Author Topic: Bushnell Elite 4200 (Read 1058 times)

Dave in WV · « **on:** January 05, 2005, 09:40:11 AM »

A friend and coworker's wife wants me to help her pick a good scope for her husband's birthday. Does the 4200 2.5x10 have enough eye relief for a 7mm Rem mag. and if so how much do they really have. I looked through a 3200 3x9 last fall and was surprised how much eye relief it had. It was like a Leupold's eye relief. My recommendations are Leupold VX2 3x9, Nikon Monarch 3x9, or a Elite 4200 2.5x10. I can't ask him since it's a surprise.

Grubbs · « **Reply #1 on:** January 05, 2005, 10:36:42 AM »

I'd take the elite 4200 or the monarch over the leupold you mentioned any day of the week. You may want to look at the Zeiss Conquest too, as it's in the same price range. I have 2 Conquest's and the Luepold pales in comparison.

longwinters · « **Reply #2 on:** January 05, 2005, 12:13:21 PM »

Remember the eye relief gets shorter as you crank up the magnification on the lower cost scopes. So when you ck eye relief make sure the scope is cranked up all the way. I would agree that the 4200 is a good scope for your application, although I prefer the conquest. Price is not that different.

Long

Dave in WV · « **Reply #3 on:** January 05, 2005, 12:53:42 PM »

Thanks for the input. How does the Conquest reticle compare to a Leupold? I don't like the reticle thickness of the Leupold standard Duplex. I find it too thin for brush hunting.

goose7856 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 05, 2005, 03:52:30 PM »

im not sure about the thickness.....but i do know that the Conquest has an etched reticle.....not sure exactly what that does, but I jus know its better than a wrie reticle

vernonp · « **Reply #5 on:** January 19, 2005, 06:18:31 AM »

I would go with the Monarch also. I have one and it is great. I have no first hand experience with the Elite 4200 but UPS just delivered an Elite 3200 this morning for a new rifle and there is no comparison with the Monarch. I actually thought it would be closer than it is

Zachary · « **Reply #6 on:** January 19, 2005, 09:16:21 AM »

Quote from: Grubbs

You may want to look at the Zeiss Conquest too, as it's in the same price range. I have 2 Conquest's and the Luepold pales in comparison.

Same price range as the Nikon Monarch and Elite 4200? I bought all three scopes recently and the Conquest was much most expensive than the Nikon Monarch, and noticeably more than the Elite 4200.

Go to www.theopticzone.com and check, but I think that the Monarch is the least expensive, then the Elite 4200, and then, by a bigger margin, the Conquest.

Of the three, the Monarch is the best value, the Elite 4200 has the least eye relief, the Conquest has the most eye relief (4" constant), and all have excellent optics.

It's really a hard call to make. They are all excellent choices, although you may want to consider the Conquest because of it's longer eye relief.

Zachary

Zachary · « **Reply #7 on:** January 19, 2005, 09:19:31 AM »

I just went to www.theopticzone.com and confirmed what I thought.

Nikon Monarch 3x-9x-40mm matte - $255
Elite 4200 2.5x-10x-40mm matte - $329
Zeiss Conquest 3x-9x-40mm - $389.

So the Conquest is much more expensive than the Monarch, and noticeably more expensive than the Elite 4200.

Zachary

Grubbs · « **Reply #8 on:** January 19, 2005, 09:55:10 AM »

Zachary, you're right. I guess "in the ballpark" would best describe the Conquest's price as compared to the other two. I know on ebay you can find them cheaper, around $350 or so. I would probably say the best value would be the elite 4200. Although I have not actually hunted with one, I have looked through my buddie's and it was super.

Zachary · « **Reply #9 on:** January 19, 2005, 03:53:29 PM »

Yes, you're right. The optics on the Elite 4200 are super. But you know what? When I look at all three - the Elite 4200, Nikon Monarch, and the Zeiss Conquest, I have a hard time telling between the three - they are all that good.

Zachary

SHANE CLARK · « **Reply #10 on:** January 19, 2005, 04:20:13 PM »

after looking at all three mentioned scopes i knew the conquest was the one. i`m no expert. i don`t know alot abot scopes i just know when i looked through it i like it better. the nikon went black on me easier if i didn`t have real good eye alignment. dial in the 4200 and you have to get closer to the scope. with a tikka t3 270wsm.,that not a good thing. i`m sure it would have been fine. but why settle? the conquest did it all. so i saved a few more bucks and got it. the hard part was choosing between the 3.5-10-44 and 3-9-40. i went with the 3x9. i just couldn`t tell any difference and now that it`s mounted i`m glad i did. i love the low level the scope mounts. it gives me a good cheek rest. i dont nighthunt but this scope will keep ya out to long if you don`t watch it.