Nikon or Burris?

S

spiaailli

New member
Looking for a new scope for a Remington 700 VTR in 223. Which glass is better the Nikon Pro Staff or the Burris Fullfield line?

Thanks,
 
Between those two I would take the Fullfield hands down. I bought a new Fullfield II this past summer and actually it was on my rifle when I killed my buck this deer season. Mine is the 2x7x35 with the German #4 reticle, it did a fine job hunting in the timber.
 
The Fullfield II is a better scope than the Prostaff. You would have to buy in the Monarch series to top the Fullfield II with a Nikon. The Monarchs are incredible scopes if you want to spend the extra.
 
Burris FFII and Nikon Buckmasters are roughly equivelent in quality.

Prostaff isn't as good and a Monarch is better than a FFII
 
Burris used to make quality stuff. That was before they were bought out. Now they are crap, to the same tune that chinese garbage is crap.

Nikon monarch stuff seems to be pretty decent. Still not up to my standards, but it works.
 
If you wanna spend the extra money get a monarch. if you want to stay in the price range of the burris and buckmaster then go with a bushnell elite 3200. i love mine. its on a rem 700 sps varmint. its a 5-15x and i paid 310 for it. a good website that has good prices is http://www.manventureoutpost.com/
 
Originally Posted By: markleyIf you wanna spend the extra money get a monarch. if you want to stay in the price range of the burris and buckmaster then go with a bushnell elite 3200. i love mine. its on a rem 700 sps varmint. its a 5-15x and i paid 310 for it. a good website that has good prices is http://www.manventureoutpost.com/

I agree the Monarks have brighter glass than anything in and way above its price range hands down.
 
I've probably killed more yotes using Burris that any other scope on my guns. I prefer the 4.5-14 Fullfield. My old Swift has a new Zeiss 4.5-14 on her. I still have some Nikons and Burris. If you can swing it go Zeiss.
 
I think maybe the Nikon Primo's is a good deal at at $199.00

Then again the Burris 3x9 Timberline at SWFA at $119.00 is good also.

Then again a 2x7 FFII at $109.00 at Natchez.


all with ballistic type reticles, The Nikon with nice Turrets!

pick your poisen!!!!!!!!!! I have all 3
 
Originally Posted By: orkanBurris used to make quality stuff. That was before they were bought out. Now they are crap, to the same tune that chinese garbage is crap.

Wow. Not picking a fight with you. It seems you're getting enough of that as it is. Just wondering how you came to that conclusion. Anything factual would be great so I can pass it along. We're always looking to improve so please, if you don't mind, tell me what exactly makes us "crap." Then again why hijack yet another thread.

To the OP: You're talking about 2 good scopes for the money. I have nothing bad to say about the Prostaff. My suggestion to you would be to find a dealer that carries both products and take a look at them for yourself. Seeing them in person is much better than taking someone's word for it although the guys here, for the most part, will not intentionally steer you wrong. Nothing beats looking through an optic with your own eye or eyes. Take 2 guys hand them 2 scopes and you'll get 4 different opinions. No 2 eyes are the same.
 
I have a Nikon Pro Staff and my dad has a Burris FF, both 3X9's with BDC reticles. My preference is the Burris, I like the reticle a bit better than the Nikon circles. Both have decent glass. Shot many coyotes with the Nikon but I will be going with a Burris next time.
 
Burris for me as well. I have owned them since the 70's with no complaints.
I really do think the glass is better in the fullfield than the prostaff as well.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top