Rifle Scopes Bushnell vs Nikon

[wreckingball]

Hey guys,

Im looking at 2 different scopes for my .308 and the runners are Nikon MonarchIII 3x12 with Interchangeable turret technology or Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5x10. This is my deer rifle and i do shoot up to 500yrd so looking for the best choice. anyone has or knows anything about these two ?

Thanks
wreck

 

[JelloStorm]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

I'm partial to Nikon, however the Elite 4200 has a lot of good reviews on here.

I like the Monarch with it's 3-12 variable magnification, vs the Elite's 3-10 or 4-12.

Plus the Monarch is 42mm vs. Elite 40. I'm sure that's a moot point, but maybe someone with first-hand experience can chime in.

 

[Handloader]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

I shoot US Optics on my range guns, and Nikon on my hunting guns.
I have switched out all but one Leupy with the Nikons. The Monarch has less MOA adjustment (40 MOA total)than the Buckmaster scopes (my kids have the 4-14 Mil Dot Buckmasters, and I have the 4-16 Mil Dot Monarchs). However, 20 MOA is more than enough for hunting (even if you want to stretch to 600 yards). With Low rings, the 42mm Objective fits my rifles fine...(Now if they would just make a second focal plane MOA/MOA scope...LOL).

 

[tipper]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

well with hunting rifle the simpler the scope is the better, a set parallax scope is point and shoot. You have to ask your self if you are really going to have time to focus your scope while holding on the game that is probably moving away fast.
Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x42 Riflescopes - Matte BDC set parallax

 

[TAC]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

Wreck,
being North of us I would consider the advantage of the Rainguard coatings on the 4200. It's not a big advantage but it does help.

Now, I don't know what you've looked at but the 4.5-16X50 4200 is a great hunting scope for long range. If most of your shooting is at shorter ranges than 2.5-10 may suit you better.

As you can see I'm more partial to the 4200s. I have both Bushnell and Nikon scopes and I find the 4200s to have better color than the newer Nikons... It very well be my eyes but I find the new Nikons to be rather dull or neutral in color... resolution is good but color and contrast does not seem to be as good as the 4200s.

Others are bound to have different opinions so I'm sure more will follow.

T

 

[helotaxi]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

I have two of the Bushnell 2.5-10s. Fantastic glass and more than adequate for 500yd shots.

 

[okiefired]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

I like Bushnell's upper level scopes. I am a big Nikon fan though. To my eyes, thier clarity and brightness are better than scopes twice thier price. Thier tracking and dependability are very good. I own a Buckmaster and have used several of thier tactical scopes. When price is a priority, I always consider Nikon near or at the top.

okie

 

[wreckingball]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

this look like a 3-3 we need someone to break it up

 

[boltstop]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TAC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">snip

find the 4200s to have better color than the newer Nikons... It very well be my eyes but I find the new Nikons to be rather dull or neutral in color... resolution is good but color and contrast does not seem to be as good as the 4200s.
snip

T</div></div>

I'm not sure I could disagree with this. I have a Nikon Monarch on Crazy Mauser and feel like the optics are clean and clear, but perhaps color correction employed by Nikon may have been a bit... what? Conservative?

There's not a thing wrong with the scope, and it's plenty bright, with great views. Color just doesn't "pop" with it. The deficit (if even there is one) is so small that I hadn't realized it until you said something about it.

 

[yej0001]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wreck</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey guys,

Im looking at 2 different scopes for my .308 and the runners are Nikon MonarchIII 3x12 with Interchangeable turret technology or Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5x10. This is my deer rifle and i do shoot up to 500yrd so looking for the best choice. anyone has or knows anything about these two ?

Thanks
wreck </div></div>

I don't think you will go wrong with either. I will pay more attention to other factors in addition to optics, such as knobs, limit on elevation, even cosmetics/appeal factors

I like my Bushnell 6500 4.5-30 and 3200 3-15. The later was 300 shipped deal and I have no compliant with either. They get jobs done

In most corporations, managers spend 80% time/energy on bottom 20% employees. For most shooter, buying high end equipment is to spend 80% of the cost for extra 20% performance

Nothing wrong with that if the extra 20% is important and $$ is not a forbidding factor

 

[Shortdraw]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

I have used both and I don't think you could go wrong with either one. I have broken a few more Nikons then the Bushnells but on very heavy recoiling rifles. Nikon fixed them in a hurry. Seems as if Bushnell has stepped up on their customer service as well so they should be good to go. Try and test them out before buying and see what one feels and looks best.

 

[Scouter19D]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

Previously had a Bushnell Elite and after doing some comparisons today between Trijicon and Nikon Monarch, there IS something "weird" about the Nikon's color. It was dull. In full light circumstance, you would probably never tell. Look at something in shadow defilade and you WILL see a difference. Never had that problem with the Bushnell, and the Trijicon looked even better. The clarity on the Nikon was definitely on par with Bushnell, but again, something weird about contrast. Just my .02

 

[Scouter19D]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

Should have added, the Trijicon, IMO is worth another $290 over the Nikon. It was that much nicer. This isn't the place for that, but in case someone was wondering.....

 

[RFutch]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

From what I have seen the newer monarchs are being made in the Philippines now. I think only the monarch gold is still made in japan. The elites are still made in japan if that is a concern to you.

 

[boltstop]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RFutch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From what I have seen the newer monarchs are being made in the Philippines now. I think only the monarch gold is still made in japan. The elites are still made in japan if that is a concern to you. </div></div>

This is probably taking the conversation into a different direction, but what is the whole "made in Japan" vs. "assembled in the Philippines" conundrum?

The contention is that there's some sort of differing quality standard? What could that be? The optics are Japanese, the design is Japanese, the materials are Japanese, right? Is the difference just the race/ethnicity of the people putting the scopes together? How could this make a difference in the quality of the optics?

 

[bjordan]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

I've always been a big Nikon fan, to me the glass is superior to the Bushnells.

 

[rchman]

Re: Bushnell vs Nikon

I purchased a Bushnell Elite 10x (not the 4200, so not a direct comparison) and the glass paled in comparison to my Buckmaster.

We put up a Schnell eye sight test to compare a Bushnell Elite 10x, a Buckmaster 4.5-16x and a Monarch 2.5-10x. The Nikon's were able to read down to the line that was equivalent to 20/30 (which is my uncorrected vision). The Bushnell was barely legible on the 20/40 line.

Now, the odd thing was that, at 10x, the Buckmaster was as clear as the Monarch, if not slightly clearer. The Monarch was brighter though (which could be due to the larger front and rear objective).

Either way though, both the Buckmaster and Monarch were able to read the chart at 100 yards nearly as well as me being 30 ft (10 yds) from the test (and this could be contributed to mirage).