Today I got around to firing the .375-.416 Rem since I switched out the Tasco for the Bushnell. The Tasco hit a fellow at the range so I put a 4200 on it with its longer eye relief.

Anyway when I sighted in the Tasco the impact point moved when I turned the turret. With the Bushnell it started 9" right at 300 yard target. I dialed eight clicks left, which should be 6", to see an impact chage of at most 3". I moved it eight clicks left again and nothing changed. I gave it four more clicks and it finally centered. This is a major disapointment.

In a few days I will get back to the range to see if it will stay where it is suposed to.

These use the same adjustments as the 3200 as well if it's the 3-9x40. IMO these things are horrible and the biggest downside to these scopes. The ones I've personally used have tracked horribly, but once zeroed they did stay zeroed. For most people though this is okay, as most people zero the scope and leave it alone.

I've talked to quite a few others that have had these problems in addition to myself. Enough, that I'm fairly confident that it's the design of them, not that I got bad ones.

I don't know, the Bushnell Elite scopes have just left me disappointed. I think they still make it very obvious that they are still a Bushnell. I don't think they are nearly as good of a value as many other guys do. I can agree they have great glass, but in my opinion that's about where it stops. Unless you get the tactical model, they have horrible adjustments, their customer service is lousy, etc. I just don't see much good about them other than the glass. To me I think the FFII's are much better scopes in this price range. Not that the glass is any better, but it's not far behind the 4200, and any differences you see would be super small, and the rest of the scope, and the warranty is much better imo. Once you get to the level of glass quality of these scopes, where they are all so close, I'd rather give up a hair of glass quality for good solid repeatable adjustments, a good warranty, and a solid all around scope.

I have two 4200s and their tracking is very repetitive and predictable. Have owned them for over 5 years without any issues so I can't comment on their customer service. Only complaint I've ever heard about them is that their eye relief is .2" less than others in their class. I've never noticed the difference when comparing them to other comparable scopes. They are not my favorite scopes but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them for their value, quality and durability.

YMMV.

Is that it? Maybe my concern/dislike of the eye relief is a function of them being 3-9, and not so much that itsa 4200. (as opposed to the 1-4 I have that has huge ER)

huh.

I had heard so many good reviews on here about the 4200, figured I myswell try one out and see,

The center of the glass is clear, I'll give it that,

But the outer 1/3 of glass is not near the same clarity,

Any one else notice this?

Can't tell you about any tracking issues, I didn't keep the scope long enough to worry about that.

It may be a 4200... but it's still a bushnell..

Think Bausch & Lomb............it'll make you feel better...........

You don't know him.....do you? I'm sure it was the 8-32x40 model.

Anyway....sorry to hear this about the Bushnell. I have tried the 4200's in the 2.5-10 variety and I'm not a fan primarily due to weight and quirky eyebox (for me, anyway).

So sorry I left out the magnification. It is a 4-16X. That is the lowest magnification scope I have even on a 10/22. The bolt .22 rimfire has a 6-24X.

Ain't nothin' too good for the saints, I always say.

Edited to ad:
Welcome to the 'fire, ANGCortsair. I hope I can influence you in the proper way to enjoy optics.

Mine (3-9x40) seems to be very clear everywhere. I wonder if its an isolated incident with that particular scope???

I dunno,Thats why I asked...Once I realized what the deal was, It was fairly clear(pun) where the problem was....

It seems like every time I decide to try scopes other than Leupys, I'm quickly disappointed and then sell the scope at a loss.

I told myself years ago just buy what you know is good, and you'll have it for a loooong time.

I'm done experimenting, for the 4th or 5th time(grin)

Kenneth,

My gunsmith tells me you can't learn much from a sample of one. I am glad you are having good results with Leupold. The second one on my .454 has lasted over ten years. It is a 2 1/2-8X32 Vari-X.

We'll, the other clue here is,

It seems like everytime some large retailer(Cabelas) has a big sale on 3200-4200's,

about a month later the Classifieds here on the 'fire will have multiple "like new" 3200 and 4200's for sale..

Just a coincidence I'm sure........

Do you watch the "large retailer" and the Classifieds as a hobby?

I certainly go for the classifieds here but don't pay any attention to the large retailers.

When there is a big sale on, no doubt the word gets out.

To All: BIG difference between the 3200 and the 4200.

Ringman:
The 4200 in 4x16 has 1/8 minute clicks, hence why the reticle did not move as much as you think it should have.

I sense that the leupy lovers are getting a little touchy about the B&L Elite scopes. Improvements are steady and they are THE bargain in a good scope. Don't see any loss of clarity around edges of my 4200 elites or the new elites. Don't have any adjustment problems----they may not be perfect, but I don't play with them all the time. For those of us who don't "crawl the stock" there is no eye relief problem with 3.3 to 3.5 inches. But if you need 4 inches, I understand! Finally, I will say that not all eyes see different scope glass quality the same. Some do look better than others to different folks regardless of price!!!

The elites simply represent a very good, AFFORDABLE hunting scope!

"touchy"? Hell I wanted that 4200 to be a good scope, that's why I bought it.

And I don't expect a 200$ scope to be in the same class as a 400$ scope. You get what you pay for.

But after 2 trips to the range, I knew that 4200 wasn't staying at this address..

keith,

You are too kind. Thanks for the info.

Kenneth,

If you purchsed it new, you could have sent it back for a full refund up to one year.

I know the feeling of wanting a scope to be good. It took four Swarovski z5 5-25X52's before one was allowed to stay at my house.

I'm kinda wonderin if it's a difference in magnification, I've just used the 6-24x and 8-32x and they have been great scopes that the adjustments will walk around in full squares and back to zero on the money.

The airgun crowd uses these on field rifles where they depend on a scope that will take the beating of an air rifle and still allow constant elevation and windage adjustments for different distances.

I just put a 6-24x on my .243 WSSM.

I forgot to add, I've heard they have really good customer service so if there's a problem get a new one.

Keith, this would explain his first statement about the reticle moving only 3" vs. 6". But what about his next statement that says clicked an additional 8 clicks and nothing happened? No movement with 8 clicks is not good!

GK

1/8" clicks explains some of it. is it possible the shot may have been pulled a little? 300yds with a .416, I'd probably pull a fuzz too... how many shots were fired after the adjustment,1-2-3?

Hope his shooting ability is better than his eyesight.

Seen the same occurrence with Doug when they offer the Vortex Vipers at a discount. I am sure we will see several in the classifieds in the coming months.

I hear you on the flinch! I'm sure I would be a little twitchy shooting a 416 in bench mode. I am assuming that he ruled out shooting problems before he jumped to the "scope didn't move" position.

GK

I have had good results and satisfaction w/MY Elites in the past fwiw.

Clear/bright sharp glass, held POA/POI, no issues.

Others - YMMV.

Again I see my inability to communicate. The caliber is a .375. It is on a 8MM Rem Mag case but I say .416 Rem case because I run into so many who never heard of the 8MM Rem Mag. They use the same case. The bullets are Barnes TTSX 250 grains at an average of 3,162 feet per second. The barrel is 27 1/2" long. The groups at 300 yards varied from 2" to 4" at the 300 yard targets.

After I moved the sight the last time I let the rifle cool for several minutes in a temperture about 40*. I fired a group that was perfectly centered and let the barrel cool again and repeated it. It was also centered.

Oddly the last group was a verticle string about 3" and the second to last was a horizontal string about 4". All the others were triangles.

About the recoil:
It has what my son-in-law calls the "butt ugly recoil reduction system." I put a small industrial 1/2" travel shock absorber in the stock afer cutting off the appropreate amount of wood. On the other end is a big muzzle brake. I can fire two boxes of ammo through this rifle without the slightest shoulder pain and narry a red mark.

I have two 4200 and four 3200 scopes. One had tracking problems. It happens.

I'd like to see that rifle! sounds interesting.
I've got a couple of the 6500's and my brother has a 4200. no issues other than him slipping on a Alaska bear hunt and breaking the scope. they did replace the scope with a newer model for free after a couple of phone calls.

beretta_man11,

I notice you are from "here and there". If here and there is ever Southern Oregon give me a call. I will bring some ammo for you to give it a shot or two.

With my 100 grain duplex load a few years ago I used to fire Sierra 300 grainers at 3,000 feet per second. On a bad day the 300 yard groups were 3". Norma MRP made mixing powders a thing of the past.

Thanks for the invite!
I'm in Denver for a couple weeks then off to somewhere in NY.
I'll keep you in mind if I ever head that way!

So now I'm confused. feel free to correct me, because im doing this from memory. 416 rem is a 375 H&H neck'd up to 416. I know they used the 8MM mag case because it supposedly was stronger in the belt area, but in essence its a H&H case. So you are taking a 416 rem/8mm mag case and necking it to 375. Aren't you basically just making a 375 H&H??? Possibly you are changing the shoulder i guess, but wouldn't it be easier to call it a 375 improved. What am I not getting here?

OBTW I've had good luck with Elites but I only use them on my varmint rifles.....nothing larger than a 22-250. For dangerous game rifles i stick with trusted leupolds. Just for my own peace of mind.

The .375-.416 Remington is like you suggested; a blown out .375 H&H. It holds significantly more powder. It is about the same as a .375 Weatherby. Not as much as a .375 A.I. which is what I asked for. I think that is shortened to "improved". I didn't do anymore business with that 'smith. By the way it is the same case as the 7 STW or the .358 Alaskan.

I can fireform new brass by firing factory load.375's. I loose about 100 feet per second. I prefer to purchase new brass to load.

Well I can't verify Ringman's Eye Sight...

but I have seen his shooting ability..

I can guarantee you it is not an issue...

I have watched him more that once hit a milk jug sized gong at 500 yds...when run into each other at times, using the same range, living in the same town..

I also had the outside edge (1/3) be blured on two new 4200s (3x9x40). Called Bushnell told them of the problem, they sent a pre paid shipping label and said send them back. I did and they came back in about a week perfectly clear, working fine, and still are years later. Schiiit can happen with anything mass produced, should it have, no, but it did. As far as their customer service goes i don't know how it could have been any better. Just a sample of one,YMMV.

Guy

RDFinn,



I am curious upon what do you base this hope? What do you know about my eyesight?

guy57,

The readers here know I had trouble with the first three Swarovski z5's. I also had trouble with the first two Bushnell 6500's. The z5's I returned or sold.

The first 6500 was a little blurry above 25X. I sent it in for customer service. In two weeks it was back and really great from about 8X up. I returned it for a full refund; even including the insurance because it was on the orginal reciept.

That is good customer service. How many scope companies offer a full refund for the first year for any reason?

The third 6500 was the beautiful example I now have.

Only what you have stated..........that you have severe Nyctalopia.

Didn't you know I can see in the dark with my rifle mounted huble? My light rifle carries a 52mm objetive!

But what does that have to do with hunting during the day?

I have tested a bunch of 3200, 4200 and 6500 scopes since they were introduced. Generally they've been pretty good, but tend to vary even among the same model. This may be due to which factory makes them--or even a difference in the factory. But a lot of scopes vary somewhat in optics, adjustments, etc., though the really expensive brands don't vary much.

I'm always amazed at how many shooters are offended when the edge of the field-of-view of scopes is a little fuzzy. This is a valid criticism of a binocular, but I have yet to find the correct dot of a reticle on the very edge of a scope's view.

Nothing. However you go to considerable lengths to report your findings regarding scope performance in poor light don't you ? I believe that you insist that scopes get brighter as you decrease the exit pupil which reduces the amount of light to the users eye. Same concept as fighting a fire with a 2 1/2 line or a garden hose.

I beleive I insist that a scope shows more detail as one turns up the power ring; whether in bright day or low light.

Everyone of the guys who have tried it at my house has come to the same conclusion. MuleDeer and JJHack and I think Jim in Idaho have made the same discovery.

As far as exit pupil I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that exit pupil has very little to do with real world performance. One of our .com friends posted it best. He said a brightly resolved blob is still a blob. In other words a 7X50 that cost $50 will not do as well nlow light as 8X28 that cost $400.

I will again post my comparisons in a differnt thread for the newer folks.

John, I've only owned 6 4200's, all 2.5-10's, so I can't speak for the rest of the line. If there's a difference between them (mine that is) I haven't seen it. I will say that the 4200's seem very slightly better in the optics department, but they all track and hold zero damn near perfect, best I can tell anyway. More than I can say about the brand they replaced. As far as I know, they are still made by Light Optical Works as they were when they were first introduced (as the 4000 series makered Bausch & Lomb) in the mid 90's. I have heard of some dud 6500's early on, but I don't have any experience with them.

You can repeat your findings all you want and that won't change the fact that I cannot repeat your findings and it ain't for lack of trying.

Post your results so we can see how differnt brands and magnification do.

RD,

Yeah, the 2.5-10x 4200's seem to be pretty consistent, but whether all the parts of all the Elites have been made in the same factories might be a good question. And whether Bushnell is still paying for the same level of maufacture would be another question.

Don't get me wrong. I've tested a lot of good optics labeled Bushnell over the years. Many have been great, but some have been better than others.

Ringman sorry but you are a dumba$$. If you are going to use a quote you really should get it right. The quote was "A brightly lit unresolved blob is still an unresolved blob".

And I'm the one who originally said it. It doesn't matter what the light transmission figures of the glass coatings your scope are if you don't have a large enough exit pupil to get enough light to your eye. It doesn't matter how high the resolution of your optics are if you can't get enough light through them. Exit Pupil is a critical factor in a hunting scopes performance......................dj

All this raises a new question for Ringman.......Do Seeing Eye dogs spook deer if they wear blaze orange vests.. ?
















Sorry it's getting late guys

JB
Just as i opened the two new 4200s and found the outside 1/3 to be a little fuzzy a freind pulled in. We spent quite a while looking through them, focusing, adjusting, diff. powers, etc.. He is a Leupold guy but said he was quite impressed with the center 2/3 of the 4200s and that i shouldn't worry about the outside edge as your eye dosen't focus there anyway. Now i know he and you are both right, but once i knew they were that way it drove me buggy, just me i know. Anyway as i said Bushnell fixed them and all is well

Guy

Did what you corrected me to say something different to the subject at hand?

Thanks for the welcome! I appreciate your offer.

With my two 4200's, one is 5 years old and the other is the closeout model, I have noticed that they do have some vignetting but nothing you'd notice while shooting. They are very resistant to off-bore light sources unless the source is right behind me. You'd be hard-pressed to find any sub-$500 which doesn't experience the same. Their clarity is excellent. I would put them just a smidge below the Conquest and Minox ZA-5 I own. It takes a while for me to discern any difference between these but there is a difference. Same with light transmission. The RainGuard feature is fantastic. Both of these scopes are on my brushbeater/nasty day rifles and they take abuse and deal with the elements.

I think that your average hunter will be well-equipped for life with a 4200 atop their rifle. You can definitely find better glass out there but not easily for less than $400. At the closeout pricing they're being offered for now the are only rivaled by the Minox open-box pricing that is currently available. Prior to these offers I felt that the $400 Conquests were the best bargain.

Nothing much- just correct you by turning your phrase 180� to correct it.

Exit pupil matters, coatings help.

Exit pupil matters only if both optics are the same quality. Read the post about exit pupil and refute it with your camparison information instead of your key board.

This is as about as uninformed and ignorant post as someone has made on this forum in quite a while..............................dj

Oh c'mon, those little bitty exit pupils are so EASY to get behind...they don't mean anything.

You guys remind me of religious people and so called science people the Bible discribes as "willfully ignorant". Take a look at the post and tell me where I messed up.

Or do a similar experiment and post your results. Talk is cheap. I have shown many times that exit pupil is not a very good criteria to use when judging optics.

That's ok, the first time was more than adequate.

It would be sad if someone went out and spent their hard earned money on a scope based on Ringman's "testing".

For instance -

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...eld_comparision_rifle_scopes#Post3893095

But if one is a diehard slayer of pump shacks and transformer signs...................................................

......then a 12-48x40mm 6500 is your huckleberry.....

http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/01/03/optics_opticpupil_061907/

.................dj

The above says it all.

Like one of our .com frinds posted a brightly lit blob is still a brightly lit blob.

Yea. But if you going to quote me get the &(**&%^(**_ quote correct and in the proper context MORON! ................ dj

What did you post again and what was the context? I have tried twice and got it wrong both times.

I don't have a 4200 but I do have a B&L Elite 3000 and a Bushnell 3200. Both have performed without a hitch for quite a few years now and I've killed alot of critters with them.

I have two 4200 and they work for what I want.

WS

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads...pes#Post3893095

After going over this I see you have made my point that exit pupil is irrelevant. Consider the following math....

Scope # one: 4.75X48
48 divided by 4.75=10.1 exit pupil

Scope # two: 4.75X40
40 divided by 4.75=8.42 exit pupil

Facts are hard to accept at times.

Ringman,

you make things very difficult.

Please do try to follow the argument put forth vs. jacking up preconceived notions.

Exit pupil on an optical instrument matters -

it is generally understood, though, its size to matter only and up to the point, where the eye can use it.

As a rough guide - a healty human eye at around 30 years of age can use the full extent of an 7mm exit pupil, as this is as far as the iris will open.

At at 50 most can only use a 5mm exit pupil and it goes down from there.

I apologize for not stooping down this far earlier - I assumed, everyone discussing optics minutae this persistent would by talking

exit pupil

not exclude any understanding about the receiving instrument - the eye.

I understand - when your eyes do not dilate much anymore, you are stuck with the other mechanisms left to see -

coatings and magnification.

Your personal situation does not make your point a general one.

Generally speaking - it is flat wrong.

Wohl gesagt. :-) :-)

I'm thinking that anyone who brings the Bible into a discussion about riflescopes is going to be pretty hard to talk any sense to........... ;-) ...........dj

;-)

he is a good guy in my book, anyways.

cmg,

In the following example all three 8X lost the deer antlers at the same time. When I turned up the scopes till I could see the antlers again the exit pupils were not the same.

Bushnell 8X42 binocs = 5.25
Tasco on 8X40 = 5.00
6500 on 8X50 = 6.25

I turned up the scopes till I could make out the forks again.

Tasco - 14X = 2.86 exit pupil
6500 - 15X = 3.33 � �

So when the exit pupil, as in the posts with the two scopes above with very large exit pupils, and here with small exit pupils the results show exit pupil doesn't seem to make any differene. Magnification does.

Ringman,

"I" is the operative word in your post.

Your eyes can not use the exit pupil, so you do not get the benefit.

With higher magnification resolution always increases - the exit pupil decreases.

Anybody able to utilise the full exit pupil will notice the scope "darkening" as magnification increases.

They will also notice resolution increasing - as to you.

You only see one of the two happening - due to you personal situation. And you draw the wrong conclusions.

Also - when turning up the magnification to 15x still lets you distinguish deer antlers with an exit pupil of 3.3 mm, it is in the real world bright daylight still.

Also I know, my healthy young eyes would resolve still same antlers for me with your binos.

I do sympathize with you eye situation and am glad the higher mags keep you in the game. I also realize to enjoy my good young eyes while I can - age comes at it own speed invariably.

That said -

I urge you to never forget - that below your riflescope is a barrel. Scopes are for aiming; not for identification.

second - try to view the interdependencies in optics. What you see is only half the story and you are drawing the wrong conclusions.

Keep learning - its the smart thing to do.

That was an incredibly diplomatic way of phrasing that.

Here's the problem with your assessment. My son-in-law, who can see in the dark without a flashlight, comes to the same conclussions I do. He doesn't need as much magnification as I do, but has discovered exit pupil is irrelevant in the real world. He still uses Nikon 7-15X35 binos and a Tasco 4-16X40 on his Savage 7Mag.



I have noticed the darkening. More so in the Bushnell 6500 than in the Swaro z5.



This is not the thread for safety, but since I started this thread and am not disapointed when threads go a different direction I will agree with your encouragement. I use either my unaided eyes or binos to discover game. But the second I see game and can't identify it as legal or not the higher magnification rifle scope is on it. My rifle scope is for verifying the game is legal and for aiming at said game if it is legal. Last year I found a buck and could not count the points because it was too far for the 8X binos. When I put the rifle scope on the buck I could see it was legal in a three point minimum area. It was a 3X4.

I am discussed when folks show up at the range and pretend like they are carrying a bullet proof gun case. Also when some finish a magazine of ammo they carelessly point the gun at any shooters at the table beside them. Most unnerving.



I look forward to the time you get to Southern Oregon and give me a call. When you finish the binos I will take you for pie and coffee or just a drink.

Ringman,

when I get to southern oregon I will give you a call and enjoy some pie and coffee with you.

Until then I am willing to let this rest. My argument is not "assessments".

That fact, that you still choose to call it same, reflects.

I will take the hint and stop.

Happy to hear, that we agree on the safety - both inside case and out.