3200 tactical 5-15x40mm

[Akkill]

hello there , well i'm planing my next purchase this time is a low cost scope and i narrowed my options to this 2 scopes
bushnell 3200 tactical 5-15x40mm
nikon monarch 4-16x42mm
mill dot reticles i want a reliable scope, best glass posible, variable zoom, and target or tactical turrets.
now i like the side focus on the nikon buth i allso like the tactical turrets on the bushnell.
someting else how much travel this scopes has

 

[chino034]

I don't know about the 5-15. I have the 10X tactical on my 30,06 and it holds its zero for about 80 rounds so far. With 190 bergers flying out. It was my first purchase other than low end scopes. Its optics are the brightest ive looked through. It gathers light well at dawn and dark but i havent looked through any others in this class. The scope tracks true and their prices are about the cheapest for those with adjustable knobs on top. I m going to get a 5-15 like your looking at for my next upgrade.

 

[Forester]

I have the 3200 5-15 tactical. It is a good scope for the money but I would not say the glass is anything spectacular. The reticle is also fairly thick to me. I think I would give a look at the Nikon, especially if you can look through one first...I am sure someone here has looked through or used both though so you will get a better answer.

Mine has held up to 5-600 .308 rounds so far, tracks straight and holds zero just fine, but it darn well should be up to that!

 

[KRP]

I think the glass on the Monarch is better but it doesn't have target turrets like the Bushnell. The 5-20 Monarch isn't much more expensive and has the turrets but isn't available with a mil-dot reticle. If the mil-dot and turrets is a must then the Bushnell is probably the best choice. I've got one of the 10x versions that I've been happy with so far. Nikon claims 40 minutes of adjustment and Bushnell claims 50" at 100 yards.

 

[Akkill]

you guys are really helping : well the milldot is not a must is more important to me good glass and reliable target turrets i want the scope for a .17HMR and the side focus is a plus , the nikon is a better loking scope and 15-20 MOA of elevation migth be enough to reach 250 yrds i mean 20 moa left afther cero.
i didn't include the nikon 5-20x44mm in my list because i'm not sure if it fit my rifle because the 44mm in the front the rifle is a ruger m77/17 whit factory medium rings, i did dig in some on line stores inventory and they don't say anyting about target turrets on the 5-20x44 monarsh just 1/8 clics

 

[KRP]

The 5-20 and 6-24 Monarchs come with interchangable target turrets. With it being side focus I would bet the 44mm objectives is not much if any larger than a 40mm AO. The Nikon 44mm objective OD is 52mm but I can't find the spec on the Bushnell. The Monarchs I have are definately better glass than the 3200 and they track well.

 

[geargrinder]

I'll echo all the comments on the 5-15 tactical Bushnell. The glass is decent. It tracks well. My big selling point was the eye relief. I switch it between my 338RUM and 300win. When shooting uphill, having that extra eye relief really comes in handy. I also only paid $282 for mine. I also got the free $130 jacket from Bushnell for buying a rainguard scope.

 

[Niles Coyote]

I have the 3200 5-15 AO tactical and a monarch gold 2.5-10 sf. I compared the two at the same power (5 and 10) and the monarch does have better glass. The big difference comes durring low light conditions. I could clearly view twigs, leaves and other detail a full 10 minutes longer on a tree line about 100 yards from my house with the nikon than with the bushnell. If you are willing to spend the extra for the nikon it is the better of the two.

Both seem to track true and hold there adjustments while dialing in different drops.