I have the 3200, 4200 & conquest. (as well as others such as leupold, nikon, etc). The 3200 is a good value scope with decent optics and features. ER is shorter then some and in a 50 mm both styling, weight and length of scope suffer. The 4200 is a good step up in the optics department, though carries the same pitfalls as the 3200 with shorter ER and poorstyling, length and weight with a 50mm objective. I personally don't think you need a 40mm, especially if you look at the 4200 and off of ebay or similat at 250 or less its a great deal. IMHO better choice then the nikon monarch (which I also own).

In terms of the conquest it optics are superior to the 4200, its tracking of poi adjustments are much better then the elite, smoother power transition with absolutely no change in ER & CS was faster/better then bushnell. My rifle and I took a spill this spring which resulted in damage to the scope and zeiss had me a new one in less then 2 weeks no questions asked. Bushnell on both occasions has taken 4-6x longer. Also recently a buddy of mine sent in a 4200 elite that wouldn't hold POI and they deemed it to be not a workmanship or manufacturing defect so no warranty, rather an option to purchase a new one at above retail price. The scope had only slight ring marks on it, no different than the majority of fella's scopes...not really a warm fuzzy feeling left here. He bought a conquest instead, feeling it was worth the extra coin. I tend to agree but nothing wrong with the elites in their respective classes and i will continue to use mine with confidence, as they have served me well.