Bushnell Elite 3200 vs. 4200?

[noleman]

I plan on getting a Tikka 7mm-08 soon.  I have looked at the Elite 3200 with the firefly reticle and the 4200, which I don't think is offered with the firefly, in a 3x9x40.  The 4200 is about $60 more.  Is the 4200 worth the extra money?  I like the idea of the firefly reticle and it is too bad they don't offer it in the 4200 scope.

I'm also considering the Zeiss Conquest.  I'm sure it is a much better scope, but I'm reluctant to spend closer to $400 for it.  I was in a gun shop yesterday and the owner swore by the Zeiss.

[379 Peterbilt]

I personaly do not own either of those Bushnells, but I do recall reading that the 4200 is punished/recoil tested @ 10,000 rounds out of a 375HH. The 3200 @ 1,000 out of that 375. In 7mm-08 might not matter which one ya opt fot tho.

I will second the Zeiss Conquest. I absolutely love mine.

A guy gets what he pays for in optics, no question. Spending a mere extra $100 or more today, will never result in regrets down the road.

[Graybeard]

I believe the Firefly reticle to be an answer to a question that was never asked. Have you actually looked thru one? The crosshairs are so bold that really accurate shooting is difficult and is so large that the illumination of it is kinda moot really. If you can see the target thru the scope you'll darn sure see that HUGE crosshair. I had one and will not have another even tho I'm a big support of Bushnell Optics.

[ccoker]

I have had a few 3200s, looked at the 4200s (they seem very long), had Burris, Leupold, Nikon, weavers, etc..

I think the Monarchs are the best glass for the money but I do have a bit of Zeiss Conquest envy

[Prophet]

If you think you will be hunting at dawn or dusk please stay away from Bushnell. The Zeiss will be worth the extra. The Nikon is good also. I have a 3200 elite with all the bells and whistles and I can't wait to find someone who is willing to take it off my shelf. Listen to the dealer on this one, after all the buck of a lifetime could depend on whether or not you can see him. You have a gun of great quality. Spend the extra and give it the quality glass it deserves.

[Daniel]

Just this past weekend I sold a Ruger Compact .243 topped with a Bushnell Elite 3200 with Firefly reticle. I was so glad to get rid of both.

I found the 3200 to be so inadequate in low light situations that the Firefly reticle was virtually useless. I mean, if you can't see your target to begin with, what good is a glowing reticle, or any other reticle for that matter.

My advice is to step up and buy the Zeiss Conquest. I think you'll be happy you did. I can hunt later (or earlier) with my Conquests than I ever could with the Bushnell.

[Zachary]

I own several Elite scopes.  The 4200 is a better scope than the 3200. 

That said, I have an Elite 3200 in 1.5x-4.5x with Firefly mounted on my .375H&H.  That scope has held up PERFECTLY under such punishing recoil.

However, I TOTALLY agree with Graybeard.  The firefly reticle is a joke. It is do dang thick that it actually blocks a noticeably portion of your view.  I like the 3200s, but I will never buy one if it has that same THICK reticle.

Zachary

[MS Mule]

I have three Elite 3200 scopes on various types of rifles. They are a good value for the money. However, Natchez Shooters Supply (www.natchezss.com) has a closeout price on the old model Nikon Monarch line. I just purchased two Nikon Monarch 3-9X40 matte finished scopes for $199.95 each +shipping. My invoice dated 7-26-07 shows a Natchez SS item #NK6525 if anyone is interested. There were other Nikon Monarchs being closed out. You will have to search for them.

Mule

[jprose]

Of the scopes mentioned, the Nikon Monarch is probably best for the buck; Zeiss Conquest, the best. Side by side and you will agree.  Jim

[tennbuck]

 Leupold! all i have, all i'll buy.