Burris Vs. Nikon

striker

striker

New member
Okay here's one for all of you who know your stuff. I just bought a .223 Handi and It needs a scope to go along with it. I also Own a 7mm Rem mag which is one of my favorites. The 7mm has a 3-9 Tasco World CLass Plus. Note the Plus on the end of World Class. The Tasco is a fair scope and I have decided to put it on my handi instead of just leaving it on the 7mm. Since I like the 7mm so much I would rather spend the extra dollars towards a new scope for it. I have narrowed it down to the Burris fullfield II, and the Nikon Buckmaster. Both are the same price. Which would you put on your rifle, and why? Thanks in advance. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
Burris

why

Ballistic plex rectile, a handy feature that not in the Nikon, Should work great with your 7. I have many Burris scopes, some older but I have the 3x9 and the 4.5x14 fullfield ll never had a problem with any of them.
 
I bought a brand new 3x9*40 fullfield ll with the ballistic plex on Ebay for $150. By far one of the best deals I've seen. Only thing I don't like about the scope. The whole eye peice moves instead of just the magnification ring. Sucks with the Butler scope covers since the bolt sometimes hits the caps when you have it on different power settings.
 
If you can find a store with both scopes for you to compare, you will find the Buckmaster to have superior optical clarity.

I have both Fullfield II, Signature and Buckmaster. I think the Buckmaster comes out ahead especially the new Buckmaster now comes with Side Focus feature.
 
Have had a few Burris scopes over the years and they were all good. Never heard or read any bad comments on the Fullfield II's. Have heard a few bad comments on the Buckmasters.

I was at a gun show a few months ago where there was a Nikon booth. The Buckmaster looked pretty good until I picked up the Monarch next to it??
 
Like most of the posters above, Burris. I own 4 of them. 3 Signature series and one Fullfield 2. The one poster was right on the fast focus eyepiece, the whole thing moves, which for flip up caps can be annoying, other than that I love all of em.

I have nothing against Nikon's, I have a pair of their Monarch ATB Binos and they are the best bang for the buck ever.

You're definitely looking at two good scopes.
 
As said above...both good scopes. I have a Burris Fullfield II with the BP cross hairs and my Wife bought me a Nikon Buckmaster with the Mill Dot hairs and Side Focus.... both real clear glass.

ps. the Nikon is on layaway but I spent quite a bit of time checking it out for clarity and the such....good stuff.

pss...what got me to looking into the Nikon was the set of Binoculars my wife bought me a couple months ago....Man, those are the best Binocs I have ever looked through.
 
Last edited:
I have owned them both and the leser of the two evils...Nikon. Its lighter and definitley better manufacturing quality. I still own one Burris, its a 1x with an optional(worthless) balistic plex that sits on my muzzeloader. Its one heck of a scope.
 
I have compared the Nikon and the Burris at "Expensive Mountain" near me. THe NIKON comes out FAR above the Burris in clarity. As a matter of fact Nikon's lower grade scope the Pro Staff was clearer to me than the Burris Fullfield II.

One other thing to consider is the Fullfield II 3-9X with Ballistic Plex is NOT American made. For a while they have been marketing this scope with a free spotting scope and both items are not made here. I picked up one of the 12-24X spotting scopes on Ebay and I am NOT impressed at all with the clearity. But for $40 I can't complain.

For my money the Nikon would be my choice. But then again I got a GREAT deal on a Bushnell Elite 3200 on Ebay for $140.
 
Burris all the way! For the money they are very hard to beat. I have Luepolds, Ziess, and Burris's, all are great optics and none of them have ever failed me.
 
Back
Top