Author Topic: Fullfield II and other brands (Read 488 times)

goose7856 · « **on:** November 29, 2004, 04:19:47 PM »

Jon, and anyone else who can help, what do you think about the quality and overall "goodness" (is that a word!! :eek:

) of the Burris Fullfield II??

They seeem to be great scopes for the money with 95% light transmission, and a few other goodies like the ballistic plex, they seem to be comparable to Buckmasters, 3200, and maybe Monarchs and 4200s??

Is that a fair comparison??

And + you can get them for the same as Buckmasters and 3200's on Ebay. (Sry Jon, I will still purchase many optics from you in the future, Ebay just gives a very low price [about $210 for the 4.5-14x42 AO Ball. Plex ret.])

Thanx.....oh yea, I THINK I have decided just now to buy a CZ Style or Silhouette, and I want to put a really good scope on it to start off, then as I buy another gun, I will either keep the same scope on the CZ, or put a cheaper scope on the CZ, and move the good one to say a 25-06 or .243/.243 WSSM (kinda looking into one for the future)........so I am kinda keeping the future in mind with the scope purchase......how would the 4.5-14x42 Burris Fullfield II Fit??

TIA!!

Thebear_78 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 29, 2004, 04:57:45 PM »

I have two of the Burris FFII 3-9x40 scopes. One is a ballistic plex and the other is regular plex. The regular plex is on a Ruger 77 in 35 whelen and the ballistic plex is on an encore in 22-250. I have been extremely pleased with these scopes. They are very clear and I have found them to be very accurate at thier click adjustments. The ballistic plex works out very well with the tradjectory of the 22-250. I have complete faith in them. All I will use anymore are burris and leupold scopes. Given my choice between one of the leupold rifleman and a FFII I would go with the FFII every time.

I would completely recommend that 4.5-14 burris FFII. Matter of fact if I can find that auction your talking about I miht just buy it out from undery you

, that a great price.

TheOpticZone · « **Reply #2 on:** November 30, 2004, 12:52:03 AM »

Bear is right. If I had a choice between the Leupold Rifleman and the Burris FF II, I would take the FF II. But I still like the Nikon Buckmaster and the Bushnell Elite 3200 over the FF II. I think that they are both just as bright and clear and many not a little more. That 95% light transmission I really don't buy. When you compare them all 3 are very close and the Nikon and Bushnell only offer 88%. Plus my experience with Burris customer service is something to not brag about. They have some of the rudest people that work for their customer service. Most of them sound like ready to retire, grumpy old man who hate to be at work.

rickt300 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 30, 2004, 07:57:15 AM »

When I went looking for a scope to put on my 270 a couple of years ago my local walmart had sold out of the Bushnell 3200 which I plannedc to buy but had a Leupold Rifleman and a Nikon Prostaff, both 3x9 and the Prostaff won in both image sharpness and brightness. I looked at severall examples of both and chose the Prostaff which has proven to be reliable with accurate adjustments. I know it takes years to fully test a scope so maybe I will know more 5 years from now.

rickt300 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 30, 2004, 08:11:45 AM »

Where do the Weaver Grand Slam scopes fit into the equation compared to the high end Bushnells and Nikons? As always rugged is what I am looking for. I noticed the Bushnell 3200 has a titanium tube which sounds pretty tough.