i just looked at a nikon ( #6425 buckmaster) 3-9 X 40 and a bushnell sportsman series( 72-0412) 4-12X 40
the bushnell looked every bit as clear to me as the nikon..
side by side (in walmart looking probaly 75 yards away) they both looked excellent

granted there was plenty of light

the nikon goes for $200 (fixed objective) and the bushnell is $70 (model 72-0412) with adjustable objective..

how does the bushnell compare outside in moderate daylight..
is there any other reason to go almost 3 times more for the nikon??

What's the scope going to ride on, 454?

My vote in a NIKON would be the Monarch series.
More money and better quality features.
Look up the NIKON site; it's a good one.

Have you considered a good used Leupold scope?
The Bushnell might be perfect, depending on what you want out of it.

basically i will be using it for punching paper at on either my AR or G3 @100-200 yards and i presume that either is fine for that... but maybe not so interested in input..

really i'm more interested in learning about the quality of different scopes and what really makes some better than others so the question is more academic than applications minded
so with that in mind, lets throw a leupold into the mix..

wallys also has a vari X11 3-9 X40 for $300

once again i couldnt see a difference in the bright store

bushmaster has an excellent warranty

keving67

Nikon monarch. Lifetime warrenty and is waterproof nitro purged the whole works. Optics blows the Leupold VariX 2 series away. 3-9x40 can be found for 260 or so. Best glass for the money

You are paying for the glass,glass coatings and how well it is put together. Try both scopes out side at dusk,you will see some of what you are paying for,how much light gets through.All scopes look clear at noon.Also look at a straight line like a light pole.If the glass is not right, the line will bend as you look at it through the edge of the lens.Also some cheeper scopes won't hold the same zero through all the power settings.And last how well is it put together? or how tough is it? In optics you get what you pay for!

Check out www.charm.net/~kmarsh/sport.html.

You will learn more than you ever wanted to know about what makes a cheap scope bad.

I have owned both and shot both side by side the nikon buckmaster is ten times the scope.
In my opinion the nikon buckmaster is the best value in hunting optics.

Ken Mays good article but I wonder what cheap means. I just bought a Sako chambered for the 7.62 Warbird. I wanted long eye relief and the only 2 scopes that offered it were Leupold and Bushnell 3200 series. Leupold was around 600 and Bushnell over 300. I'm a working  stiff and both seem "not to be in the cheap class". I decided to experiment and bought the Bushnell. So far so good but more testing is required.

Go with the Nikon. The bitterness of lesser quality will last much longer than the money you're trying to save. The only scope better than Nikon is Swvarski (sp?).

Quoted:Ken Mays good article but I wonder what cheap means.

From what I can tell, "cheap" means a point at which the scope is made somewhere better than China, either Japan or Korea or USA, with decent glass and internals.  

In my experience, this point is reached in the $150-200 range with some of the smaller magnification, basic featured scopes.  A Nikon Monarch 4x going for $170 is going to be a better optic than a $170 BSA "target" model with all the bells and whistles.  Remember, you can't polish a turd.

I think the B&L / Bushnell Elite series are good scopes.  I own an Elite 4200 myself and it seems to be well built and fairly bright.  The owner of that web page, Ken Marsh, refuses to buy ANY Bushnell products now that they have done away with the B&L brandname, but I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt.

There are many good quality scopes out there, depending on your budget and needs.  You can't go wrong with Leupold, and many people feel the same way about Burris.  The German scopes (Swarovski, Leica, Zeiss, etc) are pricey but good, and I feel they probably won't do anything a comparable Leupold wouldn't do.  

If you shoot paper targets and if you use a small caliber rifle (i.e. .223) and if you're on a fixed budget, why would you need to spend a ton of money on an expensive scope when a less expensive model will work just about as well?  What's the point?  For example.  I'm a weekend shooter and love to go to the range several times a month to shoot at paper targets 100 yards away.  I've shot and owned several rifles with very, very expensive scopes and several rifles with "cheap" scopes.  Honestly, the difference isn't worth the money...by a longshot.  Shooting a Savage 110 FP heavy barrel in .308 with a cheap Bushnell 4 X 12 scope consistently gives me 1/2" three shot groups weekend after weekend.  I usually stick a piece of chewing gum on my target for the last shot of the day.  So far, I haven't missed the gum in the last six times out.  How much better can you really do by spending another five or six hundred dollars on a scope?  I've also shot next to guys with custom rifles and expensive titanium scopes and their groups aren't all that great.  It's your money....spend it anyway you want to.

American Pie is right.  A cheap scope is fine for a gun that's just either in the safe, in a case, or on the range, and is shot in normal lighting conditions.  The money comes in when you need a scope that has good repeatability (10 clicks up, 10 left, 10 down and 10 right brings you to the same place), lightgathering ability and ruggedness.  Lightgathering ability is usually more critical than magnification.  Also cheap zoom scopes are more like to change point of impact between 4 and 12 power or 3 and 9 power.

I have two Nikon Monarch 4x scopes and like them a lot.  I had a Bushnell 1.5-5x fall apart on top of a Mini-14, but that's a tough place for a scope to be.

I'm through with cheap scopes. I have a Kahles on the way.

I am not thrilled that Bausch & Lomb is no longer in the binoculars/scope business, but it's a USRAC/Winchester trademark thing anyway.  I would about guarantee that the B&L Elite series has been made for the last 10-20 years entirely in Asia, probably in Japan by Vixen.  Last I heard, Nikon was building a lot of their scopes in Thailand.  Bushnell taking over the Elite line means nothing unless their quality standards decrease with the change.  

Ever notice that the roof prism binoculars offered by Cabelas, Mead, Burris, Simmons, etc. have pretty much identical bodies?  I think that there are some differences in internals since the cost varies, but I bet all these companies are slapping their names on binoculars manufactured to their specs by the same company.  

And this is not a flame; I think that I would be entirely comfortable buying a Nikon buckmaster made in Thailand.  It'll be better than the $70 model, and I sure don't shoot enough right now to appreciate the functional difference between the buckmaster and the Schmidt&Bender.  

Like everyone says, the nice thing about optics is that you generally get what you pay for.  With some careful exceptions, brand is probably less important than price.

OK, I am running for cover...  :)

I use Nikon Monarchs exclusively, even on my slug gun for deer. You cannot beat the 95% light transmission, unless you buy a $1000 Leupold LPS. They are also covered under a lifetime warranty.

Quoted: I am not thrilled that Bausch & Lomb is no longer in the binoculars/scope business, ... I would about guarantee that the B&L Elite series has been made for the last 10-20 years entirely in Asia, probably in Japan by Vixen.

I'm curious.  What makes anybody think that anything has changed at B&L/Bushnell?  If Armalite decided that only the bolt action AR50 and AR30 type rifles would be called Armalites and that all AR10 and AR15 rifles would only be shipped under the Eagle Arms name, would that make any difference in the quality of the rifles?  Did changing the name of the Nesard/Sendra/Bohica/etc. company make any difference?

bausch and lomb is know for medical optics

therefore i assumed that a b&L scope would be top notch and that anything they put their name on would be excellent

was bushnell a lower quality than b&l before the merger?

if so, is b&l improving bushnell or is bushnell draggin b&l down?

where can i find the light trnasmittence of the72 -0412 and whether it maintains zero as you zoom??

Buy the Nikon and cry once over the price difference, buy cheap and you might end up crying twice when you buy a replacement.

I do own cheap scopes and they go on my rimfires but when I was in the market for a  scope to go on a new varmint rifle I went with the Nikon Monarch. Clearest optics I have come across as compared to Sightron, Tasco, BSA, B&L and Weaver. Excellent low light scope and the adjustments thus far have been dead on.

I would buy the Nikon.

Quoted: i just looked at a nikon ( #6425 buckmaster) 3-9 X 40 and a bushnell sportsman series( 72-0412) 4-12X 40 the bushnell looked every bit as clear to me as the nikon.. side by side (in walmart looking probaly 75 yards away) they both looked excellent granted there was plenty of light the nikon goes for $200 (fixed objective) and the bushnell is $70 (model 72-0412) with adjustable objective.. how does the bushnell compare outside in moderate daylight.. is there any other reason to go almost 3 times more for the nikon??

If you are using it to punch paper and don't want to plunk down the 200 bucks then get the Bushnell.  It'll do fine.


Now if you were going hunting, you would have to pay me to take the Bushnell.  I use Nikon Monarchs on my hunting rifles.  They are expensive yes, but the low light qualities are excellent!  The Buckmaster is the better scope between your two choices.

Also maybe look at the Leupold MK II series they are great scopes.