Bushnell 3200 or Burris Fullfield II.

[Bearwolf31]

I have narrowed the search for my next scope (for a 22-250) down to either the Bushnell Elite 3200 4-12x40 or Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x42mm. Which scope would you get? Which would be the best for target shooting and occasional late evening coyote hunting?
 :?

[Graybeard]

I don't do Burris scopes anymore. Too many problems with them. Now Burris rings are another matter. Use them almost exclusively. So I'd say get the Bushnell. Mount it in Burris Signature Rings.

[Grubbs]

The Burris FFII is superior optically to the 3200.  I've never had a problem with any Burris.

[Firehawk]

Never used a scope in the power range you are discussing but I have used Burris scopes.  I currently own two and will own more in the future.  I have an older 3-9 Fullfield (pre Fullfield II) and a Signature Select 3-10x40 with the Ballistic Plex reticle.  

I will tell you that I have never had a Burris scope fail, they have always moved exactly as they are supposed to with the turret adjustments and I have NEVER had to rezero a Burris scope.  I hunt Elk and Deer in the wide open west and have hunted in some tough and rugged country.  I have hunted in sub freezing temperature and warm temperatures.  I have hunted in Rain, Sleet, Hail and Snow.  They have ALWAYS performed the way it is supposed to.

My Signature is a definite step up optically from the Fullfield.  If it turns out to be as rugged, I will always be perfectly happy with it.  That signature is a HECK of a scope and I love that Ballistic Plex reticle for big game hunting.

My other rifle wears a Weaver V9 which is very nice optically compared to its relatively low price and I have never had a problem with adjustments or holding zero.  

My vote would be hands down for the Fullfield II you are thinking of.  But then again, we all have our own opinions and experiences and someone else might disagree with my choices.  That is fine as long as I am happy with my choices and I have done very well with the choices I made.

FWIW these are my opinions.

FH

[Zachary]

I own two Burris Black Diamonds (higher end Burris models) and I must say that I am not impressed by them.  They are big and heavy, and optically they are no better than a Nikon Monarch or Elite 3200, yet the BDs are twice the price.

The FFII are supposed to be a good value, but I don't have much personal experience with them.  I have not done a side-by-side comparison of the FFII with the Elite 3200, so I can't give you my hands-on experience.

I have had quite a bit of experience with my 3200 (a 1.5x-4.5x-32mm with Firefly) and it has held up perfectly on my .375H&H Mag.  Optically, it is not as good as my 4200s, but the 3200, for the money, is an excellent scope.

As I said, I can only really speak for the 3200 in this instance, and, based on my personal experience with it, I highly recommend it.

Zachary

[Lawdog]

Hands down go with the Burris.   :agree:  :yeah:  :agree:

Just compare warrantees(an important item to keep in mind here - Bushnell isn’t the best when it comes to backing up their products(personal experience on this one)), clarity and you’ll find that they don’t make a Bushnell that will ever be the equal of a Burris.  Leupold and Burris are about the best scopes you can get.  I have a number of Burris scopes from the Fullfield II to the Black Diamond(which surpasses even Leupold quality) and have never had a problem with one.  You’re not going to do any better than a Burris.  Compare for yourself and see.  Lawdog
 

[fj40]

I have looked thru several FFII's.  They always seem "yellow" to me.  Maybe it's just me.  I would (and did) chose the new Nikon Buckmaster over either, but if it is only between the two you mentioned, I would get the elite.  The Rainguard is awesome.

[reyn 61]

I have looked through a 3200 but dont own one. I do own a 4200 and a FFII. Cant go wrong with either. The optic zone did have the FFIIs with ballistic plex matte for 139.99 last week. Couldnt beat that price but seems they sold out. Rainguard is nice. I would go with which ever i could find the best deal on.

[poncaguy]

I have both , prefer the Burris over the 3200..........

[Bearwolf31]

I have both , prefer the Burris over the 3200..........

How so Poncaguy? Brightness and/or clarity?

[poncaguy]

Both, have 3 Burris II's 3x9, use the 3200 if it's going to rain.......

[moontroll]

I have the 3200 4-12x40 and its a great scope,its accurate at all power settings and its all you will need.Never owned a Burris,and never plan to.I have a Zeiss Conquest,Nikon Monarch,Leupold VX11 and 111,I would choose it over all of them except the VX111 in overall performance not thinking of price.When price is concidered the Bushnell gets my money.

[jason280]

Without question, the Burris Fullfield II is a better scope.  I currently own three of them in the 3-9 flavor, one in 1.75-4.5x20, and could not be happier with them.  

The 3200 is a decent scope, but simply not as good as the FII.  The FII is brighter, and has proven to be just as bright in field conditions as my Weaver Grand Slam or Leupold M8 6x42.  Take one out in low light conditions, and you will see what I mean. I've used both the 3200's and the Fullfield II's in hunting conditions, and there is a reason I've sold both the 3200 scopes and bought Fullfield II's.  

As far as warranty concerns go, I couldn't tell you either way.  I've owned six or seven Burris rifle and pistol scopes, and three 3200's, and never had a problem with either one.  I think both companies offer solid products, its just the Burris is optically superior.

[Danny Boy]

I have six 3200s (Two of them are 4-12X40). No problem with any one of them. IMO the 3200s are just as good as Burris FF. I can't justify spending the extra money on the FFII.

Danny Boy