Bushnell Elite 4200 vs. Zeiss Conquest

[Craigman]

To me, half price for "almost as good" (oppinion) is the winner. The eye relief is not all that important as I have yet to get hit with a scope even from my .338 win mag, with a scope of "only" 3" relief. Do you really need all that relief for a .308 or .270 or most deer/paper calibers?

But....each person is entitled to their own oppinion..

I do agree on the resale though. Maybe not 1/4value, but definately less of a drop


I just ordered a 4200 from cabelas myself though

 

[Maverick223]

Lloyd, I disagree that the Bushnell (any Bushnell for that matter) has better glass, but you are absolutely correct that the Conquest doesn't approach the optical quality of the high-end Zeiss Diavari examples. That said, it is still a fine scope that is very well suited to hunting/target use.

 

[jmr40]

Getting hit with a scope is not of any concern. Scopes with limited eye relief require you to be perfectly lined up behind the scope for each shot. Not a problem when you are taking your time shooting from a bench.

But in hunting conditions you often must mount your gun from awkward angles, and do it quickly. Not to mention that during a hunting season the temps can range from 100+, to below zero and the thickness of my clothing will vary accordingly.

When I mount my rifle I want to see the target instantly no matter what clothing I'm wearing or what angle the game is approaching from. Not waste time moving my rifle around trying to find the target in the scope. That is the advantage of long eye relief scopes.

 

[Mxracer239y]

Scopes with limited eye relief require you to be perfectly lined up behind the scope for each shot.

Don't mean to step on any toes, but I think we are confusing the difference between 'eye relief' and the size of the 'eye box.' Eye relief is measured along the axis of the scope. The eye box measurement quantifies the width/height of the area you can have your eye in, and still get a good sight picture.

 

[blackops]

There is no comparison in optic quality here. Whether it's x5 the cost it doesn't matter. Better glass is better glass and if you can afford it, spend the extra money.

 

[Maverick223]

There is no comparison in optic quality here. Whether it's x5 the cost it doesn't matter. Better glass is better glass and if you can afford it, spend the extra money.

I don't necessarily agree. For the average hunting rifle, I don't believe that the best glass (a la Zeiss Diavari, Swaro Z-5/6, S&B) is necessary. That said, I don't believe that the Zeiss is out of line either, in fact find it to be perfectly suited to a nice hunting rifle, and easily one of my favorite scopes for such use. OTOH the Bushnell 4200 isn't shabby either, and for half the price I would have a hard time deciding between the two.

 

[TonyAngel]

As has been pointed out, it's a matter of what you're willing to live with. Personally, I'd spend the money on the Zeiss. If you can, compare the two; and I'm not talking about within a well lit store. I'm talking about at dusk or in the moon light. That's when a better scope will shine over a lesser scope.

Although there are obviously many that will disagree with me, I think that the glass is the most important part of the rifle. I like to think that my equipment will serve me in the most adverse lighting conditions. I usually buy the best that I can, because when it comes right down to it, you can't shoot it if you can't see it.

If all you do is shoot/hunt in good light, then it probably won't matter what you get.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

Tony i dont think anyone is arguing that a guy should buy the best glass he can afford its just that everyone has a budget and some are smaller then others and in the optics game like everywhere else there are some that are a better bang for your buck and some that are overpriced banners for a name. Some guys are hung up on what name is on a scope. Ill take bushnell for example. For years they made cheap crap and baush and lomb carried there better glass. When the b&l name went away people stuck there nose up at there replacement in the 4200 and 3200 bush series saying theyd never have a scope on there gun that says bushnell on it. Truth be told at the prices there discounting bushnell 4200s right now there never been a better scope bang for the buck on the market. Like i said before ive got about all of them and id put a 4200 bushnell at 200 bucks along side of a 400 dollar ziess any day. As a matter of fact if they both sold for the same money id buy the bushnell. Im not a big fan of nikon either but again i will say that id put a monarch on a gun before another conquest anyday. Sorry leupold bashers but i think a vx2 is every bit as good as a conquest and vx3 is superior. These are some other internet opions. These opinion are my own and come from using them and using them in all conditions including low light.

 

[NWCP]

Zeiss glass is hard to beat and their current pricing on the Conquest is really reasonable. I'm looking at one for my CZ550FS .308.

 

[VAhuntr]

The 4200 is a great buy at $199 but I do not like the view I get when looking through them. With the 4200 I always felt as if I were looking through a toilet paper roll with a donut on the eye piece end. I don't see that from Leupold, Zeiss, Nikon, or Burris.

After using a 3-9x40 4200 on a 308 hunting rifle and comparing it to the Conquest on my 270, I sold the Bushy. No doubt it is great glass, but not as good as the Conquest.

I think the new Leupold VX3 is close to the Conquest optically but still falls a little short...IMO.

 

[snake284]

Scopes

I'll just stick with my Nikon's and Leupolds. I just make it a point not to look through any expensive German Optics and then I won't know the difference. I can't really afford them anyway. Well let's just say I'm not going to pay $400 for a 3-9X40. I paid $308.81 for my Nikon Buckmaster 6-18X40. That was a lot for me and I got it on special. It's very clear and with 92% light transmission is probably as good as my eyes will allow.

If you read my other post I also am buying a new Leupold VX-3L (L denotes the one that has the notch at the bottom of the objective that allows a large objective scope to sit in lower mounts) 4.5-14x56 30mm tube long range scope. This is by far the best scope I've ever bought and will make my new build a real classic. This scope will be way better than my old eyes deserve.

 

[VAhuntr]

quote snake284:

I'll just stick with my Nikon's and Leupolds. I just make it a point not to look through any expensive German Optics and then I won't know the difference. I can't really afford them anyway. Well let's just say I'm not going to pay $400 for a 3-9X40. I paid $308.81 for my Nikon Buckmaster 6-18X40. That was a lot for me and I got it on special. It's very clear and with 92% light transmission is probably as good as my eyes will allow.

If you read my other post I also am buying a new Leupold VX-3L (L denotes the one that has the notch at the bottom of the objective that allows a large objective scope to sit in lower mounts) 4.5-14x56 30mm tube long range scope. This is by far the best scope I've ever bought and will make my new build a real classic. This scope will be way better than my old eyes deserve.
__________________

I understand what you mean completely. I am planning on ordering a VX3 for my newest 308. They are a little more $$$ than the Conquest but I really love how quick they come up to the eye.

 

[mshootnit]

LOW in Japan makes the Elite 4200 for bushnell, and it is top notch.