Bushnell 4200 6-24 x 40 Side Focus

[blue]

Brilliant review blue thanks, been waiting for them to come out . I'm ermin and aarin about one of these (or wait for an 8-32x40) for my 17HMR when I get it.

Noting your buddy could rangefind between 90 and 100 yards good, how do think it would rate in the 100~150 yards area in twilight or mostly lamping please? and did you have any customs to pay when it got here?

Sorry to disapoint, but 100 yards tops for sub 25 yard range finding. Interestingly it is better than my 8-32 Burris at distance.

[some bloke]

Not sure I follow that Blue. Do you mean the furtherest it will rangefind within 25 yards, is 100 yards?

[Forth]

100~150 yards area in twilight

Don't know if it'll be of any help but having compared the two out of curiosity, can say that at 75 yards in twilight* it loses image definition a bit earlier than a Zero Option 3-9x40 when both at 9x.

(* light level where small white targets - screwtops off 1 litre plastic milk containers - are almost invisible to unscoped eye)

[Forth]

As an afterthought should add though, that the Bushnell is a very good scope and I wouldn't want to part with mine; comparing it with the ZO in low light is perhaps unfair anyway, since the ZO's got a limited magnification range while being only slightly shorter in length.

[blue]

As an afterthought should add though, that the Bushnell is a very good scope and I wouldn't want to part with mine; comparing it with the ZO in low light is perhaps unfair anyway, since the ZO's got a limited magnification range while being only slightly shorter in length.

Even so, that seems to be a good indication with the test done.
Casing point that there is no "ultimate" all round scope.

[Forth]

Even so, that seems to be a good indication with the test done.
Casing point that there is no "ultimate" all round scope.

Indeed so; and the ZO is (imo) in some ways a rather under-rated scope given that it also outdoes a Bushnell Trophy and a Hawke Reflex 3-9x40s in the same low light conditions, which suggests the 4200's comparative performance although inferior to the ZO wasn't at all bad.

[Darren Petts]

First thing to notice is it's size - it's very small for a 6-24, much smaller than the AO model and no bigger than your average 3-12x40. Parallax is set at a minimum of 25 yds and sidewheel marks are close if not spot on with the factory setting (can't be more precise until I've put some range time in). Fters will want to know the minimum it'll focus to and after adjusting and allowing enough overlap at 55 yds to focus in and out again the minimum is 17.5 yds so a fair way from ideal for FT shooting. It'll come a little closer and still focus at 55yds but you loose the out/in/out that you can still get at 17.5yds min. Optics are just what you'd expect from a Bushnell Elite and only really bettered by scopes at a much higher cost.
I purchased this as an allrounder and any FT ability was going to be a bonus. I'll leave it on the factory settings as shooting a 40mm killzone to 25 yds isn't rocket science even if it is a bit blurred. Leaving the factory settings alone should keep the gaps between 50 and 55 a bit bigger and it does appear to be able to split the difference reasonably well (not as as good as the AO model) though not in the same league as my Burris 8-32. At 8x and a 35 yd parallax it gives a similar DOF to my Burris (on 27.5 yds!) for HFT and I've always regarded my Burris as excellent for the HFT job so good news there and should be perfectly ok for SFT too. The extra DOF over the AO model is probably a function of it small size.
For HFT and SFT it should be excellent but for FT you'll either need a close focus adapter or you'll need to simply guess the distances to 17.5 / 25 yds (not a problem in reality unless you are shooting the Anglo).