Burris Fullfield 2???
 

I am interested in the Burris fullfield 2 with the BPlex recticle. Does anyone have any experience or comments about the Fullfield 2. Also, is it comparable to the Leupold VX2? If not, what leupold/bushnell/nikon scope is it comparable too. Thanks in advance.

LAHUNTER

RE: Burris Fullfield 2???
 

No don' t do it...Optically it is comparable if not better than a VX II but their customer service is the sorriest in the Industry...l

RE: Burris Fullfield 2???
 

Buy a Bushnell 3200 scope in lieu of the other two...

RE: Burris Fullfield 2???
 

I' m sitting here with one about two feet from me, the optics are good, the build quality is good, the service hasn' t been an issue yet. I like my scope but it had pretty short and critical eye relief so I replaced it with a Leupold VX-III, and that suits my gun better. The Burris will be going on a varmint gun, and not subjected to a lot of recoil so I' ll probably never have a problem. If you aren' t going to step up to the VX-III the optics of the Leupold aren' t that great (the durability is though). I' d recommend either the Bushnell or the Nikon Monarch scope over any of the one' s you mentioned.

Gordon

RE: Burris Fullfield 2???
 

Thanks for the advice. The main reason I even was considering the Burris fullfield 2 is because of the ballistic-plex recticle. Also it seems like a good deal for a 3x9x40 with a free 20x50 spotting scope for $199.99. I like the fact that with the ballistic-plex, you don' t really have to guess at a hold over gap.
I was really wanting a Nikon monarch but they don' t have a similar recticle. The closest recticle Nikon has is a mil dot, and they don' t offer it on the smaller powered scopes. With the Mil dot, I don' t know if I want to have a whole bunch of dots cluttering up my vision. What are you opinions on the ballistic plex or mil dots, in general.

Thanks
LAHUNTER

RE: Burris Fullfield 2???
 

LAHUNTER, I have the ballistic plex on my Burris, and while it does good for bullet drop, it won' t help with windage when taking a long shot. For this reason, the next reticle that I buy for longer range shooting will probably be a mildot. Once you practice with them they work really well. Don' t get me wrong there is nothing wrong with the Ball. Plex, it' s just that the mildot system is a little more complete.

What Burris are you looking at, and what caliber gun are you putting it on? Like I said it should be fine for a light to medium recoil rifle, but you might want more eye relief for a harder kicker.

Gordon

RE: Burris Fullfield 2???
 

GordonGekko,
Thanks for the response.
I am looking at the Burris Fullfield 2 (3x9x40), and I was thinking about putting it on top of a ruger m77 mark II .270. I have also been wondering how much better is the signature series? Supposidly the fullfield 2 transmits 95% of light. That is better than the vx 1&2, and the same a nikon monarch. Is it worth stepping up to the signature series?

Thanks.

RE: Burris Fullfield 2???
 

How much better is the signature series? well I hate to be vague but optics are really hard to quantify. I see you have grabbed onto the light transmission issue, and while it seems like a good measuring stick for optics, it is really only one part of the picture. There are issues like resolution, sharpness, and contrast, all of which are affected by the lens quality. However, how much resolution, sharpness, contrast do you need for a hunting scope? Some would have you believe that you have to have the best for it to be a good scope, however, I' m a little more practical. I want a scope that is good optically, but most importantly it is reliable, and tracks well (meaning that when I adjust it 2 clicks right it moves 2 clicks right, not one click), and has sufficient eye relief for the gun it' s going on. I' m not advocating going to a cheap scope, because optical quality makes it nice. But, some differences are too small to be detected with the human eye.

So I went through all that to say this, any of the scopes mentioned have good optical quality, any differences between them may be difficult to see with the naked eye. However, you asked how much better is the signature series was and I can only say it appears to be slightly better that the Fullfield II, but not much. Additionally when you get to the Signature price range there are scopes that I greatly prefer to the Burris, such as the Zeiss Conquest (a great buy in the 3-9 by the way) and the Leupold Vari-XIII' s. I apologize for this essay on scopes and hope I didn' t go way overboard (I tried to keep it short, but my brain wouldn' t let me).

Finally, whatever scope you decide on I' ve got to recommend taking a look at www.theopticzone.com I had a great experience purchasing from them, and Jon Jackoviak is usually hanging around and participating in these forums so it' s nice to support him.

Gordon

RE: Burris Fullfield 2???
 

Thanks, GordonGekko. I am glad that you had a good experience with us.

I personally think that the VX-I's and Rifleman are over priced for the features they offer. You can get a Burris Fullfield, Nikon Buckmaster or Bushnell Eliter for the same price or cheaper with, I believe, has better optics, more light transmission and 1/4" click adjustments.

Jon Jackoviak
The Optic Zone
www.theopticzone.com
[email protected]

RE: Burris Fullfield 2???
 

Well I'm more of a bow man......but I do have a nice rifle in the closet ! ;)

I put a Burris Fullfield on it (never seen a Fullfied II). But I have been very diappointed with the Fullfield. It does alright at a lot of things but in low light it's doesn't do well at all(my old $40 Tasco did as well or better) and it doesn't adjust at 1/4" clicks ......it moves more than that. Also the clicks are hard to distinguish (they sound and feel very soft).After many frustrating years with it ......I finally just got pissed and just bought a Zeiss VM/V Diavari to put on my rifle.......hopefully I won't be disappointed with it !!!

RE: Burris Fullfield 2???
 

I own a Burris Sign Series, 3200 elite, 4200 elite and varix III to name a few of my scopes in the closet. All these scopes have worked great in the field and offer good quality both low light and regular. There are difference, some tend to be crisper to my eye, longer eye relief, weight, styling and so on. I have a buddy who bought the FFII and I find it to be a solid scope, he has had no issues with it and loves it.

The Elite 3200 would be my choice of those you mentioned (if the 3" eye relief wasn't an issue)
The FFII is 3.1-3.8 not alot difference so it would be out if eye relief is a consideration. The Sign series provides 3.5-4, the zeiss conquest is a 3.5 fixed and vari x III and VX II would allow even more...so if eye relief is a problem then check out these models.

Here in canada the zeiss isn't a bargain and comes at the same price as the Vari x III by loopy, given my experience and having compared both I would opt for the vari xIII, at close to the same price. Again that is just my experience.

A very clear scope is the 4200 elite but the price climbs up there, I love the 2 I have and they easily rival the Vari x III and Burris Sign Series in brightness/clarity. Eye relief and styling isn't as good though(I use 50MM objectives). If only they lost the baseball bat design, upped the eye relief the 4200 would probably my reccomendation for good scope for all conditions. No it ain't certainly the best but for the cake (up here) it costs about the same as VXII and IMHO it is a much nicer scope.

Good Luck