Leupold VX-II 6-18x40 vice Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x40

[2Guns]

Hello, new to the forum after reading allot of the comments in here I thought I would post a question and solicit some opinions.  

Which of these two scopes would you would buy and why?

I have a Rem 700VLS .308 that I use for range work and varmint shooting.  Yeah I know .308 a little big for varmints but I like the cartridge! :grin:   Ranges are 100 to 300 yards, so nothing to extreme.  I like the Leupold ($429)for its size, generous eye relief, made in USA, and its rep for optical quality.  The Bushnell is also top notice in the optics and the price is better - $334 (Optic Zone).  Frankly I have always wanted a Leupold so I am leaning that way, but I don't want to pay $95 just for a name.  HELP

[victorcharlie]

I have a Bushnell elite 4200 4 X 16 X 40.......It's a great scope......there are only 2 things I wish were different.......

1st.......I wish it were smaller......It's huge.......very large and heavy.

2nd......I wish it were assembled in the USA........like a Leupold......

I also have some Leupolds, though not the one mentioned.......

Both are very good optics......if you've always wanted a Leupold then go get one.........the longer eye relief is what I really like about Leupolds.......

[Zachary]

Frankly I have always wanted a Leupold so I am leaning that way, but I don't want to pay $95 just for a name.  

Then don't.

Like you said, the 4200 has better optics and costs less.  Yes, it is longer and heavier, but unless that is going to be an important factor, then don't worry about it.

I have a few 4200s.  I have a couple 4x-16x-40mm, I think one or two 4x-16x-50mm, a 2.5x-10x-40mm, and a 2.5x-10x-50mm with 30mm tube illuminated dot (which I gave to my brother).  These optics are just awesome.

I also have 2 or 3 Leupold Vari-X IIIs in 3.5x-10x-50mm Illuminated and the new VX-IIs have the same glass.  It's nice that the new VX-IIs cost substantially less than what the Vari-x IIIs cost, but the bottom line is that the 4200 has better optics and is just as strong - or stronger - than the Leupold.

Zachary

[goose7856]

:yeah: that!!

Bushnell has raingaurd, and is just as strong, better optics (from what ive heard)....wieght and eye relief is the only thing the Leupold has going for it.

Bushnell w/o a doubt.

[Graybeard]

This is an apples to oranges comparison. And not just because of the difference in power range or price. The Elite 4200 product line is head and shoulders above the Leupold VX-II line. Even ahead of the VX-III line optically many would agree.

You can get a better scope for less money and you're having to have help making the decision? Sorry to me that's a no brainer.

[2Guns]

Thank you for all the comments.  I have never owned either one of these scopes so I am trying to do as much research as I can before I plunk down my hard earned cash.  I guess I don't see it as an apples to oranges comparison; uses are similar, magnification is similar 4-16 vice 6-18, price range is similar, yes one is more expensive than the other but they are both in the same ball park.

I was misquoted, I did not say the Bushnell Elite 4200 had better optics than the Leupold, I said both had good reps for optical quality.  I don't know which one does.  That is part of my question.

Several of you said the Bushnell Elites are better optics, by what standards are you making the statement.  Are there quantitative numbers that you are comparing or is it based on looking through both scopes and giving a judgement?  If that is the case then fine, but if you are making a declarative statement that one is clearly better than the other, then my first question is what are you basing that on, measurable facts or subjective opinions.

I don't mean to offend or cause controversy, I just want to know how you derived you opinion.  Thanks

[victorcharlie]

The elite 4200 is better optically........but not that much over my VX-III's......it's a large heave scope if that matters to you, but to me it means it's built very well..........It also has rain guard..........

Leupold's hold their value very well.......some of my friends remember Bushnell back when they built cheap scopes and that's a reputation that's hard to get rid of..........some of them won't even look at a Bushnell......so my guess is that the resale on a Bushnell might not be as good, or as easy as a Leupold.............

I love the Leupold eye relief, and the fact there assembled in the USA.......they do, need to be a little more price competitive.........

Now, if you've always wanted a Leupold.....you certainly won't go wrong with one........

[Squeeze]

2Guns,
 
You can read all of the machine tested results you like, and as an
engineer, believe me, I read them.  But, in the context of scopes,
my final test is what my eye to brain connection tells me, is "clearest
and brightest".   I have a Leupold VX-II 4-12, on my 300 WSM, and
a Bushnell Elite 6-24, on my .22-250 Rem.  Both are 40mm objectives,
and with both scopes set to 6 and 12 power, the Bushnell spanks the
Leupold, on brightness and clarity.   I do my testing in various light
conditions, on my range, with a colored gridded target, off my bench.
Scopes laying side by side, quickly give me great comparison  
results.  Funny how the published specs loose value in this test
method.  Unless I need extra generous eye relief, my money goes to
Bushnell.
 
Squeeze

[2Guns]

Thanks again for the comments.  Since I don't have easy access to these scopes to do field tests and looking through them in the store is not a very good substitute it is helpful to hear how you came to your judgment.  I always want to hear/see how someone came to a conclusion rather than to just hear the end results.  Anyway thanks for you time.

Maybe I should start another thread on this, but while I am here, how does the Bushnell Elite 4200 (6x14-40) compare optically to the Nikon Monarch 5.5x16.5-40?  I have been looking at them as well, according to the stats they have less eye relief than the Bushnell. But they are really close together in price and I have read very nice things about the Nikon.

2Guns

[Zachary]

The Elite 4200 and the Nikon Monarch are in the same class - excellent.  I should know because I have several of both.  These are my favorite scopes.  That said, I would give a slight edge to the Elite 4200.

Zachary

[Graybeard]

Look at the specs from the makers on the two scopes you have in mind. Price aside there is no proper comparison between the Elite 4200 line and the Leupold VX-II line. The Leupold VX-III line is what they offer that is more or less comparable to the Elite 4200 line. If you want to compare apples to apples then compare the Elite 4200 and VX-III or the Elite 3200 and VX-II.

In both comparisons in my opinion the Bushnell takes the prize for optical superiority. Leupold takes the prize for lighter weight and longer eye relief. Generally the Bushnell will have wide FOV and a more constant eye relief. You just have to decide which best meets your criteria. But the VX-II in spite of price is no match for the Elite 4200.

[Redhawk1]

Get the Leupold, you won't be disappointed.  

[Zachary]

Actually GB makes a good point - he should look at the specs and see if any of them are important to him.  I agree that the Elite scopes, within their category, are optically better than the leupolds, with the exception of the new VX-III because I haven't seen it yet, but, while optics are very important, other factors can be too.

A good example is the scope for my lighterweight Kimber.  I love my Elite 4200s, but I didn't (or perhaps couldn't) put on an elite because they are much longer and heavier than the Leupolds and have shorter eye relief.  So even if the optics are (or could be) of lower quality than the elites, I got the Leupold.  Granted, the new VX-IIIs are supposed to have an amazing 98% light transmission and sharper resolutions, etc.  Well, I just have to wait and see.  My 3.5x-10x-40mm VX-III should be arriving from the optic zone any moment now, so I'll just have to reserve judgment until I actually see and use it. :grin:

Zachary

[Squeeze]

2Guns,
 
Funny you should ask.  This comparison, on my bench, was  
done with a whole battery of rifles, of which one has the Leupold VX II,
one the Bushnell 4200, and one a Monarch 5.5-16.5.  There were
other scopes in the comparison test as well, but for the sake of
this discussion, we shall keep it focused on these three brands,  
and models.  Let me take one moment to speak to GB's comment  
about "no proper comparison" of the VX II, and the 4200 Elite,
spec wise.  This is true.  But they are in the same price range.
As are all three of these scopes, I just listed.  Now Jon, of the
OpticZone, and I have agreed to disagree on this analysis,
so many may feel the same as Jon, but my eyes gave the win,
easily to the Bushnell Elite 4200, for brightness, and clarity.
As Zachary has made a point, this is not always the most  
heavily weighted factor in scope buying decisions, but  
merely another data point.  I like all three brands for different
reasons.  On my .22-250, I really like the clarity, and brightness,
of my Bushnell 4200 Elite.  On my 300 WSM, I really like the
generous eye relief of the Leupold.  On my .25-06, I really like
the Nikon, for the smaller profile, with yet still good range of
powers of magnification.  I was a little disappointed in the Nikon,
brightness wise, but clarity, is excellent.   Eye relief is also a
bit short for this scope, and this rifle combination.  I will  
probably move it to a milder recoiling rifle, and look for
another scope for the .25-06.  Since I started work on a warm  
100 gr. Barnes load, I have had the scope just touch my eye brow,
a couple of times,  and I do not need that in the back of my mind  
when I am pulling the trigger.    I can honestly say, that in the  
group of $300 to $400 scopes, I have purchased in the past couple
of years, the Nikon was the only scope that did not meet my  
expectations.  Maybe they were too high, but none the less,  
it did not meet them.
 
Squeeze