Try again Bushnell

must be the fact that everyones eyes are differnt. I have quite a few leupolds and there probably my favorite scopes but my 3200s blow away the old varix 2 and in low light are every bit as good as my vx2 and in low light my 4200 will give about identical performance along side my older varix IIIs and the new vx2s. I dont have a new vx3 to compare it to though. Im not going to say i like them better then the leupolds i dont. But i cant afford a leupold on every gun i have. I have just to many and with the closeout deals on the elites right now a guy can buy a scope thats as good or better opticaly then a vx2 for half the money. Im not a gun snob. I dont stick my nose up in the air if someone has a rifle or scope that didnt cost big money. Not if it performs as good as the more expensive one. Some guys wont put a scope on a gun because it says bushnell on it but im sure not ashamed to have one. Funny thing is that if bushnell still marked these scopes as baush and lombs theyd probably sell them like hotcakes and people would be bragging on there top end scope because of the name. I chuckle all the time at the nikon fans. dont get me wrong ive got a couple monarchs and there good scopes but just because a prostaff says nikon on it people think there a better scope then a 3200 because it says bushnell. far from the truth as a 3200 will blow away a prostaff in about every aspect. As a matter of fact in my opinion they put a buckmaster to shame.
 
See my new posting on 'wasn't the Ruger, but was the scope'. My new Nikon Monarch 4X16 is bad. The degradation was slow, so I didn't notice, but then the groups got so big and bizarre that I thought that the gun couldn't possibly be this bad and maybe it was the scope. I swapped the Nikon out for a Bushnell and the gun shot great - really great. All this frustration for the past few weeks was due to the darn scope. Never again will I buy a Nikon rifle scope (of course, I do reserve the right to change my mind eventually).
 
I love the Bushnell 4200 2.5X10X50 Ill Dot I bought and put on my .243 Savage 10. Its bright, clear as can be and very very nice, its close to my Ziess but not quite that good. You mentioned a Nikon Buckmaster earlier and to comment, I'd rather throw rocks than have another one of those things. After the third time of sending it back to the factory, they finally sent me a new scope, which was promptly sold. I had different issues arise from the one that I had and will never own another Nikon optical product in my life, my time in the woods is short and valuable to me and that scope cost me two very nice deer. Others have had great success with them, I haven't FWIW.
 
If I am not mistaken Nikon makes the lens for Leupold scopes. A good rule of thumb is stay away from any scope made in China. That includes Bushnell's bottom end stuff.
 
Can't go wrong with a Leupold or Nikon scope. For under $200 I would go for a Nikon Pro Staff.

Like I said before, I put a Nikon Coyote Special on my .22wmr and love it. Extremely clear under any magnification, excellent light transmission and the eye relief is phenominal. It did cost me $260 though, a little more than what you are looking to spend but worth every penny in my humble opinion.
 
Code: 
If I am not mistaken Nikon makes the lens for Leupold scopes. A good rule of thumb is stay away from any scope made in China. That includes Bushnell's bottom end stuff.

whoever told you that is smoking crack
 
I love the Nikon scopes and woundn't hesitate to put a ProStaff on a 22.
I also like Burris older scopes. I've purchased several used Nikon and Burris scopes, and have never had problems with any of them. Buying used, I can get a higher end model.
 
If you are still considering the Nikon Buckmaster, I highly recommend it. I've had one on my Winchester 70 with the BDC reticle for about seven months and have no complaints whatsoever.
 
Just to update

I went on a bit of a scope buying frenzy. After all the mixed responces I decided to give bushnell another chance :eek:. I know but I'm a bit indecisive. I got a second banner 3-9 and to my suprise (disgust) this one had similar problems like the first. Had the same number stamping issue and this one had a scratch in the lens brand new, sealed in the box from opticsplanet. Enough is enough. Bushnell will never get another dime of my money or waste any more of my time. So I ordered a Redfield revolution, and a Nikon Prostaff. Being a big fan of Nikon it pains me to say that the Redfield has better glass and light transmission. I cant say its a big difference but noticeable. Got them both mounted and I'll try them out this weekend and give a review of each.

I've said this before and I'll sure say it again every chance I get, DONT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON A BUSHNELL BANNER!!!! Im sure their stuff of the past is great as many have said they have had good luck with it but that is no longer the case. And it shocks me to see people still recomending this product to members here on the forum. I sure hope they do their homework. Thanks for all your input gentlemen.
 
"They" say discount retailers don't get the same quality as individual gun dealers do, they buy so much quantity at a cheap price these things happen. Can I back that up with quality statistics? NO!
 
Dig a little Deeper and Buy a New Redfield made by Leupold.
You will be much happier.
OOPS Im a little late with this.
Good luck with your new Redifeld, The Nikon will probably last a few years too.
 
My 541-T has a Vari-X IIc 3-9x40 A.O. on it. I bought it used for a little over $200. Other than it has the friction adjustments, it works well with this rifle.

I have a 3x9x40 prostaff on my .25-06, I have no complaints about it.

The cheap Bushnell stuff is for the birds. I have heard good things about their higher end stuff, but I would prefer an older used Leupold first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top