Elite 4200...Didn't realize what I was missing

DarrylDB said:
I've highlighted the parts you need ot reread before you spout off.
Let me know whne your homework is done...
Click to expand...

Read it. Maybe you could answer some other stuff for me. You wrote this:
I learned that for crisp CLEAR optics,bushnell scopes are not IMHO the best choice in the price range
Click to expand...

We're not talking about the same price range. We're talking about a 3200 at $250 and a VX II at $409.

You wrote this:

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.
Click to expand...

Wholesale says this: I've taken the liberty of bolding the stuff you were wrong on:
LITE 3200 WITH RAINGUARD FIREFLY GLOWING RETICLE, FAST-FOCUS · Firefly Glowing Reticle, Fast-Focus
Finish - M • Power - 3-9x40 • Lgth. (in.) - 12.6 • Wt. (oz.) - 13 •

VX-II SCOPES · 3 - 9 x 40mm
Finish - Gloss • Length - 12.4 • Power - 3 - 9x40 • Reticle - Duplex • Wt. (oz.) - 12 •


As to the Leupold warranty, I just got a pair of Windriver Cascades back. The one-eye focus adjustments were screwed. They sent me a new pair within 2 weeks. What's my point? I don't really have one. We'll see what happens with the Bushnell.

But lets review. So far you have: 1) Exagerated the defficiencies of the 3200:
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.
Click to expand...

I've already pointed out that that's contrary to mine and many others' experience.

2) You've exagerated both the affordability of the Leupolds, by suggesting that they're in the same price range as the 3200, and exagerated their weight savings; where I'm from, one ounce is a bit off half a pound.

3) You've resorted to pathetic personal attacks because I dared to point out both the contradictions in your posts and the fact that you're acting like a tool because people disagree with you over what they should put on their rifles.

And now, I'm apparently "mr 3200" cause I don't see why you've got to spread inaccurate information about an inanimate object.

Well done, sir, well done. You're a credit to us all.

And finally, you wrote this:
But I dont know if I agree that its a superior product...
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just cause I've been working so hard on this algebra homework, but I just can't find the spot where I said that Bushnell was a superior project... no, just looked again, and I couldn't find it. I said that I'd give the 3200 a slight edge in clarity over a Rifleman, but that's it.

What I said, and what I've been saying, is that your original complaint about the 3200 was either incorrect or a flukey bad scope. And you haven't responded to that.
 
coltfan said:
I bought close to a dozen bushnells in a lot at a gunshow...sent them all out for a checkup....had them all back within 10 days by UPS.....no charge
Excellent service, I'd say...
Have fun sending your Leupolds to Korth
Click to expand...

Oh ya BTW, buying a dozen used Bushnell scopes at a gun show is like picking up a hooker at five in the morning. She has all ready been pounded a dozen times and you end up at the clinic for a checkup just to find out you have Gonorrhea.

Good luck with that :wave:
 
crazy_davey said:
Oh ya BTW, buying a dozen used Bushnell scopes at a gun show is like picking up a hooker at five in the morning. She has all ready been pounded a dozen times and you end up at the clinic for a checkup just to find out you have Gonorrhea.

Good luck with that :wave:
Click to expand...

So are you saying buying a used scope is is not a good idea ?

The optics section of this board is full of used scopes for sale.....

I picked and chose the scopes that "appeared" to be in excellent condition...

These scopes were not Sportsview, Banner or other bottom of the barrel models, but 3000 and 3200 series.....bread and butter scopes for alot of people....
 
Bushnell Canada received my B&L 3000 3x9 scope on June 25. I have been checking their website and it says on hold for inspection.

I called 2 weeks ago and they said wait. I called today, 15 working days after they received it and found out that on Friday they only work till noon!

How long will they keep me waiting? Has anybody gone through this process with them?
Click to expand...
The above question from another thread is case-in-point enough as to the reasons that I currently have Leupold scopes only on my big game rifles for over 20 years now. The best part of it all is that I've never had to use the unsurpassed warranty that they offer because they are such a good quality product. I do own some Bushnells, but on my .22's and .223 - guns that will not see the abuse that horse rifle scabbard can throw at a scope. For me, Bushnell scope do have their place....on rifles that are not necessarily used to put meat on the table or face something that can eat you back.
 
BBB said:
Read it. Maybe you could answer some other stuff for me. You wrote this:


We're not talking about the same price range. We're talking about a 3200 at $250 and a VX II at $409.

as far as Im concerned, it is the same price range... 159.00 isnt a big differnce to pay for a superior product... Unless your cheap.




Wholesale says this: I've taken the liberty of bolding the stuff you were wrong on:
LITE 3200 WITH RAINGUARD FIREFLY GLOWING RETICLE, FAST-FOCUS · Firefly Glowing Reticle, Fast-Focus
Finish - M • Power - 3-9x40 • Lgth. (in.) - 12.6 • Wt. (oz.) - 13 •

VX-II SCOPES · 3 - 9 x 40mm
Finish - Gloss • Length - 12.4 • Power - 3 - 9x40 • Reticle - Duplex • Wt. (oz.) - 12 •


Eww, you picked one scope out of the above linup I quoted... good for your arguement, but far from accurate...5-15X50 is 24 oz's 4-12X 40 on the bushnell site claims 15oz's, but is actually 17. (I own it, and sell calibrated scales for a living... Im sure im right here.)
4X12 leupold, 14 oz's we'll compare the 4.5-14x50 leupold VXIII to the 5-15x50... The leupold is only 16 oz,s, and the bushnell is 24... Glad you actually did an apples to apples comparison.:rolleyes:




As to the Leupold warranty, I just got a pair of Windriver Cascades back. The one-eye focus adjustments were screwed. They sent me a new pair within 2 weeks. What's my point? I don't really have one. We'll see what happens with the Bushnell.
Seems to be a common occurance, no point, but lots of talk...




But lets review. So far you have: 1) Exagerated the defficiencies of the 3200:
Really?

I've already pointed out that that's contrary to mine and many others' experience. Others? show me the many others:rolleyes:

I'll reiterate for your incomprehensable lack of reading skills...
There is nothing wrong with a 3200, but its not the best choice in the pricerange.



2) You've exagerated both the affordability of the Leupolds, by suggesting that they're in the same price range as the 3200, and exagerated their weight savings; where I'm from, one ounce is a bit off half a pound.

If you cant afford a 159.00 difference, I understand why your defending the 3200's so much... for the difference of a couple meager bucks, I'll buy a superior product... Period. 16 oz's for a 4.5-14 leupold... 24 for a 5-15x50 bushnell... A mere ounce difference :rolleyes:

Once again, skewing numbers is a problem, choose one out of a group of scopes that is "closest, doesnt equate to a good arguement, it just shows your lack of experience with the product.



3) You've resorted to pathetic personal attacks because I dared to point out both the contradictions in your posts and the fact that you're acting like a tool because people disagree with you over what they should put on their rifles. Really? show me Aww, Im sorry Mr 3200 hurt your feelings.

And now, I'm apparently "mr 3200" cause I don't see why you've got to spread inaccurate information about an inanimate object.

Well done, sir, well done. You're a credit to us all.

Thank you, thank you very much :onCrack:


Maybe it's just cause I've been working so hard on this algebra homework, but I just can't find the spot where I said that Bushnell was a superior project... no, just looked again, and I couldn't find it. I said that I'd give the 3200 a slight edge in clarity over a Rifleman, but that's it.

Working backwards aint a bad idea right now...

What I said, and what I've been saying, is that your original complaint about the 3200 was either incorrect or a flukey bad scope. And you haven't responded to that.
Click to expand...

Sure I have, and the unfortunate part is that you do not understand the difference... not my fault you havent looked down a good scope before... Dont worry, I was like you once, and than I had the opportunity to use good products like Leica, Schmit and bender, Nightforce, Khales, Leupold, Burris etc...
Had I not had a chance to see what superior glass is, I would be beating my chest just like you abouty how great the 3200's are...


 
Sure I have, and the unfortunate part is that you do not understand the difference..
Click to expand...

No you haven't. I don't care which is the better scope. What I have been asking for is for you to explain how you found it "almost impossible" to see a .30 caliber hole at 100 yards with a 4-12, when I can see a .22 cal hole at the same range with the same scope.

If you aren't going to respond to that, then don't bother responding to anything else. It's pretty clear you lied or exaggerated with your original post and are now trying to cover for it by not answering a very simple question. And, since you appear to have no problem lying about the qualities of a scope, your opinion is less than useless.
 
BBB said:
No you haven't. I don't care which is the better scope. What I have been asking for is for you to explain how you found it "almost impossible" to see a .30 caliber hole at 100 yards with a 4-12, when I can see a .22 cal hole at the same range with the same scope.
Click to expand...


Wow, done a complete turn around...
you can just admit yur wrong, and be done with it...
But i cant see this happening, so I'll pacify you...


So let me get this straight, you want me to answer the stupidest ####ing question I've ever read to someone who wont clearly understand the answer?
Here it goes...
I can see them holes as clearly as you can, but not as clear as I want them to be... I can afford to see them a bit clearer, so I will... happy?
And BTW "If you arent going to respond to that, then dont bother responding to anything else"?
LOL, the only thin glint of hope you though you had at winning this discussion has now been destroyed...
Sorry, didnt mean to hurt your feelings, and I knew you were hoping I didnt respond...
Probibally still ahve your fingers crossed...
See, I know the diffeence.. and Know I cant explain it to someone that has never looked down a quality piece of glass the difference ...
Sure you can see them 22 holes, but clearly? do you know what the term clearly means?

Take your 3-9 3200 out to 250 yards on a groundhog, or another live target, and put it beside my burris signature 3-9X40 on the same target. (which cost me the same as your 3200, but I guess I know where to find deals... )
IM pretty sure you'll se a bit of a difference...

How would you like me to explain to you in words you understand...
Ok, I have an Idea that might work...

Are you familliar with Digital camera's, and what a megapixel is with regard to rating them?

we'll equat your 3200 to a 3 megapixel camera. Sure its capable of taking pictures, and was the best when it first came out, but... we now have 10 megapixel camera's commercially available for the same price as your 3 megapixel camera... Which is capable of taking a clearer picture? you'd think your 2 megapixel camera is great until you try a 10 megapixel unit from Futureshop, and realize the difference... I said it once, and i'll say it again...
Because you dont know the difference down range, is your handicap, not mine.

I have a 4-12x40 3200 I'll sell you cheap if you want, and than you can look down one of my leupolds, or burris's an see why Im spending a few bucks more on glass...


Secondly, Lied, and exagerated?
A bunch of claims I've backed up with numbers above...
Seems you backed out of that arguement again...
Realizing your over your head?

I proved how well you misled people with your 3X9comparison... My opinion is less than useless? Newb, you have a lot of learning to do if you think this is going to get under my skin...
 
Last edited:
Are there any absolute answers to "which is a better scope" ? Not really.

I got a pair of Leupold roof prism phase coated binoculars (350U$) Wind river Olympic I believe.
Great quality, very good image. I think that's it for me.

Scopes.... I refused to buy Leupold because in my opinion they are overpriced. To get the good quality I bought some IOR scopes. They are waaaay better than any Leupold.

But there's a problem with money... Even though IORs are lower priced than similar shape/size Leupolds , I don't just have one rifle to put a scope on. So I got Bushnell Trophy MD on one (decent quality) a Burris FF II on another (I agree that Burris is in general a better quality/ clearer glass scope than a Bushnell, but man that magnification ring should have not been the same with the eyepiece :mad: )..... And lately I have been topping my rimfires with clones.... again a very good price and decent quality.


there's no question on what I would buy if I was rich, but I think that guys that change all their scopes to a certain brand are missing out on a lot of fun... (that includes frustration and bad customer service, as well as venting off about it on CGN) :p

As for the glass quality-wise, once you get into a value range, it's more of a personal preference , be it optical or ergonomic.
 
We are at the point now where people are low blowing each other and are not really talking about the piont in question. IMO I buy Bushnell elite series and VX-1 series scopes. I have NEVER had a problem with either of them I can see very well through both scopes (my eyes are better than 20/20) and in my case I see no need to get anything better (never had a problem and can see perfect through both). I did a scope comarison like I stated before and the simmons Aetec was the clearest scope I put up to my eye on that day. I however don't have one of them. They didn't set up shop in our country which makes warranty work a hastle and with bushnell and leupold setting up shop in Canada it makes me feel that they more deserve our business. I read an artical where Chuck Hawks was surprised how clear the optics were on the aetec and he compared them against the elites, vx-11.

Bushnell ....leupold....who cares buy/use what you like. If someone else is going to buy me a burris I'll use it. Spending my money I'll buy what I want. How boring would the hunting world be if we all used one brand of scope....
 
I've got used Leupolds on all my rifles(except for a 1969 Redfield Widefield 4X that still works great). I've never had to get one worked on but by all accounts, service out of Korth's is quick and reliable.

I could give a sh-t about clarity of the lenses. All the modern scopes I've ever looked through are clear enough.

Here's part of an article by Ross Seyfried I saved on this very subject that says it better than I ever could.

The fun of the story aside, it sets the stage for the reality of riflescopes. They can break through no fault of any maker or user. Or they can be, and often are, poorly made. I am fascinated by the scope ads, the ones that make huge, loud noises about how bright and brilliant their optics are. Some long-surviving scope companies have staked their entire reputation on clarity of the glass. Most so-called “optics-expert” writers tout clarity of the glass: glass, glass, glass. Ladies and gentlemen, I am here to tell you, glass in riflescopes is the last thing we should worry about!

We look through binoculars hour after hour. We use them to find things, to identify things and to judge trophy quality. Binoculars are optical instruments. Because they must define detail, and because we use them for prolonged periods of time, there is nothing, but nothing, as important as the glass in our binoculars and how that glass is aligned. The glass gives us the ability to see, the quality of the instrument reduces eye fatique, headaches and a whole lot of other physical things that bad binoculars can do to you.

Buuutttttt — our riflescope is an instrument of an instant, an instrument of alignment, not an instrument of looking. It is a sight. Low light? Virtually the worst scope made has plenty of clarity and ability to function in any legal shooting light in North America. If you hunt in the dark as Europeans do, or if you are hunting leopards, then light and optics and glass become very important and very expensive and very worthwhile. Otherwise, we have other things to worry about.

I often use vintage scopes, 100-year-old scopes, some of the first riflescopes ever made. They are dim, often fuzzy instruments, but they are still a huge leap ahead of any iron sight. They are still very easy to hit with. So, what is the point?

The point is, what scope makers should worry about and what we should worry about is the integrity of the “guts” of the scope. The turret, the adjustments, the glue, threads that hold the lenses in place, the springs and the cross-hairs are all extremely important. These are the things that hold the invisible magic of whether or not that bullet goes where we are look*ing. For almost a decade I gave scopes to my friends on the Dark Continent, gave them the ones with the huge reputation for “glass- -quality.” A very high percentage of them failed; no, not failed to “see” but failed to hold zero, to adjust properly, failed to hit. So how do you know what is good and what is not?

The sad truth is, you do not have anything absolute to base judgment upon. However, there are a few tips. First, if a scope company spends tons of time talking about glass and ignores the mechanical qualities, be suspicious. Ask your friends, listen to hunters with high mileage on their scopes. It is not surprising that among honest hunters, some of the “glass” has a terrible reputation. Other scopes will almost have a perfect record. How many hunters have you talked to who told you their old Weaver scope let them down? Probably not many.

Today we see a scope like the Burns Posi-Lock. They are selling an effort at absolute retention of zero, of precise tracking, along with their optics — they are worth a hard look. The real bottom line is:
look beyond the surface. Do not buy a scope just because of the pretty picture through its lenses. Too, I think you should avoid too many trick and gadget reticles, double reticles, reticles that allow hitting at any range and extra flashlights inside the scope. Buy one that will let you hit.
Click to expand...
 
Everyone is intitled to there opinion so here is mine. I have many lupys VX-111 and VariX-111 a 2 and a LPS(way over rated) one conquest and a burris Sig series and just the other day I purchased a Kahles C series 2.5X10 and you know what? All my other scopes dont even come close to ,YES resolution edge to edge clarity and BRIGHTNESS.

So for the people who dont give a S**T well thats your problem and as for this quote

"Buuutttttt — our riflescope is an instrument of an instant, an instrument of alignment, not an instrument of looking. It is a sight. Low light? Virtually the worst scope made has plenty of clarity and ability to function in any legal shooting light in North America. If you hunt in the dark as Europeans do, or if you are hunting leopards, then light and optics and glass become very important and very expensive and very worthwhile. Otherwise, we have other things to worry about."

Total BS, especially on those dark overcast rainy days when lets say legal shooting time is lets say ex 6:17PM and realistically you cant see past 5:50PM well if you cant afford it I fully understand but if your a cheap dink put your money where your mouth is, because this is where the High end Euros excel. I'm not going to risk the animal of a life time or poorly shot animal for a 1000 bucks. You can quote me on this one " You cant shoot what you cant see"
 
Darryl. I will say this once more. You have lied more than once in this thread. You said between COMPARABLE Leupold and Bushnell scopes the Leupolds are 1/2 lb lighter.

You lied.

You said you couldn't see .30 cal holes at 100 yards.

You lied.

You said I said the 3200 was a better scope.

You lied.

You sold out the most important thing a man has -- his word -- to try to win an internet argument.

You are pathetic. And I'm done.
 
Let's go back to talking scopes. I see no point in continuing this pissing match.

Hypothetically speaking.... If a company XYZ would develop a technology allowing to cu down the cost of very good glass 10x, and the same company would happen to own an aluminum plant.... you get the idea...
And the result would be that the scopes made by XYZ would be as good as Swarovski, but at a fifth the price.... Do you really think that ALL of us would buy XYZ scopes? There must be somebody here that likes something else. Accept and live with it.... there's no point in proving the other guy wrong.... we're comparing scopes as we see them and those who read this thread will acknowledge the best argument, not the one who types all the letters in red or takes an incredible amount of time to perform an autopsy on the other's posts......

BTW... you both need to buy a Zeiss Conquest. Too bad they ask a premium for just crossing the border.
 
BBB said:
Darryl. I will say this once more. You have lied more than once in this thread. You said between COMPARABLE Leupold and Bushnell scopes the Leupolds are 1/2 lb lighter.

You lied.

You said you couldn't see .30 cal holes at 100 yards.

You lied.

You said I said the 3200 was a better scope.

You lied.

You sold out the most important thing a man has -- his word -- to try to win an internet argument.

You are pathetic. And I'm done.
Click to expand...

LMFAO... Im going to use that as my sigline.

Sorrry I hurt your feelings...
Im not going to respond and ruin what was intended as a good thread... PM sent...
 
So...does anyone know who is stocking the new 4200 - 6x24x50 target?

I'd really love to buy a Mk4 but it's just not going to happen anytime soon. I have the 3200 target and it seems ok to me so the 4200 would most likely be just fine. Shooting the 4200 is better than not shooting at all.
 
Ducimus said:
So...does anyone know who is stocking the new 4200 - 6x24x50 target?

I'd really love to buy a Mk4 but it's just not going to happen anytime soon. I have the 3200 target and it seems ok to me so the 4200 would most likely be just fine. Shooting the 4200 is better than not shooting at all.
Click to expand...


An Elite 4200 6x24x50 is better than "likely be just fine" they are great scopes for the money period.
 
I believe both P&D as well as Wholesale Sports stock them, I picked up a 1" 6-24 4200 awhile back and although I wish I'D waited and bought the 50MM, it's still an excellent scope
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom