Bushnell 4200 vs. Zeiss Conquest

[iowa-jp]

I had some cabelas bucks and for the price on sale I decided to give the bushnell 4200 a try. For the application on my predator AR-15 I feel the qualities are adequate for the range of the rifle. I won't be adjusting the turrets once zeroed at 150 or 200 yards.

Thanks for all the input on the subject, if it turns out to not be as good I'll keep it for a backup scope.

Thanks again.

 

[Bottom Gun]

You sir are blind.

I figured some Adam Henry would have to start throwing insults after I gave my opinion. Kindly keep those remarks to yourself, Sir.

 

[nathan]

Id say , try the Nikon buckmaster for around $200 . Again theres nothing wrong with the Bushnell Elite 4200 Thats a helluva of a pricetag.

 

[helotaxi]

I would put the 4200 3-9 in the same category as the Buckmaster scopes. The other 4200 models are better. I personally have a Buckmaster and have made side-by-side comparisons. In fact the Buckmaster was my first foray into decent glass. I paid more for it than the rifle I put it on (Handi in .204). After shooting it for a day at the range and then moving over to my hunting rifle that had an old Bushnell that I purchased as a broke college student, I fired 2 shots, packed up my stuff and drove to Sportsman's Warehouse to find a good scope. I had the money for whatever I wanted and looked at pretty much everything in the case. I could have afforded, but not justified even to myself, a Swarovski or Zeiss Victory. I bought a Bushnell 2.5-10x40.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

my opinion of conquests isnt as bad as bottom guns but I to am unipressed with the one i have. It about compares with a buckmaster or vx2 in optical performance and doesnt compare to a monarch or vx3 or 4200 in my opinion. Its one of those things that you pay for name. think about it logicaly and you will see that theres no way your gettting ziess quality optics when they sell for 400 bucks and are made in germany. Ziess is surely not using the same glass as they do in the 2000 dollar scopes or the same construction so theyve got to be cutting corners somewhere. Is it reliablilty or optical performance or both. All i know is in there price range theres scopes that perform better for me anyway.

 

[BoilerUP]

You won't be disappointed with the 4200, especially for $200.

I have a 8-32x40 on my Savage 12FV .223, and to my subjective eye it is every bit as bright & clear as my VX-III and Monarch.

 

[dprice3844444]

check natchez shooting supplies also,and the nitrex scope line

 

[helotaxi]

You won't be disappointed with the 4200, especially for $200.

I have a 8-32x40 on my Savage 12FV .223, and to my subjective eye it is every bit as bright & clear as my VX-III and Monarch.

And as far as brightness goes, that 8-32 is as bad as it gets for the 4200s. To my eyes, the 4200s were just as clear as any Nikon or Leupold and brighter than both.

 

[DM~]

You sir are blind.

I figured some Adam Henry would have to start throwing insults after I gave my opinion. Kindly keep those remarks to yourself, Sir.

Would you settle for "visually impaired"?

DM

 

[mrbro]

I'm a big fan of quality optics. My roll film cameras are Leica's, Rollei's and Nikons and my large format uses Rodenstock lenses. Till recently, my rifles have all worn Bushnell glass. I recently purchased a Mueller APT that is very impressive optically. I would not hesitate to try something from their catalog.

 

[Maverick223]

Per my vision the Zeiss Conquest is a little better than the 4200 Elite series (and a great deal better than the 3200s), but I wouldn't spend double the money for it...perhaps $100, but that isn't the case. The Bushnell 4200 Elite series is a line of optics, and very good for the money (especially now that they are being discontinued in favor of the new Elite series), i think you'll find it to be a good riflescope for most tasks (it isn't a hard use scope, but then again neither is the aforementioned Zeiss).