scope v. scope
 

I'm looking to buy a new scope. I have narrowed it down to the Burris Fullfield II Riflescope 3-9x40 or the Leupold Rifleman 4-12x40. Through my own research the only big difference is that Burris scope captures more light at the darker hours than leupold does. Your thoughts, input, advice? I am leaning more towards the Burris because of the Balistic plex reticle.

RE: scope v. scope
 

Of the 2 you mention Burris without question.

RE: scope v. scope
 

Definitely Burris of the two mentioned.There are several scopes that offer a much better product for the money than the Rifleman.

RE: scope v. scope
 

What do you suggest?

RE: scope v. scope
 

You can get a bushnell 4200 elite 3x9x40 for $299.00 best for the money out there

RE: scope v. scope
 

A busnell elite 3200 or 4200 offer better value for the price.

RE: scope v. scope
 

3X9 Nikon Buckmaster for $199.99, and talk about clear!!;)

RE: scope v. scope
 

you can get a leupold 3x9x40 vari xii most times in new or barley used condition if you watch ebay and gunbroker. thats my vote.

RE: scope v. scope
 

I would also suggest the Burris FF II out of the two you put out. The bushnell Elites, 3200 and 4200 are fantastic as well. If you are looking for a less expensive scope that it clear and sturdy, take a look at the Nikon Prostaff.

RE: scope v. scope
 

Get a 4X or 6X fixed power scope like the Nikon Monarch, MUCH brighter and clearer than most variables on the market. The trouble with variables is the fact they have more glass and moving parts, to get a variable spotting scope or rifle scope to compare with a decent fixed powered scope you have to spend BIG bucks.