Bushnell vs. Nikon vs. Leupold on Light Rifle

I am looking a buying a CZ 527 American in .223 Remington for general range range/plinking with the occasional hunting in mind for smaller game. I am torn about a scope to buy due to so many good ones being out there.

I have a Bushnell Elite 3200 3-10x 40mm compact on a Savage .243 and several Nikon Prostaff scopes in a similar package. I have also heard Leupold highly recommended.

I am looking for a scope that has middle of the road magnification and a clarity/excellent light transmission on a $300 budget. The scope must be short enough and light enough not to make a light rifle into a benchrest varmint special.

My initial thoughts are a Bushnell Elite compact scope, they have updated this scope since I bought the 3200 series. The only real change I can tell is argon instead of nitrogen purging gas and another $120 to the price. Could someone else share their thoughts/experiences in this matter?

http://swfa.com/Bushnell-3-10x40-Elite-Rifle-Scope-P48256.aspx
http://swfa.com/Nikon-2-8x32-Monarch-Riflescope-P11158.aspx
http://swfa.com/Nikon-3-9x40-ProStaff-Riflescope-P48754.aspx
http://swfa.com/Nikon-3-9x40-Buckmaster-Riflescope-P42255.aspx
http://swfa.com/Leupold-3-9x40-VX-2-Riflescope-P51797.aspx

 

The Monarch is the best scope that you have listed. Also, Bushnell warranty is crap, so it would not even be on my list.

 

I saw your post earlier regarding your opinion of Bushnell scopes. Could you please expand on that a bit? Have you a bad experience with a Bushnell scope? What makes the Monarch stand above the rest?

I have yet to have a bad experience with any +$150 scope, some just seem to have better eye relief and clarity than others.

 

I have owned lots of scopes from different makers. My favorite is the ProStaff line. I have four: two 3-9x40, one 4-12x40,and one 2-7x32. IMO they are the best buy for the money. Good clear glass and lifetime warranty.

 

The Bushnell Elite has fully multicoated lenses, like the discontinued 4200.
Between the Elite, the Monarch, and the VX-2, it's a toss-up. Since you mentioned weight, I voted Leupold.
There are also 2-7 models available in the Elite and VX-2.

 

I have actually had trouble with 2 Bushnell scopes over the last 20yrs, with the last problem event happening today. These problems were adjustment accuracy problems that were just frustratiing to the point of maddening and unlike anything I have ever experienced with any other quality scope. However, my comment about Bushnell is based on the very many negative posts that I have read in the last 2 years about the lack of support that Bushnell owners get when filing warranty claims. So, for me, the Bushnell is completely out of the equation regardless of all of the great things that people post about them...I am not interested in them at all.

As to the Monarch, in my opinion, I feel like the Monarch and the VX-ll are the top scopes on the list that you have and in my experience the Monarch exceeds my VX-ll in most ways that I use to judge my scopes, but not by a lot and probably would not be any better in durability as Leupolds are reknowned for being workhorses. There is very distinct difference in the optical quality of the Monarch over the VX-ll, at least for my eyes. As a matter of fact, I have just bought a Redfield Revolution and also a new model Prostaff that both rival the VX-ll in optical quality. At any rate, I have five Leupold scopes, so this is not just coming from a Nikon fanboy.

After everything is said and done, if I were buying a new scope in their price range today, the Monarch would come home with me.JMO

 

Monarch is the best choice of the ones listed, but I'd rather have a Vortex Viper, Diamondback, or a Burris Fullfield II.

 

agree completely with slowrider. Give me the Monarch or better yet Burris Fullfield.I too USED to like Bushnell. Back when it was Banners made in Japan.
I have had bushnell trophies and Bushnell Elite 4200, and the flare and clarity was subpar, more on the level of a Barska.
Personally I would get a Burris or Nikon anyday over Bushnell.

 

I own all of the scopes listed exept the Bushnell, none of the ones I own are bad. I like the Leupold better, but the 2-8X Monarch is pretty close. The Prosaff and Buckmaster are good budget scopes, but not in the same league as the Monarch and Leupold.

The Leupold is 11 oz. All the others are 13-16 oz. Why put a heavy scope on a light rifle?

The Leupold has the longest eye relief, is far less critical of where you head is positioned behind the scope which makes for much quicker target aquisition.

The image through the Leupold is clear and sharp right up to the edge with only a very thin black ring at the edge. The Nikons have a thick black ring around the edge of the image which blocks much of your view. Much like looking through a cardboard tube. Can't say about the Bushnell. This makes it much easier to shoot the Leupold with both eyes open.

Leupold upgraded their VX-2 lineup in January of this year. New production glass is every bit as good as the Monarch. On older scopes the Monarch did have better glass.

 

Leupold has gotten into the lightweight tactical market with there new scopes check them out http://shop.fostertacticalgear.com/Leupold_c208.htm. As well as Burris http://shop.fostertacticalgear.com/Burris_c228.htm