mk4 vs. 4200

[ZSteinle]

I use a mrk 4 on my long range rifle and about the only scopes i would trade it for would be a NF or a USOptics. The mrk 4 has perfect and repeatable adjustment and the optics are top notch. just my 2 cents

 

[CS T]

I would go with the Leupold MK4 over the Bushnell. The MK4 has better turrets, the Mil-Dot reticle has better line quality, the glass is better, overall better made, and customer services is better.

Mike @ CSGW

 

[tundraotto]

that would not have anything to do with the fact that you carry leopold & others but not bushnell would it?

there is a big price difference and not any optical or repeatability difference as far as I have been able to tell...

 

[CS T]

that would not have anything to do with the fact that you carry leopold & others but not bushnell would it?

there is a big price difference and not any optical or repeatability difference as far as I have been able to tell...

Nope for we sale Bushnell also and have some in stock.

The Leupold have nicer Mil-Dot reticle thinner main lines, the turret built stronger and track true, the Leupold have more elevation, the quality of the main tube is better, and the customer service is better.

For the price of the Bushnell it is hard to complain about its shortcomings.

I have tested the Bushnell ELITE 4200 6-24X50 SF Tactical Mil-Dot MAT again it was nice for the price but is not a scope I would relay upon. On the 308 I test it on I would not reach 1k. I use a ELITE 3200 5-15x40mm Tactical Mil-Dot and the 10x40 Elite Riflescope, Mil Dot Ret., Matte.

Mike @ CSGW

 

[shooterpunk2]

Thanks for all the replies and info guys!