Anyone using a burris fullfield II

M

Merritt79

New member
I am wondering if anyone is using a burris fullfield II. And if anyone had any bad experience with the them. I am debating between a burris or a nikon monarch. I am wondering if anyone has had any bad experience with burris.
 
I dont like the power ring combined with the eyepiece. I have had 2 FFII scopes that the eyepiece has come loose on. When on a bench you can wiggle the eyepiece with one hand and see the field of view move all over the place. I had a n XTR that I sent back with the same problem. I also dont like them with flip up scope caps since the eyepiece is the power ring, before you know it your caps open to the side or down towards the stock etc. The button to open them seems never to be in the same place.

I have sent in repaired the said scopes and then sold them. I have 2 left, one on a 22 hornet thats doing ok and another still new in the box that I will most likely give to my nephew. I used to be a huge Burris fan. After the hassle I got with the repair on the XTR and having to send in the other two, I just dont buy them anymore, hence no more problems.

Personally I would go with the Nikon Monarch. Probably has an edge in the glass dept and a separate power ring.
 
I have a Burris on one of my rifles. Its a great scope, but like said the power ring also turns the eye piece and I don't like that very well. Glass is good, tracking is good, overall a good scope for the money. If I was going to do it over, I would check out the Nikons or even the Vortex.
 
I like the Burris better than the Nikon Prostaff at a comparable price point. The Monarch is a step up, go with it if you have the $$.
 
I've got three that have served pretty well. So far, my only complaint is what has already been stated - the eyepiece is the power adjustment ring. Maybe a good thing in the winter with gloves; just grab and change power. I'm not usually a big fan of flip up caps, so it doens't bother me too bad.
 
I have a FFII and a Nikon Buckmaster, both 4.5-14 x 40, I prefer the Burris, and both scopes are about the same price. The reason my preference is because the reticle on the Nikon is more difficult to see against the evening sun.I notice the new Coyote scopes from Nikon now have a ARD included and this might remedy that.As someone else mentioned, I believe the monarch line of scopes is a step above the FFII and Buckmaster.
I personally would like to try one of Redfields new scopes.
 
I owned 1 Burris FFII 3-9.

I didn't care for the rotating eye peice, esp sucked with butler flip caps.

Didn't hold zero on a shotgun...

I personally think the Nikon Monarch is 2x better then the Burris. I'm personally not a huge Nikon fan, IF, they cleaned up their CS/warranty, I'd be buying more of them. Glass is excellent and price is excellent.
 
I returned my 4.5-14 FFII to Burris earlier this year with a note explaining how I thought it may be damaged due to a slip on some ice (knocked the scope out of zero by at least 4")and I questioned wether or not it was holding zero.My scope was returned to me in thirteen working days, with a paper saying it was disassembled reassembled and recoil tested, and that it functions perfect. Now I have yet to validate that it is working properly, as I did re mount it (new PEPR mount)but not been able to try it enough (I am skeptical that its fixed).But this mis-hap was my fault, and I would buy another one...personally I cant bring myself to shell out a thousand dollars plus on a scope.(maybe if my income was double..maybe)
 
Thanks for the replies. Now is just the the FFII that just have that problem or is all of burris scopes have that problem with the eyepiece?
 
I never felt it was a problem, but I dont use flip up caps. I use the ones it came with and put em in my pocket.And hey its not like you got to screw it in and out that far to adjust.OH..sorry I cant answer your question.
 
Originally Posted By: Merritt79Thanks for the replies. Now is just the the FFII that just have that problem or is all of burris scopes have that problem with the eyepiece?

The problem I see is the eyepiece of the Fullfield II scopes, or any of their scopes that use the eyepiece as the power adjustment. For me at least with the experience I have had, I prefer the power adjustment to be separate from the eyepiece. Anyone who wants to try it, just put your rifle on a rest, look thru the scope and wiggle the eyepiece at the same time. Some of mine were not as bad as others but none of them are as good as a scope that has a lock nut for the eyepiece and a separate power ring.

More detail,
I couldnt keep my XTR zeroed and I found the problem at the range one afternoon. I sent it in with a little note telling them my problem. About a month later I called and asked about my scope. I then somehow got into a pissing match with the tech in the service dept. He said the scope was fine as is. I told him the problem and suddenly it was my rifle, my shooting, the ammo etc. not the eyepiece. While he admitted it was loose, I told him to fix it and send it to me. The scope arrived with a noticeably tighter eyepiece and believe it or not, it held zero. Some may argue on wether a loose eyepiece can effect POI down range, I have solid experience that on at least one scope that it very much so made a difference. Knowing the scope was then good after the repair.... I traded it and wont be looking to buy another.
 
I have one of the original FullField II's when they first hit the market and were still made in America and it has been on top of my 'go to' 30-06 from day one and has been great. Fantastic scope for the money. I have since tried a couple more of the recent imported versions and they suck so bad I will never own another one.
I am starting to loose faith in the newer Nikons as well, they are too expensive for what they are. If I am going to spend that kind of money I expect quality and a lot of these scope companies just don't get it anymore.
Leupold has never failed me yet.
 
I appreciate the input furhunter/koh.I am still new to this hunting shooting reloading hobby. constructive critisism of a product or service is always helpfull.I had to laugh a little about furhunter`s experience with the tech department guy..but I`m sure it wasn`t too funny for you at the time. thanks guys
 
I have a FF2 tactical on a RAA varmint AR. So far, no problems. I have taken a fair amont of game with it in the field and it has performed well. It shoots just fine at the range too. The tracking is ok, but not great. Glass seems pretty good. I have used it for night hunting with spotlights and had no problem seeing game. Not quite as clear and bright as some other higher end scopes I have, but it was a fraction of the cost and I don't worry about banging it up a little in field. The rotating eyepiece is not an issue for me since I don't use flip-ups and nothing has come loose on it.
 
Originally Posted By: HookedI had to laugh a little about furhunter`s experience with the tech department guy..but I`m sure it wasn`t too funny for you at the time.

Now about 4 years later I kind of chuckle about it but I was mad as [beeep] that afternoon. You dont treat people like that so I now take my business elsewhere.

You know I mostly have high end glass on my rifles but one scope I own thats really nice is a Bushnell 3200 3x9 on my 17Tac. I wanted a lower powered scope for calling with that rifle so I figured I would give one a try. For 200 bucks I am really impressed. I think its got better glass than a FFII and it should be on your list of considerations.
 
Hi guys FYI the Nikon Monarch and the Fullfield II offer the same light transmission in the optics (95%) The Fullfield II being at a more cost effect price point. Kind of a no brainer.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top