Range Report on Elite 4200 4x-16x-50mm

[Zachary]

I have a brand new Remington BDL SS in 7mm Ultra Mag that has been sitting around for about a year.  I finally bought a scope for it and had it mounted, and it was still sitting, complete, for about 6 months.

I already placed a post on the bolt action rifles forum about the gun, so you can read my comments there.  But this post is geared specifically for the scope.

The Scope is a Bushnell Elite 4200 4x-16x-50mm and I bought it from Jon at the opticzone.  Let me tell you, I have bought a couple of scopes from Jon and I was very happy with his service.  Thanks Jon.  

My problem is that I seem to buy many guns and then forget to buy scopes.  As such, I had several rifles that needed scopes.  In fact, I still have about 2 rifles that need scopes.  More about this later.

Anyway, about the Elite 4200 4x-16x-50mm.  WHAT A SCOPE!

This scope is extremely bright and clear.  It's resolution is sharp - edge to edge, and it's tracking is excellent.  The power range and parallax adjustment rings are just the right firmness, yet smooth, and the elevation knobs do not require a coin to adjust - rather, you simply turn them with your fingers, and each click is audible and clear.

Bottom line?  This is one of the best scopes that I own.  I would easily rate it as one of, if not THE best, scope that I own - and I own a lot.

I own several Nikon Monarchs, Leupold Vari-X IIIs, Burris Black Diamonds, Elite 4200 and 3200, and Nightforce NXS.  

Everyone says that Leupold Vari-X IIIs are the best.  Well, I own two of  them - the 4.5x-14x-50mm ILLUMINATED ones (they cost about $600 each) and I was somewhat dissappointed.  I firmly believe that my Nikon Monarchs and Elite 4200 are brighter and clearer!

What about the difference between the Nikon Monarch and Elite 4200?  Well, I would say that the optics are essentially the same - both are very bright and clear, but that the Elites have the rainguard.  As for the tube, I would say that the Elites are probably a bit stronger.  Still, the Nikon Monarchs are one of my favorite scopes and I have NEVER had ANY problems with them.

Now, I have 2 or 3 more new rifles that need scopes.  It is a .264 Win. Mag. and a .25-06.  I wasn't sure what to get, but after using the Elite 4200 4x-16x-50mm, I think that I have narrowed it down to the same scope, but with 40mm objective lenses - so I'm talking about the Elite 4200 4x-16x-40mm.

Some people will tell you that 16x is just too high for big game hunting.  Well, perhaps, but is has never bothered me.  Besides, if it's too much for you, then just turn it down to 4x.  What's wrong with having a scope capable of showing you the world through 16x?  Plus, it's a really nice thing to have when you are shooting at the range.

So the Elite 4200 4x-16x-50mm is a real winner, and I plan on buying 2 of the 40mm versions as soon as I can save some money.

I recommend the Elite 4200 to anyone looking at the Zeiss Conquests and Leupold Vari-X IIIs.

Zachary

[chk]

Maybe you're being wise to go slow on scope purchases. New models are coming out every six months or less. I bought my Pentax scope last winter and although I'm pleased with it the Nikon Gold 1.5x6 looks mighty good. Dave

[Ranger413]

Zachary,

I'm interested in purchasing the same scope, either in 40mm or 50mm.  If I remember right there's a $100 difference between the two.  I'd like to know if its worth it before I lay out the cash.  Have any thoughts?

Ranger413

[Zachary]

Well, let it put it to you this way...YES.

When I contacted Jon at the optic zone, I initially placed the order for the 40mm version.  Then, after giving it some thought, I asked if Jon could change the order to 50mm.  Jon was great.  All I had to do was pay the additional amount, and he went ahead and changed the order for me.

As for the issue of whether the 50mm version is worth the extra money...

My belief is that, generally speaking, scopes over 10x power should have objectives larger than 40mm.  Why?

If you have, say, a 3.5x-10x-50mm scope, the exit pupil at 10x will be 5.0mm.  That is pretty big.  I don't remember how big our eye pupils can get, but I think that they can open up, under normal conditions, up to 5mm or more (maybe 7mm?)  Anyway, if the maximum that our eyes open up is, say, 5mm, then many people say that if a scope transmits 6mm, then it is just a waste.

Well, that may be true in one sense, but not in another.  The reason for this is because the larger the exit pupil on a scope, the more room there is for your eye to get into alignment.  If the exit pupil of the scope is very small, say 2.5mm, then your eye have a very limited area within which to look.  As such, if you move your eye too much one way or the other, then you won't be able to properly see through the scope.  As such, even if our eye cannot absorb many millimeters, the many millimeters of the scope's exit pupil allows us that much more ability to align our sight.

Back to our example, if your scope is a 3.5x-10x-40mm, then, at 10x, the exit pupil is only 4mm.  Again, not only is there less light transmission getting to your eye, but your eye has less "wiggle room" to look through the scope.  

Think about it this way.  Have you ever looked through a spotting scope at the range?  These scopes are generally 20x.  That's alot.  Do you recall how careful you have to be when looking through such a scope?  Your eye has to be perfectly aligned.  If not, then you won't be able to see through it.

Now, if your scope is set on a low setting, like 4x, then the exit pupils on the 50mm, and even 40mm, are so much, that you really won't notice a difference with light transmission or eye alignment.  However, when you go above 10x, you will certainly notice it.

So, when you are talking about scopes with 16x power, you will notice the difference between 40mm and 50mm.  Now, people will tell you that you don't need 16x for hunting - that's a totally different topic.  Let's deal with your specific question - is it worth the extra money?

Based on the foregoing, if you are talking about a scope with power of over 10x (such as 16x as is the case with the 4x-16x-40mm and 50mm Elite 4200) then I believe that it is worth the extra money to get the 50mm version.

Zachary

[longwinters]

:x Zachary, I own a Zeiss Conquest and I can tell you that . . . as much as I like my conquest, the Bushnell Elite 4200 (seems to me) to be just as good  :lol:  :lol: .  I don't think better . . . but just as good.  And yes, the magic number for pupil/optics is 5.

[Zachary]

Longwinters,

Perhaps I should clarify myself.  I said better than the Zeiss and Leupolds, not necessarily regarding their optics, but because of the Rainguard feature that the Elite has.

Actually, I think that the optics on the Zeiss conquest is, as you say, as good as the Elite 4200s.  Now, I think that the Elite 4200s are "better" because they also have the rainguard feature.  So actually, we kinda agree.

Zachary

[John (Rojo)]

Hi Zach.

I have the same scope, except it is the 40 and not the 50.  I have two of them and have been very pleased.  I agree,  It's pretty much a toss up between the Elites and the Monarchs.  I too have never had a problem with either of those two brands.

John (Rojo)

[jlk]

I have two Elite scopes one on my 22-250, a 6x24x40, and on my .257 Wtby Mag, a 4x16x50. Both of these scopes are brighter and clearer than the Leupolds, I compaired these side by side on the same power ranges. I have since sold both of my Leupolds. I am very pleased with my Elites. :-D

[Zachary]

Leupold's Vari-X III has had the same technology for the past 15 years or so.  Leupold hasn't done anything to improve this model line.  What are they waiting for?  I guess since they have such a great reputation for quality that they are just sitting back and not spending too much money on R&D.

However, as someone previously noted, the Zeiss Conquest is cutting into some of Leupold's market share.  I think that the same goes for the Elite 4200s.  I'm not saying that the Vari-X III is a bad scope (because I own 2 of them), but Leupold's glass could be better.

Zachary