So, i'm here for some advice.

I've decided to build a tactical/plinking rifle. It will see 100YDS 80% of the time. I've never been hunting before or even know someone with a chunk of land, so it'll probably never see that.

Looking for something I can grow into a bit... maybe I can find somewhere to shoot past the 100YD mark.

The rifle will be a Remington 700 SPS Tactical .308.

I really like the look of a long scope and a couple people recommended the Bushnell Elite 4200 series, specifically the 6-24X40 i believe it was. I'd really like a long scope and to keep the optic budget less than 500.

Base and rings are still unknown at this point.

So, i guess my main question is, is the scope overkill for what i'm looking to do with it? Or would it be fine @ 100YDS and still give me room to grow?

The scope is over kill, IMO. Even among other shooter, I tend to be one that likes a higher power scope. My guess would be that the general concencous here will tell you all need is a 3-9x40, shich is more than sufficient at the range you are talking about.

I am relatively a beginner compared to others, just been shooting rifles for a few years, and I prefer a scope that goes up to 10x to 14x. It seems hard to justify buying such a higher powered scope. Most people who use such a scope use it on a high velocity small caliber rifle with the intention of shooting really small targets (varmints mostly) at longer distances. Or they shoot 500+ yards with it.

Basically gives you a whole ton of room to grow.
As for the 4200, once again hard to justify the additional cost when other scopes will do including the 3200 series. Leupold has always been my favorite scope manufacturer. Other good ones are Burris and Nikon.

In conclusion, i would save some of the costs on the scope towards another gun, IMO.

If you are on a budget for a scope I would get a SWFA SS 10X40. A 6-24X40 is probably too much scope in my opinion. Take into consideration that U.S. snipers make 1000+ yard kills with 10 power scopes. Well I guess it would be OK if you were always shoot with sand bags. I had a 6-24 on my .50 BMG and took it off because it was way too powerful for me, even on that big of a rifle.

Like KR said, the 3200 is probably all you need.

if your not a hunter, your in the wrong place. start here,

http://demigodllc.com/articles/practical-long-range-rifle-shooting-optics/

and read the whole thing. think about going some where and take a tac shooting class, like TacPro or tiger valley

I too have a 24x scope on a rifle. And yes, it's too much by far. 16-18x is about the most magnification that is practically useable for most of the shooters out there. Then not even necessary most of the time, but I like higher power stuff anyway. My 24x is almost impossible to use in anything less than ideal situations due to mirage. About the highest it gets turned up anymore is about 18x. I've had it out shooting PD's a few times. It ended up set on around 12x and left alone. And that was shooting at targets the size of a 20oz pop bottle at ranges out to and exceeding 700yds.

Many good scope makers out there to choose from for your budget. Nikon, Burris, Leupy, Sightron, Weaver, Bushnell, and many many more.

I use a 3-9X40 for most of my hunting and shooting. I have a few Nikon Prostaff's that work flawlessly on calibers from a 6MM, .25-06 to a .270 Win and even on a .50cal ML. I've never had to resight in them even after switching out barrels. Most folks taht know me know that I'm out for sub moa always and will pick any eyeball for a target while hunting.

I use a 4.5-14X40 for shooting 1000yds. I have a 6.5-18X40 and it is too much for 100yds. I'm lucky to get it past 10 power while hunting even.

I use to prefer only Leupold scopes, but have found that they aren't as good as they once were. Try doing a 2" click square test and see if it goes back to zero. More than likely not. The older ones use to, but a lot of the new ones won't. You'd be better off w/ a Nikon or Zeiss for your money.