I have not seen or looked through a SS scope, but am impressed with the Elite 3200s, that I have had. The 10X is a very good scope for the money, I only upgraded to the Elite 3200 5-15x40, for the AO. Tracking on both my 3200s is very good, glass is as good as my VXIII.
both are good, especially for the money. as jdgray said, the main difference is the adjustable objective that the SS offers. depending on the distances you are shooting this could be more of a factor. FWIW I'd personally go for the SS and get the AO.
+1 for the ss, i have 3 of them, for the money they are great, have always tracked for me, and glass is fairly clear. they are a good startting scope. imho
I have the 10X Bushy on my scout rifle and I've never noticed parallax issues outside 100 yards. I've taken it out to 600 so far and it's as accurate as the barrel and the ammo can be, all the way out. Clear as a bell and fairly bright considering the specs. And the turrets (always a sore point with me on scopes, even ones far more expensive) are simply excellent. Crisp and audible, and it tracks perfectly when shooting a box or checking the spacing. For $190 nothing else I've seen comes close.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yeah but the glass isnt as good
</div></div>
You are saying that the Bushnell 3200 10XMD's glass is better that the 10Xm (old style) SS? If so I gotta say you eithe had a good Bushnellor a bad SS. I've jad multiple of both over the years and the SS is by far a better scope, esp since its adjustable parallax and htge Bushies aren't. Every 3200 10XMD I've had seemed to have the parallax set for 150yds and I could never get a crisp sight picture at 100.
SWFA SS's kick ass and are the BEST scope for the budget shooter.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yeah but the glass isnt as good
</div></div>
You are saying that the Bushnell 3200 10XMD's glass is better that the 10Xm (old style) SS? If so I gotta say you eithe had a good Bushnellor a bad SS. I've jad multiple of both over the years and the SS is by far a better scope, esp since its adjustable parallax and htge Bushies aren't. Every 3200 10XMD I've had seemed to have the parallax set for 150yds and I could never get a crisp sight picture at 100.
SWFA SS's kick ass and are the BEST scope for the budget shooter. </div></div>
Mine were both crisp at 100. Both my SS have had finicky parallex adjustments that I could never get right at close range, but were fine at 300+.
They are both good scopes and will serve whomever buys them well.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: michplinker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">natchez has bushnells for 169 last i checked </div></div>
New SWFA SS's are better glass. The old ones are an apples to apple comparison for the Bushnell 3200 10XMD, but the new HD SS'd in a different category.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New SWFA SS's are better glass. The old ones are an apples to apple comparison for the Bushnell 3200 10XMD, but the new HD SS'd in a different category. </div></div>
In a different category is right. Aren't the HD supersnipers in the $800 category bro?
I have all 3 of the SS (10x, 16x and 20x) and the Bushnell 10x. I like the SS 16x the best. Good magnification without the distortion (if that is the correct term) of the 20x.
I don't especially care for the 10x's. The magnification is a bit low for me. But between the SS 10x and the Bushnell 10x, I tend to like the SS.