Author Topic: bushnell 3200 or buckmaster (Read 878 times)

rosharb · « **on:** March 27, 2005, 07:16:50 AM »

I need a scope for my new 30-06 and I was looking at a Nikon Buckmaster 3-9x40 or a Bushnell 3200 2-7x32. They are the same price at the optic zone which do you feel is the best? Would I be able to mount the 40mm tube as low as the 32mm?

vernonp · « **Reply #1 on:** March 27, 2005, 08:15:44 AM »

The 3200 is going to be better optically. At least it is for my eyes. I have a 3x9x40 3200 and a 3x9x40 Nikon Monarch which is a little more expensive than the 3200, and the 3200 is actually brighter than the Monarch. This is the best scope in it's price range by a mile.---Regards-----vernonp

quickdtoo · « **Reply #2 on:** March 27, 2005, 09:08:09 AM »

All else being equal, I think the 3200 would be my choice due to the Rainguard® lense coating, which works great in bad weather. :wink:

http://bushnell.com/products/riflescopes/riflescopes.cfm

Graybeard · « **Reply #3 on:** March 27, 2005, 10:59:09 AM »

Given a choice of those two I always suggest the Bushnell. In fact that's the very exact scope that sits on top of my primary deer rifle.

rosharb · « **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2005, 04:42:32 AM »

Now I have a real problem! :grin: I was comparing scopes at the local Jays store and looking at a Zeiss Conquest and VXIII and Nikon Monarck just to see if these higher priced scopes are that much better than the 3200 and buckmaster. My wife was with me and suggested I get one of the more expensive scopes!! Do you think they are worth the extra money? If so which one is the best for the money? I couldn't see much difference looking through them at the store. I am thinking a 3-9x40 as the best for Mich. and out west/ thanks

goose7856 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2005, 06:55:25 PM »

maybe just move up one step and get the Bushnell 4200.

I would think the Zeiss would be right ahead of the Bughy, but not by much.