Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Bushnell 4200

E, I totally agree with your comment on the durability of the better fixed magnification scopes.

Hate to say it but those "informed hunters" probably never had a Schmidt and Bender, Kahles, Zeiss, Swaro or Hensholt.

A four X Schmidt is as close to indestructible as an optical device can be and is also useful for pounding in tent stakes.

Leupold & Bushies are good (in that order) the current Burris scopes...well you can have them. My 20 year old 1.5-5 Burris (USA made) is a good scope, the current crop from the Moro country rival the best from China. Way inferior to a 40 year old Unertl or Kollmorgen.

As time goes on competition gets tight, Burris sure looks bright and sharp to my eyes as others. What's bad with them, in other ways?

As to 4200s, my smallest groups have been with either a 6-24AO 4200, and a 4-16 AO, the latter a sub .5" group at 330 yds.

Resolution......nuff said.

The Elite 4200 3-9 for $250 is great value. I can't think of anything better for the money.
The only issue I have with the scope is the eye relief, it's too short for my liking on larger calibres, should be OK with 243;25-06
Have had a 3-9 and a 4-16 for several years no complaints at all.

I had two new Burris TAC 30s 3-9. Looked fine at 100 but "grayed out" at 200 & more above 6X. Leupold & Bushies are good but have you done a side by side with the best of the Euros? Yeah they cost a lot more but I could buy 30 Schmidts for the price of a new pick-em-up. That's why my Cummins is an 01' and my serious scopes are Zeiss and Schmidt. Schmidt 4-16x50 PH FFP. (The holdover dots work at ALL magnifications.)

I bought one last Christmas for $399 and got a free gore tex camo jacked from them that is pretty nice. I don't know if it was "free" or part of the price but nice. I had a 4-16 x 50 I liked a lot so I bought the 3-9. It's as bright and clear as any of my Leupold vari X 3's and the cross hair posts are a little thicker which I like for hunting.

I have three of the Elite scopes. Two are 2.5-10 4200's (One Bushnell and one B&L), the other is a 1.5-6 4000. I have the 4200's on a 260 and a 7mm-08, so any short comings in eye relief have yet to "bite" me. I can see the point some make, as the few Leupolds I've used seem to have a bit more eye relief.

However, as far as clarity, I've found the Elite's to have comparable clarity to most of the Leupold's I've looked through, though I admittedly haven't used a VX-3 yet. The 1.5-6 is on my Marlin .22, and I think it's about perfect for that setup. Extremely clear, and no issues with eye relief.

One thing where I think the Elite's suffer compared to Leupold is they are a bit heavier. An Elite 4200 2.5-10 weighs about 16oz, whereas a 3.5-10 VX-3 weighs about 12.6oz. The only other thing that makes Leupold's more attractive to me is their turret offerings.

I've had plenty of time to compare the 4200 against various VX-III's and they are noticeably clearer, brighter and sharper. I don't know how they would compare to the newest VX-3, but the VX-3 would cost about 100 bucks more. I have also found the 4200 to be stronger than comparable Leupold's.

"Clearer, brighter, sharper" I'll buy. That's what you get when you shorten the eye box and the eye relief. Particularly the eye box vs. image sharpness.
As far as tough, that's pretty much a toss up from what I've seen in scopes of the same size. But, when comes to the fixed magnification stuff, Bushnell has nothing that can compete with Leupolds because they don't make any. They make very few tough, small variables as well. E

I have one on my 300 win mag (2.5-10x40) it has been all the scope I need. I have put them on .338's and down with no problems. I sold them for 11 years when I worked behind a gun counter and people came back for more, even the Leupold guys.

With the Bushnell name on them, it makes for a much tougher sell especially for those with a mind closed tighter than a clams azz. For the most part, eye relief is a non issue, for me and many others. The folks that cry eye relief are usually the ones who have never tried one. No sense in guessing. Like Big Stick used to say, " I'm not forced to guess".

[quote=Eremicus] "Clearer, brighter, sharper" I'll buy. That's what you get when you shorten the eye box and the eye relief. Particularly the eye box vs. image sharpness.
unquote

Based on that "rule" then the new Leupold VX3 scopes MUST have less eye relief?

Or is Leupoold lying about the fact they are brighter ,sharper and clearer?

Did own a 3-9x40 4200 at one time. They are a great scope for the money.

But I later traded it for a smaller scope because it`s too big and looked out of porportion sitting on top of a compact rifle. 40mm objectives with ODs of 48mm don`t look good on the compacts. The scope overwhelms the rifle too much.

Imo, Bushnell is really missing the boat with their "4200" line, by not offering enough selection. There are no 1" tubed 2-7x32s or 33s, no 2.5-8x36s, etc. They do have the 2-6x32 in the 3200 line, where the glass isn`t as good as the 4200 along with even shorter eye relief. Not a good choice for a more heavy recoiling rifle in a compact or otherwise!!

To get a 4200, you either take the lower powered straight tubed variable with a 30mm tube, with the next size up being the 3-9x40........... Nothing in the middle.

The 4200 line are excellent scopes for the dollar. But Bushnell`s 4200 selection, leaves alot to be desired for those who wish for something in-between their low variable and the 3x9.

Along with their customer service, outstanding selection is another area where the Leupolds really shine.

No denying that bigsqueeze, there are holes in the line and I also agree that Leupold offers far more choices than any other scope maker that I can think of. Bushy used to have a 1.5-6x36 that I thought was really sweet, but they dropped it cause it didn't sell well for them. Frankly, I'm not sure about their marketing mindset. I also agree that if they made a 2-8x36 (4x zoom range as you know) with at least 3.5" of eye relief, I believe it would be a killer.

'Course, if you're gonna bring Stick into the argument, wasn't he the one who runs all Leupies, and considers Bushnell as garbage based on the eye relief and user ease?

That might even get my attention.

If I were to consider one, I'd look at the 1-4X24 as I think it's eye relief is a bit more. Then there is the 1.5-8X36 6500.... they are suppose to have lots of ER. And, hopefully, both will have more eye box as well.
Yes, I've used both Elites and Leupolds. Leupolds run away and hide from the older Elites in the areas of eye relief and especially eye box. Which is worth alot to me and the shooting I do at game. E

...................They should have stuck with filling in the holes and upgrading their existing 4200 line, rather than introducing a heavier 6500 line with 2x16s and 2x30s etc. Unless one is hunting smaller varmits, that large of a variable disparity for larger game hunting is ridiculous.

With the 6500s, Bushnell simply wanted to be the first scope maker to intoduce the widest low to high variables avaibable. For hunting larger game, the only real smart 6500 from a practical standpoint, is their newly introduced 1.5-8x32 which instead, should have been intoduced into their 4200 line in the first place AND for reduced price.

Eremicus, the older B&L scopes you owned are very different from the newer Elites. If you have actually used any of them and didn't like them, that's fine with me. Personally, I think the 6500's are to big and heavy for me.

I agree, and I don't see the value of a scope topping out at 16x and 30x for a big game rifle.