superstrutter

I'm in the process of buying a scope for one of my rifles. I don't want to spend over $500.00. I've narrowed my choices to the Nikon Monarch 3-12x42 or 4-16x42or the Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x42. Does anyone hunt with either of these? Any opinions on the two? To me, the clarity is just about identical in the two.

r33h

I have a Nikon Buckmaster on a Ruger .270 and it is super clear and a great scope! I absolutely love it. I would have loved to gotten a monarch, but couldn't afford it at the time. I really like the nikon scopes and I am very impressed with them and have had nothhing but good experiences with them.

bugsNbows

Of the two you mentioned, the Nikon Monarch would be the hands down winner...IMO of course.

BuckRogers

I dont think you can go wrong with either of those scopes. When you pay that kind of money you get what you pay for. I have both burris and nikon scopes that are one step down from the ones you are looking at and I personally like the burris a bit better with the crosshairs the way they are.

MichaelT.

I have the Nikon Monarch 4-16 x 42 SF ... and the Nikon Monarch 5-20 x 44 SF and I really love them both. I also have a Monarch handgun scope and 5 Nikon Buckmasters of various sizes.

I really like the Nikon over the Burris FF II. It is a little better quality than the Burris IMHO.

I know both have a good warranty program, as I have had to utilize them both, but have not had a Hiccup with either.

I just really like the Nikons, and have made the move to almost all Nikons, save maybe 5 - 6 scopes of other Manufacturers.

God Bless

MET

TexasBowHunter

I just went through this with a new rifle and the decision was easy for me having previous experience with burris bino's (they broke several times, however they replaced them every time). After reading the reviews I went with the Nikon Monarch 5-20X44....I like the scope but I would not recommend the bullet dropreticle if you plan on doing much bench shooting, it would be a good large game reticle at long yardages, I have found that the reticle covers too much of the target at300yds and out (paper).....

bigbulls

I have two 3-9X40 FF-II's and could not be happier with them. One sits on a 338RUM and the other on a .270. Neither of the two have given me any problems what so ever.

Having said this.........
If you are comparing a Burris to a Nikon monarch you should really be comparing a Burris Signature select instead of the FF-II. Even though Burris claims that both the monarch and the FF-II both have 95% total light transmission.

The signature select 3-12X44 would be my choice over the Monarch.

joshw020

X 2 . . .never tried Burris, but I love my Monarch to death

TexasBowHunter

Once you decide what you want, give e-bay a look. I bought the Nikon Monarch on e-bay from an outdoor store that beat all the other online dealers by quite a bit. Be sure to check out the stores background of course,I bought mine from baileys outdoos store.....

whitetaildreamer

I've never owned a Burris but both the Nikons that I use have been very dependable. I hunt during some very cold weather and the Nikon has always performed in the cold climate.