Author Topic: bushnell crap (Read 3948 times)

greenrivers · « **Reply #30 on:** May 04, 2011, 02:26:54 AM »

It sounds like Bushnell has started using the tactics that some of the insurance companies have. Hire a bunch of people to find reasons to denie claims. In this world of higher costs and competition meaning lower profit margins, companies face stockholders backing out if they do not find ways of keeping returns up. It really does not matter if it is a Ford or a Burris. Certain models perform well and hold up over the long haul giving the product a good name. If we shop for and buy those models we are satisfied. But varying from that model without research usually means trouble. And as Loyd states, any mechanical device can break down. Roll of the dice with a little research to save money? Or pay the big bucks for top line products and customer service that you are paying for with higher prices?

Swampman · « **Reply #31 on:** May 04, 2011, 04:07:07 AM »

When you buys seconds or "rebuilt" products it doesn't help.

pastorp · « **Reply #32 on:** May 04, 2011, 08:15:41 AM »

Lloyd didn't mention his bushel being a referb scope or a second. Why would you make that comment swampman?

Regards,

Swampman · « **Reply #33 on:** May 04, 2011, 08:29:14 AM »

Actually he did....

Quote

this is the second one i got. the first was about 6 months ago. Both were bought on natchez. Both were a 179 bucks. Only thing is the first one was new and this one is a refurb.

one eye joe · « **Reply #34 on:** May 04, 2011, 12:10:02 PM »

I believe he is talking about the Nikon Team Primos from Natchez. Not the Bushsmell.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #35 on:** May 04, 2011, 03:07:04 PM »

bushnell wasnt the refurb. If you read the post youd see that its the new nikon thats the refurb. I have no problem buying refurbed optics. The new ones are thrown together on an assembly line and the ones that have to be refurbed are checked out by hand and tested before there shipped and production line scopes sure arent all tested. Thats why we have refurbs.

Swampman · « **Reply #36 on:** May 04, 2011, 03:14:38 PM »

I like Nikons but I do wonder why there are thousands of Nikon refurbs available?

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #37 on:** May 04, 2011, 03:24:15 PM »

mostly because they have a differnt warantee procedure. If you send a scope to them for repair 9 times out of 10 they just send you a new one. they must then take the returns fix them and resell them as refurbs. Leupold wont do that. they will fix the scope you send them no matter how old it is or beat looking. I sent nikon a 3x9 monarch that was just missing the rubber ring on the eyepiece. I bought it off a guy on here and it was a bit more beat then advertised. All they had to do was replace the rubber. (they wouldnt send me one) but instead they gave me a brand new 2x10 monarch even though they knew i just bought it used. They did the same for my 10 year old nikon atb binocs. They were dropped and wound focus out past 300 yards anymore. They were over 10 years old and i told nikon that i dropped them and they sent me a brand new pair. Im not a fan of buckmasters and sure not a fan of prostaffs but sure am a fan of monarchs and am especially a fan of the way nikon takes care of there customers.

boatboy · « **Reply #38 on:** May 06, 2011, 06:49:05 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on May 02, 2011, 08:37:05 AM

Tons of good cheap scopes these days. I've never had a bad scope and I've owned about everything. One thing is for sure old scopes cannot compare optically to even the cheapest scopes available today. A Weaver K4 made 30 years ago is the pits.

You never miss a chance to bash Sightron, amazing
but you have never had a bad scope and you have owned everything

I am not sure what your hard-on for Sightron is but I find it very interesting
We all have opinions but I don't normally go out of my way to bash any one. Who knows maybe I just got 3 really fine Sightrons. I will absolutely agree they don't have the resale of a Leupold but neither does a Monarch, an Elite or a Schmidt & Bender (compaired to new cost)
But that makes some great buying opportunity's for us Knuckle Heads
Hank

Swampman · « **Reply #39 on:** May 06, 2011, 10:14:37 AM »

Just not interested in off brands with little to no resale value.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #40 on:** May 06, 2011, 11:16:09 AM »

I sure dont worry about the off brands for resale as i dont buy a scope thinking on selling it later. Anymore i buy the scope i think is right for the gun the first time instead of settleing and buying better later. I do worry about the warantee of some of the off brands and whether they will be around 20 years down the road to warantee them but I guess if you look at companys like bushnell being around doesnt matter if they dont stand behind them. I know when i buy leupold and nikon at least i dont have to be conserned about warantees now or in the future.

Swampman · « **Reply #41 on:** May 06, 2011, 05:34:27 PM »

A Leupold is nearly always worth most of what you paid for it, maybe more. It's an investment.

helotaxi · « **Reply #42 on:** May 06, 2011, 09:35:31 PM »

No, it's a riflescope. Based on how they price them you'd think that they were an investment though. Like gold bullion. That would be a good explanation of the price though, it certainly isn't because of cutting edge technology.

I usually buy what I want with the intent of keeping it when it comes to consumer products. If I want an investment, I buy under-priced stocks.

yooper77 · « **Reply #43 on:** May 07, 2011, 02:24:04 AM »

Quote from: Lloyd Smale on May 03, 2011, 03:03:37 AM

well i brought up the fact they advertise a no questions asked one year warantee and they said if i could produce the original recipe they would consider it. I got ahold of cabelas and got a recipe. I dont know if this will qualify as the original if they are going to get real picky. they said they allready sent my scope back so ill have to ship it back again when it gets here to see if there going to stand behind it this time. I just dont see why i had to raise this much cane. If the warantee is there why didnt they do it the first time

I am not in the least bit surprised by how Bushnell is treating you. Hopefully they will acknowledge the receipt and repair the scope. Afterwards I suggest sell it and cut your losses. I wish you luck.

I've learned years ago Leupold are the only scopes for me.

I do own some Japanese scopes that are so far working, but will be replaced with Leupolds when they fail.

yooper77

greenrivers · « **Reply #44 on:** May 07, 2011, 02:37:25 AM »

I have been buying almost all Nikon in the past few years except for a Weaver that was recommended for a T/C 45-70 carbine barrel. So far it has been very good. I bought the Trophy based on reports from others here and putting it on a .22 Hornet with no recoil. Seemed a good option. The clarity and sharpness equaled higher priced scopes, and the field of view surpassed some of them. It is much easier to pick up the target with than a Burris that Cabala's had in the case for a much higher price. I definitely would not put it on my .454 SRH unless I wanted to see how quickly I could destroy it! I buy for myself and if it lets me down, I will replace it with better quality and never go back to them. But for plinking and occasional coyote/woodchuck, I like it.

George Foster · « **Reply #45 on:** May 09, 2011, 01:01:24 AM »

My experience with Bushnell Customer Service.
I bought a Bushnell Elite 4200 off of Ebay a few years aqo at a very cheap price. It was several years old at the time of purchase....kept it for 4 years and it started having issues with holding horizontal zero. Sent it to Bushnell....10 days later I had a brand new scope just like the old crappy one absolutely No Charge.

pastorp · « **Reply #46 on:** May 09, 2011, 04:52:57 AM »

Well George I'm glad to hear bushnell treated sombody right.

I wonder what their real average is.........

Regards,

bobg · « **Reply #47 on:** May 09, 2011, 05:50:25 AM »

I have owned 7 Bushnell scopes. Only had problems with 1 and Bushnell replaced it.

George Foster · « **Reply #48 on:** May 09, 2011, 09:51:25 AM »

At the present time I own eight 3200's which I bought new and I have had zero problems with any of them.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #49 on:** May 09, 2011, 10:22:13 AM »

im guessing some of the good treatment was back before they were bought out by the big corporation.

bobg · « **Reply #50 on:** May 09, 2011, 10:34:15 AM »

Yes Lloyd you are right. I know mine was.

Swampman · « **Reply #51 on:** May 09, 2011, 12:11:30 PM »

I had some trouble with older Bushnells but none since they were bought out. I'll keep on buying them.

rugerfan.64 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 09, 2011, 03:27:15 PM »

I had to be rather rude to the guy on the phone last year about a Simmons Aetec. I have one of the old ones that still is a great scope. I bought one of the Master series Aetecs and it wouldnt hold zero. Sent it back. They returned it supposedly nothing wrong with it. I returned it with a not very cordial letter. Guy called me asked what they could do to rectify the situation. I told them in no uncertian terms would I accept that chinese piece of S++T back at my house. They prompty sent me a new Bushnell Legend. I may not have the best scope in the line,but its not that piece of S++T they were gonna send me back. Be rude and unashamed. They understand that. LOL

Big G · « **Reply #53 on:** May 10, 2011, 12:18:26 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on May 02, 2011, 08:37:05 AM

Tons of good cheap scopes these days. I've never had a bad scope and I've owned about everything. One thing is for sure old scopes cannot compare optically to even the cheapest scopes available today. A Weaver K4 made 30 years ago is the pits.

Quote from: Swampman on May 09, 2011, 12:11:30 PM

I had some trouble with older Bushnells but none since they were bought out. I'll keep on buying them.

Swampman · « **Reply #54 on:** May 10, 2011, 04:24:35 AM »

They weren't my scopes....

guzzijohn · « **Reply #55 on:** May 10, 2011, 07:11:32 AM »

Quote from Swampman:

Quote

Tons of good cheap scopes these days. I've never had a bad scope and I've owned about everything. One thing is for sure old scopes cannot compare optically to even the cheapest scopes available today. A Weaver K4 made 30 years ago is the pits.

Swampy, I just get amused at your regularly posted sweeping statements. Yes optics as a whole have come along ways. However, I have a K-4 on a 39A that I bought new in 78 and it still is a good scope. I also have an 8X Unertl (60+? years old) on a highwall. It is noticeably clearer than my Nikon Prostaff. At 100yards I can just make out .22 holes with the Nikon at the 9X setting, no problem seeing the holes clearly with the Unertl.
GuzziJohn

pastorp · « **Reply #56 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:41:35 AM »

Guzzijohn,

Your statement about swampy's "sweeping startemnts" describes his posts about as well as I have heard. He also generally reports a opposing viewpoint.

Yes it makes sence to me that a $129 nikon or a $39 bushel would be superior to a $500+ leupold or zeiss. Yes sir it sure does......

regards,

Swampman · « **Reply #57 on:** May 10, 2011, 01:21:30 PM »

Maybe not better, but just as good...........and you misspelled sense.

It's ok to make sweeping statement when you're right....and I am.

sweetwyominghome · « **Reply #58 on:** May 10, 2011, 03:06:44 PM »

Swampman wrote: "A Leupold is nearly always worth most of what you paid for it, maybe more. It's an investment."

I don't necessarily buy optics as an investment. I buy them based on their level of performance they deliver and to get the most bang for my buck, so to speak. And that is why I don't buy Leupold...

Yes, the gold-ringed wonders are good, solid scopes, but they are FAR from the final word in optics. And when it comes to low-light, low-contrast situations, a number of scopes will out-perform that vaunted Leupold lineup.

As to Nikon and refurbs: ANY time a Nikon is returned, no matter the reason, it MUST go back to the factory, even if it was still unopened. They thoroughly check them out and then sell them as refurbs, even though the scope may have never been used before.

I spent more than a quarter-century making a living with optics, so I know I can judge them in unbiased fashion. After all, my livelihood -- and that of my family's -- depended on as much, for without good glass and ultimately good results, there would have been no payoff, so to speak.

For those wanting the best value for their hard-earned dollar, the Nikon BuckMasters series is hard to beat and about as rugged and durable as you will find. (And if you want EXCEPTIONAL performance in terms of edge-to-edge sharpness, the ability to resolve fine detail and repeatability of zero, try and find a pre-'05 4.5-14x40 AO. It's simply a superb piece of equipment.) But for a few dollars more, you can have a current Monarch, which is truly another step up in the optical world.

I have used and abused Nikons for years, and they have always been up to the task (I am not speaking of the ProStaff, as this entry-level lineup does not meet my personal criteria.) And as to their customer service, let me use this as an example: a number of years ago, a 6.5-06 rifle took a fall during a photo shoot, and the Monarch 4-12x40 AO took the brunt of the impact.

I packed it up with a note explaining what had happened -- and that it was entirely my fault. About a week later, I had a package from Nikon -- and all was taken care of at NO CHARGE to me.

For me, when it comes to top quality in the sub-$750 range, Minox, Zeiss Conquest and Nikon Monarch are as good as you will find. The Leupold VX-3 would be in 4th when one considers all critical performance areas and price.

You can certainly spend more than what a Conquest, Monarch or Minox will cost, but you also get to a point of diminishing returns and differences that can only be detected under controlled conditions and not in the field.

bcraig · « **Reply #59 on:** May 10, 2011, 03:52:01 PM »

A Lot of this discussion is merely how something is worded.
But my Money will go to Leupold for its ability to hold zero,IT MAY or MAY not be as sharp as another optic BUT it is sharp enough But Remember just having great optically great clarity does not in and of itself make a good riflescope and Leupold makes scopes that will do that, cant prove it as I dont have the funds But I would bet a dollar to a donut as they say that if you took 100 Leupold scopes and 100 scopes from any other maker you would find More Leupolds surviving recoil and holding zero than the rest of them. Leupold will take care of any problem you MIGHT have whether it be just an old scope that needs new seals or even an erector problem or a scratch in the lenses. You dont have to be the original owner nor do you have to have any type of reciept. They are as tough as nails and and have as much or MORE eye relief than any brand in the same type of scope.
Judging from what I have seen and experienced wit over 40 years of hunting experience and observing scope failures on my rifles and friends rifles ,I would rather have a used Leupold M-8 than just about any other scope other than a new Leupold.
I was born and raised in the country using scopes on rifles that were hauled in and out of and off of trucks,combines,tractors and 3 wheelers and later 4 wheelers not to mention horses and have seen rifles beat around in a way that they shouldn,t be and by far Leupold is the best in my experienceas far as holding Zero.
Early on I tried other scopes because they were cheaper and provided great clarity but they just didn,t hold a candle to a Leupold in terms of ruggedness and Leupolds ability to hold zero.Even the leupolds without click adjustments (the friction adjustable ones ), although a pain in the neck sometimes to get zeroed initially,once zeroed stayed zeroed.I am not unbiased although I once was.
I am totally biased to buy and reccomend Leupold over any other brand Including but not limited to Bushnell,Nikon,Burris,Weaver etc. I do believe that there are good examples of any brand of scope a person might want to buy.I just believe you stand a better chance of getting a good scope with a great warranty with Leupold.
But everyone is entitled to spend their money how they want to.