Dissapointed in Bushnell 3200 Elite

[vernonp]

I recently started shooting rifles and deer hunting again after a 15 year absence. Before the only question concerning scopes was which leopold will I put on this rifle. After checking out various optic forums like this I found out there was better options.---I bought a Kimber 84 in 308 and decided to put a Nikon Monarch 3x9x40 on it. The scope is everything I hoped it would be, it is great.---My next rifle was a Winchester 70 Super Shadow in 7mm WSM. I decided to put a Bushnell 3200 Elite on this rifle. I did not expect it to quite match up with the Monarch, but it is not in the same ball park. ----I was looking at some bushes and rocks on a hillside about 300 yards away. With the Monarch the definition, clarity and brightness was great. With the 3200 it was like I could not get the scope to focus to make the sight picture like it should be. It was really bad compared to the Monarch. I would like to hear from some of you that have compared these two scopes.-Thanks-vernonp

[Daniel]

I know what you mean. The Zeiss Conquests have spoiled me. I've got a Bushnell Elite 3200 and it just doesn't work as well in low light, even with the Firefly reticle, as my Zeisses do. I mean, what good is a glowing reticle if you can't see the animal you're trying to shoot. BTW, I have no experience with the Nikon.

[Redhawk1]

That is why I stick with Leupold. I know what I am getting and how clear they are. When I find something that works well, I stick with it. My buddy recently bought 2 Nikon scopes and they are extremely clear and bright. I would choose one of them over the Bushnell 3200 any day. But that is just my opinion.  

[Graybeard]

I hear ya but cannot understand why you are having the problems you mention. The Elite 3200 scope is clearer, brighter and optically superior to the Leupold scopes other than the Vari-X III and VX-III lines.

I've used the Leupold Vari-X II scopes for many years with no such problems as mentioned. I currently have a Bushnell Elite 3200 2-7 on my primary hunting rifle and a 3-9 Firefly on another.

I hunt ONLY in thickly wooded areas and usually the sun goes down behind a hill or mountain long before official sundown. I have never ever seen a time when these scopes let me down in legal shooting hours.

I have to suggest that you either: get your eyes checked, correctly adjust your scopes or ship them back to see what the heck is wrong with them. I'm not there so can't say which might apply but from my personal experience with them I can assure you what you're saying you're experiencing is NOT NORMAL.

[Zachary]

I decided to put a Bushnell 3200 Elite on this rifle. I did not expect it to quite match up with the Monarch, but it is not in the same ball park. Thanks-vernonp

That's because you are comparing apples to oranges.  The Elite 3200 is comparable to the Nikon Buckmaster - not the Monarch.  If you want to compare the Monarch to a Bushnell, then it's the Elite 4200.

You asked if any of us have both scopes - I do.  In fact, I own several Nikon Monarchs, Elite 4200s and Elite 3200s, as well as Leupold Vari-X IIIs, Burris Black Diamonds, Nightforce NXS, and Nikon Pre-Monarchs.  And you are right, the Nikon Monarch has better optics than the Elite 3200.  But then again, what you paid for the 3200 is less than what you paid for the Monarch.

Zachary

[reyn 61]

Couldnt have said it better Zachary.

[Squeeze]

Vernonp,

I have Leupolds, Nikons, Bushnells, Weavers, and Burris scopes on my firearms, and
I am surprised that your 3200 Elite is not clear, or sharp.  I have a 3200 Elite on
my BAR, which is my brush gun, and that means I am in places that see the light
of day last, and I have always been impressed with this 3200, for light gathering,
with a 32mm objective no less, and the clarity the scope has.  Yes the Nikon
Monarchs, with my eyes, are the best of this lot for crisp clear images, but the
Bushnell 4200 Elite is running a VERY close second, and I really don't see that
much of a drop off in clarity in the 3200's.  The difference in light gathering is noticable,
but the difference in clarity, takes some serious back and forth for me to
decide the 3200 is not as clear as the 4200.  I only have to look once down the
Leupold VX-II and the 3200, to call the 3200 the winner in that contest.

 I am going to suggest that if it is that fuzzy, you send the scope
back to Bushnell.   Once you have adjusted the eye piece, for focus, the
objects, in the scopes field of view should not be fuzzy.  The least that will happen
iis you get the old scope back with a No Trouble Found report.

Squeeze

[GreatWaputi]

I second the notion that there must be something wrong with your particular scope, not the entire 3200 series. IMHO, the Bushnell Elite's offer the best bang for the buck in the industry. Sure I like Leupold's and Nikon's, but you're looking at spending $100.00 to $150.00 more than an Elite, without any gain.

[HogFan]

I have to agree with Zachary about comparing apples to oranges with the Monarch and 3200. I have three 3200's and they are all clear, and to me great scopes for the price. I also have a nikon that was made a year or two before the Monarchs came out. This scope compared to my Elite's is nothing. Glass does not gather as much light, and is not near as clear. I can honestly say the Monarchs are great improvements over the Nikon I have.

Hudge

[lilabner]

If your scope has the quick focus feature, perhaps the adjustment was inadertently changed. My 3200 is clear and sharp and the best thing about it is there is a decent sight picture in rain or snow without using lens caps.
I do check the scope periodically to ensure that the focus adjustment has not changed.

[vernonp]

I feel sure it is just this particular scope. I have read too many good reports on the 3200 to think otherwise. I knew Zachry and Greybeard among others used and liked these products. I will send it back and get it checked out. Thanks to everyone for your input.-vernonp