SS 3-15x42 vs Bushnell Elite Tactical 3-12x44 G2

Let's just say they are the same price, which one would you buy? Why? Both are FFP, mil/mil unless I missed something.

I'd feel comfortable with either choice. Both scopes are good to go.

I have 2 of the SS 3-15x42 scopes and really like their functionality but the glass is not all that great IMHO. I can't compare directly to the Bushnell Elite Tactical 3-12x44 G2, but if its glass is as good as my Elite Tactical DMR 3.5-21x50, I would say it would be the clear winner if prices were the same.

Note, I am only a rookie in target rifles and higher end scopes so take my input with that in mind. I am interested in hearing what you decide and what others have to say.

My only hold up with either is lack of zero stop. PST is the only scope in the price range with FFP and zero stop unless I have missed something.

The SS 3-15 is not in their HD line of glass. The Bushnell will have much better glass, yielding a clearer image.

Zero stop is handy, but not a "have to have" item. I have one scope with it and don't even have it set up. Mounting these scopes on a 20 MOA bas should put you on the number one rev indicator as labeled on the body of the turret.

10-4 I have two PST's and set both of them up with the zero stop initially and have used them. The XRS i just got is also zero stop. Just trying to keep it simple. SS 3-9 HD vs mentioned bushnell?

I think the 3-9 HD may have slightly better glass. Even if I am shooting myself in the foot. Owning both I would say the bushnell blows away the SS 3-15.

I'd much rather have 12X on the top end than 9X.

The higher the multiplier the higher the price, though. Bushy is times four, that SS is times three.

I've been there. The bushell 3-12 is my preference. Glass is much better.

Looks like I just traded into a bushnell (thanks wp). Sold a moa/mil scope locally yesterday, now all of my LR rifles will be FFP mil/mil. Need one more scope for a hunting (lighter weight) 300 wm hunting rifle, not sure I will go FFP but mil/mil is a must.

Always go FFP.

X2 FFP all the way.

I must say I do not agree. Every rifle set up is not for engaging targets at various distances on a tight time frame. SFP allows for finer cross hairs at longer ranges for shooting the smallest groups possible. A 1000 yard bench gun that will always be shot at known distances will do better with a SFP fine duplex.

After shooting FFP and SFP I think there are many hunting situations I would rather have sfp. Reticle is just too small and fine at low power on FFP scopes for quick or close hunting.

That's in your head.

Reticle to target relationship is the same at every magnification.

I am a fan of FFP but I cannot argue the point they do get very fine(and hard to see) on the lowest power especially if you are hunting brushy timber.
That is why the Bushnell 3-12x LRH has the heavier circle to help center you up when on lower powers in cluttered cover. I have it on my elk rifle and I am happy with it so far. It has 3 elk to its credit all shot less than 100 yards but I know it has the capability to go long if needed.

FFP is fin for hunting provided it is illuminated if not it can be a bit tough to see.

Ended up with a Bushnell 3-12 FFP illum mildot off of here. I like it, have not fired the rifle yet but it's mounted and ready. It may end up on my 300 WM hunting rilfe. The way the reticle lights up it should be visible enought for hunting on low power. Is 3-12 enough magnification on a 300 WM?

Enough magnification for what? I would have no issues using it hunting if a dedicated target gun I like higher magnification but it will certainly work.

3-12 is plenty. High magnification is over rated. Too much mirage, and a tiny field of view. It all depends on the size of your target.

You stand on an island alone.

That's ok. I have no problem with that. Hits and field of view are all that matter to me, but I think we have established that already.

300 WM hunting rifle, was the question. I'm going to shoot this scope on my 308 for a while and see how it goes.