Scopes and lens coatings...

Marc11 · 06-22-2004, 01:25 PM

I was considering a Bushnell 4200 2.5-10x40 scope for my medium/big game rifle but after a suggestion from another post I'm contemplating the Bushnell 3200 3-9x40 instead. From what I can tell the only differnce between these scopes other than magnification (and field of view related to magnification) is that the 4200 has "fully multi-coated optics" and the 3200 has "multi-coated optics". Bushnell explains this to mean that the 4200 has multiple coatings on each side of each lens while the 3200 has multiple coatings on only the sides of the lenses exposed to oxygen....the exit pupil and objective. The sight says that the coatings enhance light gathering but how much is enough and how much is overkill? Has anyone used both a 4200 and a 3200 and seen significant differences in low light conditions?

Thanks in advance for the input.

P.S - the 3200 would save me 150 bucks...more money for target practice!

wnogood · 06-22-2004, 05:07 PM

Lens coatings are kind of like sex and money....you can never have enough!

skeeter 7MM · 06-23-2004, 12:09 AM

I have both models and use the 4200 regularily for hunting on my ML while my 3200's are used less or in back up rifle rolls. To me it is clearer and brighter due to the enhanced coatings but only you can decide if it really worth it! I do notice some gain in low light but the 3200's I can't recall caused any problem under legal hours either. It was more I had the scope and found I really liked it on my ML setup, so therefore it has stayed and is used a fair bit in that application.

Either are decent scopes but I would suggest going to a local shop to compare them outside in low light situations to decide for yourself if 150 is better spent on glass or something else. You also might find others in the 4200 price range that you like better and feel offer you more, you just never know!

Best of luck

PABowhntr · 06-23-2004, 11:35 AM

Quote:

The sight says that the coatings enhance light gathering but how much is enough and how much is overkill?

There is no such thing. As mentioned above, one can never have too much light gathering ability when it comes to optics being used in low light conditions.

Marc11 · 06-23-2004, 12:36 PM

I guess where I was going with the overkill statement is that there must come a point at which the coatings loose their collective benefit, like 100 coatings probobly won't let me shoot 200 yards at midnight. Or will it...do more and more coatings make it night vision quality?

Say a 60 year old goes out and buys the best stereo on the market, all the bells and whistles don't do him any good because he's lost the high and low end ranges of his hearing so it can play great ranges but what for? In the scope, an increased number of lenses (greater magnification range) means lower light collection, but greater number of coatings mean greater light collection....where's the wash?

In the end everybody has different eyesight and mine is pretty good, or so the doc tells me, so maybe a 3200 looks great for me and a 4200 looks great for someone else...or maybe opposite. I try not to get caught up in marketing hoopla but like most I'll finish thinking more money means better product...at least to some extent.

Guess I'll take my butt down to the store and find out.

I do appreciate the input from all, thanks.

JagMagMan · 06-23-2004, 03:49 PM

For myself, I'd rather they put the effort in making a strong scope!
I think that past a certain point, the light gathering qualities will be overkill!
Most good, fully-multicoated scopes will give you enough light to shoot past most legal shooting times, that becomes overkill!
Making a scope that can handle recoil, and ATV rides, priceless!
Leupold does a good job of all the above!

Stalker6 · 07-21-2004, 08:05 PM

The lens coatings in the simplest terms reduce light reflections and allow for greater light transmission. An uncoated lens surface will reflect about 4% per air to glass surface. In a typical riflescope there are 12 air to glass surfaces if you include the erector lens inside the scope. These surfaces also will reduce light transmisson. The light transmisson directly relates to the quality of glass and quality and quanity of coatings. Some companies try to improve low quality glass by applying excessive coatings. My choice is Zeiss as they first devoloped lens coatings in 1930. I feel that you can't argue with that kind of experience. Just look through of their scopes. Also, they use at least seven coatings per air to glass suface. When it comes to price on optics you get exactly what you pay for.

AlaskaMagnum · 07-23-2004, 06:28 PM

Also, multi-coatings usually means each lens is coated front and back. Just "coatings" means some lenses are coated or just on one side etc.

R-DIZZERT · 07-28-2004, 01:26 PM

Buying a scope is very simple. You get what you pay for. I have used most scopes on the market from Bushnell to Zeiss. For what you will pay for a Bushnell spend another few dollars on a Leupold VX-II 3-9. Trust me, you rifle is worthless when you don't have a reliable scope with clear optics and worry free operation. Also Leupolds carry a lifetime warranty. I don't believe that Bushnells do but since I haven't owned one in years I couldn't tell you.