How much difference should I expect to see in a 9 year old B&L 2.5-10 Elite 4200 and a new Bushnell of the same making.
Have heard good things about clarity, rainguard, and warranty, just wondering about the older models.
I am comparing it to a Leupold vx3 or iii 2.5-8 x 36 and trying to see if either would be better than the Nikon Monarch 3-9x40 that sits on my Kimber .260 Montana now.
Thanks for the help and hope all enjoyed that extra hour today.

Little to none, they are very good scopes, the 4200 was made briefly under B&L, later continued after the company re-organized, under Bushnell brand that continued the products, w/o the B&L name.

I suspect your scope will be competitive in a side by side comparison w/other models mentioned.

What he said. I have a B&L 4200 and 3 Bushnell 4200's and they are the same scope. I think the 4200 is a better scope than the Nikon Monarch as well.

I have one B&L and one Bushnell,same scopes. They are very good and reliable,but I think too big and heavy for a Kimber 260.

I agree for the Montana, the Leupold 2.5-8 would be a better choice. That particular 4200 is long especially for a short action Montana.

Look to the 3-10x40 SA Compact, eye relief is 3.7 vs. 3.3 of the longer older styled. Btw, the SA is for short actions, yes a 3200 but the optics I find very nice.

A Kimber is light and can afford more wt. but in keeping the theme, a 4x33 or 6x36 Leupold is a good alternative, but a 1.75-6 or 2-8 are also very light, as a 2-7x33.