lethalconnection

So i was thinking of getting myself a Bushnell scope and im liking the looks of the Elite series but i noticed that there are 3200 and 4200 and im just curious as to what the diffrence is between the two different models.

bugsNbows

I think the 4200 has better glass and coatings than the 3200. I just picked up a 4200 3-9 X40 for 259 at SWFA. Seems quite decent at first scrutiny.

timbercruiser

I also just bought an Elite4200 for my grandsons .243 thru SWFA. They have a lot better glass than the 3200.

skeeter 7MM

Owned both myself. 4200 has better coatings on the lense(possible better glass as well though not sure) but it is superior in transmission, clarity and brightness. Everything else is the same as the 3200. If you can get a good deal on the 4200 then go for it but paying close to to double (that is the retail case up here) I'd personally save me pennies and buy the 3200 or move up. Short eye relief, weight and styling hold the 4200 back from being a great scope for the investment IMHO.

bigcountry

I have both, and can tell slightly better optics on the 4200. Little crisper images. I also think the 4200 is supposely tested more stick as far as recoil. Not sure how they can tell that.

okcmco

I beleive the most important difference is that the 3200 is multi coated and the 4200 is FULLY multi coated. For those who don't know, multi coated means that the lenses surfaces that are coated have multiple coatings. This does not mean that all surfaces are coated. In fact it means that NOT ALL of the surfaces are multicoated.
The 4200 is FULLY MULTI COATED which means all surfaces have multiple coatings. This explains why the 4200 has up to 95% efficiancy as regards light transmission. That is about the brightest on the market and is probably the theoretical limit.
The 4200 is an almost perfect scope. The reason I don't use them is that the eye relief is not very forgiving. But as to image quality the 4200 is exceptional.
okcmco

bigcountry

at my company, we coat lenses for different applications, and once the equipment is set up, it cost pennys to coat. Its expensive to calibrate and get the coatings so it matches the index of air perfectly. But they charge a serious premium for it. The technology has been around for decades, but only being seriously ultilized now.

okcmco

Hey big country. So it is expensive to set up the equipment but once set, it is pretty cheap to keep piling onlayers, huh? Guess the scope reps like to make it sound like it is a big deal. Anyway it sounds expensice. I know better now.
What lenses do you work with and for what applications?
And what are your thoughts on regular glass versus Extra low dispersion glass? Worth the extra money? I read that zeiss has been using ot for some time but not listing it as such
And This indexing you speak of, I read that Leupolds better scopes are index matched.
okcmco

bigcountry

Well, everything has an index. Index of air vs water gives you the reflection we don't want on lenses. They try to match this with coatings. Now don't get me wrong, the equipment to coat is custom engineered and built. A small operation can be 5 million just to start.

Ok, so as light at different wavelengths go thru the glass it scatters.Kinda like a flashlight shining thru the woods at night.Low dispersion basically keeps it from doing such.Every piece of glass has a zero dispersion point. Our vision is widespreatrum up to like 800nm. That zero dispersion point could be 500nm, so below that it has neg dispersion and higher it has high dispersion and all they are trying to do is make it zero dispersion across the human eyeball spectrum by changing the tilt of dispersion. Its a good thing, but has it limitations and can cause other issues like when alot of light hits, it can cause blurryness or backscattering. Our applications are for light filters, for higher wavelength lasers.