Buckmasters vs. Bushnell 3200

G

GreenMachine

New member
I am looking at new scopes for my DPMS Flattop .223 and am considering the 4-12 Elite 3200 and the 4.5-14 Buckmaster. They are both close in price so I was wondering if anyone has opinions on which is better. How does the glass compare, I looked through both at the store and they looked comparable. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif I like the Bushnell because of the rainguard coating but I like the higher power of the Nikon for target shooting and the Side Focus. This will be a calling rifle with shots from 50-300 yards and some target work thrown in. Thanks.
 
If you've already taken the opportunity to look through each of these scopes yourself, there's probably not much else in the way of advice that anyone can give. Picking out a scope is pretty subjective.

I would say, though, that you're unlikely to find much difference between a 12x and a 14x when it comes to most practical hunting situations, except maybe field of view.

For what its worth, I've never owned a Nikon Buckmasters, but I do have the Bushnell 4-12 Elite 3200 mounted on a CZ 527, and I'm pretty happy with it.
 
I have the 4.5-14 Buckmaster and I really like the side focus on it. Glass is nice and bright and it seems to be repeatable and you can adjust it with thumb knobs.
 
I have a 4x-12x-50mm side focus Buckmasters and love it. The glass is higher quality than I expected with great light transmission for a reasonable price. I won't hesitate to get another Buckmasters and several people that have used mine are going to start buying them now too.
 
I have two Buckmaster 4.5 X 14 with mildot reticle on my two ARs. The side focus beats the AO on the front of the scope hands down. I use Butler Creek flip open caps on all my scopes so the raingaurd coating would not be much of a draw for me. I think the glass in the Nikons is comparable to scopes costing several hundred dollars more. I would not hesitate to buy another. I have a Leupy 6.5 X 20 X 50 LRT with mildot reticle on my 22-250 and it definitely is better than the Nikons, but not sure if it is worth $650.00 better. Don't get me wrong, since retiring I don't have the disposable cash I once had or else both ARs would have a Leupy with mildot reticle, but for the money the Nikons are working out quite nicely. I don't think you would be disappointed with the Nikon. Just my .02.

BoomSplat
 
I have a 5-15x50 Elite 3200 and I am very pleased with it. It's excellent in low light conditions, I had it at moonlight with some snow last year, and it was amazing.
I am interested in the Buckmaster too, but never had one to compare.
Soon maybe ?
 
I have never tried a Buckmasters, but do have a 3-9 Monarch and a 4-12 3200. One night I sat on my porch and looked through both scopes until long past shooting hours. With both scopes set on 9X I could not see adifference through either scope. I would buy another 3200 before a Monarch
 
AHH music to my ears, everyone knows that I am a huge 3200 or 4200 supporter. I have several, never had any problems and I love them. You cant do better in my opinion.
 
I am a Leupold fan but also own several Bushnells. But everytime I look through a Nikon I wonder why I don't own some of those. Excellent clarity, I mean really excellent

There you go, an unbiased opinion. I am not just talking about their Monarchs either, but on down the line of scope that they produce.
 
Back
Top