Elite 4200...Didn't realize what I was missing
- Thread starter coltfan
- Start date
And truth be told, thats all most shooters are really looking for. A long eye relief scope isnt allways the answer, but often affords extra flexability. Something that a low power high end scope such as a 4200 is prone to helping in some applications.
troutseeker
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Prince George, BC
Simmons are pretty good too...
Troutseeker
Troutseeker
That might just be your eyes, then. I had a 3200 3-9 out at a hundred yards the other day, and not only could I see my 7mm holes in the target, when some kid started putting holes in my target with a .22, I could see them.
As far as brightness goes, I think it's one of the most overhyped scope characteristics out there. As a means of discriminating between good and better scopes, it's undoubtedly useful, but in actual hunting situations it's not exactly a necessity.
As an example, I took a deer last year at 75 yards in fairly thick bush on an overcast day 28 minutes after sunset (2 minutes before the end of legal light on the last day of the season.) This was with a Leupold Rifleman 2-7. The scope performed fine, no trouble picking up the buck or the crosshairs.
If this scope, which is far from the brightest scope out there, performed just fine in one of the least bright environments in which it is legally possible to shoot, then personally I don't see how a brighter scope would give any real advantage in less extreme conditions.
But I subscribe to the durability over optical clarity argument for scopes at any rate. If a scope is clear enough to pick up holes at 100 yards (and the rifleman is, even with only 7 power) then that scope is good enough for me.
It's a cycle...guys with $500 Leupolds knock guy's with $350 Bushnells and guys with $800 and up Zeiss and Swarovski knock everyone else.......but notice in this thread it's only the Leupold guy's knocking Bushnell 4200 scopes....no voice from Zeiss and Swarovski owners.........
So really it looks like the best scope on the market is the one your savings account lets you buy..............
I know, from this website there are a huge amount of guys that have $600 rifles and $125 optics....and they seem to be able to kill deer just like the $500 Leupold owners....
So really it looks like the best scope on the market is the one your savings account lets you buy..............
I know, from this website there are a huge amount of guys that have $600 rifles and $125 optics....and they seem to be able to kill deer just like the $500 Leupold owners....
Sure you can always practice oneupmanship when it comes to whatever you may be comparing. I admit being a Leupold fan, I have and use them a lot, but not exclusively. I have some less expensive variables on my Rimfires. (Bushnell & Tasco Varminters), and an old Redfield on my 222. However, I like the clarity in poor light of the 6x42 Leupold, and I prefer the Leupold to anything else when shooting targets at long range (with one exception...Nightforce) At the 1000 yard shoot, I went one year with a 6-24 Elite 4200, Hated it at long range. Only the very center was truly clear. The 6.5-20 Vari-X III Leupold did not suffer from the same problem at all. Sold the Elite, and don't anticipate buying another soon for that game. My Nightforce NSX 8-32 is another story, but give up some qualities also. One is weight. That sucker is heavy!! Also it is plenty pricey. All in perspective, I guess. But with the combination of durability and service, My first choice is Leupold. I would sooner have a $500.00 scope on a $200.00 rifle, than the other way around. Regards, Eagleye
I don't know. In most hunting situations, when you consider how much time one actually spends looking through a scope, I don't see a little bit of clarity or brightness being all that noticeable or for that matter, worth arguing about.
I have one Leupold and a few Elite's. They all hold their zero and I have blind faith in them. But I do really, really like my Swarovski binos though. And can look through them all day long.
I have one Leupold and a few Elite's. They all hold their zero and I have blind faith in them. But I do really, really like my Swarovski binos though. And can look through them all day long.
BBB, you missed my next sentence in the quote...
It pretty much clear up your entire post.
I do wear glasses for reading on the computer, but this is irellevant asI shoot allmost exclusivelt with them on now...
I used the term nearly impossible... Had you had access to a burris fullfield II, or 3-9X40 VXII, you'd understand the difference Im talking about...
Even take your 3-9 3200, and your 2-7 rifleman, and put them on equal 7 power... which is clearer at 50 yards, 100 yards , and 200 yards?
Sure you might be able to see your holes in the paper, but for an extra 50-100 bucks wouldnt you rather see them clearly?
BTW, silouette, weather conditions backround etc all play in to lowlight clarity. I've had a few nights I've looked outside with a riflescope and seen as clear I could see in the day... Full moon.
And, in the fall, and ovecast night is usually lighter than 0-half moon faze clear nights...
Lots of variables to potentially deal with. I'll spend a few extra bucks for the insurance.
but hey, thats just my opinion
You're correct in that while hunting, you don't really look through your scope that much (unless you're one of those #######s who use your rifle & scope as a spotting tool)
That being said, many of us shoot our hunting rifles outside the hunt, and some like myself, quite a bit. The least number of rounds I put through any of my hunting guns at the range in a year is probably 150ish, and some a lot more.
It's those hundreds of shots over dozens of range trips in all conditions that make a better scope worth the money for me.
I do understand the difference your talking about. I'll repeat, though, that if your 3200 can't see the holes at 100 yards, there's something wrong with your eyes, or you got a bad scope. Because the holes are pretty clear.
As to the Rifleman 3200 side by side --- I'd go with the Bushnell, though not by much. That's why I got it instead of another rifleman.
Look, if your VXIIs make you happy, great. Shoot them and enjoy. They're great scopes.
If, though, you've got to run down other people's choices to feel better about your own, or to justify how much you spent... well, that's something else entirely.
Run down? easy boy... How about you reread what I've wrote...
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.
At the end of the day, if your happy with it cool.
But I dont know if I agree that its a superior product...
maybe all you can afford is a Rifleman, or a 3200, and there is nothing wrong with that. If you havent compared any other scopes, I understand that your experience with different products might be in need of brushing up. If you are used to bushnell banners, or tasco world class products, I understand why you think the 3200 is the cats ass.
I've highlighted the parts you need ot reread before you spout off.
Let me know whne your homework is done...
Last edited:
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
Excellent service, I'd say...
Have fun sending your Leupolds to Korth
- Location
- AB foothills
You must have a special "buy many sh!t scopes and get great service card" from Bushnell. I have never, ever heard of or seen anyone getting service that fast from them.
And yes, the guys and gals who use Korth are having fun. Leupold has some of the best service in the shooting industry, they are very well known for it. Cant say that for Trashnell
- Location
- AB foothills
Ya, but it sure is nice when you do get em back that fast
