Anyone NOT like burris fullfield II scopes?

[Buffalobob]

IW

I have never shot a coyote in my life. I seldom hunt them. I have seen them in Wyoming at moderate ranges of 600 – 900 yards – all of them getting more distance faster than I can get set up to shoot. In good light a Luepold V3 with 50mm objective would have no trouble picking them up at and past 1K. How far past 1K is a question of how much contrast there was with the background. When they are still they can be just about invisible at any range. A Nightforce will do even better, particularly if you go to a larger objective lens such as the 56mm.

So some of it depends on how far you really wish to shoot and what price are you willing to pay to get a shot at a few animals that you probably will not hit even if you shoot. A 1K+ shot on a scrawny little coyote would be one tough shot. Some people manage it! But for me it is hard enough to hit an antelope at those ranges.

There is a thread at the top of the forum about three guys shooting a steel plate at 1918 yards. Two of those scopes are Nightforces and I am not sure what the other one is. You can ask them how clear the target was at those ranges. That black square in the middle is about quarter MOA at that range.

One thing I seldom see written about on the forum is how well a person can see in the first place. I have been slowly teaching my daughter as much about guns and optics as I can remember and demonstrate to her. The real problem she says is that her glasses prescription is not quite right and it prevents her from getting a really fine focus with any optical device. She can still see the white line around the X ring at 1K but she cannot read the numbers on the F-class target. So it is just that little bit of being off on her glasses prescription that causes a difficulty no matter whether she is looking through a Nightforce Luepold , Swaro or Kowa. Even so she is a great spotter and a really good shot. But the point is that optics aren't going to cure some problems.

 

[teddy12b]

I've only been shooting farther than 300 yards now for about a year and a half. For me, I know I'm proficient enough to take a hunting shot at anything past 500 yards at this point. Hopefully I'll only get better at long range shooting, but for now I just need to keep on practicing.

Fortunately I'm still young and have 20/20 vision. I like the concept behind the ballistic plex reticle and will probably be buying another one or two for my rifles.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

i think bob hit the nail on the head.

my experience with them used to be great, when they were made in the US. they were a good scope for the $$ and had decent glass. i owned a good 10 of them that were made in the US. then they moved production of the 3-9X40 and a few other models to another country (phillipines maybe?) i forget exactly what country and dont have one to look on anymore and supposedly they did it because of the volume they were selling when they started giving away a spotter with it. well quality went to crap. the scopes would still hold zero fine, but every one i got the glass was dark as hell and had that red fuzz to it. im talking so dark a $30 tasco is clearer.

in that same price range my money would go to a nikon buckmaster. other burris scopes are ok but just stay away from the 3-9X40 FF2.

 

[FEENIX]

my experience with them used to be great, when they were made in the US. they were a good scope for the $$ and had decent glass. i owned a good 10 of them that were made in the US. then they moved production of the 3-9X40 and a few other models to another country (phillipines maybe?)

You are correct, the ones I've seen at the stores are made in the Philippines. I guess I got lucky ... the one I purchased used was made in Greeley, CO.

 

[Iron Worker]

Red Neck your are quite wrong in your comments about FF2 3x9x40. You say they're quality went to crap? I just got back from the range and guy next to me had that scope. He wanted me to shoot his rifle through my Chronny. At 100 yards target was **** fuzzy,hated adjusting the power. So I think those scopes are actually less then crap I mean way less then dog crap.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Red Neck your are quite wrong in your comments about FF2 3x9x40. You say they're quality went to crap? I just got back from the range and guy next to me had that scope. He wanted me to shoot his rifle through my Chronny. At 100 yards target was **** fuzzy,hated adjusting the power. So I think those scopes are actually less then crap I mean way less then dog crap.

lol they're doo doo butter huh? what amazes me is people still buy these things like crazy. if there wernt better scopes (3200, buckmaster) in the same price range, they would probably still be a value even with the **** glass. but having two better scopes at the same price one which IMO is available with a better BDC system (the buckmaster) for those who like BDC, just makes it plain retarded to buy the FF2. but OMG they give you free bino's!!!!!!!!! what will we ever do. we'll just say the bino's they give you make the scope seem as if it were a S&B, i guess it helps boost back to morale of the scope.

 

[Iron Worker]

One thing I did like was the reticle. Standard cross with a few lines not Mil dots below the cross. I wish higher end scopes had those/ Leupold has their Varmint reticle. But in my house Leupold is a swear word because they're over so over priced.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

i didnt mind the reticle too much, i did find it to be quite heavy, but other than that really no complaints, it certainly could have been better. im not a huge fan of BDC reticles at all. i'd much rather prefer the spin the knobs for elevation as its more precise than a dot (and god forbid your reticle is canted), then hold wind with MIL, or MOA marking (i dial sometimes if wind is steady). i also use the MIL or MOA based reticle to hold for misses aswell, lots faster than reaching to the knobs.

leupold's are overpriced for what you get, but what else is new. i am going to sucker up and get one of the MK4 dark earth M2 scopes though just because i like them. for me though its typically NF, or S&B, yes they both cost more than leupu (one much much more) but they both give you alot more than leupy does.

 

[teddy12b]

Another source for research I use before purchasing anything is the reviews on Midway's website. When I searched the burris fullfield II's with ballistic plex the over whelming majority of people seemed to really like them. I have to admit I was very surprised to read this many people saying that the scopes are junk. I'll admit that giving away a set of bino's or a cheap GPS is a cheesy way to sell a scope, but at the same time it's not much more.

Thanks for the advice everyone. I appreciate it.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Another source for research I use before purchasing anything is the reviews on Midway's website. When I searched the burris fullfield II's with ballistic plex the over whelming majority of people seemed to really like them. I have to admit I was very surprised to read this many people saying that the scopes are junk. I'll admit that giving away a set of bino's or a cheap GPS is a cheesy way to sell a scope, but at the same time it's not much more.

Thanks for the advice everyone. I appreciate it.

the best thing to do is exactly what you did and thats ask a forum full of knowledgable people like are here at LRH.

there are idiots on online retail stores that give barska's, NCstar's, BSA's and other absolute junk optics rave reviews. there are even respected TV shows that give some of the crap good reviews. truth is most wouldnt know a good optic if somebody beat them with it. most of those buying the burris FF2's are "upgrading" from bushnells, tasco's and such and really dont have the knowledge about good optics. then you have the type that "ohh its the best because i own it".

 

[teddy12b]

Another option I'm considering is a Nikon buckmaster series with the BDC.

I've owned some good buckmasters, and a burris fullfield II 2-7 (only been to the range with it once).

The concept is basically the same except Nikon uses circles instead of lines. What's the general opinion on the BDC reticles?

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Another option I'm considering is a Nikon buckmaster series with the BDC.

I've owned some good buckmasters, and a burris fullfield II 2-7 (only been to the range with it once).

The concept is basically the same except Nikon uses circles instead of lines. What's the general opinion on the BDC reticles?

nikon buckmasters are great scopes for the money.

i personally dont liek BDC reticles at all. first off its hard to find a scope with them that really work, then as atmoshperic conditions change your drop changes.

so much simpler to just have a drop chart for the load for whatever conditions and spin the elevation knob. BDC reticles also tend to be alot heavier from every one that ive used. the nikon is heavy but it does the the open circles that you can put where you want to hit but your still back to the fact that they arent really that accurate.

its very easy to jsut chrono your load and have a couple of the leupold ballistics charts that mount on your scope tube for different condition, and then spin a knob. the nikon buckmasters track very well too, so they will work for that aswell.