I am not a Bushnell fan at all but but I do have aseveral Monarchs, matter of fact I bought these 2 Cooper Varminterslast week and decided to puta Nikon 5.5x16.5x44 on the right hand rifle which is a 243Win, the other is a 25-06 and is topped with a Leupold 8.5x25x50 LR. Both are good scopes. The Nikon has the BDC reticle , so far I have only shot 15 rounds through the gun and am waiting to stretch the distances and see what the BDC does out to 500 yards.

I don't want to rag on any product line, but, I would not buy Bushnell or have it on my rifle, even if it wasfree. Their product is not the same as it was years ago. I think Bushnell, compares to Simmons. Itwill probably work just fine, but could fail when you really need it. My personal prefrence would be Nikon, or Burris,but there are a lot of good brands out there.JMHO

The 3200 are a good scope for the money. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Are there better on the market ? Sure but they are solid performers and equal any scope in that price range. Bottom line buy the scope that works for you eye in what you can afford.

I have only one 3200 and the rest are Nikon. I believe that I read somewhere that one company owns the other. I'm not sure which. I prefer the Nikon Monarch 3x9x40 for deer hunting but I don't have a gun specificly for varmint hunting. Both are excellent scopes but I would have to give the nod to my Nikons (personal preference)(Cabella's have the Nikons on sale now).

I just bought the Browning (private labeled by Bushnell to 3200-series specs) in 3-9 x 40 this am. I didn't get a chance to do sxs comparisons with the Monarchs this time, but I was so impressed with the 3200 last week that I went ahead & "pulled the trigger". Plus, it was on closeout, & it was just going too cheap!

FWIW, I compared the Monarch to the 4200, VXIII, and Conquest at the time of my last purchase, & my eyes putthat particular Nikonin 4th place in that particular lineup. No, I don't hold any bias against Nikon: I own 2 ProStaffs, & am well-pleased with both.

When I compared the 3200 to the 4200 last week, I could scarcely discern any difference between the two. Again, this is my experience only: your mileage may vary.

In the end, I decided that the 3200 (and the Browning, by extension...) was good enough, and that tons more research and overanalyzing wouldn't make me any happier. Besides, there's always the next scope...

If you're interested, they've got the Browning in 5-15x50 AO for $200: http://www.natchezss.com/brand.cfm?contentID=productDetail&ammoGroup=&a mp;brand=BH&prodID=BH885154M

Good Luck,

FC

You have had the bausch and lomb products fail? Thats the 3200 and 4200 line that bushnell bought out. Maybe you can give us the details of the failure as a huge bunch of us own them.

I own and very much like the 4x12 Elite 3200 I have on my .300 win mag. It has held up without any problems at all. Comparing this scope to a simmons is nonsensical, as not even close to the same category.

I've got the Bushnell Banner 3-9x40 (bottom line scope) on my .270 and it works great. I think the clarity is right up there with the VX-I's and it is cheaper. So I would think the 3200 and 4200's would be excellent scopes. I am a Leupold guy at heart, but I wouldn't hesitate to buy another Bushnell.

I have two 300 Elites on my 7mm's. They are very good scopes. Good clarity and dependability. Also, a good value. Yes, you can buy a better scope but you will pay awhole lot more.

I have been looking very closely at the Bushnell Elite 3200, for my Savage 110. A Nikon scope won't fit with the present two piece ring setup - I'd have to get a one piece base, or offset/extension rings. I called both SWFA and Optics Planet and got the exact measurements on scope lengths and mount lengths (distance between the two objectives / length of the main tube). I need at minimum, a 6" scope length. Nikon's are 5 7/8" for one model and 5 3/4" on another. [&o]

Butch A.