Burris vs 4200 or ?


Oct 29, 2004
I am looking for a new scope. I wanted a 4200 Elite, but now I am looking at the Fullfield II. Any suggestions on either or any other scope camparable or better in the same price range? Burris looked real good when I looked thru one the other day.
There are a lot of good quality scopes out there, with Burris & Bushnell being a couple. But I personally like the Nikon Monarch. To me is just seems brighter and clear than many others out there and at a very reasonable price.
Best thing you can do is look through all three brands then decide. I find the Burris and Bushnell have a 'wider field of view' then the Nikon. The view in the scope just seems wider.

They are all great scopes.

I don't feel that the Fulfield II is the right scope to compare to the 4200. The Signature series would be a better one if talking apples to apples. I have a Fulfield II in a 4.5-14 Ballistic Plex, works great on my 260 Rem Mountain Rifle, but it is not half a clear as my Signatures are.
Another vote for the Nikon Monarch as the best but, they are all good scopes.

Jerry, the only thing I don't like about the Burris scopes is their power settings semm false when compared to others. For instance if you take 3-4 high dollar scopes and set them all at the same power the Burris scopes seem to not magnify near what the others do, they seem like they are a couple of powers down. That may be why they seem to have a greater field of view.

Good Luck!

I have both 6x24 4200 B&L and a Burris 4x16 signiture.They both are equal I think.I've made great shots with both of them mounted on the same rifle.
Warning! This thread is more than 19 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Recent Posts