Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 8/15/2010 7:35:37 AM EST
I would like whatever technical advice or opinions you can provide on the three scopes listed above. I am leaning toward the Bushnell 3200 but would like to know the pro's and con's of each model before purchasing. Thanks for any help you can provide.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 10:51:11 AM EST
The Leupold VXI (and VXII) are two piece tubes...but otherwise the quality is there. Great warrantee from an outstanding company.
I own two 3-9x40's and have had zero issues. For a few bucks more you can step up to the VXII lineup.
IF you're looking at the lower end Leupolds, also check out the revamped Redfield line-up. Make by Leupold and great bargain for the price.

The Burris Fullfield II is a one piece tube. My Fullfield II 3-9x40 is comprable in clarity to my VXI's. Seems to do better in low light than the VXI.
This is my "go to" scope on my "go to" woods gun, a Model 70 in .270. Been on the gun two years with a TON of use, and still holds true.
Have heard some horror stories the past year-ish of quality control issues, though.

Bushnell 3200...only one I own is the 10x40 Mil-Dot.
Durable, decent glass. Comes standard on some Barret's so it's obviously stout.
The only other two bushnell products I have owned were cheap (Under $100) and weren't very good, IMHO. Cannot comment on customer service.

(If I were buying, based on my own experiences, I'd rank them just how I outlined them in this post...JMHO).
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 12:08:13 PM EST
I have had both those scopes (Leupold VXI and Burris Fullfield II) and really liked them both. I let a friend talk me out of the Burris and he put it on his WIn 70 300 mag and he loves it. I put the VX I on a FAL and it is holding up well. We put them side by side and could not see a lot of different between the two in the early evening. We did not try later though right at dusk to see which would give us the best light.

I recently came across another scope that I truly like, a Nikon Buckmaster. I tried the Nikon Buckmaster after the Nikon Prostaff I bought for the muzzleloader has held up exceptionally well and the impact has not moved noticably after 3 years of hunting and shooting at the range with it. The Nikon is not mounted at the momen as I sold the rifle it was mounted to but I believe it is every bit the scope the Leupold and Burris are. On Bushnell, I had a Bushnell scope about ten years ago that had a drifting zero, I know I just had a lemon but I have not purchased a Bushnell since. My father has a Bushnell on his 300 Win mag that has been on it many years and he loves it, so they are good scopes as well just not a lot of personal experience with them.

Overall I believe their quality are very similar. With warranty, a coworker was given an old leupold that was broken a couple of years ago from the 70s. He took a chance and sent it in to Leupold to see if they would fix it. They did promptly and he placed it on his deer rifle. On warranty I would give the edge to Leupold.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 3:01:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2010 3:09:40 PM EST by RFutch]
FFII has 95% light transmission.

Bushnell 3200, Nikon buckmaster, Leupold vx1 all have around 91%. If you are planning on using this as a hunting scope or other low light applications the burris is a better buy IMO.

For the record I own all the scopes listed above except the nikon. They all have pros and cons but the burris is my favorite.

ETA: If you can expand your budget by just a little the Elite 4200 in a 3-9 can be found for just over $200. They have 95% LT and glass that will blow away any of the other scopes listed in this thread. IMO its the best buy 3-9x40 there is- period. 4200 linky
Top Top