Lower end optics

[Roamin_Wade]

What is your favorite between Nikon scopes and Bushnell, and why is it your favorite?

TIA

 

[LiveLife]

For low end $100 Bushnell, I recommend at least the Trophy line for balance of cost vs clear, bright, sharp image. I have bought several 3-9x40mm and they are my default scope I turn to for accuracy testing. You can find them going on sale for under $100.

For low light application around $100, I am happy with Banner Dusk & Dawn AO 6-18x50mm. Here's my low light (near dark) comparison of Trophy, Banner and Leupold - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/bushnell-trophy-3-9x40mm-multi-x-reticle-59-99.844541/

Minox ZV3 3-9x40mm used to be priced around $100 but price has gone up. If can be bought at the right price, I would recommend for good low end scope - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/minox-zv3-rifle-scope-3-9x40mm-109-98.844746/

Earlier this year, I compared several sub $200 Nikon, Vortex, Bushnell, Leupold scopes at Field & Stream and would definitely recommend Vortex Crossfire II 3-9x40mm for clear, bright and sharp image. It was best of low end scopes around $150 that allowed me to read the smallest letters across the store on the back end wall.

Of course, how scopes view may differ for your eyes so I suggest comparing them yourself in person.

 

[DocRock]

My new to me find at the value end of optics has been Athlon.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

I run both Bushnell and Nikon pretty exclusively.

I'd say the Nikon's are a baby step above Bushnell.

Like other's have said, find a deal or sale price on the Bushnell Trophy. But in that MSRP price range, I'll take Nikon Buck master any day of the week.

 

[Jack B.]

When it comes to optics you get what you pay for. IMO.

 

[dh1633pm]

Same for cars, but we can't all drive expensive ones. Sometimes a lower end scope will meet our needs pretty good. I go with Bushnell or Vortex. Sometimes I look for sales that would allow a little more expensive scope to be lowered in price enough for me to bite. I can't afford to put expensive glass on everything I own. If I did, I wouldn't be able to afford my expensive truck.

 

[troy fairweather]

I've used Nikon my hole life they have always been good, never had any problems non broke. Nikon will not make anymore scopes next year, kinda makes me sad. But will still pickup some of cheap enough.

I never really had any problems with Bushnell other then most of there scope don't have a lot of eye relief. On some guns this does not matter much, but others it does.

but now my minimum hunting scope will be Burris or leupold.

 

[<*(((><]

When it comes to optics you get what you pay for. IMO.

Agreed, but there is a definite point of diminishing returns that starts around $500.

 

[bob97]

Nikon for me. I figure if they make some really good cameras, at least they are making informed choices in their budget scopes. I have a p223 fixed 3x that i am reasonably happy with. Keeps zero and has good repeatability. Low light performance really is not its strong point, however.

 

[jmorris]

“Optic” and “low end” leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

What are you looking for exactly, 1-4x, 3-9x, 6-20x, 36x target scope?

What do you consider “low end” in price range? I just picked up a Vortex diamondback 6-24 for evaluation, that in some circles is considered bottom of the barrel and its over $400 out the door.

I got it because palmetto had a sale on the 1-8 strike Eagle ($299 with mount) and I like it almost as much as my much more expensive Nightforce. Kind of a “you don’t know until you try it.”

 

[cdb1]

The ZV3 has been discontinued for quite some some time. When they were getting closed out for under $150.00 it was the best bang for your buck scope I’ve ever seen though.

Excluding bubble pack scopes, the Vortex Crossfire is about the worst economy scope I’ve ever looked through, to others eyes they are fine.

I have a Bushnell Elite 4200 3-9x40, it’s an excellent scope. The Legend and Banner don’t do much for me. Neither does the ProStaff and Buckmasters II, I do like the original Buckmasters. So like a broken record I’ll say the only sub $200.00 scope I’d get is a Fullfield II. It’s also easy to forget how far optics have come. In 1977 when I got my first optic, todays ProStaff as an example would have been off the charts.

 

[Skylerbone]

Mounted these two yesterday, both have reeled me in more than any other brands over the years, to the point you should not trust my judgement. Nikon and Leupold. I know Burris is better. I know Bushnell Elite is better. And yet here I sit.

 

[LiveLife]

Nikon and Leupold. I know Burris is better. I know Bushnell Elite is better. And yet here I sit.

I think there is "always better" Question is how much better do you need?

And when is "good enough" to meet your particular application?

And OP asked for "Lower end optics" and not "Higher end optics".

 

[<*(((><]

My brothers both have a Bushnell Optics Drop BDC they paid just north of $120 and it is very clear glass for the price. I've had some low-mid grade Burris products that I've liked. I had one Nikon in the past it was a fixed 3x that I wasn't impressed with and sent it packing.

In college my go to cheap scope was Bushnell, and for that I have always had respect for that company.

Scopes are so user subjective its not even funny. For the most part I've always been a Leupold fan, with a few indiscretions with Vortex.

 

[Skylerbone]

I think there is "always better" Question is how much better do you need?

And when is "good enough" to meet your particular application?

And OP asked for "Lower end optics" and not "Higher end optics".

Only meaning dollar for dollar in the same price categories I feel Burris and the Bushnell 3xxx and higher line whips the pants off either.

I was just 14 when I began looking through scopes in earnest to compare my Simmons and Tasco to what was out there. Leupold was my “gold standard” and Nikon was the new kid on the block in the scope market. My needs have seldom gravitated beyond what these few companies offer and so I’ve never ventured beyond the $800 price point for a scope. Can’t say I never will, come close a few times, but couldn’t justify it.

I do recognize certain points are subjective but objective evidence exists to demonstrate which are better than others.

 

[jmr40]

At the same price point there is rarely much difference in quality. To me acceptable scopes start at about $200 MSRP. If you can find one discounted below $200 great. But anything less expensive usually isn't worth it.

In the $200 range I've used Nikon, Vortex, Burris, Leupold, and others. A bad experience with Bushnell years ago soured me to their scopes and I just haven't tried one in recent years. My guess is that they are as good as anything else at the same price point.

It comes down to features, and I think the Burris FF-II is the best bang for the buck in an inexpensive scope followed by the lower end Leupold VX-1, VX-2 and newer VX-Freedom. Both have reticles I like and good eye relief. Both have above average reputations for ruggedness.

Nikon has clear glass and I've never had any reliability issues, but I just don't like their reticle options and you get tunnel vision looking through most of the lower end Nikons. It looks like you're looking through a cardboard paper towel tube. It is less apparent once you move up to the mid-priced Nikons. I like their binoculars, a lot better than their scopes.

I'm not crazy about the lower end Vortex scopes either. But once you get to the $300+ Vortex scopes they make some that I do like.

 

[LiveLife]

But OP did ask about "Lower end optics"

If someone was limited to $100-$150 range, what would you recommend?

And there are factual posts/threads of THR members happily using sub $100 scopes successfully to hunt, etc. for decades ...

And when is "good enough" to meet your particular application?

Some of us only need to use the scope within 100 yards ...

 

[MistWolf]

It's hard for me to choose. The tube of the Nikon has a more satisfying crunchiness when smacked with a hammer, but the crackle and spray of a shattered Bushnell lens is almost hypnotic.

 

[LiveLife]

Nikon ... looks like you're looking through a cardboard paper towel tube.

I must have looked through "special" Nikon scopes because they looked pretty good to me compared to other brand scopes in the $150-$250 range.

I'm not crazy about the lower end Vortex scopes either. But once you get to the $300+ Vortex scopes they make some that I do like.

Well, for my aging eyes with glaucoma and touch of cataract, $150 Vortex Crossfire II 3-9x40mm looked pretty clear and bright as I was able to read smaller prints on the opposite wall of Field & Stream store on par compared to other $200-$300 scopes.

Maybe I got lucky and picked "special" scopes out of the box. But the 2 salespersons and several customers after looking through the scopes had similar comments so maybe we all had similar "eyes" that day.

As I posted, I think how a scope looks depends on the eyes and may seem different for different people.

I do agree with you that some higher priced than $300 scopes definitely looked better than Crossfire II, even for my eyes, but we are not talking about higher end or $300+ scopes on this thread.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

If someone was limited to $100-$150 range, what would you recommend?

I have a couple of Leupolds but I also have a lower end scope as well.
I have a T/C 3-9x40 on my muzzleloader. It was in one of those plastic packages, hanging on shelf hangers at WalMart. If my memory serves me right it was $44.95.
It's been on the gun for nearly 10 years and every year I take it out and it is either dead on or very close. I've killed a lot of deer with that cheap scope and it has served me well.

My father has a Mossberg .30-06 bolt action and that darn thing kicks like a mule. He's got a Bushnell Banner on it that I believe he paid around $75-$80 for. It keeps zero just fine and a lot of deer have fell to it.

I like my nicer scopes and I'm thankful that I was able to afford to step up in quality. But I'm under no illusions.
I've killed enough deer and seen enough killed with sub $100 scopes to know that they will typically get the job done if you're hunting or shooting in an area that does not have extreme weather. It may be different if you are air dropped in Alaska to hunt. But then again, if you can afford that, a few hundred bucks on a quality scope wouldn't be an issue would it?

 

[troy fairweather]

100-150 Burris is the way to go, even more so with Nikon out of the game. Nanches has the one Burris can't remember the name for I think $120 3-9x40.

 

[Skylerbone]

What is your favorite between Nikon scopes and Bushnell, and why is it your favorite?

Answering this question within the parameters of the thread title I’ve got to say Nikon 1. because of perceived quality 2. because I watched a cheap Bushnell fail after a single waist-high drop without ever enduring an actual live fire round 3. Nikons have been there for me on several big hunts and performed adequately.

I'm not up to speed on Bushnell’s new naming scheme but I do feel they’ve upped their game lately to re-capture market share lost to Vortex and the like.

 

[ms6852]

Depends on the application and rifle it is going to I will use either brand and most times the winner will be which gives me the most elevation adjustment or parallax adjustment. I have an old Bushnell banner scope that is about 35 years old came on my Savage 110C in 30-06 Has served me well putting venison and elk on the table without skipping a bit. I just bought two more Bushnell forge that are incredible at $399 3-18X50's with zero stop that will be going on a couple of 22's. When it comes to my 22's Nikon lacks in giving me the elevation adjustment I need for long range in rimfire shooting. I have a couple of the Nikon Monarchs with bdc reticles that are good as well so it just varies. I moved away from Nikon a few years ago when Sightron first came in the market and bought them cheap because no one wanted them and ended up buying 3 of the Big Sky series which they no longer make. For a hunting scope you really can't go wrong with with Bushnell or Nikon in my opinion since you really don't need to buy anything above a 3X9 power scope and at this power I'll go with whose price is lower since at my old age I can't really discern that much difference in clarity between both of them.

 

[stillquietvoice]

For low light application around $100, I am happy with Banner Dusk & Dawn AO 6-18x50mm. Here's my low light (near dark) comparison of Trophy, Banner and Leupold -

I just picked up the same optic to test out. My eyes are changing, not for the better, but haven't mounted it yet.

I picked up a Bushnell banner 3-9x40 package take off at a thrift store for 10 dollars about a month ago. It now sits on top of my AR. The adjustments were a little wonky but it's zeroed at 100 and allowed a 10 shot 100 yd group of 1.25 in with bulk pack fiochi 55fmj.

I bought a 3-9 x40 Bushnell 3200 elite and a vxii 3-9 x40 for 150 a piece. Both were gifts to my SIL. I replaced a Redfield revolution 4-12 x40 with a bushmaster 2 because to my eye the Nikon had clearer glass, better brightness and allowed me to see 223 holes at 200 yds.

 

[Mr. Zorg]

I've found the Konus Konuspro Plus model 7272 3-10×44 IR to be real bargains that meet my needs, in the sub-$200 price set.

Also Sig Sauer Whiskey3 IR (Hellfire) scopes: 3-7X32 & 4-12X40 in the sub-$300 price set.

Not Bushnell nor Nikon, but what I use.