PDA

View Full Version : Anybody have the Elite 3200 in 7x-21x, or, Weaver V 6x-24x?


Centerfire
09-28-2006, 06:37 PM
I'm looking to buy one of these scopes in the mil-dot reticle, and putting it on my National Match flat top AR15. So, due to restrictive dimensions in dealing with an ar15, my choices are narrowed down to these two scopes. Mainly, the rear occular eye piece/tube has minimal clearance over the iron sights. (the ARMS L "BUIS" sights)

It seems I'm hearing that there is a visual and obvious optical difference between the Bushnell Elite 3200 and the 4200. The 3200 keeps being referred to as the "older" model. So my concern is: just how inferior is this 3200? The scope is 12.8" long and will fit nicely on my rifle. It's got great variable magnification for a target/varmint AR15 with it's 7x-21x settings. But how are the optics? It ain't a throw away for $329 that I want to experience. The better Elite 4200 model won't fit.

My other choice is the Classic V series Weaver in a 6x-24X scope. It seems most accuracy guys will buy the T-36 fixed scopes or the Grand Slam variable series. So. I'm not getting a lot of opinion on the older style Classic V series that I'm looking to buy. The minimal feedback on Midway seems to keep implying that it almost compares in optical quality to other scopes. This, again concerns me as the connotation of inferiority to other scopes is implied. More concern about the reticles of Weaver variable scopes falling apart is also a worry.
This scope too is right about $325. Not a cheapy $99. throw away job.

Like I said, I don't have a lot of choices, and look to be needing to buy one of these two scopes.
I have looked elswhere for feedback, but don't seem to be running into many people who can provide input about these 2nd tier scope models.

john
09-28-2006, 06:46 PM
If my memory serves me right, there was a thread in the old board which excoriates Midway feedback, i.e., it is merely a selling device, without validity.

Ackman
09-28-2006, 09:26 PM
The 3200 has a 3x zoom ratio, the 4200 is 4X. Previous models were the 3000 and 4000. They were without an extra coating called "rain guard", otherwise no different. The 3200 eyepiece looks to be a little larger than the 4200.

I had a 5-15X50 3200 and it was an excellent scope, but large. The 5-15X40 is just as good only with much smaller objective and 1-1/2" less length. There are also a few 4000 and 4200's mounted on guns. For years I've had several 4-16 Weavers and will say without hesitation that the V-Series doesn't compare to the Bushnell Elites by any measure. The Elite is much better to where it's really in a whole different league.

ray hauver
09-28-2006, 10:37 PM
I have the 7-21 with Mil Dot. I think the field of view appears small and the mil dot /cross hairs is larger than I like. Mine will probably go on a rimfire.

PennDog
09-29-2006, 12:19 AM
Centerfire:

Just got a 3200 7-21X Bushnell and the optics are very good. Bought the scope because all the specs listed the scope at 12.8 inches long....it is not at all 12.8 inches long - I think that I measured it closer to 14.5-15" long. I wanted it for on a Mach IV Cooper Classic and thought that it would be good for that - wrong. Although I have other rifles that it looks/functions well on and it does have quality optics - just my 2 cents.

PennDog

rpbill56
09-29-2006, 01:06 AM
I have a Weaver V16 and two V24's. I am very happy with them. They are very clear, however I don't use the higher powers on the scopes. Mostly because most of my shooting is done "in the field". I really like the adjustments. They're kinda of a short target style. Very user friendly.
Bill

Centerfire
09-29-2006, 06:12 PM
Penndog,

Your opinion was worth a lot more then 2 cents to me, as the scope length discrepancy was an important thing for me to know. The improperly qouted 12.8" was originally a main deciding factor for my choosing it. That, and what Ray had to say about the large reticle is starting to sour me on this scope. I guess you don't have the mil-dot reticle like Ray has, to give me your own take on it?

Ackman,

Are you comparing the Weaver V scopes you had with an Elite 4200? ....or implying that the even the 3200 is "in a different league" and far ahead of the Weaver? Then too, I'm also wondering if the new manufactured V24 scopes are better then an older "V" series scope you might be referring to. (ie; Just like the lens used in Tasco scopes today are of a different manufacture and quality of past Tasco scopes.) Not trying to argue with you.... I'm just trying to make sure I'm comparing apples to apples.

John,

I disagree with you. The input found in Midway's feedback is not much different then the feedback right here! .....or anywhere else for that matter. This means that you don't take everything as Gospel, nor necessarilly make decisions based on one reply. I don't know the alligations made in that thread that you are referring to. But, I wasn't born yesterday.....and I long ago came to realize that you must approach and process everything you hear and read with prudence. Yes, I am very suspicious that there are likely examples found on Midway that a vendor might have skewed the feedback in his favor by having a friend, neighbor or associate enter favorable feedback about his product. But, I think the vast majority of feedback found there is the legitimate opinion by consumers, and that the particular charachteristics or problems with an item detailed by these customers is worth noting. I can attest to the "validity" of feedback that I've personally entered at Midway, as well as the feedback left there by others who I know frequent this sight.

In the instances when 3 out of 4 feedbacks left there about a particular product are calling it a POS, and explaining why, then that's a very helpful tool as to why you might at least check further into the product before purchasing it.

Penndog, and Ray,

I know this might be asking a bit.....but I'd really appreciate it if you could take a caliper reading of the occular eye piece tube. I'm not sure the occular tube end of the 7x-21x 3200 will clear the iron sights on my rifle. If it's going to be well over 40mm in diameter, then I can't consider buying the scope anyway.

The current scope I am using has a "40mm" tube at the occular end, and it rubs against the iron sight slightly. I put a caliper to it to get an exact meassurement. It is 40.488mm So then the upper limit is 40.488mm. If the advertised "40mm" Bushnell tube is exactly "40mm" (or at least over 40mm but less then 40.488mm) it will clear the iron sights on my rifle. I'm talking about a 1/16" clearance is all I will need.

Don't worry about converting the caliper measurement to a milimeter measurement. I can do that. I just need the exact measurement of the tube with a caliper in inches. I don't need the measurement of the turning parallex eye piece ring on the occular tube.....just need the occular eye piece/tube measurement.

Thanks to all for your input thus far.

Ackman
09-30-2006, 12:21 AM
Penndog,
Ackman,

Are you comparing the Weaver V scopes you had with an Elite 4200? ....or implying that the even the 3200 is "in a different league" and far ahead of the Weaver? Then too, I'm also wondering if the new manufactured V24 scopes are better then an older "V" series scope you might be referring to. (ie; Just like the lens used in Tasco scopes today are of a different manufacture and quality of past Tasco scopes.) Not trying to argue with you.... I'm just trying to make sure I'm comparing apples to apples.




You're on the way to over-analyzing this to death.

OK.............

My (4) V-16's are probably from about a 12-14 year span, maybe more. They spec these things to a certain price point and I don't see any difference between them. At one time or other, three of them had problems holding zero....two were sent back and replaced. The scope is a nice size for a 4-16, and adjustment knobs aren't real big and obtrusive. And they're not expensive. Optics are only ok but nothing outstanding. The first two were bought before I knew any better. Another one came on a rifle. And the most recent was $200 new at the gunshow a couple years ago. The fine crosshair reticle is nice. I've not used the V-24, only read a bunch of postings about how they get fuzzy past 20X. The Weaver V-series is usable and not high priced, and there're lots of better scopes.

My 3200 is a 5-15x40. Really a good scope. There's also a 12-32B&L and a 6-24B&L purchased in the late 80's, a 6-24B&L Elite 4000, and an 8-32Bushnell Elite 4200. All of them are top quality scopes. They're also long. But I'd choose the Elite over the V-series any day.

ray hauver
09-30-2006, 02:48 AM
I check a couple of the 3200s, you'll have to convert. The 7X21-ocular is 1.600 and obj is 2.073, 5X15-ocular is 1.540 and obj is 2.068, 4X12-ocular is 1.500 and obj is 2.058. The 4200 6X24 I have has the same dimen as the 5X15. Hope this helps.

Centerfire
09-30-2006, 04:24 PM
Ackman's QUOTE:

"You're on the way to over-analyzing this to death."

Analytical?.....naaaaa.......I'm simply just one of the regular kind of guys here that spends his time attempting to put one hole on top of another hole at 100 yards. :D

Thanks for the detailed input about your Weaver's. Between your report and the input from others, I'm getting a good picture about the general scope of these V Weaver's. (...good pun?)


RAY,

The old scope I have which just barely rubs against the iron sights to scuff away the black parkerizing of the occular eye piece is measuring 1.615" . Boy, your 1.600" measurement is calling it close! Because, if you divide the .015 difference in half (which is the net sum on each of the opposite ends of a tube) then that means I'll have only .007 more clearance with a Bushnell 3200 occular piece then I currently have with my existing scope. That's less then the thickness of a business card! .....or equal to 3 pieces of paper. Or, it's equal to 6 human hairs..... unless it's a pubic hair which is thicker. (and Ackman calls me analytical!)

Kidding aside, the .0075 clearance could be a problem. Thanks for your help, as the measurement you provided saved me a lot of time buying and returning a 3200 scope.

Ackman
09-30-2006, 05:17 PM
I can't visualize your clearance problem, but there are lots of different height rings. Plus, Burris Signature inserts can get you up to another .020" height....several times those things gave just enough clearance for a big scope to fit on a heavy barrel.

Centerfire
09-30-2006, 06:52 PM
Thanks Ackman,
I realize a lot of folks on this websight are not necessarilly military rifle buffs, so thus you and the others may or may not be familiar with the AR15 rifle. I don't know if you are, so I thought I'd attach this photo which you might find interesting....being you have been very kind with the time you're spending with me.

It is my intent to stick with this top quality manufactured Larue quick-detachable base which easilly maintains a zero whether the scope is on or off of the rifle. Not having a scope affixed firmly to the rifle affords me the option of alternating between scope or iron sight shooting. When the scope is removed from the rifle top (in just seconds), the aperature window in that low profile BUIS (back-up-iron sight) can then be instantly sprung up into use.

Having all this special hardware on my rifle does produce certain perameters and limits as to what will fit. However, many Burris and Weaver scopes a have 38mm and 39 mm occular tube that will easilly fit over the BUIS, unlike the 40mm Bushnell ocular eye piece which is likely too big. So, I can still pretty much have my cake and eat it too.....as long as I don't demand that my scope just has to be a Bushnell Elite.




http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c54/hobbyguy/109-0929_IMG.jpg

Tom Bellott
09-30-2006, 06:57 PM
While I'm normally a Weaver fan, I have to agree with others here that the Weaver mil-dots are obnoxiously HUGE. Excellent optics, but the reticle makes the scope a no-buy.

Centerfire
09-30-2006, 07:42 PM
Tom,

Actually, on this thread I only see a comment from Ray about the Mil-Dot being too large on his Bushnell 3200 Elite scope (not the Weaver) But, now I'm hearing it from you, and it seems I've heard it at least from one other person, that the Weaver is the same dang deal.

Even with my ugly black rifles, I am not a casual paper punching kind of guy, and I'll be unhappy with crude large mil-dot reticles.

Geeez.... Back to square one again shopping for a scope. :( I could buy a 6.5 X-20X Burris fullfield scope..... but ouch, another $125 just to get a sharper mil-dot reticle. ($329 VS $450!!)

ray hauver
09-30-2006, 10:04 PM
Glad you posted the pic, I had a hard time visualizing the ocular hitting the sight. Thats why I added the obj. That 1.600 measurement was really 1.59x but I wouldn't trust what the next one out of the factory would measure.

GLWenzl
09-30-2006, 10:15 PM
Tom,

Actually, on this thread I only see a comment from Ray about the Mil-Dot being too large on his Bushnell 3200 Elite scope (not the Weaver) But, now I'm hearing it from you, and it seems I've heard it at least from one other person, that the Weaver is the same dang deal.

Even with my ugly black rifles, I am not a casual paper punching kind of guy, and I'll be unhappy with crude large mil-dot reticles.

Geeez.... Back to square one again shopping for a scope. :( I could buy a 6.5 X-20X Burris fullfield scope..... but ouch, another $125 just to get a sharper mil-dot reticle. ($329 VS $450!!)


Yep the weaver has large Mill dots for sure....

About the cost??? Hey when it is someone else’s money I can spend it real good!! You see if you figure over the life of the scope the added cost would probably be less than a penny a day....Maybe a dollar a hunt or even .05 every time you used it....

Tom Bellott
09-30-2006, 11:43 PM
Tom,

Actually, on this thread I only see a comment from Ray about the Mil-Dot being too large on his Bushnell 3200 Elite scope (not the Weaver) But, now I'm hearing it from you, and it seems I've heard it at least from one other person, that the Weaver is the same dang deal.

Even with my ugly black rifles, I am not a casual paper punching kind of guy, and I'll be unhappy with crude large mil-dot reticles.

Geeez.... Back to square one again shopping for a scope. :( I could buy a 6.5 X-20X Burris fullfield scope..... but ouch, another $125 just to get a sharper mil-dot reticle. ($329 VS $450!!)

I should have paid closer attention to who was saying what. But anyway, I do think you'd be disappointed with the Weaver mil-dot. I own a Bushnell Legend 5-15X with mil-dot. Don't know if the Elite series has a different mil-dot reticle, but compared to Weaver my Bushnell has tiny mil-dots. I'd recommend going to a sporting goods store and peering through some scopes before making your decision.