Has anyone tried the elite 3200 or 4200 line of scopes?

I haven't, but many here have.  The 3200 is regarded as a very good scope for the money, and the 4200s are considered a higher end scope, competing with Leupold in terms of quality.  Some folks like 'em better than the VX 3s, but you'll certainly get an argument from the Leupy folks on that.  

I've shot a rifle that had a 4200 on it, and I have to say the glass was really good.  

I am looking to put a 3200 or 4200 on my flattop AR

any suggestions for options- i was looking at a 3200 4-12x 40mm AO mildot

Bushnell's Elite series scopes are actually the original Bausch and Lomb product.  When B&L and Bushnell merged, a marketing decision was made to utilize the Bushnell name because it was more synonymous with sporting optics.  Not to disparage any brand unduly, I feel this was a mistake, as I always equated Bushnell scopes and binoculars with department store quality, whereas Bausch & Lomb has always had a reputation for high end quality.  The Elite series scopes are as good as any.

thanks guys, good info!!

I've got two 3200's and two 4200's. They're good stuff and untouchable in their price ranges.

anybody use the fixed power 10x40?

Quoted: Bushnell's Elite series scopes are actually the original Bausch and Lomb product.  When B&L and Bushnell merged, a marketing decision was made to utilize the Bushnell name because it was more synonymous with sporting optics.  Not to disparage any brand unduly, I feel this was a mistake, as I always equated Bushnell scopes and binoculars with department store quality, whereas Bausch & Lomb has always had a reputation for high end quality.  The Elite series scopes are as good as any.

Sorry, but that is not entirely accurate. As a guy who works in the industry I can tell you that B&L never owned Bushnell or vice versa. Bushnell simply had a license agreement with B&L to put the B&L name on their products. When Bushnell's contract with B&L ended, B&L decided not to renew, so Bushnell was stuck with having to put their own name on their higher end stuff.

In actuality the B&L scopes always were just Bushnell products with the B&L name stamped on them. The reason they did this is for the exact reasons you describe. Most people viewed the Bushnell name as a budget, department store quality product and did not equate that name with higher end stuff. The B&L name gave them more marketing power to sell a higher end product. When B&L decided not to continue the relationship Bushnell was forced to put their own name back on the product. It certainly wasn't a marketing choice that they made on their own.

As far as the Elite scopes go, I have an Elite 3200 on my .270 deer rifle. I think it's a fine budget scope. I haven't extensively used the 4200 series, but from what I have seen they are nice also. I certainly wouldn't put one on a rifle that would be used for any type of military, LEO, or self defense purpose though.

Bausch & Lomb was in business at least fifty years prior to the Bushnell name appearing on anything.  I am old enough to have seen both.  My comments regarding the merger of the two came from an industry article in American Rifleman a few years ago when the two Companies got together and decided which name would market better.  Of course, you can't ALWAYS believe everything you read.

That said, I am 100% certain that Bausch & Lomb manufactured many different series of optics, such as binoculars, rifle-scopes, telescopes. microscopes and others long before Bushnell existed.

regards,
Dan

Quoted: Bausch & Lomb was in business at least fifty years prior to the Bushnell name appearing on anything.  I am old enough to have seen both.  My comments regarding the merger of the two came from an industry article in American Rifleman a few years ago when the two Companies got together and decided which name would market better.  Of course, you can't ALWAYS believe everything you read. That said, I am 100% certain that Bausch & Lomb manufactured many different series of optics, such as binoculars, rifle-scopes, telescopes. microscopes and others long before Bushnell existed. regards, Dan

Yes, I know that B&L was around long before Bushnell. And they may have manufactured sports optics before Bushnell existed I don't know. I certainly don't see anything about sports optics listed anywhere on B&L's website when I read the history about the company. I do know that any sports optics made within the last 35 years or so that had a B&L name on it was not a B&L product. It was simply a Bushnell product that had the B&L name stamped on it because of a license agreement Bushnell had with B&L (Note: I'm not saying this degrades the level of quality of any B&L labeled sports optic product, just that B&L did not actually make it).

Bushnell and B&L have never merged. They have always been seperate companies. As I said earlier the reason that B&L was no longer put on the higher end stuff is because B&L decided not to renew that agreement with Bushnell, not because they thought Bushnell was a better name to market.

But don't take my word for it. Here are a couple of links:

www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-17-2000/0001267010&EDATE=

At the bottom of this link you will read:

Bausch & Lomb is a registered trademark of and used under license from Bausch & Lomb, Inc.

Also this one:

optics4birding.com/optics/manuf.htm#bushnell

Bausch & Lomb equipment was designed by Bushnell under license from Bausch & Lomb, and competed with the best. In early 2004, the license agreement which started in the early 1970s, expired and Bausch & Lomb chose not to license their name for optics any longer. Bushnell has converted most of the Bausch & Lomb products over to their own logo, with the remainder of the relabeled products, including the new Elite binoculars.

ETA: Really, the only reason I mentioned any of this is because I know that a lot of people see the B&L name as being higher end, while Bushnell is more budget oriented. I think it actually speaks well of Bushnell that they were able to bring to market quality products that they did under the B&L name. So any Bushnell labeled Elite scope should also carry that same level of quality.

I really did not intend to get into a debate regarding how Bausch & Lomb and Bushnell exist or do not, but since we are there...

If you look back far enough, you will find that around 1971 Bausch & Lomb acquired Bushnell.  Bushnell, as a wholly owned subsidiary of B&L, did in fact manfacture certain optics for B&L, but B&L continued to produce certain lines on their own.  The licensing agreement simply placed their name on a product produced by a subsidiary, i.e. Bushnell.  Just a couple of years ago, B&L decided that the Bushnell name was more recognizable in the field of Sport Optics than was B&L, so they dropped the B&L name from their lines of rifle scopes and binoculars.  As you say, the Elite series is a very good line.  Until the name change, I had enough experience with Bushnell rifle-scopes that I steered clear of them.  I never hesitated to use a B&L product.  After the name change, I judge what I will or won't buy based on whether it seems to be the old B&L product.

I mean no disrespect by continuing this discussion, but rather tend to be stubborn.  Sorry

Quoted: I really did not intend to get into a debate regarding how Bausch & Lomb and Bushnell exist or do not, but since we are there... If you look back far enough, you will find that around 1971 Bausch & Lomb acquired Bushnell.  Bushnell, as a wholly owned subsidiary of B&L, did in fact manfacture certain optics for B&L, but B&L continued to produce certain lines on their own.  The licensing agreement simply placed their name on a product produced by a subsidiary, i.e. Bushnell.  Just a couple of years ago, B&L decided that the Bushnell name was more recognizable in the field of Sport Optics than was B&L, so they dropped the B&L name from their lines of rifle scopes and binoculars.  As you say, the Elite series is a very good line.  Until the name change, I had enough experience with Bushnell rifle-scopes that I steered clear of them.  I never hesitated to use a B&L product.  After the name change, I judge what I will or won't buy based on whether it seems to be the old B&L product. I mean no disrespect by continuing this discussion, but rather tend to be stubborn.  Sorry

No problem. I certainly didn't take anything you said as disrespect. I understand the stubbornness, I tend to have a streak of that myself .

If B&L acquired Bushnell that is certainly news to me.

Do you care to tell me where you got this information? I certainly didn't see anything on either company's website that indicates Bushnell is owned by B&L and that is not what I have been told by my industry sources.

I thinkhat
B&L has been around, as an optics manufacturer, since the mid 1800's.  Besides binoculars and telescopes (before they were called sports optics), they also make, or made, surveying instruments, photographioc optics, contact lenses, eyeglasses, microscopes and other stuff.  I believe that when B&L acquired Bushnell, they reserved the B&L brand for what they saw as their high end products and Bushnell for consumer grade products.  I think a google search for "Bausch & Lomb/Bushnell" will take you to some references to the Bushnell Division of Bausch & Lomb Industries as the source for Bushnell products prior to the last name change associated only with the sports optics divisions.  The B&L name continues to show up on other product lines.

Optics of many types are my hobby.  Over the past decades, I have seen quality,or lack thereof based on experience.  The one thing I am absolutely certain of, is that when it comes to optical devices, particularly those with curved lenses meant to magnify or reproduce, you get ONLY what you pay for, and bargain optics are only satisfactory used in limited amounts or if you have never had anything better.  It is never inexpensive to make quality optical lenses, and no manufacturer has ever found a cheap way to grind or coat glass in a high quality manner.

I really do like a courteous debate that doesn't degenerate into name calling.  You're a good man.

Quoted: I think, from what I have read in the past, that B&L acquired Bushnell around 1971.  I do not have any current links to find that however.   B&L has been around, as an optics manufacturer, since the mid 1800's.  Besides binoculars and telescopes (before they were called sports optics), they also make, or made, surveying instruments, photographioc optics, contact lenses, eyeglasses, microscopes and other stuff.  I believe that when B&L acquired Bushnell, they reserved the B&L brand for what they saw as their high end products and Bushnell for consumer grade products.  I think a google search for "Bausch & Lomb/Bushnell" will take you to some references to the Bushnell Division of Bausch & Lomb Industries as the source for Bushnell products prior to the last name change associated only with the sports optics divisions.  The B&L name continues to show up on other product lines. Optics of many types are my hobby.  Over the past decades, I have seen quality,or lack thereof based on experience.  The one thing I am absolutely certain of, is that when it comes to optical devices, particularly those with curved lenses meant to magnify or reproduce, you get ONLY what you pay for, and bargain optics are only satisfactory used in limited amounts or if you have never had anything better.  It is never inexpensive to make quality optical lenses, and no manufacturer has ever found a cheap way to grind or coat glass in a high quality manner. I really do like a courteous debate that doesn't degenerate into name calling.  You're a good man.

Ditto to you too.

Anyway, my understanding of the relationship is that B&L started as an optics company, actually making glasses frames, and then over time morphed into other things like making lenses, microscopes and eventually contact lenses and a lot of the other things that you mentioned.

In the early 1970's, like you say, they started putting their name on sports optics equipment. However, what my industry source tells me is that B&L didn't buy Bushnell, but that they just licensed their name out to Bushnell. My source could be wrong though.

I suppose it's really a minor issue as  there is a lot of things that go on inside the optics industry that aren't what they seem. I know this firsthand because I work in the optics industry. I'm actually the lead designer for a sports optics company, so I get to see some of what goes on "behind the scenes" so to speak. Not that I know everything though, because I obviously don't get to see what goes on inside other company's HQ's or how they are structured internally.

My initial impression was that you were joe blow off the street making some claim about a company without the knowledge to back that up. So, I thought I would make a correction based on  the fact that I thought my position gave me a better understanding. But it sounds like you actually do know what you're talking about and are quite informed.

I have to fight the urge to get irritated sometimes because I see a lot of incorrect assumptions being made about other types of things related to optics spouted off by people who don't know what they're talking about. However, experience and I suppose a wee bit of wisdom has shown me that it's not worth denigrating to name calling because nobody is always right and a humble attitude can make you look much better for the occasions when you think you know what you're talking about, but don't .

WOW I FEEL THE LOVE

ANYWAY, after all of that, i just asked how would you rate the 3200 and 4200 scopes.

kudos for the wonderful discussion

World peace should be so easy.

And sorry, I almost forgot.  I have an Elite 4200 series scope, in 6.5-24 on a .308 Browning A-Bolt.  It is as clear and sharp at any magnification as any German scope costing three to four times as much.  They are multi-coated, meaning that they have anti-reflection coating on all internal and external lens surfaces.  Don't overlook the importance of lens coating, as it makes a tremendous difference in contrast and brightness by cutting down on the effect of extraneous light.  Good coating can make a smaller aperture optic more bright than a larger lens with less coating.  I can't attest to its repeatability, but it does hold zero during use, and also during transport to and from shooting sessions.  I feel that if any of the Elites have the features you want, it's a waste to spend more money.