Bushnell 3200

[Sixpack]

Hi all!

I know the Bushnell 3200 Elite series always gets good reviews on this site but I am looking for a little more of a comparison, like the 3200 3-9x40 compared to the Vari-X II or Nikon Buckmaster.  Is the glass as good, better, or worse?  The eye relief is a little on the short side at 3.3", has anyone had any problems getting the eye relief right on a long action rifle?

I know I was comparing the 3-9X40 (that's because i have these scopes), but the one I want is the 4-12X40 AO mounted on a Rem 700 in 30-06.  I currently have an old style Monarch 3-9X40 that is a great scope, just wanting a little more magnification.

Also, on a different note, how are the Bushnell 22 scopes, the 3-9X32?  I need one for a 22 project and am looking to get by on the cheap.

Thanks!

Six

[Cabin4]

the 3200 glass is better than the Nikon Buckmasters, Burris Fullfield 2, and the Pentax Pinoeer. I thinks its on par or slightly better then by Leupold VX2.

I own a few 3200 and their great scopes that hold up and hold on to zero.

I'm in the market to pu a scope on a new 700 in 300 mag. I'm considering the 3200, 4200, VX2 or a Grand Slam. I'm also interested but I don't know enough about them are the Sightron Big Sky line up.

[KRP]

With a Nikon Monarch to compare it to you may not be happy with the 3200 glass.  I think the Buckmaster has better glass then the 3200s.

[kyelkhunter3006]

I think that the 3200 compares well with these scopes.  The Monarch may be clearer and have better light transmission, but I think that the resolution of the 3200 is better  for some reason, just MHO.  I'd put the Buckmaster just a bit below the 3200.  I think that all of them offer a better view than the VX2's do.  Depends on the rifle you're putting it on.  The main problem I have with the 3200's is the eye relief is a bit short for me on hard kickers.  The most any of them have it 3.5" on the 3-10x40 Short Magnum scope.  The 3-9x40 offers 3"-3.3".  The Nikons, Leupolds, and some Burris models have longer eye relief on them.  I've never had an issue with a 3200, and I've had 6 of them on everything from rimfires to muzzleloaders pushing 400 grain bullets with 150gr charge of 777.  That's why I like longer eye relief.   

[LaOtto222]

I believe the scopes you are talking about are very comparable in quality. I have a preference toward the 3200's.  Buy the one you like like best, I do not think you can go too wrong with any of them. As far as a 22 scope - I like the Bushnell Banners and have several of them for this duty (2.5X to 2 X 7) if you get a lower powered scope. If you get a higher powered scope give the Mueller APV a try. I have 3 of those and they are a very good scope for the money.

[Kyle Hawkins]

well six pack i know this is old, but if you are still building your 22, i have the bushnell .22 scope in the 3-9x32.    i have just an old worn out model 60 all sotck nothing special and this scope has been on so many guns its not even funny or fair.

870 20ga, held zero for a slug season
a toy cross bow
and on and off of my 22 bout 3 times.

and after all of this i have shot my 60 at 50yds using cheap bulk ammo and only made one hole with 3 shots, i still got the target

[eye shot]

sixpack
  That 3x9x40 Monarch is plenty of scope for an 06 and IMO any of the others mentioned don't have any better glass if as good as the Monarch.