buckmaster or burris?

[Gallahad]

looking at 14-16x scopes buckmaster or something like a signature series or ff2e1.  id consider a vx3 if i could find one cheap enough, but i dont think that will happen. I think the burris has better reticles, while the buckmaster seems more ergonomic, glass is pretty close, but my biggest question is what is tougher?

[Larry L]

If you would like a direct comparison of the 4-14 Buckmaster versus the Burris FFII, here's one. There not much comparison, the Burris is worlds better. You can hunt late with the FFII where you'll be going home with the Buckmaster. The FFII is pretty much adjust it and forget it. The Buckmaster you will constantly be adjusting it. Frankly, the Buckmaster is good for tent stakes only- I don't like them at all. The glass is poor at best. I've got an El Cheapo Millet scope that is eons ahead of a Buckmaster and I didn't pay but a little over 50 bucks for it. It's much clearer, hold POI much better, and has low light ability. Of the scores of scopes in the vault, the Buckmaster is the worst in all categories. Even a cheap 50 year old Weaver V12 is a much better scope.

[Lloyd Smale]

I dont like either. I agree with Larrys assesment of the buckmaster low light capabilitys. I love nikon monarchs but the bushmaster are lacking in low light and pro staffs are even worse. I dont care for burris scopes either. that said all ive owned have been fullfield and fullfield IIs. Ive owned 5 and 4 and  four have failed. Lenses have came loose and crosshairs have broke. the one left is a 3x9 fullfield II thats on my 300 mag right now and I have absoulutely no faith in it and if i was going to take that gun on a hunt more serious then crop damage shooting it would be pulled off. my buddy has more guns then me and any 3 here combined and he will tell you flat out that over half the scope failures hes had have been burris. If it were me id step up a few more dollars and buy a vx2 leupold or a nikon monarch. I wish i could recomend a 200 dollar scope but there a compromise no matter what brand you buy. The extra 100 bucks buys you MUCH more scope.

[Ladobe]

I haven't wasted my money on what IMO are junk optics for a very long time.  While they got me by when they were all I could afford, they also left a lot to be desired.   Can't say I didn't get my money out of them simply because they cost so little way back then and were better than nothing.   But I feel I got my money back many times over on even the most expensive optics because they have remained viable for decades with no need to upgrade, and will never need to be upgraded.  Buy right no matter how much it costs and you won't have to buy again.
 
While I am still a fan of the older Burris handgun and compact rifle scopes, their other rifle scopes never appealed to me, nor do many of their new handgun or rifle scopes.   Their quality is not what it was.   A new compact 4-12 still sits in it's box because I don't like it.
 
The older Nikon Monarch UCC 5.5-16.5 scopes I've had gave me very good service, no idea about the newer ones.   Still have an older UCC on the shelf.   Would be hard to beat the 10X42 LX binos from them as well, but at $1400 they should be among the best.   Nikon scopes have excellent value for the reasonable money they cost - in the later years they became one of my favorites for optics.
 
Nothing wrong with the Weaver V-16's I've had either, still have one of them on the shelf too (also loved their KT-15's I've had).   Both very reasonably priced, very good scopes that will even stand up to springer rifles.
 
All the higher end Leupold rifles scopes I've had and still have are excellent.   Mostly target and LR models that were plenty steep, but worth every penny.   I never bothered with their lessor scope models.
 
Regardless of the badge on optics you pay for those that are quality.   Lots of my non custom firearms wore optics that cost as much or more than the firearm itself did, some even way more.   Most might not agree with putting a scope on a firearm that cost 2-3 times what it did, but I had no problem with doing it on any I used for longer range where to hit small you have to aim small in any conditions.
 

[Lloyd Smale]

Nothing wrong with your logic. Only argument i could possibly make is that in the last 10 years or so scopes have improved drasticaly. What you can buy now for 300 dollars is comparable to what cost you twice that 10 years ago and if you factor in inflation costs about a 1/3 of a comparable scope 10 years ago. I would love to buy scopes that cost 3 times what my guns cost but on a fixed income it just doesnt happen anymore. I still buy decent optics. Most of the scopes i buy anymore are vx2 or vx3 leupolds or nikon monarchs. Ive had great luck with those 3 and optics in them is good enough for my eyes. Sure a 1500 dollar scope is better but its sure not 5 times better. it may be to some young eyes but its sure not to me. Bottom line is we all have to buy what we can afford. As long as you keep the attitude that your going to buy everything that you can afford in a scope and will scrimp on chrome for the harley or pickup. Bottom line is theres lots a fine scopes in the 300-500 dollar range that will serve 99 percent of the hunters just fine.

[Ladobe]

No problem with your assessment's either other than cost is relative to income, whether it be now, 10, 30 or 50 years ago.   While costs have gone up drastically, so has income, and with far more people making high wages than 50 years ago who can afford or save for better if it has priority to them.    Can't totally agree with quality either.   Having had both older and newer of the same basic model from the same company at the same time side by side many times, I found the older models better scopes overall, some way better than their newer counterparts.   Can't speak for the lessor Leupold's, I never owned any of them.  But all my higher end target/long range models were top drawer for my uses, the older Nikon target UCC's and Weaver target scopes close enough and for hundreds of dollars less.   I never even considered many of the newer models that have come along from lessor companies.   I was locked in on what had worked best for me, what I had confidence in, so didn't buy the others.  Instead I found and bought more of the same vintage models as I needed more scopes, those that had worked so well for me for years.  Saw no need to fix what wasn't broke.   I do agree that "needs" vary, so less may be enough for lots of folks.   You don't need a $1000 scope to shoot a deer at 100 yards.   Since 99% of my shooting/hunting was long to extreme ranges and at smaller game, I bought the best I could afford.   In the earlier days I had to save up to do so, eventually I didn't.   Same as my progression in firearms from hand me down get by with to owning many custom firearms that cost thousands of dollars each.    Along the way did those that shot so much better than those I started out with deserve better optics?  IMO h_ll yes!   
 
 

[Gallahad]

well I found a great deal on a vxIII 4.5-14x40 b&c. like new! ALL I will say is less than $400. Thanks guys.

[Lloyd Smale]

thats a steal and a fantastic scope.