Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics If you had $300 to buy a riflescope . . . .

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.