If you had $300 dollars no more and no saving more money for something more. What rifle scope would you buy and why?

I am having a 300 win mag done up for me and I want a different scope to top it. I like 3 - 9, 3.5 - 10, 4.5 - 14 type scopes and 40mm or more objective.
I plan to eventually shoot out to 600 maybe 700 yards so the scope magnifications above are just what I like not what I must have. My current scope is a 4-16x42 and it works well out to 700. But I want something new since I am gonna have a new 300 so to speak.

Any reccommendations are appreciated. Again $300 no more.

Kique

In that price range a VXI Leupold with an LR duplex reticle. Probably a 4-12. Or you could get a VX-I 4-12 with an M1 turret through the custom shop for $360, they're fine scopes if you don't need absolute optical resolution under all circumstances.

Vortex Viper 3-9x40 with the BDC Dots
VPRM01BDC

Call Doug Monday and see we he can do

Cant go wrong with the Leupold

Bushnell 4200 3-9........$265 most places....

Since you won't commit the extra couple bills for a Leupy 3, I'd get a Nikon Buckmaster and keep the change.

Dollar for dollar I'm totally impressed with Nikon.

Actually, on reflection, you might try one of the new Redfields and save $140 bucks or so.

I tend to buy my Leupolds either used, on sale, or on closeout and I was frankly shocked to see the VX-I 4-12 listed at 299.99. I hadn't looked at retail prices in several months.

VX-II 3-9x40.

You won't find a better new scope for under $300 than the 3-9x40 Bushnell Elite 4200.

Go to www.opticstalk.com and read all the good reviews on this scope and I think you'll be impressed.

Enrique,

You have done me a favor. Now let me do one for you. I suggest you put a 4-16X Tasco for less than $100.

This allows a couple hundred for powder, primers, bullets and dies.

I would probably buy a used Leupold or Conquest in the power range I wanted.

Ted

VX-2 3-9x40

+1

VX-I with CDS installed!! Mine is flawless..

Vortex Viper 3x9x40 $299.99
http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/vortex.pl?page=vortexviper3-9x40

+1, unless you can do some rootin' around and come up with a leftover Conquest 4x32. I know it doesn't meet your magnification or objective size wish list, but MAN, is it a sweet scope.

FC

Kique,

I read GREAT things about the Vortex. But, I don't own one.
I do own a Conquest 3-9x40, and can recommend it over a Leupold, which I also have, the a VX-3 in 1.5-5x. It's a POS as far as I'm concerned.

Don

Burris FFII, Vortex, Nikon Buckmasters, or one of the new Refields.

+1, on par with the VX 3 IMO.

Yep, and a 1 year "No questions asked" refund policy and a lifetime anyone, anywhere, anytime warranty.

I'd do a Burris FFII with their holdover reticle and spend the extra hundred odd bucks on more practice ammo. If not that, then I'd see if I could get a Leupold VXI for $300.
I wouldn't do an Elite for a .300 Magnum. Eye relief is way too short for me. E

Kique--consider a Burris 3-9 with BP, it's tough, clear, repeatable and easy to set to 600 yds and if you wish you can have them put on a turret on top.

Dober

I concur.

FC

4200 eye relief is plenty on my lightweight 338-06 but then I'm not a stock crawler.

If the eye relief is "way to short" for you then why would you recommend the Burris FF? It's eye relief is even shorter yet at top power settings on both the 3-9 and 2-7.

I know what's puzzling you. You're recommending something that you have actually owned and used. Not a good habit to get into on this optics forum.

I've used my 3-9 Burris on several rifles from big to small and my wife can find her spot in it easier than about any other scope so I'd say that the eye relief on the 3-9 is not too small.

Curious to know what rigs have you used it on and had trouble with RD?

Dober

The Burris FFII 3-9 eye relief is published as 3.1-3.8".

The 4200 3-9 is published at a constant 3.3".

Now I like the FFII's but tell me how it has enough eye relief and the 4200 doesn't?

I just measured the actual eye relief of my 4200 and I got a full field of view starting at just at 3" and maintained a full field well past 4". This was set at 4 power. Same results set at 9x. This is a measurement from the lens of my glasses as well.

You'll be perfectly fine with a 4200 on any rifle you want to put it on IMO.

That was my point. For me, the eye relief is fine. I run the 2.5-10 4200 on my 300 and the eye relief is about the same as the Burris FF that several here are saying is "better" in the ER department. Makes me wonder why folks recommend one over the other. Could it possibly be they have zero experience with the scopes they are suggesting ? ? ?

Nah...people would never do something like that....grin

Nice looking rig there

Thx
Dober

Too true unfortunately!

VX-II 3-9x40 with dotz.

It'll be pretty hard to find on NIB for $300 but you can do it.. I got mine at that price when the Whorehouse was having a storewide sale.

Thanks. It's wicked accurate to boot.

Cal?

Dober

They have a 4-12x40.It can be had with AO if you like.

300 Win Mag

Tell u what optic i'd like to try some time is the old 3-9 or 4-12 3200 with the now discontinued Ballistic reticle based on a 3 MOA tree reticle design.

Brunos Shooters Supply has the VXII 3-9 with LR duplex for $290 as the normal price.

Used Leupold or a VX-1 Loopy.

Keep your eye out for a like new VX-II 4-12, can be found for around 300, sometimes a little less.

I have never seen the need for such power for shooting big game at extended distences inasmuch as you can see a deer or Antelope very well indeed at up to 1000 yards with a 3X Leupold..

It seems that todays hunters think magnification makes one a good shot. The longest shots I have made in my extended hunting career have been with scopes of 2.5 to 4X..One thing that is seldom mentioned is that high power is hard to hold even with a rest as it will bounce the cross hairs with the beat of your heart, you have problems in incliment weather with high power, you have problems with change of impact when you move the power up or down, especially with higher powers, they are intended for slow precise shooting under very controlled conditions IMO..I can hold a 4X dead solid on a deer at 1000 yards, I have trouble with a 16X and one tends to grab the trigger as the cross hairs float by and thats a miss or a wounded deer...

I think for any big game hunting a 2x7 or 3 x 9 is all one needs. I also would not feel shorter with a fixed 4 or 6 for that matter..I put more emphasis on trigger pull than any thing else for long range shooting.

If you have $300, you have $369 <grin>. Demo 3-9 Conquest from Doug.

If $300 really is it, used 3-9 Conquest.

Nikon Team Primos that can be had for $199 is a steal if you like the BDC reticle that it has. Rebadged UCC Monarch.

I'd rather see what's going on (heartbeat, wind moving the shooter, etc) than be under the false impression that I was "solid", so I can't agree there.

That said, you are spot on with the trigger pull stuff.

I don't recall the topic being about YOU.

The OP was very specific in his needs and price point. Of course some somehow still can screww that up.

Enrique, there's a vx III 2.5-8 in the classifieds for $275 that sounds like a winner to me.

Enrique, what are you shooting with this rifle?

I never felt the need for anything more than a 3-9 until I went prairie dog shooting. Being as you are talking a 300 mag I suspect they are not on the menu...??

Under $300 scopes that have served me well - A 2-7x33 Vari-X II, my favorite deer scope. Bushnell 3200 3-9. Burris FFII 3-9 w/ B-Plex - I'd like to play with this scope some more. And the biggest surprise of all - an Aetec 3.8-12x44 that I bought simply because I "needed" a scope that day and that was all that was on the shelf at the local store. I put that scope through a fall that should have ruined any mechanical device ever made and it only shifted down and left a 1/2 inch, and that because stuff bent. I still have nightmares featuring the sound that rifle made hitting the frozen ground - scope first. That model has long been discontinued and I'd have never dreamed of buying that brand under normal circumstances. I think it just goes to show that there is some decent functional equipment to be had for a couple a hundred bucks.

Everyone shoots different and at different things, but in the original post he mentions shooting 600-700 yards.

I know for a fact there are those out there that can shoot better than myself with a 4x or 6x, than I can using whatever I have at my disposal. But for the most part at that range I personally want a little more magnification.

Thanks 338win. I'll have to look at that. Rick shot a mule deer with me using a 2.5-8 Leupy at 400 yards.
I have always been a fan of the 3-9. My longest shot was 517 yards on a 75 pound coues with a 3-9x40 Tasco world class. So that 2.5-8 if its still up might be what I need.

At joe788,

I will be shooting mostly deer with this rifle. If I am so lucky to draw an elk tag then I would use it for elk. But Mostly Coues or Mule Deer. Most of my shots are under 500 yards, however I want to practice enough with my rifle and learn it good enough to take 600 maybe 700 yard shots if I need to. Coues are tough to hunt, and sometimes you have to be able to shoot a little longer range. I limit myself until I get enough practice and confidence to take long shots. So for now 500 maybe even 400 will be my max. Later on bring on 700.

Well guys it seems I have to go to the shop and compare scope. I have seem the same few scopes come up. Leupy (of course), used or demo Zeiss, Bushnell, Burris and Vortex. So I guess I'll look thru some new ones at the store, come back and see what Doug can do for me.
Thanks for all the input and help.

Kique

Enrique,

I shoot Leupold 2.5-8's out to 650 yards all the time (at targets). They are "enough". It's also a nice trim, light scope.

That said on anything other than a featherweight I've converted over to Conquests. I know it's endlessly debatable, and endlessly debated, but IMHO they are damn fine scopes, and when you factor in the cost (very reasonable) and the tracking (excellent) and the out-of-box utility (the turret they come with stock is a great low-profile turret, and will get you out to 700 yards easily) then suddenly they are looking DAMN good at $369!

The 3-9 has 4" eye relief through the whole range. Picture that. You crank the scope up to "9", and you still have a full sight picture with your head in exactly the same spot it was at 3x. I can work with the Leupold "vanishing eye relief"; but to NOT have it happen, is pretty cool.

I know there are a scads of scopes out there that are good that I've never tried- Bushnell, Nikon, Burris spring to mind (I have owned several Burris), but from what I know and use the 3-9 Conquest really stands out as a perfect convergance of price and performance.

You steered me right with the Minox 13x56; I hope I'm returning the favor here!

Does that #20 Z plex come with turrets? If not can u buy some for it?

Yeah, the stock turret it comes with! It totally works, Enrique. Let me see if I can explain it.

Imagine a little turret with hash marks on only about 2/3 of it, 12 MOA worth. It's a finger-turn turret. Once you zero the rifle, you lift the turret up, turn it so that the "zero" hash mark is lined up with the little mark on the scope body, and set it back down. Now, all your hash marks are in the direction you'll be turning the turret to go "up" so it's instantly obvious which way to turn it, which is nice.

Contrast this with the stock Leupold turret. On that one, you zero the rifle, then you slide a little brass ring to line up with the "0" on the turret itself, which could be ANYWHERE. It could be on the other side of the turret from you. And if you did have a reference mark on the front of the scope body, which you do not, it would lined up completely randomly with the turret hash marks- useless.

This might sound like a trivial difference but it's the difference between a completely usable, actually very cool, low profile turret, and one that isn't usable unless you are willing to count clicks, and be completely lost if you forgot how many clicks you'd clicked.

Here's a picture of the Conquest stock turret. If you want a bigger turret, they are only $50 plus $15 shipping from Zeiss. I thought I was gonna go with the bigger turret (I have one on a Zeiss target scope) but the little stock turret works so well, I have not seen a reason to spend the money!

Here's a pic. I've been messing with making my own little "CDS" style custom turrets out of the stock Conquest turret; that's what the white label is on top of it. That's a whole other story. Very, very slick and you can do it yourself for practically no money.

See how the hash marks are all lined up on the right side of the turret? That's the direction you turn it. It has a "thick" hash mark at 6 MOA which makes it easy to tell when you are there, so if you are dialing say 7 MOA, just spin it to 6, then 4 more clicks...

I did make the reference "dot" on the scope body bigger with a speck of white paint.

Anyway it works and works very well.

So that little turret is standard on the $369 scope Doug has? Are those hash marks good if you sight in at 300 yards rather than yards? That scope in the pic, is that a 3-9x40? Which reticle do you shoot.
I never considered Zeiss since I thought they were out of my price range, but at $369 I can do that!

Kique

Yeah, that's the stock turret ("Hunter").

At whatever range you sight it in, you just then lift the turret, and set it back down so that the hash marks line up with the mark on the scope body, like in my picture. So yes, regardless of what range you sight it in at, it would look like in my picture. It's really hard to explain properly, I'm not doing a good job here, but it's super easy.

That is a 3-9x with the regular reticle... uh.. I think that's a #20.

Let me really confuse you here.

Let's say I wanted to run the rifle in that picture zeroed at 300 yards.

It is currently zeroed at 100 yards, but with the sticker I put on it (which is calibrated for the load I'm shooting) all I'd have to do to get a 300-yd zero is click it up to where the little "3" on my sticker, lines up with the hash mark on the scope.

Without the sticker, I would just reference a drop chart and click up however many MOA it was (3.75 MOA in this case).

But my point is- my rifle is nominally zeroed at 100 yards, but I can just click it easily to a 300-yard zero. This is essence of using a turret, really. I mean, I could also click it to a 500-yard "zero", right? That's what clicking it up DOES.

So you COULD zero the rifle at 300 yards, then lift the turret and set it down so that your zero mark "starts" at 300 yards; nothing wrong with that. Or, you could zero the rifle at 100 yards, and click up to a 300-yard zero easily.

I do the latter for two reasons. First, because it's easier for me to find a 100-yard spot to quickly check zero if I want to. Second, because for woods hunting, I much prefer a 100-yard zero, and my rifles get in the woods a lot (yours might not, in Arizona and all).

I hope I haven't just confused things. Short answer- yes, you can easily run a 300-yard zero, and click up from there, if that's what you want to do.

Nope not at all. I am smart about bins, but stupid when it comes to rifle scopes since I don't get behind one very often. I sit behind bins a lot!
The info you shared makes perfect sense, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. makes perfect sense. Thanks!

I am exploring the idea of printing up more professional versions of my little stickers. It would be pretty easy. But for now, I just used a dime to cut a circle out of white electrical tape, then used my drop charts to put a little "3" or "4" or "5" (for how many hundreds of yards) at the appropriate number of clicks, with an ultrafine Sharpie. It's waterproof and oh so easy. I do wonder if the adhesive will let the sticker move if it gets really hot though.

This is essentially what the "custom" turrets, calibrated for a load, give you. So to shoot at 600 yards, I spin the turret to line up with the number "6" on my sticker. Slick as snot and super fast.

Now, the little stock turret isn't the one to use for high-volume target shooting. It's not as easy to turn as a big turret for obvious reasons. It'll make your finger tips sore after a couple hours of dickin' with it. But that's not what you are using it for here, and if it is, you are $65 away from a nice bigger turret from Zeiss!

For $300 I would look at the Bushnell 3-9x40 4200 or the Weaver 3-10x40 Grand Slam.

Enrique, if your willing to go the extra 69.00 for the Conquest, you will not regret it!!

+1

That would be my choice for $300 new. But I'd probably look for a good used VX3 in 2.5X8 or 3.5X10 for about the same money.


270

At the lower end, 3X, the eye relief is 4.1 inches. It also has enough eye box to make me happy. At the upper end, it does get down to the area of the ER/EB for the Elites. But, at least at 3-4X you have something really useful if I'm in a hurry. Yes, I have owned and actually measured all of this with an FFII. None of the Bushnell Elite 4200's that I have used come even close to this. E

E, the OP stated that 3-9 was as low as he wished to go.
The 3-9 FFII has a published maximum eye relief of 3.8", not the 4.1" you quote above.
The 3-9 4200 has a published constant ER of 3.3" and actual measurements say that that figure is conservative.

Also the EB is as big on the 4200 as it is on any FFII I've seen. Consistent head placement mitigates your overwhelming obsession with EB. Consistent head placement is also conducive to good, consistent shooting. Most folks know this but apparently you have a very tough time achieving it.

The optical and mechanical performance of the 3-9 4200 is meaningfully better than that of the FFII's and better than that of any Leupy below the VX-3's.

I run a lot of the weaver grandslams. They don't have a ton of eye relief but they have enough. I run one on one of my 300 ultras. They have good glass and repeatable clicks and they seem to hold up well. The adjustments are finger adjustable and you can remove a few small screws and set them to zero once dialed in. They are also fairly lightweight.

I run the 3-10x40 on my 260 carbon, 7-08 faux Ti, and my Sako A7 300 wsm. And, I have some 4-14x40s on my custom 30-06 and my Model 70 SS 300 ultra. I have 3 or 4 more on other rifles too. You can usually find the 3-10 for $250 and the 4-14 for just slightly over $300.

Bb

A little while back, I asked my self that very same question, so I went ahead and put together some recommendation for different price ranges. For under $300, I came up with this OpticsThoughts

ILya

Another actual owner reports...



Seeing how you have never used a 4200 I'm not surprised at your guess. I own 6, 2.5-10x40's and the ER at 2.5 to say about 4x is way more than what is listed. Of course this puts me at a disadvantage to your findings cause I know what I'm talking about. I can't speak of the 3-9 so maybe that's the one you supposedly "played with" but given your history I'm skeptical of that as well. I can tell you that the ER on my 4200's is more flexible than the Leupold 1.75-6x32 (shorty) that I also own as I casually checked them two nights ago. Someone just recently measured the ER of a 4200 here and posted that they had a full sight picture from roughly 3 inches to over 4 inches at lower powers (I don't recall if it was a 3-9 or 2.5-10). So, my point is that you're doing yourself a discredit to try to BS the players.

Roy

Ok heres my 2 cents worth.

For 500 yards plus I recommend NightForce with 56mm Objective. This will go for about a grand more than your budget, so "No Joy".

For a "hunting" scope I would recommend the Zeis Conquest. Add to that the price you can get them for at Cameraland... NO BRAINER. Go for it. Scratch up the extra $69, you will thank me later.

If you insist on staying at your original Budget of <$300. Bushnell 4200 is the best bang for the buck. Though the Nikon buckmaster and team primos' scopes are pretty close in that regard as well.

Koshkin knows his stuff.

RDFinn, E and his utter obsession with eye box along with his penchant for commenting on scopes he has no experience with is laughable to say the least.

He is usually a Leupy slut (which isn't a bad thing necessarily) so his recommendation of a FFII was somewhat surprising. What was not surprising was his oft repeated, but never personally confirmed, assertion that the 4200 has short eye relief.

I expect eye box ad nauseum from him and he never fails to deliver.

I actually don't have a problem with a strong brand preference misplaced or not. I just don't understand the constant brand bashing of all others especially when the person obviously has no experience with other products. I'm at a loss as to why anyone would crave so much negative attention. I have to believe it is deliberate.

How many times have you read about Leupold inventing the eye box concept and that there is a direct correlation between ER and the size of this so called eye box. Now I just read that two exact same Leupold models can have different (shorter) eye relief figures and still maintain the same size eye box ?

Most people have brand preferences and in the modern marketplace with so many companies offering very similar products, it is not a bad thing.

Unfortunately, it leads to people working very hard to justify their purchases, sometimes. Either way, we have to be honest with ourselves: the marketplace changes all the time and the scope we bought a year ago may not be the best choice today. There likely were other models introduced in the meantime that may be incrementally better.

ILya

There prevails also a noted preoccupation with inconsequential increments in the loony bin...

Sheesh. Not talking about inconsequential increments would just about shut the optics forum down!

Don't be afraid to shout out an answer when you know it........................

i like this guy...

You kidding?!?!

He's trying to kill the Optics Forum with subtle humor!

Ban the bastard, *I* say.

No shortage of humor here

RD, if you are trying to tell me that your 4200's have anything like a one inch eye box, I'd going to laugh at you. No way. For every guy you can find that claims that, I can easily refer to several with solid credentials that have tested them and found what I say is true.
While I've never owned one, I have shot with several. Again, no way they have anyhting like that much ER or EB.
I have owned, shot, and measured the eye relief and eye boxes of a Burris FFII. I do agree that at 6X and 9x, their ER and EB's are very much like your 4200's. But at 3-4X, the story is much different. The Burris FFII, 3-9X40 I measured had an ER of 4.1 inches at 3X, and twice the eye box as the 4200's I've played with. In my book, that would mean I'd buy the FFII over the 4200 Elite. E

Apparently you don't shoot game from different shooting positions. Or, apparently, you don't shoot game uphill and downhill from you.
All of the above will place your head either further forward or further back on the scope.
For that matter, there is also a difference in clothing worn and in the pack you wear.
All of the above makes lots of eye box a real asset if you are in a hurry. E

Maybe I didn't state it clearly, but I did not actually measure the eye box, but I did say and will say again that you can more your head back and forth quite a bit with the 4200 especially toward the lower power settings. When I compared the 4200 to the Leupold 1.75-6, the 4200 had more flexibility. period. So, are there now two of us that are lying that actually own these scopes ? ? ? I am only left with two options. One, you are lying. Two, you haven't used one. Take your pick of the least objectionable.

Do you now believe that there is NO hard and fast rule to ER and eye box. You have stated hundreds of times (literally) that the shorter the eye relief the smaller the EB. But, when you supposedly "played with" a new VX3 and an older VX with an inch less of ER, the EB was the same ? ?. Who's laughing now. Are you aware of how utterly silly this makes you appear ?

Please do so. I look forward to them actually posting the eye box measurements. You say there are sereral with solid credentials. Hint, no flashlight guesstimates.

In fact I do all those things you claim I don't do.

I've also found that no matter the shot, the rapidity of the shot or the clothing worn, my head has always been in a position where I can see through any scope I've used.

Apparently you have a very difficult time maintaining at least a semblance of consistent head position. I think you need to work on that aspect of your shooting form and you'll find that your shooting will improve.

The EB on my 4200 is every bit the size of that on my 1.75-5 FFII (sold last week) and that on my 3-9x40 older FF.
These are from actual use of each of these scopes and not from "reports" from others.

I too would like to see these reports from those with solid credentials.

Hum, a well respected outdoor writer is one. Besides koshkin, I can't think of any others that have genuine credentials and access to equipment to make the measurements.

Maybe E really does have a more difficult time maintaining consistent form and he truly needs to be obsessed with EB.
Consistent shooting form is drilled into me by being a bowhunter. Consistency is everything for accuracy with a bow and that carries over into my rifle shooting as well.
Practice, practice, practice!

Still waiting for the solid credentials list.

Amazing how the thread gets twisted into an ego fight instead due to different preferences for equipment...


Enrique, I have had a FFII 3-9x40mm, BP, then upgraded to a Bushnell Elite 4200, now I have one of Doug's Conquests, all of them are in 3-9x40mm, and except the FFII, both the elite and conquest have been shot on a hunting 7mm Rem Mag without problems... best of the 3? the Zeiss, maybe not by far, but enough to have gladly paid what it is worth.

I have never shot through a Leupold, Nightforce, Leica, S&B, but that is not the point. To my eyes, and wallet, Conquest is the way to go...
would I love to own a Swarovski, a Diavari or a Leica?? heck yes.
Does it mean that everything else is crap? no...
Do I think that Leupold is bad cause I got a Zeiss? no, but I felt that I would get more for my money. I'm too poor to not get the best I can afford.

You can get a brand new Aimpoint 9000 for $300. It is an excellent hunting scope.

I have a Meuller Tac-II in 3-10x44 with a mildot reticle. The eye relief is allegedly 3.4", which some may find a little short, but on my 30-06, it works just fine. What I find is that you can fine tune your shooting style to mitigate a little extra recoil. Some guys get the "magnum kiss" regardless of what cartridge/rifle/scope combo they use, and others do not. There are many good scopes on the market. I have Leupold, Bushnell, Burris, Meuller, Nikon, and they all work well. What I have found regardless of what brand or power of scope you use is, Shoot Lots in Practice and become familiar with your equipment. My shots don't generally run out much past 300 yards, but I wouldn't feel challenged in the equipment deparment by ANY of the scopes I have. I shoot with them, and I KNOW them.

Kique,

Look through a bunch of scopes, and buy the one that you think is best optically, then mount the thing and SHOOT it and get to know it, then go forth a fill an ark, as the expression goes. Best wishes with your purchase.

oooo the forum has a Lupie hater!!!

In the past few weeks I have bought a Zeiss Conquest 3-9 x 40 demo (new??) from Doug and 2 Bushnell Elite 4200 3-9 x 40's. They are all very nice scopes for the money. I will admit that the best I have ever had before was Pentax Pioner and Sightron 1 3-9 x 40's so I haven't had a lot to scompare with. Both of these new models are heads above my earlier ones.

I am considering new Leupold red field. there are some very positive reviews on them.

Just bought a 2x8x32 Nikon Monarch for $259, shipping included, no tax [Ebay]. That is about my vote.

The Bushnell Elite 4200 3x9x40 is practically as good in optical performance, but extra lenses and robust tube, larger objective are are good for another 4-5 ounces [have one]. If I hunted Alaska or somewhere else with very heavy rain, would have to think about the increased durability and Rainguard feature.

It's all a compromise, but optical performance in these two is as good as a costly Leo or Zeiss, at least to 60+ eyes.

Enrique,

Sorry to interupt the pissing match, but go back and read Scot's post. You can still get a new Nikon UCC Monarch 3-9x40 Team Primos for $200. They are getting harder to find, but are a steal..............

Bob

It has a hold over recticle in it, which some people don't like. Its a pretty tough scope to beat at $200 though...Just like the Elite 4200 3-9x40 is at $249 or the Conquest 3-9x40 is at $369. If I only had $200 to spend, I would definitely consider the team primos 3-9x40.

K3, agreed on all 3 scopes.

Probably gonna sound like an echo, but Leupold!

K3ystone3: Where are you getting Elite 4200 3x9 for $249? Thanks

So Enrique... what'd you get?

Looks like SWFA has them for $254.95 now. I paid $249 for the one that I bought a few years ago for my CZ 527

I won't undermine the sponsor of this forum with a direct link, but if interested enough, you could google and you'd currently find them for as low as $225.62 (22 left!)

$226 is a SCREAMING deal on the 4200!
NOTHING at that price point can compete IMO.

Yeah, at that price point the 4200 3-9x40 is a no brainer.

I don't need any more scopes but I may just have to get a few of these $226 4200's

I just can't put a "Bushnell" on a serious hunting rifle. It'd be like driving a Hyundai.

If it still said Bausch & Lomb on the side it'd be OK though?

I think the 4200 is more like a BMW with Hyundai logos.

I guess I like that the Bushnell name is on it because that's probably one of the reasons you can get this high quality scope for $226.

I should have put a smiley. I was joking... kinda.

I mean there's a Bushnell on my kids pellet gun, y'know?

Hey, I understand what you're saying about the Bushnell name.
I sucks to have to explain to folks that this is the GOOD Bushnell not the bad one.
Resale also is an issue because of the name.
Kinda the inverse of Leupold, even a single coated Vari-XII from the early 90's brings big bucks.

I know what you're saying. On a different forum, the guys there wouldn't even dream of asking the kind of loot for a used Leupold that they routinely sell for here.

Hey, please don't insult Hyundai like that!

Have you ever tried to get a Bushnell fixed?