Nikon prostaff vs Bushnell 3200 vs Leup rifleman vs Redfield

powdergun

powdergun

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
250   0   0
Sorry but when it comes to using the search engine on this site I'm a bit of a tard so I'll ask the question here.

The four scopes listed are about the same price. From all of your experiences which of these scopes would be the best for:

1) Holding zero when set
2) Low light viewing ( no flash due to poor coatings )
3) Durability

I'm not looking for a long range scope to read the back of a cereal box at 1000 yards but for something to shoot 200 yrds or less on my ML II for hunting.

Thanks in advance for all input
 
Not familiar with Rifleman, but the other three are close in glass and build quality. I stick with the Redfields for no particular reason. I think, the Leopold equivalent to these three would be the VX1.

By the way, my understanding is that 3200 and 4200 are now discontinued and replaced by a the "Elite" line. I am unfamiliar with this new line. love to hear from new Elite owners.
 
I think you forgot one?
Sightron.
One is in the mail for the peashooter.
I will get some photos up when the little box gits
it's arse here.........I hope........
 
The Elite serie or 3200 are a great value for the money the 10X40 mildot is one hell of a scope for less than 250.00... JP.
 
Most comments on this board will be subjective opinions, not objective (pardon the pun) data. However, for what it's worth, I have a Nikon Prostaff 2-7, Redfield Revolution 2-7, and Bushnell Elite 3200 3-9. For my eye, all are about equal in brightness and clarity, and all appear to have about equal resolution ("non-scientific" test peering at a resolution chart at about 30 yards... .) Nikon is nice and light with a fairly constant eyerelief, with 75 yds parallax setting. It's on my CZ 452. Redfield has roughly the same dimensions and weight, but more eyerelief on wide setting. With Accurange reticle, 100 yd parallax, and mounted with a quick detach mount, it's a perfect match for my combo gun. The Bushnell was supposed to go on a 30-06 because of the longer mounting length, but it's currently in it's box. It has the Rainguard feature, which appears to be well regarded. However, at 3x setting I can see some "barrel distortion" in the middle, so I'm not convinced that it's optically the "best it could be." Ergo, the gun wears a different optic, at least for now. I do not own a Leupold Rifleman, so I can't comment on that.

You have to remember that they all are "midrange" scopes at best, so don't expect miracles from any one of them. However, I would definitely buy another Prostaff or a Revolution, if the need arises. For the uses I have these scopes for, I cannot justify going to a higher price point. Based on couple other slightly more expensive scopes I have, Prostaff, Revolution and Bushnell 3200 are at the cusp where the returns for more money start diminishing very rapidly.

Hope this helps.
 
Thanks for the information. I have an older scope on my ML and it is working fine. However, this year I noticed a lot of scope flash when I looked through the scope at dusk ( last 30 min of shooting time). This would of made it darn near impossible to shoot if an opportunity presented itself. I'm hoping to find a replacement that would eliminate this problem. As it is not for a gun that will be shooting over 200 yards I was hoping one of these would do the job.
 
For your intended purpose they should all perform well. They each have their own perks. The bushnell may have less eye relief than the others but on a ML the rainguard feature could prove helpful for late season hunts. If your looking for something that has crisp "click" adjustments, then the bushnell or the nikon would have an edge there. The vortex diamondback is another you could throw into the ring within that price range.
 
TAP375 said:
Ok, I have to ask: What do you mean by "scope flash?"
Click to expand...


In low light there seems to be a glare or " Flash " when you look through the scope. It makes it impossible to see anything as it gets washed out from the glare. From what I have read that causes this in the coatings on the lenses are not up to snuff.
 
Ahh.... I think you mean the image getting "washed out" due to (1) poor quality glass and (2) poor quality internal/external coatings (which you mentioned,) both which will result in diminished light transmission "factor" through the scope (often shown in percentages) as well as diffusion of different wavelengths (colors) of light on glass surfaces inside the scope. All these can contribute to poor contrast (ie. lack of "crispness") of the image. Last but not least, if the visible exit "pupil size" (objective size divided by magnification) is smaller than your dilated pupil in low ambient light, you may be more aware of reflections on the ocular (the part closest to your eyes) glass surface, resulting from lighting coming from behind you.

Optics and related terms are a bit of a mystery for lot of people, including myself. But yes, "fully multicoated" lenses are better than just "multicoated" lenses (which often refers to only external lens surfaces being multicoated.) The quality of coatings will probably differ as well. If you pay more money, you'd hope to get proportional increase in quality. I don't know if that is necessarily the case, especially considering the likely intended use of most scoped guns (hunting and "plinking.")

For what its worth, my 30+ year old fixed Scopechief VI is just as clear (for my eyes) as the new scopes I have, thereby introducing the issue of fixed power vs. variable power scopes... Maybe we'll tackle that in another post some other time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom