bushnell elite 4200 review

Status
Not open for further replies.

dakotasin

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,777
Location
Transient
i've run a ton of different scopes from glass that had no name stamped on it to scopes running solidly into the 4-digit price range. lately i have been running mostly zeiss, sightron, and leupold for new purchases.

just to switch things up a bit, when i got my remington r-25 in 308 i decided the bushnell elite 4200 4-16 would be an appropriate scope for the job. i put the scope into some burris rings (can't recall the exact name - the ones w/ 6 screws per cap) and stuck it atop the remington.

i've been working the scope over for a bit, and have been starting to stretch the ranges a little, and have reached a few conclusions.

glass quality is good. resolution and brightness are great throughout the power range.

durability is fine, so far; it hasn't broken, yet.

tracking is fair. the clicks are supposed to be 1/8" at 100 yards and they aren't, but they are close enough that i doubt most shooters would notice.

repeatability is poor-to-fair. i established my 100 yard zero on the 100 yard line, and started cranking knobs. i went to 800 yards in 50 yard increments then came back to the 100 yard line. i dialed in the clicks and fired a group 2-1/2 inches lower than my established 100 yard zero. i dialed in my 250 yard zero and the groups went where they were supposed to.

i ran out of up on the scope at 850 yards.

because the scope is mounted directly to the picatinny rail of the receiver there isn't a whole lot that can be done about windage. however, the scope seems to be a little more sensitive to the windage being centered than i thought it should be. my windage isn't exact center of the scope - it is about 2 moa from center. but as i kept going up in elevation my groups kept moving to the right with every twist of the elevation knob. later, i ran a 'thermometer' target and you could plainly see the shots moving right on the target. instead of a straight line of holes perforating up the target, i have a line that leans to the right.

elevation and windage turret hash marks absolutely suck. probably the worst of all my 'turreted' scopes. they are exceedingly difficult to see and the revolution numbers are very poorly marked. it is entirely possible to be a full revolution off of where you should be with this scope. my biggest disappointment about this scope. being a full revolution off at 850 yards is huge. a full revolution off at 100 yards is plenty big, but at least you'll probably be able to find paper quickly if you do that.

the clicks on this scope are sub-par. they are ok, but they are mushy, not real audible, and once i got to the 700 yard line, the turrets became difficult to turn, making the poor clicks even worse.

bottom line: as a long range scope, or a scope that will be used as it was presumably built to be used, this scope is a fail. for the average shooter who is unlikely to go beyond 300 yards for his/her shooting and doesn't believe in utilizing the turrets, this scope will be great. if you're a turret-twister, skip this one...
 
good review

funny how when people review gear AFTER using it, the reviews aren't all hearts and flowers
 
i think there are 2 reasons for that. first, most gear worthy of a review is fairly expensive. nobody really wants to admit they made an expensive mistake - allow the blow to their pride.

second... most stuff looks and works pretty well in the store in retail conditions when there are so many variables not present. even if you take the glass outside, you won't get a feel for anything other than brightness and probably resolution. no real way to predict ergonomics, function, etc until it is put side-by-side in the field w/ proven gear.

me... i have no pride, and i am a capitalist. if i made a mistake, i want to learn from it. if there is an inferior product out there i want it fixed at an appropriate price in a reasonable period of time. if not, then hopefully a competitor will take over. if not, let 'em go out of business...

if it works for me, i'll say so. if it doesn't, i'll say so...
 
Good to hear an honest review. I had heard in the past that the glass was good for the money on the 4200 line but that turret movement was limited if you plan on doing much long range. I hadn't heard much of a review on the quality/repeatability of the turrets themselves so this is helpful. Thanks.
 
I agree with most of your review, but repeatability hasn't been an issue with the Elites IME. For that reason, I think you might have gotten a dud, or perhaps I just didn't test as well as you...either way, I would try to arrange for replacement. Everything else is spot on, they make a great hunting scope, but not terribly good target scopes (definitely not a 850yd optic, adjustment range or not, IMO).

I just recently bought a new optic for a hunting rifle, choice was between a Nikon Monarch or a Elite 4200. I actually prefer the 4200, but opted for the Monarch only because the 4200 is not available in a gloss finish (to match said rifle). The 3200 is, but is also in a different class as the others, so that wasn't a viable option either. That being said, I still maintain that the hands-down best deals for optics are the Sightron and Vortex moderate series scopes (S-I & S-II, as well as the Diamondback & Viper).

:)
 
Last edited:
Great review, thanks for posting.

i ran out of up on the scope at 850 yards.

I'm not an expert, but I would have thought this is a minor issue given that the .308 isn't all that flat out to 850 yards (meaning that running out of elevation at that distance with that combination of scope and cartridge isn't a surprise) and not many people are shooting at that distance. And the ones who are will probably use a 20 MOA (etc.) mounting base to compensate for the limits of elevation adjustment.

Just a quibble, all the other info was very useful.
 
Great review, and you have a year to get a full refund if your not happy, which your not. My Elite 3200s track better than that, but 24 clicks for me gave more like 7.5" instead of 6" at 100yrds like it should have, but my first and last shot were .5" from each other. Sounds like you need to level the crosshairs, or the vertical crosshair dosen't intersect the center of your barrel. Are you using an ACD? My turrets have very audible clicks, and are not mushy, sounds like you got a bummer scope.
 
I still maintain that the hands-down best deals for optics are the Sightron and Vortex moderate series scopes (S-I & S-II, as well as the Diamondback & Viper).

i have yet to put my hands on a vortex, and i finally have all of my rifles scoped plus a spare scope sitting around so i am unlikely to buy a vortex in the near future. i do agree that the sightron s-2 line is probably the most bang for the buck in that class. i have only limited experience w/ the s-1.

z - a lot of what i do w/ guns is experimentation for my own amusement, and my thoughts on the 4200 here is a reflection of that. i do have a few rifles set up for 1000 yards and beyond shooting; they all run 20 moa bases, and 1 of them is indeed a 308. i put that information in about backing the yardage up because i think it is useful information to know, and demonstrates some of how i determine if i like a scope or not (either in a given application or if at all).

jd - exactly as you state, the click value isn't quite as close as i thought it should be, but as i noted, i doubt many shooters would know about it were it not for websites like this one. they are good enough for most purposes, and if you dial in your come-ups, it is something to be aware of but minimal impact. anybody can learn to work within the movements.

let me clarify a little... the opening post makes it sound like i am very dissatisfied w/ the scope, and that is not the case. it will be fine for me, it just has some quirks that need attended to a little. the rifle i put this scope on is a 750 yards and closer rifle, and truthfully greater than 80% of the 'money shots' will be holdover, not dialed in. if i did need to dial, the scope will work. i'm just going to have to find some way to make the markings a little more clear. mushiness of the turrets is a pet peeve, not a deal killer.

when i chronograph a load and put the numbers up many people think i am complaining about the numbers. i'm not - they are what they are. i have no feelings about them one way or the other. i just want to know if a factory load runs what the box says it will (they don't), or if my handloads run what i think they should, or if i'm heading to pressure problems or whatever. same exact concept for this scope.

its just a scope. nothing magical about it.
 
i have yet to put my hands on a vortex, and i finally have all of my rifles scoped plus a spare scope sitting around so i am unlikely to buy a vortex in the near future. i do agree that the sightron s-2 line is probably the most bang for the buck in that class. i have only limited experience w/ the s-1.
If you already have a S-II, you're not missing anything with the S-I (as I am sure you can imagine). It is however a good budget scope, with decent glass. The Viper is pretty similar to the S-II, so you aren't missing anything there either. They are both good, but not game-changing, throw away the S&B/Swaro/Ziess good, if you know what I mean.

I appreciate your honest review. Many times the reviewer only recounts the good, I find it refreshing to hear the whole truth.

:)
 
I have two 3200s and the new FFP 4 - 12 4200, and my experience has been very different, but I'm not shooting past 800 yards, either. So the (relatively) limited elevation isn't an issue for me. I run a 20MOA base on the 4200 so I can get to 1000 if I really needed to. But if I really needed to shoot at 1000 regularly I wouldn't have bought a .308 ;) Since I learned how to check tracking and spacing that's the first thing I do with a new scope. All three of the Bushnells were acceptable. The MOA scopes were within limits and the mil/mil was dead on. The turret clicks are not as crisp as Nightforce, perhaps, but I find them still acceptable and not mushy at all. Very positive, just not "hard" like some brands. I think I actually prefer a little less "hard click". And the glass in the 4200 was at least the equal of anything I have shot beside it, and that would include Leupold. I do hate the green markings though, so I am painting those white. Pretty easy to do.

So I'll have to agree with the other posters who think you got a bad scope. Yours was made on Monday morning after a holiday weekend. :D
 
Great review!

You hit on two of the main things I look for given my use: repeatability and accurate adjustments, with a third key issue being: rugged / holds zero. Guessing that might be your "durability."

At the price point I normally buy, glass is about a wash and so a non-issue.

Nice to see the "big three" so clearly addressed. A lot of scope reviews I see seem to be flavor of the month.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top