Nikon Buckmaster, Leupold VX III, or Bushnell Elite 3200/4200???

Full-Choke

Have you made a decision? Was just curious.

Anyway, just to let you know, I've got an Elite 3200 on a Vanguard in 7mm Remington Magnum. The scope tracks well, holds its zero, no fogging at all when hunting last winter, and Rain Guard really works as advertised.

I had the same experience when I owned a Model 70 in 30-06 that wore an Elite 4200.

I also have a Bushnell Legend on a Marlin Model 60. Perfectly good scope for the rifle. Take it squirrel and rabbit hunting in the fall.
 
A lot of people of been talking Zeiss Conquest, and as much as people like them and everything...but, between Karl and I were have heard too many bad things about them.

I have read about guys who took them on extreme condition hunts and they don't fair well. For the average paper puncher rifle, I think the Zeiss would be okay.
Click to expand...

That's very interesting; I had not heard that. I had heard contra to that...can anyone verify or dispute? What is it that is supposed to happen to make them not "fair well"? Lose zero, fog up, water inside, broken reticle, what?
 
I had not heard that either, IMO they ( zeiss conquest scopes ) are quality glass at a good price. They seem to easily be in the range of the VX-II, bushnell 4200, nikon monarch lines.
 
I have 3 Conquests and find them to be trouble free and better than the 2 VXIII scopes I also own . I bought my Conquests do to the high price of new Leupolds and after owneing both I find the Conquest to be a better scope at a better price. the days of Leupold being king in this country are over,too much compitition now a days .:eek:
 
The friend

I am the mysterious friend with the 300 WM, gourgeous savage 116 FSAK if that makes a difference:rolleyes:

I found three Leupolds under $420 at a local shop all 'used' but i saw no difference between them and the new ones on the shelf

Heres the skinny

All VX III

4.5-14 X 50 No AO $415 I believe this one was matte finish

3.5-10 X 40 AO With Weaver Rings $400

3.5-10 X 40 No AO $359

Do I want AO?? Good prices which is best??
 
What will you be using the rifle for mainly? AO doesn't have much of a use on a hunting rilfe as you will rarely get to adjust it before you take a shot on your game animal. AO is great if you mainly use it on the range.

Go with either of the 3.5-10X40. The scope will mount lower to the rifle and be easier for you to line up with. If you have Weaver style bases on your rifle then the one with the rings will be fine, if you don't then you will have to buy rings that work with the bases you have.
 
Ok I have no bases yet the rifle is out currently getting cryo treated, a practice to stabilize the vibrations troughout the rifle thus accurizing the barrel and extending the bore life.
any bases are an option
Which are best?
Is there a difference, I have noticed no difference in my other scoped rifles, but none of them have been quite this 'explosive' shall i say.
I will say the rifle will spend 70% of its life at the range and 30% on the trail on the hunt, considering I like to be sure of my shot when hunting and there isn't a lot of game here in Ohio that warrents a 300 WM, except red squrills;)
so AO OR no AO
Guns and ammo are my specialty, optics definatly is not:confused:

any thoughts are appreciated
 
I think I would go 3.5x10 with no AO. Not because it's less money, I just think you would be better served if you will hunt with the scope to have a scope with no AO. BUT I think the 4.5x14 might be too much power for no AO. I'm sure you could make it work if you wanted the bigger zoom, you can always pre-set AO and not screw with the power adjustment but that has issues as well. It's up to you but for field I would go with the lower power no AO.

BTW I shoot a 10x fixed and can still group at 1/2 moa (actually a bit under that today) at 300 yds. I will say on bad mirage days it opens up but nothing over 1 moa. Just letting you know that you can still shoot the 10x at longer ranges but it does get tougher on bright days with mirage. I can still hit the 3" target every time though.
 
I believe the 4.5-14 x 50 had AO adj, but hell its been a long day, um just to let you know, maybe that makes a difference in the choice? I like larger magnification, but my sight eye also twitches bad if I have to strain it too long . . . . . :confused:
 
Your post with the choices said it had no AO adj... but I was wondering I don't think Leupold would make an adjustable in that high of a power with no AO adj. It's really up to you, that high power does help on the range or if you go hunting in montana and shoot from one mountain to the other. Even some places around the wooded lands of NC there are places that it comes in handy. I hunt a cut-over that offers shoots out to about 500 yds. I don't think I would take that on a deer, not that I'm not confident I just probably wouldn't. On a coyote??? Oh hell yeah he would have a bad day.

Anywho, If theres a chance that you will shoot in the field at ranges over 300 yds then go with the bigger mag. If you mostly brush hunt within 100 yds stick with the lower power no AO adj and just suck it up at the range.

BTW, I'm gonna go put 100$ down on that 1895 tomorrow. Thanks for the advice.
 
I would go with the smaller objective every time. With a large objective it is somtimes very difficult to maintain a good cheek weld and look through the scope becaues a 50mm will require high scope rings. If you have a very high cheek piece on your rifle then the 50 will work.

Weaver rings are not bad, but I prefer Burris Singnature rings. If there are factory sights on the rifle then I prefer a set of quick release bases and rings like Leupold or Talley.
 
If your rifle is mainly for range use, and the occasional hunt, I'd go with the AO.

I would go with the smaller objective every time. With a large objective it is somtimes very difficult to maintain a good cheek weld and look through the scope becaues a 50mm will require high scope rings. If you have a very high cheek piece on your rifle then the 50 will work
Click to expand...

Ditto what he said. Will also add that a rifle with a 50mm objective scope, high rings, and a low comb may smack the crap out of your face with heavy loads.
 
No Consistant opinons Why?????

Because everybodys vision is different. I prefer the Bushnell 4200 over the over priced Leupolds.Last weekend a shooter had a 4x12x30MM Swarovski on his rig. I compared my 4200 Elite to his Swarovski and it didn't look like $1,000 better to me.Any how next scope will be a Zeiss conquest 6x20x50MM:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top