, I like them and I even own a few. But some of the things the Leupold evangelists continually harp on as being reasons for leupold's 'superiority' are silly, and some even downright incorrect
I forgot to mention that longer eye relief helps to facilitate in keeping both eyes open and on target while shooting.
back to fit.
You have to keep in mind that you ahve to know you have a problem before you fix it. And most dont know they have a problem because there isnt one.
A rifle that doesnt fit "just right" isnt necessarily uncomfortable to shoot. Just different in some respects than what one that fits a particular shooter better. If shoot a rifle with a high comb, and this is what you are accustomed to you might not know what else fits you good. One day, you pick up a straight stock'ed rifle with no comb, and little drop, and realize its what works for you. Fit is relative to the shooter with many options.
and a proper scope helps to facilitate this whatever your preferred mix of rifle and optics is
Last edited:
