Bushnell 3200 ff vs Leupold VXIII my opinion

[CBM]

Had my 3200 2X6X32 ff since January . Can't say I have much to complain about but I do wish it was a little better in low light performance......................so I got a Leupold 2x8x32 to compare against it !! The Leupold came in yesterday and last night I did a very unscientific testing out in my back yard !!

Results were pretty much what several old timers on here said..............but I just had to find out for myself.

Good daylight -

Bushnell: clear and magification is better/greater on same power level.Has narrower FOV and seems less forgiving of head position.Fire fly recticle is so much thicker and and more obtrusive.........but I felt this may be a plus in low light so read later.

Leupold: clear , better fov all power levels(not a ton.......just better), seems to be more forgiving of head position/blackout. But this scope needs to be turned up higher than the bushnell on every power level to match the maginification. The bushnell on 6 is about the same as the Leupold on 7 .

Low light- This was the most important feature to me and what I focused on the most.  30 minutes before dark they were both doing pretty well..........the Leupold was a little brighter and crosshairs very visable. The Bushnell was close an the crosshairs were very easy to get on target .

Extreme low light- right at dark the difference became more apparent. The Bushnell hit a point were I could see the crosshairs but the imagine behind it was not visable . The firefly recticle is uselss in real low light if you can't see the image ................so I would have had to stop hunting 5-10 minutes earlier with the Bushnell. The leupold was brighter an more clear in extreme low light although the crosshairs were hard to see in those conditions. There definately was 5 minutes or so in there that I could not have made a shot with the Bushnell that I could with the Leupold and 5 minutes in there that I could have made out a deer with the Leupold but not been able to see my crosshairs well enough to shoot. So the advantage here was the Leupold.



So all in all. I think the Leupold is marginally a better scope. I am going to keep it and put it on my encore. It has a slightly better fov and smaller crosshairs to give a better sight picture. It is more forgiving of head position and seemed a little easier to get on target to me. And it is brighter in extremely low light conditions. But it is not worth 2-3 times as much as the Bushnell.
 

[Keith L]

I don't have any handgun Leos yet, but do on rifles.  If deer came out only in broad daylight then I might not spend the money.  A good share of my hunting is dawn/dusk, and I wouldn't have near as many deer if I didn't have scopes that performed then.

[Grumulkin]

So all in all. I think the Leupold is marginally a better scope. I am going to keep it and put it on my encore. It has a slightly better fov and smaller crosshairs to give a better sight picture. It is more forgiving of head position and seemed a little easier to get on target to me. And it is brighter in extremely low light conditions. But it is not worth 2-3 times as much as the Bushnell.

I have 7 of the Leupolds.  Put your Bushnell on a handgun with real recoil like a 460 or 500 S&W Magnum and you may change your mind about whether or not they're worth the money.

[CBM]

Well, I should have said.............it's " probably" not worth 2-3 times as much for most people. Obviously it's worth it to me because I am keeping it and putting it on my .308 encore pistol. Just not sure a lot of folks would like it for $469 compared to $159 for the Bushnell(which is what I paid for each) !!!

[Grumulkin]

You need to shop it a bit better.  With proper shopping and if you're willing to buy a very nice used scope, a Leupold VX III shouldn't run more than about $350.  Also, Leupold honors their warranty on it's scopes regardless of whether or not you're the original owner; I doubt Bushnell does.

[Redhawk1]

So all in all. I think the Leupold is marginally a better scope. I am going to keep it and put it on my encore. It has a slightly better fov and smaller crosshairs to give a better sight picture. It is more forgiving of head position and seemed a little easier to get on target to me. And it is brighter in extremely low light conditions. But it is not worth 2-3 times as much as the Bushnell.

I have 7 of the Leupolds.  Put your Bushnell on a handgun with real recoil like a 460 or 500 S&W Magnum and you may change your mind about whether or not they're worth the money.

Now I am a big time Leupold fan, I love the Leupold 2x8x32 handgun scopes.  But I will have to tell you, your comment about the Bushnell is way off base. I have a Bushnell 2X6 on my S&W 460 Mag and I have shot over 1000 rounds through the gun with it on there, that same scope was on my BFR in 500 Mag for about 500 to 600 rounds. The scope is still holding up great.
I have a Bushnell 3200 2X6X32 on an Encore in 308 Win, and it also is holding up extreamly well. Do I think Leupold is worth the extra money, I sure do, but I also think the Bushnell is a great second choice for heavy recoiling handguns.

[palgeno]

Because of the eye relief and smaller size, I like the Bushnell for a revolver scope and the Leupold for Encore 15" and Contender 14" barrels. I generally use  a revolver for still hunting and the TC for longer range hunting.
The Firefly reticule works for those low light situations in wooded areas where you would have trouble defining cross hairs with all the other vertical black lines of the smaller tree trunks. But I agree that the Leupold gathers light a little better and is more useful looking at an animal out in a clearing or a field.  Gene

[Grumulkin]

I have a Bushnell 3200 2X6X32 on an Encore in 308 Win, and it also is holding up extreamly well. Do I think Leupold is worth the extra money, I sure do, but I also think the Bushnell is a great second choice for heavy recoiling handguns.

It may hold up just fine but if it doesn't, will Bushnell fix it?  I have my doubts after my experience with a broken Bushnell scope.  Also, if you're not the original owner, will Bushnell fix it; I don't think so.

[Redhawk1]

I have a Bushnell 3200 2X6X32 on an Encore in 308 Win, and it also is holding up extremely well. Do I think Leupold is worth the extra money, I sure do, but I also think the Bushnell is a great second choice for heavy recoiling handguns.

It may hold up just fine but if it doesn't, will Bushnell fix it?  I have my doubts after my experience with a broken Bushnell scope.  Also, if you're not the original owner, will Bushnell fix it; I don't think so.

For the price, who cares. If I can get 3 Bushnell's that hold up like the ones I have now.  If I blow out a Bushnell, I will just replace it, hell it will probably be my fault and I feel with some of the loads I shoot, that I do abuse them.

But like I said, I am a Leupold fan and I also have Leupold handgun and rifle scopes. But some people don't feel they are worth the price and in my opinion, the Bushnell scopes are a great choice. Sorry you had a bad experance, but that does not make Bushnell bad. JMHO

[sweetwyominghome]

First of all, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The Elite 4200 and the VXIII lineup are the mid-line matchups. Even so, the Elite 3200 compares quite favorably and actually holds its own.

Leupold's EER variable scope, while a decent performer, still leaves a bit to be desired and is far from the final word in handgun optics. The older TC 2.5-7x32 (not the recent models; TC changed vendors along the way, and quality went somewhat south) actually outperforms the Leupy in a number of critical optical categories -- despite this also being an apples-to-oranges comparison as the TC variable cost significantly less.

The resolving power of the TC vs. the Leupy in low-light comparisons favors the underdog, as does edge-to-edge clarity and overall (perceived) image sharpness, although admittedly the advantage in any of those categories is relatively small.

In handgun optics, there has yet to be a clear overall winner as each still suffers from shortcomings that keep them from being the "perfect" handgunner's scope.

Some folks NEED the gold-ringed scopes for their own reasons. Others try and choose the best value for the $$. In today's handgun optics market, the Nikon variable offers the best value and is a stellar low-light performer -- and gives you image quality that the Nikon name is renown for. Following right behind is Burris and then the Bushnell Elite 3200 series. (The Leupy is actually right on the heels of the Burris and slightly ahead of the Elite 3200 in most across-the-board comparisons except one: price)

As to someone's question regarding durability, I have a 2-6x32 Bushnell on a .44 magnum revolver, and it has now seen around 1850-1900 full-power loads using 320 grain bullets --  and it continues to work flawlessly. Of course, correct mounting procedures on such a setup are paramount as any error will render ANY scope junk in a hurry when matched against the wicked G-forces of handgun recoil.

In rifle scopes, again, I top my guns with what I deem the best bang for the buck while keeping the quality at a high level. To that end, most of my rifles have Nikon Monarch scopes on them while a few others have Zeiss and Burris (along with a few Weavers & upper-end Bushnells as well). The Zeiss Conquest actually rates slightly ahead of comparable Monarchs in terms of optical quality, but the difference is so small that one will never notice it in the field. And the Monarchs cost a good bit less than the Conquests...

And for those interested, the VXIII ranks 3rd behind the Conquest and Monarchs when one considers all critical optical performance categories. Again, however, the differences are not staggering, and any of the 3 would serve you quite well.
 

 

[sweetwyominghome]

CBW wrote: "Extreme low light- right at dark the difference became more apparent. The Bushnell hit a point were I could see the crosshairs but the imagine behind it was not visable . The firefly recticle is uselss in real low light if you can't see the image ................so I would have had to stop hunting 5-10 minutes earlier with the Bushnell."

Part of that result stems from the firefly reticle itself and the conditioning of our eyes. If the reticle was not activated, the image would have been more distinct. The brightness of the reticle can result in minimized pupil size in our eye and thus a degradation of detail in darker areas as the eye has adjusted itself to the brightness of the firefly reticle, which I really do not like (though that is nothing more than a personal interjection here). 

[CBM]

I did not "activate" the recticle. While I think it's pretty cool.........can't see myself using it in a hunting situation ........so I was just using it regular not lighted up !!

[sweetwyominghome]

That, then, is a bit uncharacteristic for this scope. Have you checked the objective lately? A smudge or covering of dust can degrade an image under low-light conditions enough so that would rob one of several minutes of shooting light.

Generally speaking, with this scope -- and many others -- one tends to lose the reticle before the image becomes indistinguishable. But every situation is a rule unto itself as the background, shadows and direction of any remaining lighting would play key roles.

[Grumulkin]

If I blow out a Bushnell, I will just replace it, hell it will probably be my fault and I feel with some of the loads I shoot, that I do abuse them.

That makes sense unless you're hunting in Africa with no hope of a scope replacement within 500 miles.

[Redhawk1]

If I blow out a Bushnell, I will just replace it, hell it will probably be my fault and I feel with some of the loads I shoot, that I do abuse them.

That makes sense unless you're hunting in Africa with no hope of a scope replacement within 500 miles.

Smart hunters carry a back up scope, I sure do. I went to Alaska on a drop hunt in the Arctic circle, I brought a back up scope just in case the unthinkable happened.
I also bring a back up gun when hunting out of state or on a hunt of a life time.

[sweetwyominghome]

One thing I forgot to mention: the long-defunct Simmons Gold Medal 2.5-7s. They performed much as did the older TX 2.5-7s and were rumored to be produced by the same overseas plant. Not only were the optics top-notch, they were tough (JD Jones unsuccessfully tried to destroy a couple via the recoil of an unbraked .375 JDJ but could not do so.)

At the opposite end of the spectrum was the Redfield 2-6x20 of 1980s vintage, which required so much torque to turn the power ring that you'd swear you'd rip the scope right off the pistol. And optically, it was dismal at best. It was definitely one of the more expensive paperweights you could find...   
 

[Grumulkin]

Smart hunters carry a back up scope, I sure do. I went to Alaska on a drop hunt in the Arctic circle, I brought a back up scope just in case the unthinkable happened.
I also bring a back up gun when hunting out of state or on a hunt of a life time.

That would be another approach.  I guess you would then need to bring all the Torx & Allen head wrenches, screwdrivers, etc. you might need.  You would also need some ammo to sight in if the unthinkable happened.  Then of course there is the airline thing; the baggage weight limit isn't 70 lbs. anymore.

For me, it's just easier to pay an extra $150 to $200 and get a scope I have confidence in.  I do take 2 guns however.

[Redhawk1]

Grumulkin, even with Leupold scopes the unthinkable could happened.
My Leupold bore sighter is about 1 oz, I carry extra ammo anyways, and it does not take me long to get sighted in because I use identical set ups, and to carry a few Torx & Allen head wrenches is just another 1 or 2 oz. Better than a blown hunt 3000 miles from home.

My Rifles wear Leupold's, but that does not mean the baggage handler can't break it. Even my hand guns are not a problem to get re sighted in with a proper bore sight. I am usually sighted in within 3 or 5 shots.

[irold]

Seems like there's a lot of people with a lot more money than I .......Blue collar workers have to watch their bucks...When I can get a good scope (ie bushnell trophy) for a $160 versus a Leo for 350 to $450  ...not much of a decision for me.  I don't know about Bushnells warranty , because over the 35 years that I've been using them.....I've never broke one.  With the money I save on the Leo glass , I'll buy another barrel for the Encore.