I checked out the new Browning Scopes

[Steelhead]

I checked a 3-9x40 at a store yesterday. Optics are very nice, ergonomics also nice. Eye relief seemed very good, certainly better than an Elite 4200 2.5-10x that I was also looking at. From what I hear they are made by Bushnell. It said made in Japan on the scope.

So to look through they are very nice, but who knows how they will work. I certainly would buy one before I would an Elite 3200 or 4200 if for no other reason then the eye relief.  

That's it, thought some might like to know.

[Zachary]

I don't know about the eye relief, but the new Browning scopes are essentially 4200s just dressed-up differently.

What difference did you see in the Browning and the 4200?

Zachary

[Busta]

I checked a 3-9x40 at a store yesterday. Optics are very nice, ergonomics also nice. Eye relief seemed very good, certainly better than an Elite 4200 2.5-10x that I was also looking at. From what I hear they are made by Bushnell. It said made in Japan on the scope.

So to look through they are very nice, but who knows how they will work. I certainly would buy one before I would an Elite 3200 or 4200 if for no other reason then the eye relief.  

That's it, thought some might like to know.

Scott,

What price for the 3-9x40? What type of reticle?

[Steelhead]

The eye relief was better on the Browning then on the 4200.  The price for the one I was looking at was $289.00 but I believe Cabela's has them for about $250.  Rectile was a standard plex.

The rubber around the power selector ring and around each of the turret caps was actually a nice feature I though.

[Busta]

Thanks Scott, sounds like a nice scope.

[Bushnell Boy]

The Browning does have 1 tenth of an inch more eye relief than the 4200 but the 4200 is 1 % brighter. It is also made out of a titanium alloy but the browning is made out of aluminum. The biggest difference is the 4200 has raingaurd.

[Zachary]

I don't think that I can tell the difference between one tenth of an inch of eye relief, nor a 1% difference in light transmission, but I can surely tell the difference between Rainguard and no Rainguard. :grin:

Zachary

[Steelhead]

The Browning does have 1 tenth of an inch more eye relief than the 4200 but the 4200 is 1 % brighter.

That is what the BOOKS say. When checking both on a scope stock, there was certainly more eye relief with the Browning.

Doesn't matter, I would buy a Leupold before any of them anyway.

[Zachary]

The leupolds sure do have, generally speaking, longer eye relief than most scopes.

However, the Elite 4200 has better glass than the Vari-X III.  Note that I said Vari-X III and not the new VXIII.  From what I understand, the new VXIII has outstanding glass and is comprable, if not better than, the Elite 4200.  I don't know because I haven't seen it and evaluated it, but if it's true, then I too would get the Leupold (but it still doesn't have rainguard).

I generally only buy 3 brands of scopes - Elite 4200, Nikon Monarch, and Leupold Vari-X III, and soon to be VXIII.

Zachary

[Steelhead]

Why do so many people get stuck on the "Outstanding"glass. A scope serves one purpose, A PLACE TO STORE CROSSHAIRS. It is used to aim and send a bullet where you want it to go. So many people compare scopes according to which seems to have the absolute CLEAREST picture. Hell if I was looking through a scope for 8 hours a day like I do with binoculars I would agree. I believe Clear optics in bino's to be very important. But for a hunting rifle, I will probably look through the scope for about 20 seconds per animal killed but probably about a zillion hours through the bino's.

I will also submit that about 95% of today's scopes (beyond Mart scopes) are bright enough for any hunting done in the US. Ruggedness, dependability and eye relief are FAR more important then if scope A seems slightly clearer than scope B.

Glass for glass sakes is what seems to be driving so many people. That is fine, I will continue with the Leupolds, they have certainly stood the test of time. I have used and abused them from Alaska to Florida. They are lighter with better eye relief than about any scope out there. Not to mention RELIABLE. That is what wins races, I could give a hoot if an Elite 4200 with 3" of eye relief seems to be a bit clearer.

[jim62]

Steelhead,

If a scope is ONLY a place to store crosshairs, why the heck don't you forgo the $300++++ for your precious Leupolds and buy a friggin' Lyman 17A globe sight? The globe sight stores crosshairs(or apost or aperture whatever you want) for about $25!!!!!!!!

[Steelhead]

Steelhead,

If a scope is ONLY a place to store crosshairs, why the heck don't you forgo the $300++++ for your precious Leupolds and buy a friggin' Lyman 17A globe sight? The globe sight stores crosshairs(or apost or aperture whatever you want) for about $25!!!!!!!!

You are a funny guy...........................Like everyone I prefer a "bit" of magnification for most applications, but really just prefer all my sighting to be in 1 focal plane.   But to make a decision of one scope over another just because it seems clearer to the eye is a fools search. Other criteria are more important then clearity to the nth degree.

If all other things are equal, sure go for the clearer scope. The sharpness of the optics (for a riflescope once again) aren't first on my list.

 Of course you may be different Jim, and if you find that the above post chaps  your behind, well get some oinment.

Have a Great day!!

[Zachary]

I certainly agree that the Leupolds, at least the old Vari-X IIIs, are very reliable.  In fact, I own a few, all with illuminated reticles.

I know that you did not expressly say that the Elite 4200s are not reliable - you just said that the Leupolds are reliable.  I won't twist your words, and I am fair and reasonable.  However, I will say that, in my opinion, as I have shot many VX-IIIs and Elite 4200s, that they are BOTH equally reliable.  I have never had any problems with them.  Specifically, both have held their zero very, very well, and both track very well as well.

As far as the "outstanding" glass issue is concerned, yes, you make a great point in that it is probably more practical to have outstanding glass in binos since you use them for many more hours.

However, even though you may use your scope for only 25 seconds to make a shot, if you have outstanding glass in your bino, but then can't see the animal properly with "less-than-outstanding" glass from your rifle scope, then what?  Granted, if you shoot most of your game during bright, sunny, clear days, and shots are always withing 100 yards with no obstructions, sure, any glass may do.  But what about rainy days, dark days, overcast days, animals in thick cover where you really can't distinguish the color of the trees and brush from the animal's hide?  THAT's where good glass comes in.  And Leupold's don't have rainguard, and that's important to have, at least in my experience.

Look, I own many scopes, Leupold Vari-X IIIs, Elite 4200s and 3200, Nikon Monarchs and Pre-Monarchs, Burris Black Diamonds, and Nightforce NXS.  The best scope for the money is the Elite 4200.  It's only drawbacks in my opinion are: they are usually a bit heavier and longer, and their eye relief is not as long as I would like.  Other than that, they are rock solid performers with super optics.

Now, like I said, I don't know about the new glass on the new VXIIIs, but if they are as good as Leupold says they are, then that might justify their price, which is the highest of most scope manufacturers, exclusing Zeiss and Swarovski.  Still, I don't understand why leupold can't put a Rainguard-type coating on their lenses.  

Zachary

[Steelhead]

You about summed it up Zachary.

I contend that just about any of todays midpriced and up scopes from Bushnell, Nikon, Burris, Leupold etc etc have enough brightness to handle any hunting done during 1/2 hour before 1/2 hour after hunting.

I spent many a years in SE Alaska and dealt with overcast rainy days just about everyday. I never once had a problem finding a critter in a 20 year old 2-7 Leupold. I believe a bit more magnification can help when it is on the edge of dark.

Yes you are correct, I haven't said that the 4200's aren't reliable. I don't have any experience with them. I just dance with who brought me. That said I have had a problem with a 3200, but that doesn't mean they are bad, any and all scopes can cause problems. What I don't like, AGAIN FOR ME, is the eye relief or lack of it on the 3200, and some other scopes.

All I know is the abuse that several Leupolds have withstood in Alaska makes them the scope for me. I could care less if scope Z has CLEARER optics, the Leupold has survived Goat and Sheep mountains, 180" of rain a year, boat trips and float plane trips. Plus the extra eye relief and lighter weight over other brands. POI has never changed. It isn't sitting in your deer stand type hunting.

  I just get tickled over the scope A is clearer then scope B. When some many other things are important.

  Again, your mileage may vary

[Bullseye]

Steelhead,

You are my hero, well said.