And I agree

Optical Rating Scale

I'm calling bullshit.

Bushy 3200's don't impress me at all. A Nikon Buckmaster is way better.

Why is the X.O.T.I.C. on the list?  Nobody has ever seen one . . .

Looks like a SWFA marketing ploy to me

Quoted: Why is the X.O.T.I.C. on the list?  Nobody has ever seen one . . . Looks like a SWFA marketing ploy to me

Ya think?

That listing is totally worthless, since it doesn't show how they weighted each criteria, and more importantly, how they scored each criteria for the brands they list.

For example, a Nightforce has an optical quality so far above a Bushnell Elite that it isn't even funny, and beats it in just about every feature I can think of except for price. Low cost would need to be weighted pretty high to raise Bushnell Elite anywhere near Nightforce level.

Quoted: Quoted: Why is the X.O.T.I.C. on the list?  Nobody has ever seen one . . . Looks like a SWFA marketing ploy to me I was just going to ask wtf a Xotic is. No mention of US optics

I have the original XOTIC with the 56mm objective.  It is a great scope and I won't hesitate to pick up the Gen2 XOTIC when it is released.

J.

Quoted: Quoted: Why is the X.O.T.I.C. on the list?  Nobody has ever seen one . . . Looks like a SWFA marketing ploy to me I was just going to ask wtf a Xotic is. No mention of US optics

I have two of the XOTIC scopes (4-16x56), one on my AR50 and one on my SPR clone.  They have been excellent scopes, repeatable adjustments, held up well to the 50BMG, bright and clear optics.  The various sniper and optics forums gave them good reviews when they came out a couple of years ago, but they were only available for a short time. They have been excellent optics for me, and I've never heard anyone who actually used one complain about them.

That being said, I have a lot of the scopes on that list.  I would not rate my Nikon Monarch, which isn't a bad scope, higher than my Leupold LR/T Mk 4, which is simply a better, brighter scope; with more solid feeling adjustments, which have been accurate and repeatable (though I know that Leupy has had QC issues)..

I think that the Bushnell 3200 Elite are an excellent value for the money; I had a 3-9x50 on my 50 before I upgraded and it held up to ~ 100 rounds befoe it got moved to its present rifle (a 10/22); my lightweight 338 WinMag wears a 3-9x40 and it doesn't seem to be affected by the recoil, though I haven't had it long enough to see what it will do over a season of hunting (in terms of outdoor durability).

It's likely their ratings are colored by what they sell and how vocal individual customers are.  After all, unhappy customers make a lot more noise than happy ones, and as scope prices go up, peoples expectations grow, too.  then again, I'm sure a significant percentage of their top rated scopes are sold to the Big Game Hunter types who put their $2500+ optics on rifles which don't see a whole lot of use.

They don't sell NF, so I question how much experience they have with it.

The house brands did real well though.

But are XOTIC scopes drop tested?  I hear they dont withstand the "3 foot, onto carpet, oh shit I just busted my new scope and now want to return my scope to SWFA" drop test like a Super Sniper will.

I dont disagree with his rankings, but, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT attribute of a riflescope is its abillity to hold zero!

who cares if you can count the whiskers on a targets face if your shot doesnt hit the mark?????

There are a bunch of the optics in those rankings that I've never owned. I tend to mostly agree with the rankings. I especially agree with the Luepolds being "middle-of-the-road".

I get a kick out of the leupold groupies claiming they are the best scopes money can buy. I have had more warranty work done on Leupold scopes than any other scope I've ever owned.

I personally switched over to all Burris optics with a few Bushnell Elites and 1 leupold. If I could peddle the VX2 6-18 AO for enough to replace it with something from Burris.....I'd toss that one too. That one's never lost Zero or broke the reticle so I still have it.

Not trying to start a war, just relating my experience with Leupold.

I must say that as far as optical quality he appears to have pretty much hit the nail on the head in my experience.

Anyone who doubts the optical quality of a Bushnell 4200 has never looked through one.  There might be a few scopes that cost three times as much that are a little better, but there is nothing that has "optical quality so far above a Bushnell Elite that it isn't even funny."  The LOW factory in Japan that makes the glass for the 4200s also makes the glass for NF.

Quoted: Anyone who doubts the optical quality of a Bushnell 4200 has never looked through one.  There might be a few scopes that cost three times as much that are a little better, but there is nothing that has "optical quality so far above a Bushnell Elite that it isn't even funny."  The LOW factory in Japan that makes the glass for the 4200s also makes the glass for NF.

Since your reply was directed at me, allow me to retort. Do you really think I shelled out $1500 for a scope if I could have had the same optical quality and features in a scope that costs one third the price? Think again.

I'm sorry if you feel offended when I say that the Bushnell falls clearly behind a Nightforce. Maybe the "not even funny" was a bit extreme, I apologize for that, but there is definitely a significant difference. Take a resolution chart of your choise (I used both IEEE STD 208-1995 and USAF Mil-Std-150) and see for yourself. The Nightforce has way superior resolution. The Bushnell keeps up in brightness in daytime use, but when it gets darker, the Nightforce takes a clear lead. Nightforce has virtually no curvature towards the edges and no optical aberrations are evident. Bushnell has slight curvature at the edges and some chromatic aberrations especially when the erector is at the extremes of the adjustment range.

You see, the optical quality is not determined by the raw lense, but the quality and type of the coatings applied to it. Though the lenses may come from the same source, it doesn't automatically make them equal quality. It's all about the price you want to pay for the lense. Also, the construction of the scope affects the optical quality. The lenses need to be perfectly lined up and at perfectly the correct distance from each other. The more effort you put into this, the more time is consumed, the higher the price. Simple as that.

Not only does the Bushnell lose in optical quality, it also loses in some very critical areas like repeatability (box test), accuracy of the adjustment (is it 1/4 MOA exactly or is it 1/3.9 MOA), and adjustment range. The clicks are not as tactile as in the Nightforce. It doesn't have a lit reticle (not a concern for most) and doesn't offer 0.1 mrad clicks as an option (not necessarely a concern for some, but for us metric system guys, it's a must-have).

So what exactly is it, in your mind, that sets the Bushnell at the level of a Nightforce?

Now you might think that I'm somehow biased towards Nightforce in particular, but let me just say that Zeiss and Swarovski both have better resolution and brightness than a Nightforce. I haven't tested a USO or Schmidt & Bender, so can't comment on those. All of the high end scopes offer pretty much equal optical quality and pretty much equal features, but I chose the Nightforce because it offered the features I wanted at the price I was willing to pay. For a Zeiss or Swarovski with equal features I would have paid at least $400 more.

The Bushnell Elite is no doubt a fine scope for the price, but putting it on par with a Nightforce is silly. Like I said before, one must really weight price above all other criterias before that can happen.

Agree.

In overall quality, NF is clearly above the Bushnell Elite 4200.

Before it was a bushnell elite, it was Bausch and Lomb elite.

I have the 4200.

A few buddies have USO and IOR's

Both make the B+L 4200 elite pale by comparison.

It's like comparing a BMW to a good Honda or Toyota.  The ricers will do the job very nicely, but they ain't a BMW.

And millions of folks are damn happy with their hondas and yotes.  However, if you've never driven a BMW, you don't know what you are missing.

TXL

He must have edited it and added US Optics to the list at #8

Quoted: Quoted: He must have edited it and added US Optics to the list at #8 They did!  But they still don't sell them so how did they do an accurate review?

Don't know.  Maybe they have one or borrowed one.  The list is pretty accurate though, especially the top ones.

Quoted: "The scale below was formed by SWFA sales staff, customer service, pro-staff and owners using personal experience, customer input and facts supplied by the manufacturers.  The ranking system is based on the following criteria (in order of importance and weight)." I guess their just going by ("take our word for it") personal experience on the US Optics?  I have not looked at all the scopes listed to see if they actually sell them, (not saying they have to sell the actual scope), BUT, I have trouble with a blanket reviews and rankings not backed up by much. I could NEVER throw a blanket statement and ranking out like this with all the NV scopes I sell without written reviews, pics, shoot reports etc. I've done enough hands-on reviews with many pics, etc. to quantify a ranking style review, but I still shy away from a blanket review such as this. The boys over on our NV forum would hang me anyways!

This ranking actually came about, from one of the members over on OT. He basically was using brightness of the optics and was talking about sundown hunting and such. That can be found there in the same area and was created by T-bone....So maybe that can shed some light on this.

Ant

Isn't Bushnell Elite the new name for the old Bausch & Lomb stuff?

Quoted: "The scale below was formed by SWFA sales staff, customer service, pro-staff and owners using personal experience, customer input and facts supplied by the manufacturers.  The ranking system is based on the following criteria (in order of importance and weight)." I guess their just going by ("take our word for it") personal experience on the US Optics?  I have not looked at all the scopes listed to see if they actually sell them, (not saying they have to sell the actual scope), BUT, I have trouble with a blanket reviews and rankings not backed up by much. I could NEVER throw a blanket statement and ranking out like this with all the NV scopes I sell without written reviews, pics, shoot reports etc. I've done enough hands-on reviews with many pics, etc. to quantify a ranking style review, but I still shy away from a blanket review such as this. The boys over on our NV forum would hang me anyways!

Yes, if some of the data was shown along with the rankings, it would give it more validity.  For example, if at least a box table was included, with each category (optic quality, durability, etc) and how each scope ranked it that category, that would help some in evaluation of the final rankings.

Conclusions without supporting data--not good science.

Quoted: "The scale below was formed by SWFA sales staff, customer service, pro-staff and owners using personal experience, customer input and facts supplied by the manufacturers.  The ranking system is based on the following criteria (in order of importance and weight)." I guess their just going by ("take our word for it") personal experience on the US Optics?  I have not looked at all the scopes listed to see if they actually sell them, (not saying they have to sell the actual scope), BUT, I have trouble with a blanket reviews and rankings not backed up by much. I could NEVER throw a blanket statement and ranking out like this with all the NV scopes I sell without written reviews, pics, shoot reports etc. I've done enough hands-on reviews with many pics, etc. to quantify a ranking style review, but I still shy away from a blanket review such as this. The boys over on our NV forum would hang me anyways! Not until after a severe flogging Vic RLTW

Quoted: Quoted: Anyone who doubts the optical quality of a Bushnell 4200 has never looked through one.  There might be a few scopes that cost three times as much that are a little better, but there is nothing that has "optical quality so far above a Bushnell Elite that it isn't even funny."  The LOW factory in Japan that makes the glass for the 4200s also makes the glass for NF. Since your reply was directed at me, allow me to retort. Do you really think I shelled out $1500 for a scope if I could have had the same optical quality and features in a scope that costs one third the price? Think again.

It is not unheard of for people to shell out extra bucks for a name.  I have no idea if you are such a person.  Why would you expect me to?

I'm sorry if you feel offended when I say that the Bushnell falls clearly behind a Nightforce.

I'm not offended, the Bushnells only cost $400.

Maybe the "not even funny" was a bit extreme, I apologize for that, but there is definitely a significant difference. Take a resolution chart of your choise (I used both IEEE STD 208-1995 and USAF Mil-Std-150) and see for yourself. The Nightforce has way superior resolution. The Bushnell keeps up in brightness in daytime use, but when it gets darker, the Nightforce takes a clear lead. Nightforce has virtually no curvature towards the edges and no optical aberrations are evident. Bushnell has slight curvature at the edges and some chromatic aberrations especially when the erector is at the extremes of the adjustment range.

I see no objective data here, just assertions.  Have you compared the scopes side-by-side, or do you have any data on their brightness and clarity?

You see, the optical quality is not determined by the raw lense, but the quality and type of the coatings applied to it. Though the lenses may come from the same source, it doesn't automatically make them equal quality. It's all about the price you want to pay for the lense. Also, the construction of the scope affects the optical quality. The lenses need to be perfectly lined up and at perfectly the correct distance from each other. The more effort you put into this, the more time is consumed, the higher the price. Simple as that.

It is also possible to overpay.  The relationship between cost to the consumer and performance is not always linear.

While it is probably true that the NF has extra features that give it somewhat better optics, think about this:  Bushnell can probably get something that is almost as good for a fraction of the price.  NF is probably buying hundreds of lenses at a time, while Bushnell is buying tens of thousands.  Who is going to get the better price from the Japanese?

Not only does the Bushnell lose in optical quality, it also loses in some very critical areas like repeatability (box test), accuracy of the adjustment (is it 1/4 MOA exactly or is it 1/3.9 MOA), and adjustment range. The clicks are not as tactile as in the Nightforce. It doesn't have a lit reticle (not a concern for most) and doesn't offer 0.1 mrad clicks as an option (not necessarely a concern for some, but for us metric system guys, it's a must-have).

This is irrelevant, as I was only taking issue with your "optical quality" quote.  I also see no supporting data for these assertions.  At least one of your assertions is incorrect.

So what exactly is it, in your mind, that sets the Bushnell at the level of a Nightforce?

I never said it was.

The Bushnell Elite is no doubt a fine scope for the price, but putting it on par with a Nightforce is silly.

I didn't say the Bushnell 4200 was equal to the NF, and neither did Chris.  The simple point I was making is that your statement that the NF has "optical quality so far above a Bushnell Elite that it isn't even funny" is absurd.  You back away from that so I guess you agree.  

In the few tests out there comparing scopes using objective data, the Bushnell 4200 is about as good as it gets, in terms of both clarity and brightness.  Yes, the NF is probably a bit better.  So are the Swarovskis and the European Zeiss scopes
(but not the Conquests).  The NF had better be better given the high cost.  

I happily agree that the NF is most likely a better scope optically, and Chris' ranking puts it above the Elite 4200.  But once you get to a scope like the Elite 4200, anything else is only going to be a very marginal improvement.  Like everything else, once you get to a certain level of performance, the improvements are going to be very minor and very expensive to obtain.

"I happily agree that the NF is most likely a better scope optically, and Chris' ranking puts it above the Elite 4200. But once you get to a scope like the Elite 4200, anything else is only going to be a very marginal improvement. Like everything else, once you get to a certain level of performance, the improvements are going to be very minor and very expensive to obtain."

When Chris first put that rating up, he had the Elite 4200 and NF rated the same, which led to most of the comments on this thread.  Chris then changed his ratings by putting the NF up a notch.

Quoted: "I happily agree that the NF is most likely a better scope optically, and Chris' ranking puts it above the Elite 4200. But once you get to a scope like the Elite 4200, anything else is only going to be a very marginal improvement. Like everything else, once you get to a certain level of performance, the improvements are going to be very minor and very expensive to obtain." When Chris first put that rating up, he had the Elite 4200 and NF rated the same, which led to most of the comments on this thread.  Chris then changed his ratings by putting the NF up a notch.

He changed his rankings due to dialog from those that participated in the thread....Also if you look at what they took into consideration and you think about it. The rankings can make since.

1.  Optical Quality - How bright and clear the scope is.

2.  Specifications - Field of view, eye relief, weight, adjustment travel, etc.

3.  Durability - How do they with stand the test of time.

4.  Special Features & Options - Proprietary items (reticles, design, turrets), Zoom ratio.

5.  Warranty & Customer Service - How good are they.

6.  Value - Bang for your buck.

Ant

Quoted: Do Millet, Mueller, and Simmons really belong on line 2 with the Burris, Luepy, and Buckmaster? I don't have any experience with Millet and Mueller and am curious. norris

Simmons rated in the same category as Leupold and Nikon/Buckmaster makes me suspicious.

Quoted: Quoted: When Chris first put that rating up, he had the Elite 4200 and NF rated the same, which led to most of the comments on this thread.  Chris then changed his ratings by putting the NF up a notch.

SWFA is not allowed to sell Nightforce that could be one reason!

Why?