Burris Fullfield II vs. Nikon Maonarch

champ198

champ198

Active member
looking at these 2 scopes how do the 2 compare as far as glass quality? i have heard some people say the nikons are pretty fragile...is that true? havent ever had either and this is goin to be put on my 25-06 or the 22-250 for predators mainly and the 25-06 is my main deer gun as well....was looking at the Burris Fullfeild II 4.5x14x42 Ballistic plex and the Nikon Monarch 4x16x42 both with BDC but cant chose which...the nikon is about $100 more but lookin to spend around $500 or close to it
 
Go with nikon i have had both the nikon monarch is better glass. I have had several and have had no problems with nikon. Havent had any with burris neither but the nikon is clearer and when it starts getting dark then the nikon really shines. You can pick up a nikon off ebay for under 400.00 new not a referb neither. I have bought a few off there and i think the one cost me 350.00 for the 6-18 monarch i belive that was the power range on it. Side focus modle. They are nice scopes really hard to beat for the money
 
The fullfield are low end burris made in god only knows where. and if you have 500 to spend you can get a darn nice rig for that.

I would opt for the monarch I have an older monarch ucc that is really bright and crisp my only grip is it is a 4-12 and when you get up over 8 power the eye relief goes to [beeep]

I really want a 3-12 or 4-16 for my new 257 wby and will probably get the higher mag so I dont have to fret on the eye relief
 
thanks man i appriciate the info....new with some of the higher power scopes so still lookin around for info but seems like there are a lot of loyal Nikon guys out there...what is the warrenty on the Nikon optics? i was lookin on SWFA.com earlier and saw the used scopes they have on there for a nice price and a lot were factory reconditioned so thats why i was askin about them being fragile
 
Nothing wrong with either scope. I do own the Burris you mention and have zero complaints. Never owned a Nikon but looked through them plenty. But if my budget was 500 dollars I would give serious consideration towards the Bushnell Elite 6500 series! I love mine! Check them out!
 
No i havent had a single problem. As far as i know they are life time warrenty. They are one helll of a scope for the money. I dont have nikons any mor i up graded but i would not heasaite to use a nikon again in a second. I got the wild hair to use my life saveings on upper end scopes and i havent regreted it one bit but the nikons i was useing before that did a great job. They track good hold zero you will just be hard pressed to find better for the money spent. I think they trump leupold as for clearty the monarch is clearer then my leupold vx111 at low light and a tad clearer during the day.
 
Sightron SII 4x16x42 mildot...500 dollars at manventureoutpost. Both scopes you are considering are very good choices. Of the two, I would choose the Nikon.
 
Again I would never put a burris fullfield in the same class as any reputable scope like leupold nikon or bushnell the upper end burris maybe but not the fullfield

anyway as far as nikon warranty goes the used and refurbs you see are very tempting but only carry a 90 day warranty

but a new one has a lifetime to the original owner

show me how to get a 6500 for 500 and I will be fighting my wife for the checkbook tonight I thought they started around 700
 
Originally Posted By: nitisAgain I would never put a burris fullfield in the same class as any reputable scope like leupold nikon or bushnell the upper end burris maybe but not the fullfield


Are you speaking from experience on the quality of the Fullfield II scope? I've got 2 FFII's right now along with Leupolds, Bushnell Elites, Milletts, and Sightrons and I haven't had issues with any of them. Out of all the brands I feel Sightrons and Burris scopes have given me the most bang for my buck with Sightron getting the edge.


I only had 1 Nikon but it was a Prostaff so I will withhold my opinions of Nikon on a whole but I will say that I removed it the same day I installed it.
 
never owned one just going off of reviews and other stuff I have read and I forget exactly where they are built but that too was somplace that was not really known for their quality of glass

Also you cant get one without the ballistic plex and I hate ballistic plex of any kind I cant see them for crap
 
After breaking 3 FFII's in a short time, I sold my last one to Ragn Cajn. It was a USA made 4.5-14x42 that worked fine, so far.

I still retain 2 Monarchs, and my buddy has a 3-9x40 Monarch that I sold him on a 7mm-08. All 3 are still working fine. I think the Monarch is a better scope than the FFII. For $500, I'd buy a Leupold, though.......
 
Quote:For $500, I'd buy a Leupold, though.......


I've got a Monarch 4-12 AO UCC and a 3-9 Vari-X II and the Monarch is brighter and crisper. That's not exactly apples-to-apples, but it's pretty close, price wise.
For equal money, Nikon gives Leupold real competition.
With Leupold, most of the profit stays in the USA, and their warranty is outstanding, so that's worth something.
I have yet to see any kind of weakness on the Monarch. It tracks very accurately with no back-lash and I've shot sub-1/2" groups with it on the AR, and I can spot my own holes at 100 yards.

Nikon 3-12 x 42

Well, you can get a new Monarch 3-12 for $420. A 4-12 Leupold VX-II is $450.

Leupold 4-12 x 40

Looking through those 2 side-by-side would be interesting. 3X low end vs. 4X comes in pretty handy for predator hunting, so that's a consideration, too.

Either one of them is a nice scope without busting the bank, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I own both and the edge goes to the monarch but it is more expensive. For the price I would go with the burris. The monarch is a top of the line scope I would put up against the higher price scopes. I dont think you can beat the price of the fullfield II scopes. Even the high price scopes break. I have sent the same 2 leupolds back to get fixed a total of 5 times. So we dont want to start on leupold. So far I have never had a bad burris or nikon.
 
Not sure if you have a Vari-XII or VXII from your post. They are very different scopes, and the latter much brighter due to more coatings.

The light transmission of the Monarch is as good or better than the VXII, IMO, on most models, and more on par of the VXIII.

I have 2 Mark 2s now and the light transmission is excellent. Eye relief is beyond excellent. So is the lack of parallax. I thought they had the same exact optics as the VXIIs, but side by side, the Mark 2s look brighter for some reason. Not sure why.....
 
http://swfa.com/Bushnell-4-16x40-Elite-4200-Rifle-Scope-P11606.aspx

The Bushnell 4-16x40 is far better glass than either of them and more reliable than the Nikon. There have been a lot of Nikons have to be repaired but they have done a good job of standing behind their warranty. I've had issues with Burris customer service on three different scopes in the last few years so I dont go there anymore. You can get engraved kenton ind dials to match your balistics for the Bushnell and dial in correction for distance which is more accurate than a balistic reticle and balistic reticles only work at the highest power. Dialing in correction works for every power so when it gets dark and you need to brighten up the scope image by dialing down to 6x or so you are better off using target knobs to dial in correction.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top