Nikon Monarch VS. Burris Fullfield II

C

CoHuntAddict

New member
I have narrowed it down to two, I am leaning towards the Nikon, but I would think the quality of the Burris is better?

Nikon Monarch UCC 5.5-16.5x44

Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x42mm

The Nikon just sounds better to me because this will be used for both pdogs and yotes, so the 16.5x will help with pdogs but is 5.5x too much for "just out of shotgun range" coyotes?

What do you guys suggest, which one and why? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Well, the Nikon is far and away the better scope IMO. I have both, a Monarch 4-12 x 40 on my 270 and a FF II 3 x 9 x 50 on my 25-06. I am not sure Why would you think the quality of the Burris is better, for one, the burris is yours for 330, the nikon is a hundred more, There is a reason for that. If you want a realistic comparison, take a Buris with a Bushnell Elite or a VX-I, and the Nikon with a VX-III or a Burris Signature, but not the FF II. On your last question, 5.5 is just fine for a 50 yard shot, though you might try finding a 4.5-14, would do the job well. Good Luck!
 
Nikon all the way over that particular Burris. The Nikon Monarch, Leupold VariX III, Ziess Conquest, Bushnell Elite 4200, and a "best buy" Weaver Grand Slam are scopes that are comparable in features and quality. The Fullfield II just can't run in the same company as the scopes mentioned. The Fullfield II is meant to compete against the Nikon Buckmaster, Leupold Rifleman and VX I, Bushnell 3200, Weaver Classic V Series, the less expensive scopes like these.
 
thanks alot for the input guys! After going to sportsmans warehouse and actually lookin through all the scopes and comparing many things including the reticle. I have decided i am after a Leupold VXII 6-18x40AO.

Thanks again!
 
I would say the Nikon Monarch also. I would even recommend it over the Leupold VX-II. I think that is a better scope optically than the Fullfield II or even the Leupold VX-II.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top