View Full Version : 10ML/10ML-II: ML scope question

10-08-2009, 11:11 AM
I am getting a new stainless/laminate with regular stock and now outfitting it is part of the fun. First thing up is a scope for deer hunting. Most shots probably within 50 yard, but occasionally out to 150. I like Bushnell's Rainguard feature so looking at their line-up I have some questions.

Elite 3200 series; either the 2-6x32 or 2-7x32 seems enough for my needs on so my question is, why does the 2-6 cost so much more than the 2-7? Seems like it should be the other way around.

Then just for kicks I looked at the Elite 4200 line with it's 5% more available light (95% vs 90%) and see that the 3-9x40 is only $240 on Amazon, while the 2.5-10x40 is much more. Why the big price increase for so little increase in power?

I must be missing something in each situation, what is it?

One final question: Originally, the smaller size of the 2-6 or 2-7 seemed preferable, but since the 4200 3-9 costs not much more, I am tempted to get it because longer shots are possible the more I realize the Savage with smokeless is capable of it. Also, lacking a spotting scope for range work, the 3-9 would be superior.

What do you all think?

10-08-2009, 11:32 AM
A 3-9 is a good choice. The price on them is usually good because they seem to have fallen from favor to the higher power scopes, the best deals seem to be on the 3-9's these days. I have a 3-9 on my muzzle loader, my slug gun and several of my big game rifles. Never had the need for more or less for big game. The 2.5 to 10's are more expensive probably due in part to the popularity and due to the 4X magnification system. I have a 4200 2-1/2 to 10 on one of my rifles and it is a great scope. But I dont think it is any more suitable than a 3-9 for the same application.

10-08-2009, 11:45 AM
The more popular scopes are made in greater quantity, and the components (tubes, lenses) also are made in greater quantity. That holds the prices down.

There likely isn't a more competitive area in the market than a 3-9 scope, and that keeps things down as well.

10-08-2009, 06:18 PM
I have the Elite 4200 3x9x40 on mine and it is a great scope. Excellent in low light conditions. For $240.00 I would jump on it, you won't regret the purchase.

10-08-2009, 08:01 PM
3x9 scopes are the most poplular among hunters. So the competition is fierce among manufactures selling 3x9's. You'll get more scope for the dollar spent if you go with the 3x9. If you like the Bushnell Rainguard, then the Elite 4200 is a very good scope. You'll be glad you have a little more power with the 3x9 at the range. And if I remember correctly, I don't beleive you save much, if any weight by going with the lower powered Elites. The Elite 4200 will provide better contrast and clarity when compared to the Elite 3200. Both will get the job done. I've tried all the scopes you mentioned on my Savage ML. My advice is go with the 3-9x40 Elite 4200 and don't look back.

10-08-2009, 09:29 PM
Every thing you all have said makes good sense. I see the "4x magnification system" mentioned here and elsewhere but I don't understand it. If someone can explain it in simple terms that would be great. But regardless of how good it is, my budget decides the issue. I'm going with the 4200 in 3-9X40. My thanks to everyone who replied.

10-08-2009, 10:33 PM
magnification is increased by a factor of four. 2-1/2 X 4 =10 so you have a range of 2-1/2 to 10 or 6x4 in the case of a 6-24 variable. A 3-9 has a 3X system IE: 3x3=9.

Don W
10-10-2009, 06:11 AM
EC good choice on the Elite 4200, one of my favorite scopes.
By the way, the Elite 3200 2-6X32 is a pistol scope, the 2-7X32 is a rifle scope.