Rifle Scopes Bushnell 3200 10x40 MIL/MIL feedback

[Shrek556]

Hi, first post here. I'm interested in getting some detailed feedback from users of the Bushnell 3200 10x40 MIL/MIL scope. I've read many threads on here and the most I seem to find is a general agreement that it's an acceptable entry level optic for the price point. I understand that it is the lowest rung on the ladder for decent scopes, but it will get me shooting the rifle until I can afford investing in a Leupold Mk 4. My platform is a Remington 700 SPS chambered in .30-06. It is still factory raw and will remain so until the barrel is properly broken in and my accuracy baseline is established. My end goal is capability in the 1000-1200m range, so I know there will be some "adjustments" to the current setup. I'm hoping to reach 600m+ with this optic and some basic modifications to the rifle.
My request here is for specific issues encountered with this scope: holding zero, repeatability, durability in the field, parallax issues, light throughput, FOV, etc. Any input is appreciated.

 

[Captramrod01]

I owned one for a little while. For sub 200 bucks its probably the best optic you can get. I would however strongly encourage you to bump in another 100 bucks and get the swfa ss fixed 10x or 12x. IMO they have better glass, more adjustment, and parallax adjustment. And why do you want a Mk 4 when there are so many other better options?

 

[Shrek556]

I owned one for a little while. For sub 200 bucks its probably the best optic you can get. I would however strongly encourage you to bump in another 100 bucks and get the swfa ss fixed 10x or 12x. IMO they have better glass, more adjustment, and parallax adjustment. And why do you want a Mk 4 when there are so many other better options?

I bought it simply to put something fairly solid on the rifle while saving funds for a top end scope. I haven't made a final decision on the next optic to go on there (I also need to get the rifle in shape to properly utilize it). If you have alternatives to suggest I am open to hearing them. Thanks for the input.

 

[cspackler]

I use one on a back-up AR and I haven't had any problems. Holds zero (was in PEPR, now in Warne QD rings). Repeatable with minor adjustments made to 400m+ and back (2-3 mil) and run all the way up and back as well to test. Glass quality is good but I haven't looked through it recently next to the SS5-20x50 or Bushnell 6-24x50ET. Durability? I haven't dropped it or knocked it around but seems sturdy enough for a $125 scope. Parallax may be an issue but I don't shoot for groups at 600m+, just hitting steel at 500m and under so it works well in that role. I give it a stamp of approval for a $200 scope and I'm thrilled with it for the rebate price I picked it up for.

 

[Shrek556]

I use one on a back-up AR and I haven't had any problems. Holds zero (was in PEPR, now in Warne QD rings). Repeatable with minor adjustments made to 400m+ and back (2-3 mil) and run all the way up and back as well to test. Glass quality is good but I haven't looked through it recently next to the SS5-20x50 or Bushnell 6-24x50ET. Durability? I haven't dropped it or knocked it around but seems sturdy enough for a $125 scope. Parallax may be an issue but I don't shoot for groups at 600m+, just hitting steel at 500m and under so it works well in that role. I give it a stamp of approval for a $200 scope and I'm thrilled with it for the rebate price I picked it up for.

Yeah, I'm not into competition, I just need something that is at least as capable as I am at dinging a 3/4 silhouette. I know there were 1k shots with a 10x40 back in Vietnam era with the .30-06 cartridge, so on paper it looks good, if not exactly optimal. Once I get the rifle to sub-MOA quality, I can see how bad I shoot far out. Eventually I'll get a high-end optic on it. Was there a reason to switch out the PEPR? How do you like the mil-quad reticle on the SS? Is it the illuminated model? Which is your preference between the SS and Bushnell? Thanks for weighing in.

 

[cspackler]

I shoot a 12" square and 2/3 IPSC and can see both plenty clearly with the 3200. I have fun with M193 or sometimes 855 so the ammo is more a hindrance than the glass and I still get plenty of hits.

I decided to put my new SS in an ADM Recon so either the Warne or Burris was getting sold. The PEPR works just fine but is made in China and I like having US made Warne rings. Also, the resale demand for the 1 piece PEPR is higher so it was easier to sell quickly.

I decided the extra $200 wasn't worth it for illumination and the SS was stretching my budget even with the Facebook sale. A Bushnell G2DMR and the like may help a bit more in long range applications, but I'm not big on busy Christmas tree reticles so the mil-quad works well for me. It adds some useful striations to a regular mil dot (which I have in my Bushnell ET) and also keeps the peripheral clear.

Right now I'd have to say I prefer the SS. However, that may be partially due to my excitement over finally having it after waiting 11 months since ordering. They both seem to be very well built and have performed flawlessly in my minimal experience (I don't get to shoot much these days and it's even more seldom that I make it to the ranch and shoot long range to test these scopes). Glass is a little better on SS only because I get slight CA on the edges of the ET at high mag. Both are very clear and bright, excellent in low light. My ET has illumination so that is a + if I want to shoot hogs or coyotes at dawn/dusk. I plan on shooting the AR with the SS1-6x24 for that though. SS has 10 mil per rev turrets and ET has only 5. However, due to the 5 mil turn, the Bushnell has more distinct clicks and I find it easier to count without seeing the turret markings (again, better in the dark). The SS has much more internal adjustment so I needed to put the ET on a 20moa base on my Savage10fp (not a big deal for my 600m distance but if you plan on 1k+, it is a huge deal). I got the ET used/like new for $600 and the SS for $900 on the Facecrack combo deal. I think new prices are $900 and $1300 respectively so about the same percent difference. I think you'd be happy with either (as am I) but the SS is a better scope and more rugged from everything I've read.
ETA gratuitous scope pic (Spikes 18" LW50 mid, LaRue Stealth 20", BCM 16" mid):

 

[Bill Larson]

Great scope for the money.........

 

[ranger1183]

For sub 200 bucks its probably the best optic you can get.

For an entry level tactical scope I couldn't agree more. Simple, to the point and gets the job done. An excellent $200 investment.

 

[rweaver00geo]

have it on a 308, works great I think its as bright as the bushnell 4200 3-9 I own maybe cause of less internal lens's.

 

[Captain Kirk]

Great scope for the $$. Ensure you have a consistent cheekweld and your optic is properly setup (scope height, etc) due to the fact there is no focus for parallax, not as forgiving. Cant go wrong for $200

 

[Shrek556]

[MENTION=69594]cspackler[/MENTION]
Thanks for the detailed info. I really appreciate it.
@everyone else
Thanks for all the input.

I'll post any positive or negative observations on the Bushnell 3200 here as I get the range time. Thanks again everybody. I've read this forum for a while, and I've always been impressed by the great feedback here.