Bushnell 4200 vs. Zeiss Conquest

iowa-jp,
I'm sorry I cannot suggest anything, but could you please post a link for Bushnell 4300 at 199 ?

The zeiss has clearer optics and in low light situations it performs a lot better. Is it worth the difference in price? Yes. IMO

I have Zeiss Conquests with RapidZ reticles on all my hunting rifles. They're tough, very clear and effective for holdover...IMHO, they're worth the difference.

FH

Bushnell scopes have a VERY short eye relief. I don't care how good the glass is that is a deal killer for me. The Zeiss was selling for $550 a little over a year ago. I have a couple on rifles and think highly of them.

If you can afford the Zeiss, buy it, it is one of the legendary names in optics. I was not aware any new Zeiss optic could be purchased for $400

The Top of the line Zeiss scopes are a good bit over $1,000, but the Conquest line is USA made. The standard 3-9X scopes were selling for $550 a couple of years ago and due to the economy and slow sales they went on sale for $399 about a year ago. How long they will stay at that price is anyones guess.

The Conquest is their budget line and is not in the same league as the Divari, but still a darn good scope. They are slightly better than the Leupold VX-3 line in my experience, and at about the same price.

The Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40 is $399 at MidwayUSA.

baylorattorney said:

The zeiss has clearer optics and in low light situations it performs a lot better. Is it worth the difference in price? Yes. IMO

Click to expand...

I found the exact same thing, and it WAS worth it to me!!



DM

I've shot rifles that have worn each of these, and they are both good scopes (hence the 4.7 stars each has on the cabelas reviews!)

I thought the zeiss had the edge on clarity, but the 4200 is a quality scope as well. I didn't have any eye relief issues with the 4200. bushnell also offers some awfully good warranties (that no one I know with one has had to use). Either should be rugged enough for your AR.

realize though you are comparing a (on sale) $400 scope to a regular price $300 scope. in general, you'll get what you pay for, so the zeiss costs more for a reason. worth it? depends what you want to do with the ar, but to me, no, it wouldn't be.

good luck!

Just for reference. The Bushnell has 3.3" of eye relief. About the least of any scope made. Zeiss is 4" and is about the norm with most scopes while a comparable Leupold will be just under 5". You will rarely notice the difference shooting from a bench where you have plenty of time to settle in and get everything set up right before firing. A longer eye relief is a huge deal when you have to mount you rifle quickly or from odd positions encountered when hunting. With short eye relief scopes you are very likely to see a small donut to look through or just solid black if your eye is not positioned perfectly behind the scope. Long eye relief will allow a much larger range of distace where you can get a full field of view through the scope.

$200 for the Bushnell is a good deal. I don't know what you could possibly get for $200 that would be better.

That being said. I have a couple of the Zeiss Conquests and they are very nice scopes. You should be able to find a Midwayusa coupon that would knock $20-$40 off the price of the Zeiss.

If you want the best , get the COnquest. If you are a little short of dough, get the deal Bushnell. That is a good price. Short eye relief wouldnt be a big deal.

I have the 4200 4x16 on my 300wm and eye reliefe is no problem. My brother and I have 5 4200's between us and we swear by them. The short ish eye reliefe is a big PLUS on an AR, trust me. My AR wears a Leupold VX3 LR 4.5x14 that was more than twice the money of my 4200's and is NOT twice the scope by any means. I had to mount the VX3 on a goofy mount to get it far enough foward to get a full field of view on the AR, it will be leaving the .204 AR and going to the 300, the 4200 on my 300 will be my new varmint scope.

Now, if you spring for the rapid-z I think you will be more than happy.

Compare the Zeiss to a 4200 that is more in its range like one of the "true" 4200s (4x zoom range ie the name of the series) like the 2.5-10. I have 7 4200s including two of the 2.5-10s and have been able to compare them to the 3-9 Zeiss Conquest that my dad has on his rifle. Very similar. The 3-9 Bushnell I was not impressed with.

If those are your only two choices and you have the money for the Zeiss, that is the better option. If the 2.5-10s are available, whichever is less expensive between that and the Zeiss would be my choice.

+1 on the midway coupons. Just google "midway promo code" and you'll find something. It worked for me last night on my order, which included a Zeiss Conquest.

Got my Conquest with my r700 back in 2006, and haven't regretted it in the least.

I have a 3-9x40 4200 on my Tikka T3 and eye relief isnt a big deal. Its definetely a good scope and for $200, its hard to beat.

Iowa;

I can't give you a direct comparison, I just keep buying Zeiss. I love the 3.5-10X Conquest with the #43 reticle. I've got it on two guns & have suggested it to other people who also bought it & love it.

900F

I can't give you any input on the Bushnell, but I did have two Conquest scopes a while ago. Frankly, I was unimpressed with the Conquest scopes. After doing a side by side comparison of the Conquests and my Nikon and Leupold scopes, I sold the Zeiss scopes and replaced them with Nikon and Leupold.
In my opinion, the Conquest scopes were Walmart quality with a big price tag. The Conquest scopes worked OK, but there are better scopes to be had for the same or less money.

In my opinion, the Conquest scopes were Walmart quality with a big price tag. The Conquest scopes worked OK, but there are better scopes to be had for the same or less money.

Click to expand...

You sir are blind.

I'm a big fan of Leopold. Good value, awesome performance, and the one time I got a bad one, I had a new one in my hands 48 hours later, on their dime.

I can tell you this. I own both the Elite 4200 and Leupold VX-3. The optics on each are identical. There are other features on each you might like which would favor one choice over the other, and that usually is price. That's why I bought the 4200 instea dof another VX-3, the price was about 1/2 (on sale).

I don't own a Conquest, but really did consider buying one. I think the Elite 4200, VX-3 and Conquest are pretty much tit-for-tat as far as optics go depending on who you ask on what day of the week.

In sum, for that price I would definitely consider the Eliite 4200 if money is the main object. Can't go wrong either way, though.