how does the quality of these two scopes compare? Mechanically and glass quality?

2.5-10 variability range.

Bushnell has better glass(slightly) the Nikon has better ER. The Nikon is a more compact scope. Both IMHO are a little chunky.

er?

eye relief,

I would take the Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x42 excellent scope.Only disadvantage I can think of is the larger eye piece. I have too admit though I am not a fan of anything Bushnell.

I've had both and the Bushnell has a slight edge over the Nikon for clarity. The elite 4200 also has the "rainguard" lens coating and the option for the firefly reticle which is pretty cool. The Nikon has a little better eye relief, but I don't really notice the difference. Both have the lifetime warranty.

Right now i have a 2.5x10x42 Monarch and two 3x9x40 4200's. My 53 yr. old eyes can't see enough difference to matter, if any edge in optics i say the 4200 MAY be a tad better. Am very happy with both, both great scopes in my opinion.


Guy

i would go with the 4200!! at one time had 4 monarchs but one quit adjusting in the middle of a reginal match!! nikon repalced it(after a bit of pizzin match with them ) but i never mounted it, just sold it as well as the others i had at the same time. i used a 4200 for the same game (nra silhoutte) for about 3 years with no troubles

Nikon or better yet a Conquest scope. The Conquest�s glass is really good and for the price in fact excellent.

So I can get a 3-9 4200 for 200 at cabelas or I can get a 2.5-10 at natchezss.com for 326. Is the extra 1.5 power worth the extra 126 dollars?

Nope! I have always liked Monarch scopes, but I don't think that they addressed the eyebox issue as advertised. The adjustment knobs are also large and square looking. The 4200 is better glass with very tough coatings, not to mention rainguard. Their main drawback is eye relief at 3.3". You should still consider a 3-9 Conquest at under $400.

I guess my 53 yr. old memory isn't very good either. I posted earlier i could'nt see enough difference to matter. Today i proved that wrong. Today i bought a 1.5x6x36 4200 from a gentleman here at the campfire. We hageled over price for a day and a half so before i bought it i took out a 1.5x6x36 4200, a 3x9x40 4200, a 2.5x10x42 Monarch, and a 6x42 monarch for some INFORMAL side by side comparison. To MY eyes the 4200's are better glass, not a lot but for sure better. So in my humble opinion i don't think the 1.5 power is worth the 126 dollars, and surely not if the glass is not as good, again just my opinion. I think the 3x9x40 4200 for 200 bucks is by far the best deal out there right now. Good luck with whatever ya pick.


Guy

The 4200 at $200.00 is a hell of a deal! you could buy two for the price of one Conquest, I know the Conquest has a big following on the campfire and rightly so, but I own both Elite 4200's and Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 and the Bushnell is as good or better optically, I think the eyebox on the Zeiss is a little better but not much and certainly not $200.00 better.............Good luck.........Hillbilly.

+1, VaH. My experience exactly mimics yours.

alright boys I cheaped out on the scope and got a 3-9 bushnell 4200. I really would have liked to have a 3-12 or 2.5-10 but i'm unemployed and can spend the extra 125 someplace else. I can hold tight enough to hit small things even with the 3-9 so it's not that bad.

You did well, you got a lot of scope for $199.00 and it would be hard to tell any practical difference in the power of a 3-9x and a 2.5-10x scope, you would notice some with a 3-12x power scope though...........Good luck......Hillbilly.

I took the gun out shooting yesterday when it was nice and sunny. I was really impressed by the 4200's brightness. I think that I may have some bedding and free floating issues with this gun. If I start at low charges and work up I get 1/3 inch groups. If I add a grain of powder in the .222 I get groups that string vertically oR horizontally and wind up like 3 inches. The left and right will be really good but the up and down will be rather horrid. All of the bolts seem to be tight.

I looked at the various rifle scopes for putting on our Savage model 12 varmint/predator rifles. Friends of mine went with me to Bass Pro Shop and Cabela's as well as several other dealers close to us. We took notes on what was clearer, brighter and moved through the range of powers without problems. The Leupolds we looked at had some problems in this department. I came away purchasing 4 of those Bushnell 3200 Elite Tactical scopes that day and went back and purchsed 2 of the plan Bushnell 3200 Elite series in the 4 x 12 that were on sale. These went on the wife's 2 other rifles.

We compared several scopes while trying to find the brand that would be the top dog for my rifles and also be affordable. I saved at least 285 dollars over what the Leupold scopes were and the Nikon Monarch too. These are very good glass and bright, well worth the money spent.

I am in the process right now of ordering a Bushnell in the 8 x 32 power for my long range 25-06. Bushnell is a very good rifle scope.

The Bushnell is a lot of scope for the money.I took one on a 30.06 to Africa a few years ago. It did what needed it to do with no trouble. It will meet most of the demands put on it by most people. Others may be a little better here or there but the Bushy is a great value especially at closeout prices.
I bought a couple of them too. Couldn't pass up the price.

If you are looking at a Nikon Monarch, check out the BDC reticle.
Also Nikon's Spot On Ballistic Match Technology Program will help you really dial in your shooting distances. Go to Nikonhunting.com, click on the Spot On logo and register, it's all Free, then you'll be directed to the Spot On site.
Bart
Nikon Pro Staff

Bman, tell us how many moa's the bdc circles are at certain ranges.