Bushnell Trophy Vs Burris Fullfield II

[Trendy411]

Im looking to find a scope for target shooting mostly at 100 yards and debating on the burris fullfield II 3- 9 X 40 with ballistic plex or the bushnell trophy 4-12 AO/ 6-18 AO. The burris should be ok at 100 but at 200, 300 + do u guys think that higher magnification and the adjustable objective from the bushnell or the better resolution of the burris would be more important at the longer ranges. This is my first scope over the $50 range so im not too familiar. Also ive never really had to use a scope over 100 yards so with either scope whats the smallest target (1 inch, 3 inch, etc) i can i see clearly at the longer ranges(i have good eyesight by theway)? I am assuming that the burris which does not have the AO or higher power should have better resolution as these scopes cost the same at around $220 dollars is this assumtion pretty accurate?. If you have a different brand and/or model of scope of similar price but is better then let me know also.

[Graybeard]

The Burris might have a bit better optics and coatings but I'd not bet the farm on it. That price sounds high on the Burris I think they normally sell for less. No I've not checked lately just going on memory here and it might be faulty.

If target shooting to 300 yards or more is on the agenda you'd be making a mistake to get the 3-9 in my opinion. Yes I'd want an AO and more magnification if that's the use for it. If it were for hunting big game I'd say go with a 3-9 but not for target shooting at longer ranges.

[charles p]

One inch target will be fine at 100 yds for 3X9 or 4X12.  With more power, you may want an even smaller target.

[kyelkhunter3006]

Th Burris is fully multi-coated, which means that every lense in the optic system is coated on both sides of tbe lense.  The Trophy scopes are multi-coated (not fully) which means that only one side of the internal lenses is coated, and both sides of the eye and objective lenses are coated.  The Burris is probably going to be a bit brighter and clearer, but unless you've looked through a LOT of glass, you aren't going to be able to tell, more than likely.

$220 is WAY too high for the Burris FFII, I've seen them on ebay and at various places that sell scopes for as little as $159 new in the box.  It's also too high for the Trophy, I've seen the 4x12 for $160 or so and I've seen the 6x18 in the $180 range quite a bit too.

What kind of gun are you putting it on?  Are you only going to use the gun just for targets?  If so, then I'd get a scope with the adjustable objective or one with a side turret parallax adjustment.  Probably in the 4-12, 4.5-14 or 6x18 range, or even a fixed power scope of 10x or up. 

Weaver makes a nice fixed 15x with an adjustable objective called the K15 in your price range, and you can get a Bushnell Elite 3200 10x scope with target turrets for around $200 or less too.  A good variable power scope in your price range or for just a bit more would be the Nikon Buchmasters 4.5x14 (twice the scope of the Burris FF or the Trophy, IMO.)

There are a TON of guys on here who like the Mueller APV scope, it's a 4.5-14 too, with adjustable objective, for around $120 or so as well.

[Graybeard]

Generally the difference between FULLY multicoated and just multicoated is that on fully multicoated all air to glass surfaces are multicoated and on those just stated as multicoated only the ocular and objectives are multicoated but ALL air to glass surfaces are coated just not multicoated.

It does matter a little but not nearly as much as most seem to think it does. Uncoated surfaces lose about 5% of the available light hitting them and that's at each and every air to glass surface. With standard single layer coating that is reduced to 1% or less loss. With multicoating it can drop to as little as 0.5% or maybe a wee bit less. Some fully multicoated scopes claim 95% to 98% pass thru for light. With single coating only most will have 88%-92% depending on just how many air to glass surfaces there are and how good the coating actually is.