Author Topic: Burris vs Nikon (Read 3443 times)

BeeMan · « **on:** September 22, 2006, 09:13:44 AM »

Greetings folks,
I am contemplating replacing a BSA 3-9X scope on my Ruger M77 270 wsm with either a Nikon ProStaff 3X9 or a Burris FullField 3X9. I have a Burris on another rifle, and I love it, but the price difference between the 2 is like $50.00 (Nikon is cheaper). Input anyone?? Thanks.

prairiedog555 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 22, 2006, 12:08:55 PM »

I have been doing a lot of research on this subject and my conclusions are:
BSA is not very reliable, as they say, a poor man cannot afford not to buy the best,
well, inbetween best and worst seems to be Nikon and Burris. Both are very good with lifethime warranty, but I give the edge to Burris Fullfield 11. 95% light transmission and lighter in weight plus it is made in US.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #2 on:** September 22, 2006, 12:33:12 PM »

The Nikon prostaff is a very good scope for the money but not up to the same quality as the Burris fulfield II...

jamie · « **Reply #3 on:** September 22, 2006, 01:32:06 PM »

Those two don't really compare well. The Nikon Buckmaster would be closer to the Burris. I have a Buckmaster 4.5x14 on a 22-250 and it is simply great. I just got my Burris 3x12 handgun in today as well. I have no problem buying or recomending the Nikons.
Neither comapny is really greater than the other, just with Nikon you seem to get a little more for your money.

Oh, when I bought my Burris I noticed Jon had the Nikon Monarchs in the bargain section for $195. That is a heck of a price.

http://theopticzone.com/detail.aspx?ID=3750

victorcharlie · « **Reply #4 on:** September 23, 2006, 04:03:38 AM »

IMO the fulfield II is in the same class as the Bushnell elite 3200 series and buckmaster and is a little brighter and clearer on the edges than a 3200 or a buckmaster......when you consider the binoculars or spotting scope are included at no additional cost on the 3 X 9 X 40 fullfield II then it's a great value for the money.......

Dave in WV · « **Reply #5 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:12:20 AM »

Of the scopes you list I'd choose the Burris. For the extra $50 more than the Prostaff you could get a Nikon Buckmaster and I'd buy it over the Burris.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #6 on:** September 23, 2006, 03:14:56 PM »

I made a mistake....the fullfield II 3 X 9 X 40 comes with the bino's....the 4.5 X 14 X 40 comes with the spotting scope......

litman252 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 02, 2006, 01:31:17 PM »

Any more thoughts??? I'm debating the Burris FF II 3-9x40 w/ binocs against the Nikon Buckmark 3-9x40's.

One of them will be going on a 7mmSTW Mod. 70. This is by far my "long reach" gun and want to make sure it will stand up to the recoil.

Thanks much,
Tony

Siskiyou · « **Reply #8 on:** December 02, 2006, 05:08:09 PM »

I purchased the Burris 3-9x40 FFII w/binoculars today. I also look at the Nikon ProStaff and the Nikon Buck Master today. The Nikons were okay but the binoculars made the deal. The BuckMaster was the same price as the Burris w/o the binoculars. I had to go with VictorCharlie on this one. At this point I do not know if I will keep the Burris Landmark Binoculars or give them away. Anybody have in field experience with them?

I did a side by side test with the two Nikons. I believe the BuckMaster was better, but after a few turns it was like getting my eyes test. When they keep asking me if one or two is better.

31 bertram · « **Reply #9 on:** December 03, 2006, 03:27:44 AM »

If you go to the Burris sport optics website and click on Fulfield II scopes there is a scope comparison chart. Of these scopes that were tested to be "Fully Multicoated" lenses Leupold VX II, Nikon Buckmaster, Monarch, and Burris FF II, only two were Fully Multicoated, Nikon Monarch and the Burris FF II. Leupold VX II and Nikon Buckmaster are not Fully Multicoated optics. Hope this helps.
31 bertram

Zachary · « **Reply #10 on:** December 03, 2006, 05:49:24 AM »

The Nikon model comparable to the Burris FF II is the Nikon Buckmaster. Of THESE two makes and models, I would take the Nikon Buckmaster. The Buckmasters are Pre-Monarchs (meaning that before there were various Nikon models, there was only ONE - and it was simple the Nikon scope. When Nikon came up with even better optics, they called it the Monarch, and their original scope (which is still excellent), they called the Nikon Buckmaster.

I have used Nikon scopes for years, including the pre-monarch (aka Buckmaster) scopes. I have had this scope fall down a step revine and it still help up its zero perfectly!

I trust , and recommend, Nikon Monarchs and Buckmasters.

On a related note, I also trust and recommend the following:

Leupold VX-II and VX-III
Bushnell Elite 3200 and 4200
Zeiss Conquest

Zachary

prairiedog555 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 03, 2006, 07:50:08 AM »

I have read some of the posts in this forum that were critical of the Burris customer service.
Actually I was ready to buy burris untill I saw the multiple posts with unsatisfied customers.
I then investigated and found that Bushnell makes a line (Legend) that is fully multicoated. And since I live about 2 hr. from Bushnell headquarters I decieded to buy this model. 91% light transmission, 3x9x40 for $109 at Natchez. Well, I was very pleased. Very bright and seemes to be a good scope. And I read here that Bushnell has good customer service.
When I hear that some people are unsatisfied with customer service on a product that is meant to last for a long time I take notice and shy away from them. I don't have any personal experience with Burris but I think that this is a good forum with some pretty informed contributors and if a number of them have had problems I listen.
Maybe it is because they are supposedly being bought by I think Berretta. Maybe transition period is a good time to stay away.

31 bertram · « **Reply #12 on:** December 03, 2006, 09:18:52 AM »

I would think that the Burris FF II would fall somewhere between the Buckmaster and the Monarch, due to the Buckmaster not having fully multicoated optics. Of the features listed on the comparison chart the FF II has just as much to offer as the Monarch. The Buckmaster does'nt even come close. Although the Monarch would be my choice, there is quite a difference in money.
31 bertram

Siskiyou · « **Reply #13 on:** December 03, 2006, 10:23:07 AM »

Right now I am playing dancing scopes so this discussion is of great interest. I am going to pull a 2.5x7x38MM Weaver off a .270 Win. The FFII will replace it. The low profile Weaver will replace a 4x Banner on a Marlin 336. The Weaver has been a great scope. I bought it new in 1969 and it has taken a bunch of bucks. I have a couple of newer Classic Weaver V2x10 scopes. They have provided excellent field service. During this last hunting season I never had a problem with fogging with my Classic V scope. They also hold their zero. If the price is right I will buy another Weaver Classic V.

At 0630 this morning the FFII was setting on the table where I left it last night. I looked out the kitchen window while getting coffee water. A small 4x4 buck was coming down the path looking for a doe. I grabbed the scope out of the box and got a quick look at the deer. The light was poor but I liked the view, the buck could have been on the meat rack. When the buck went along side the house I open up the front curtains and watched him continue his journey. He stopped about 80-yards out and I cranked the scope up to 9X. A bit too much power for the range, but I easily picked him up. I am sure that if the scope was mounted on a rifle that it would have been a little better. I could not have had a better test as far as viewing a live deer in low light conditions.

31 bertram · « **Reply #14 on:** December 03, 2006, 10:27:47 AM »

prairredog555
The later model Burris FF II's are made in the Philippines, as is the Buckmaster. I have one of the earlier 3x9 FF II that was USA made, not for sure if I just got a good one but it has been thru some unbelievable stuff. This has been one tough scope This scope is probably 6 or 7 yrs. old and has held up great. I would'nt hessitate to buy one of the filippino models either, alot of the Nikons are made there also. As for customer service I've never had a need, so I really could'nt say. IMHO, the FF II is the best deal out there right now. 31 bertram

babe915 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 03, 2006, 05:10:55 PM »

my burris is also made overseas[ ff 11] not in the USA is they advertize. optics are good but the
ajustment knobs are not smooth as my nikon monarch plus you can see the direction arrows on
the nikon turrets much better then the burris. unless your 20 years old it probably don't matter
but for old farts like me the bigger arrows and letters make it easier to see

Siskiyou · « **Reply #16 on:** December 03, 2006, 06:16:16 PM »

This afternoon I found the Burris FFII is not a drop in replacement on my long action rifle. The barrel length between the objectives is shorter the V7 Weaver that I was moving. I should have measured before I started the move. I lack about a 1/4 inch of having a fit. So I put the V7 back on the rifle and tagged it to be sighted-in. I'll check on mounting options but the best path maybe to install it on a different rifle.

The lesson for me is that I should have measured before I leaped. The longer BuckMaster may have been a better drop-in option.

It would be nice if there were charts showing the length of the mounting barrel between the objectives. But the fault is mine. A lesson learn when I purchase my next scope.

SURVEYOR · « **Reply #17 on:** December 03, 2006, 06:29:04 PM »

Dang! I noticed that a couple of years ago with a Simons Altec. Killer view through the scope. But it had a short tube body. Not enought room to mount it on my rifle!!!!

31 bertram · « **Reply #18 on:** December 04, 2006, 01:01:04 AM »

I know that one of the things totaly redesigned from the "old Fullfields" to the Fullfield II's is that they do have more mounting surface. but they are still quite a bit shorter than some of the Weavers. I remember the old Fullfields were even harder to mount because the turrets were closer to the objective lense, making it very close to mount. I have used the offset rings for those type situations but I doudt that you would want to go that far into it. I can also say that the FF II took some getting used to, I did'nt like the fact that you have to turn the whole eye piece to zoom in, and the zoom was very stiff, and I could'nt use my Butler Creek lense caps, but after the scope laid around the house for almost a year I decided to give it a try. For instance, I really like the reticle since my eyes are not what they once were. I also think the FF II gives up some to the Nikon on clarity. But I would'nt hessitate to buy another FF II, should the occaision arise. 31 bertram

BUSTER51 · « **Reply #19 on:** December 04, 2006, 06:06:45 AM »

If you can get a Nikon Monarch for $195.00 ,than there is nothing to talk about grab it !

Doe Dumper · « **Reply #20 on:** December 05, 2006, 08:11:15 AM »

To echo on the post about customer service I received a pretty nasty reply from Burris when I inquired about them moving production of the ff2 overseas. I just started buying Nikons and havent looked back.

EsoxLucius · « **Reply #21 on:** December 05, 2006, 09:05:11 AM »

Quote from: 31 bertram on December 03, 2006, 03:27:44 AM

If you go to the Burris sport optics website and click on Fulfield II scopes there is a scope comparison chart. Of these scopes that were tested to be "Fully Multicoated" lenses Leupold VX II, Nikon Buckmaster, Monarch, and Burris FF II, only two were Fully Multicoated, Nikon Monarch and the Burris FF II. Leupold VX II and Nikon Buckmaster are not Fully Multicoated optics. Hope this helps.
31 bertram

The lens coating comparison is being made with the first iteration of Leupold VX-I and VX-IIs when they were introduced. When the Leupold VX-I and VX-II first came out the VX-I had magnesium flouride coatings throughout and the VX-II had MultiCoat 4 on exterior lens surfaces and magnesium flouride coatings on other lens surfaces. That changed with the introduction of the Rifleman. Currently, the Rifleman has magnesium flouride coatings throughout, the VX-I has MultiCoat 4 on exterior lens surfaces and magnesium flouride coatings on other lens surfaces, and the VX-II is fully multicoated with Leupold MultiCoat 4.

31 bertram · « **Reply #22 on:** December 05, 2006, 03:01:56 PM »

Am I missing something? I can't find anything on the Leupold website stating that the VX I or II are Fully Multicoated. I'm just curious.
31 bertram

EsoxLucius · « **Reply #23 on:** December 05, 2006, 04:55:02 PM »

Yeah, you are missing something. Intimate knowledge.

They state that the VX-II has the MultiCoat 4 lens system that is the same as was previously available in the Vari-X III. The Vari-X III was fully multicoated.

From a January 2006 Leupold press release-
Other key features of Golden Ring® VX®-II riflescopes:
• Multicoat 4® lens system – used on all lens surfaces, external and internal, this system increases the amount of available light that reaches the eye and minimizes reflections on the outer eyepiece. As a result, image contrast and clarity are enhanced, and a bright sight picture is delivered, even in low-light conditions.
• Lockable, fast-focus eyepiece – the eyepiece can be quickly focused and securely locked once the reticle focus is set, ensuring reliable performance when the VX-II is brought to the eye.
• Tactile power indicator – this feature allows the shooter to easily tell the scope’s magnification with just a touch, without taking his or her eye from the eyepiece.
• Precise audible and tactile ¼-MOA “click” adjustments for windage and elevation.
• Generous, non-critical eye relief.
• Waterproof and fog proof – each scope is filled with nitrogen and sealed with Leupold’s proven process to keep out moisture.

Now you know.

Siskiyou · « **Reply #24 on:** December 05, 2006, 06:31:25 PM »

EsoxLucisu: I found your information very interesting. Thanks

31 bertram · « **Reply #25 on:** December 06, 2006, 01:22:30 AM »

I see that the VX II uses the same type coating Multi coat 4 but can find anything about it being fully multi coated as the older models. Could'nt get the press release to download on my computer, I'll try again at work. If what you say is true it makes me wonder how Burris can put this comparison chart on their website without some legal implications, hmmmm. 31 bertram

31 bertram · « **Reply #26 on:** December 06, 2006, 02:03:36 AM »

Esolucxisu
Got it, I was able to download at work. Good to put this at rest once and for all. The Burris website comparison chart could be a little misleading. Thanks
31 bertram

DirtyDan · « **Reply #27 on:** December 08, 2006, 05:20:15 AM »

From the Burris Comparison:
"Scopes compared were all 3X-9X-40mm: Burris Fullfield II (serial number 203039), Nikon Monarch (serial number KA247381), Nikon Buckmaster (serial number KB311770), Leupold VXI serial number 321622J), Leupold VXII (serial number 324263J). Fullfield and Fullfield II are trademarks of Burris Co., Inc. Leupold and VX1 and VXII are trademarks of Leupold & Stevens, Inc. Nikon and Monarch are trademarks of Nikon, Inc. Buckmasters is a registered trademark of Buckmasters, Ltd. Light Transmission % are from competitor's catalogs and not verified. Information is presented as the best information available at this time."

I ordered a FFII 3-9x40 w/BDC, yesterday for a Rem. 700 in .243 The deal was just too good to pass up. I'll let you know how it works out. Given the difference in eyesight and perception, I think "you pays your money & takes your chances".

nasem · « **Reply #28 on:** December 08, 2006, 06:21:17 AM »

The one Thing I like about the nikon prostaff or any other nikon scope is the Constant eye reliefe.... If you get a 3-9X40 prostaff, it has steady 3.6" eye relf..... which I think is great... also 90% light transmission is not bad either

I have a burris 4.5X14 and its a "good" scope, but when I shoot at 300 yard targets and my variable is set at 14X, that 3.1" eye relief bothers me a little bit, forces me to push my neck forward (more than I want it to be), its not going to hit me or anything, but it bothers my shooting style..... Thats why I just sold the scope to my brother last night, I just didn't enjoy the long eye relief...

When it comes to eye relf, Leupold and nikon are great (so is ZIESS but I haven't won the Mega millions yet)

So, IMO, when it comes to scopes, you should always buy one that has
1) full life time warrenty (no matter how good your scope is, sometimes it does take a beating)
2) good long eye relife, makes your shooting style comfortable, you no longer have to push your neck forward to open that view ESPECIALLY when you have no more room to move ur scope backwards.
3) good glass and Im not refereing to the best of the best, a prostaff has good class. Not as good as a VX-2 or 3, but it will do its job on a regular basis.

jamie · « **Reply #29 on:** December 11, 2006, 02:46:26 PM »

When Burris list the light tranmission data are they using scopes with or without all the black flecks on the inside of the lens? I know alot of people on here love their Burris optics but after my trials and tribulations with the only 3 I ever purchased I can safely say I will never have another. I will stick to Nikon for my rifles and the Elite 3200 for my handguns.