Author Topic: Bushnell banner or trophy ?? (Read 4139 times)

rdh · « **on:** November 16, 2008, 12:05:58 PM »

I am wanting one in a 4-12x40 and wondering wich is better of the two thanks for any help

Swampman · « **Reply #1 on:** November 16, 2008, 12:24:46 PM »

Quote from: rdh on November 16, 2008, 12:05:58 PM

I am wanting one in a 4-12x40 and wondering wich is better of the two thanks for any help

Banner

Graybeard · « **Reply #2 on:** November 16, 2008, 12:54:23 PM »

WRONG.

From the top down the line up is like this:

Elite 6500, Elite 4200, Elite 3200, Legend, Trophy, Banner, Sportsman.

Seems like I missed something at the bottom but at the moment I can't recall what it is.

Swampman · « **Reply #3 on:** November 16, 2008, 12:57:28 PM »

So the Trophy cost less, but it's better than the Banner?

30-30man · « **Reply #4 on:** November 16, 2008, 01:31:03 PM »

I have one of each. I have a 4-12x40AO Banner and a 3-9x40 Trophy. The Banner is about 30-40$ cheaper depending on the model. The Banner and the Trophy are real close but the Banner I have is a better scope. The lens coating of the Trophy makes everything look orange. It is suspose to make deer contrast against a wooded background. I never liked it and it remains in my safe unmounted. The power ring on the Trophy is also very stiff and I've heard this to be an issue on other Trophy models. The Banner I have is very clear and has held fine. I like it better than some of my Leupolds.

If I were to buy another scope and was choosing between these two lines, it would be the Banner hands down.

Troyboy · « **Reply #5 on:** November 16, 2008, 01:41:31 PM »

It is becoming apparent that for the money a bushnell is the one to beat imo of course

monday is always sunday in the rich mans world

3006bluffhunter · « **Reply #6 on:** November 16, 2008, 03:40:11 PM »

I have 4 trophies and 2 banners! Both models hold up fine and are great scopes! Banner has a smaller sleeker look and the trophy has a bigger front bell and power change ring which may make you use higher rings! This is comparing the 3x9-40 trophy and banner! Bottom line there both great scopes for the money!

Swift One · « **Reply #7 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:57:45 AM »

I too have both scopes and they are great scopes for the money. I have found that the trophy has its advantages when looking at fur though. The coating (like stated earlier) seems to make the fur stick out a little more. IMO you cannot go wrong with either one though.

hotrunner · « **Reply #8 on:** June 07, 2009, 05:29:31 AM »

I was gonna go with a 4-12X Trophy on a C-Z 527, but am now looking @ a Legend (one notch up w/fully-coated lenses.) I'll admit it's as much about aesthetics as optical quality, for if the much-longer (as near as conflicting info tells me) Legend overpowers the looks of the little C-Z, I'll go with the Trophy, as it is a real good scope, too. Banners, (and their store-brand spinoffs e.g.: Shooter's Edge) in my experience are some of the best entry-level scopes out there.

Wingman26 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 08, 2009, 08:56:28 AM »

I have a Bushnell Legend 5-15x with the mil dot reticle, it is an extremely impressive scope, I would describe the image quality as bright and crisp, its a great value.

hotrunner · « **Reply #10 on:** June 16, 2009, 03:39:52 PM »

I've put the 5-15X Legend on my short list. The only complaint(s) I can find about it are the cheap plastic windage/elevation adjustment "caps" that sometimes break or come loose. Any experience like that yet, Wingman?

Wingman26 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 16, 2009, 05:13:48 PM »

The caps on mine are aluminum, but I also have a Banner 6-18x50 which has plastic caps and I've never had any problems with those. Since I have the Banner it makes a good comparison, the Banner 6-18x50 is a pretty good scope, but the difference in the image quality is extremely noticeable, both are on rifles I use for prairie dogs and so I've shot them side by side. The Banner image is OK, but its not bright and crisp like the Legend, the difference in image quality is quite noticeable.

Happy · « **Reply #12 on:** June 26, 2009, 11:28:48 AM »

Just picked up a used banner 4x12 and seems to have yardage marked out on the objective bell which turns.
Would this be to permit precise focusing, as it does not seem to do any thing else.

Wingman26 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 26, 2009, 12:19:50 PM »

I've got several different scopes from several different brands, low end to middle and up to Nikon scopes that have adjustable objective lenses, they do allow you to focus the image, note that personal observation has shown the yardage figures printed on them is entirely unrealistic.

Graybeard · « **Reply #14 on:** June 26, 2009, 12:50:15 PM »

The adjustable objective is for parallax correction NOT focusing. You focus with the eye piece and correct parallax with the objective.

Wingman26 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 26, 2009, 05:10:53 PM »

The focus on the eyepiece is for the reticle.

hotrunner · « **Reply #16 on:** July 02, 2009, 10:38:06 AM »

Agree. You adjust focus with parallax correction, not the eyepiece reticle focus...you set that once, usually at something close like an empty wall, and pretty much forget it (despite ad claims of "fast-focus eyepiece", etc. by a certain co.) One exception would be the SuperSniper line that offers parallax adj. on the rear eyepiece; I have a 20X and love that feature. Even more than that on my side-FOCUS scopes.

hotrunner · « **Reply #17 on:** July 02, 2009, 11:35:19 AM »

Okay, I see what GB may be referring to: the semantic difference between "focus" and parallax correction. There is a technical difference, although for all practical purposes a shooter had better get the AO (or SF) in sharp "focus" or his P.O.I. could be off.

84Jim · « **Reply #18 on:** July 02, 2009, 05:42:09 PM »

Where do you guys figure an old Scopechief would fall in todays Bushnell quality progression

Graybeard · « **Reply #19 on:** July 03, 2009, 12:27:52 AM »

Rather low as I recall but I think they were intended for use on centerfire rifles. Still it's old technology and at that low on their line up.

84Jim · « **Reply #20 on:** July 04, 2009, 09:20:36 AM »

Yeah, you're probably right. The owners manual also includes the Banner, and if I recall the Scopechief wasn't the cheapest Bushnell, so I figure its around the Trophy.

I bought it in the early 80's (4x12 with bullet drop compansator) and the salesman, who happened to be my neighbor, talked me out of a Redfield and into the Scopechief. I had to send it back to the factory once because it wouldn't hold zero (kept drifting to 9 o'c). My only complaint is that its hard to see at the higher powers, I'm thinking because the eye relief has about zero tolerance.

Graybeard · « **Reply #21 on:** July 04, 2009, 11:41:16 AM »

I had a Scope Chief many many long years ago that was a piece of crap. It spoiled me on Bushnell scopes for many years afterward. I never bought another really and until they began shipping me scopes and other optics for review I never realized how much they had improved. Now I perhaps have more Bushnell optics than any other brand with Leupold being a fairly close second. Some times one bad experience can really change one's view of a company.

Zachary · « **Reply #22 on:** July 06, 2009, 03:24:39 PM »

The primary difference between the Legend and the 3200 (as I recall) is that the Legend has a 2-piece tube, whereas the Elite 3200 is 1-piece, even though the Legend has a little bit better light transmission. The lowest that I personally would go is the 3200, and I have one on my .375 H&H. Heck, I'm looking at it right now. It's a 1.5x-4.5x with the glowing Firefly reticle. This has been a great scope for this gun. I have shot 1-hole groups with Plain Jane Federal 300 grain soft-points.

Now, I know that many people are on a tight budget, but I just can't recommend the really cheap scopes, like many that are under $100 because you generally get what you pay for with optics. The lowest Bushnell line that I recommend is the Trophy line. I am not too fond of the Trophy though because of that amber lens coating - kinda drives me nuts. But they do hold up pretty well. Still, if you can just save some more money and get the Elite 3200, I believe it will be well worth the extra money.

You may also want to take a good look at its Nikon equivalent, the Buckmaster scopes. Although the Buckmasters don't have rainguard like the Elite 3200s, the Buckmasters, in my opinion, have a little bit better optics, and they hold up very well too.

Zachary

kiddekop · « **Reply #23 on:** July 08, 2009, 08:01:53 AM »

Quote from: 84Jim on July 02, 2009, 05:42:09 PM

Where do you guys figure an old Scopechief would fall in todays Bushnell quality progression

Depends which model scope chief you have a 1.5x5 scope chief had value for its intended use for bear hunting.

30-30man · « **Reply #24 on:** July 08, 2009, 12:13:57 PM »

I guess I didn't know any better, the under $100 scopes have managed to help me kill 6-7 deer every year for the past 30 years. I hunted mostly with a cheap Bushnell Sportview that was all of $60 at the time I bought it. I will never understand why somebody thinks you have to have a $1000 scope to go hunting. I own a Bushnell 4200, 3200, Banner,(use to own a trophy), Mueller APV, Mueller multishot, and even a cheap Pentax Gameseeker. I can't tell one difference in any of them to make me stay home because I don't have enough scope. My brother-in-law kills just as many deer every year as I do with a cheapo tasco that was $30 at the time. As a matter of fact, the only family member who manages to miss 2-3 times per season is hunting with a Nikon Monarch on my place. The scope just helps you see the game. Make sure it will hold zero as all the Bushnells will. Then it all boils down to the shooter. You don't need a $1000 scope to put game in the freezer.

Zachary · « **Reply #25 on:** July 09, 2009, 05:18:12 PM »

Nah, you know just fine.

I have shot a lot of different guns, with a lot of different scopes, both expensive and inexpensive, over $1,000 and under $100 (even like $50 or so). I can definitely tell the difference between the $100 scopes and the $500 scopes. The difference is less noticeable (at least for me with my eyes) between the $500 scopes and the $1,000 scopes.

My father used to have a .30-06 with an old Weaver K4 (fixed at 4x with an objection of, I don't know, about 32mm?) and I have personally witnessed him shoot 3 deer about 400 yards away. Now, when I was young and paid about $300 for a Nikon 3.5x-10x-50mm back in 1989 or so (with his money because I was about 19 at the time), he was very upset. Then, when he went hunting with my brother, he secretly asked my brother to get my gun with the Nikon. When he used it at hunting in low light, he told my brother "Wow, this scope really is amazing." Ever since then, he put his old .30-06 aside and just used my guns with the nicer optics. You don't need a really nice scope to kill deer, but a really nice scope does have its advantages, especially in low-light situations.

Of course, light transmission and clarity isn't everything...a scope must hold its zero. After all, a scope is not a telescope for a hunter to observe animals, a scope is a shooting tool....we can, and should, use binos for observing. But, it's still nice to have sharp optics...certainly doesn't hurt.

Zachary

351 power · « **Reply #26 on:** July 10, 2009, 01:09:39 AM »

the scope chief had different numbers attached to models. i got one recently marked scope chief V that is very good. also got a 2.5 banner that is good on my rimfire. used scopes. bought 1 banner new too. so far they have been reliable. how long has it been since they made the 2.5 banner?