Burris Fullfield II vs. Redfield Revolution


PDA






ArtP
August 30, 2010, 09:39 PM
After cutting through all the marketing hype, the only difference I can find is the FFII has fully multi-coated lenses while the Redfield has multi-coated lenses.

Any opinion of the optical quality difference between these two is welcome.

If you enjoyed reading about "Burris Fullfield II vs. Redfield Revolution" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
kestak
August 30, 2010, 10:40 PM
Greetings,

I can say I have a Fullfield II and a Nikon Buckmaster and used them a lot. They are toe to toe.
I saw a few Redfields and they are very nice. I do not have field experience with it, but ALL the reviews I read in the gun magazines about the new Redfields are good. And they are cheaper than the 2 previously mentionned.

I think with the 3 mentionned in my message you cannot go wrong. One advantage of the Nikon is the empty circle reticle. It is very nice for hunting.

Thank you

greyling22
August 30, 2010, 11:42 PM
http://www.opticsthoughts.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29:qinexpensive-scopeq-comparison&catid=4:rifle-scope-reviews&Itemid=4

to sum up, the burris is better, but it costs more. it's a very good read though.

Wagon
August 30, 2010, 11:55 PM
I have both. Burris FFII 2-7x, clear bright glass, solidly built (heavier too). The only think I don't like is that to zoom, you turn the whole ocular piece, I can't use flip up.. and I like flip up... but good glass, forever warranty, sold product.

The Redfield is Revolution 3-9x, good optic for the price, simple, no fancy feature.. it is lighter too. I like the "assembled in USA" and Leupold warranty.

If price is not an issue, if you don't care about flip up, if assembled in USA (or not) makes no different, IMHO, Burris would be a better scope (between the two).

ArtP
August 31, 2010, 12:06 AM
That's a fantastic link, thanks! I only skimmed it, but will read it thoroughly.

I too own a FFII in 3-9x40 and am pretty darn happy with it. It's only shortcomings are it being blurry around the edges, but only if you're looking for such things. I don't care for turning the whole eye piece either, but I can easily live with that. I have a Signature Select too which I find to be a flawless, fantastic scope but I don't want to plop down $500 for this rifle. $50 makes little difference.

For far less than $200, I'm curious to know the shortcomings of the Redfield. At that price it's got to have weaknesses.

Wagon, if I understand you own the Burris and the Redfield and think the Burris is better? No comment necessary unless I read that wrong.

hometheaterman
August 31, 2010, 01:40 AM
I was going to post that same link, only to the same thread at Optics Talk. It's a great read. IMO there is no comparison between the Burris FFII and the Redfield. The Burris is more comparable with the VX-II when it comes to glass quality, where as the Redfield is basically optically similar to the Leupold Rifleman line. For the small price difference I'd pick the Burris out of those two.

However, with several of the Vortex Vipers on closeout right now, I might would have to go with one of those. They are better scopes by far than all of the ones mentioned above and you can get the 2-7 for like $180 or something similar. There are some great deals on a few models. They are more comparable with the Leupold VX-III, and have a great warranty that's as good or better than Leupolds.

As for the weakness of the Redfield, the biggest weakness I've read about is the poi shifting with magnification change. I've not read of this in any magazine report, however, I have read about it several times when reading personal experiences posted online from guys on various forums. It doesn't seem to be a huge change, but I've read several reports of people saying it does change. The other weakness is the glass quality. The VX-I glass quality is pretty crappy to be honest, I'd hate to even see what the Rifleman lineup looked like. I've not seen one outside of the store, but since they are a lower end model than the VX-I, I can't imagine they'd be good since the VX-I certainly is not.

greyling22
August 31, 2010, 03:18 PM
I was going to go with a redfield, then I read that article and decided on the diamondback. then I saw the vipers on clearance...... the only problem is that they don't have what I want on clearance. I'm trying to scope a small 223, I'd like at least a 9x, and the vipers are just so big.

ArtP
August 31, 2010, 03:52 PM
I'm not sure what your budget is, but SWFA has Vortex Diamondbacks for pretty good price. I'm considering one myself. The size appears to be normal for the sort of magnification it offers.

http://swfa.com/Vortex-Diamondback-Rifle-Scopes-C1409.aspx

After looking (on paper) at the Diamondback and Viper line, the DB's look like a lot more scope for not too much more money, IMHO.

I tend to put more research and importance on the scope that I do the rifle. I'm also up for getting a lot of scope for a little money if I can get away with it (who's not?). Because I don't have a place I can go look in person, it makes choosing all that much harder.

The last scope purchase I made was for a Signature Select and I made sure I bought from a retailer that accepted returns.

ArtP
August 31, 2010, 04:16 PM
However, with several of the Vortex Vipers on closeout right now, I might would have to go with one of those. They are better scopes by far than all of the ones mentioned above and you can get the 2-7 for like $180 or something similar. There are some great deals on a few models. They are more comparable with the Leupold VX-III, and have a great warranty that's as good or better than Leupolds.



While remaining respectful and recognizing we're all just stating opinions, that's a pretty hefty claim, to compare the Diamondbacks to a VX3. I'm very tempted to buy one to see what they're all about.

As far as anyone having a better warranty that Leupold; I don't think it's possible to go beyond, "no questions asked, lifetime repair/replace, fully transferable, no receipt required." Perhaps, if a company rep came out to my house in person and handed me a new scope, apologized for any inconvenience, then bought me lunch, that might be better.

If anyone here has first-hand experience with a Vortex Diamond Back I'd love to hear about it.

greyling22
August 31, 2010, 06:13 PM
from what I've read the viper line seems to edge out the vx3's, with the diamondback falling in between the vx2 and vx2.

I was looking at the 4-12x40 DB. it's actually cheaper than the comparable redfield. the question them becomes, is the 3-10x50 viper a better scope and worth the extra $60 bucks, and would the 50mm lens dwarf my little 223? and the 2-7x32 viper worth giving up 5 power? I sure wish I had a little more power when I'm aiming at a quarter sized dot at 100yds. or a thinner reticle. (oh course I'm currently rocking a tasco world class so anything would probably be an improvement)

ArtP
August 31, 2010, 06:19 PM
I thought the Diamondback line was better than the Viper line?? No?

I'd avoid the 50mm lense too. From what I know and have experienced, it's got to be almost full on dark for the bigger objective to actually gather more visible light. There is another benefit to a larger exit pupil/larger objective lens - that is a larger "sweet spot". Sweet spot is the term I use to describe how forgiving the eye piece is to the eye moving slightly before the scope winks out. Bigger objective lens = bigger sweet spot. I draw the line at no more than 44.

greyling22
August 31, 2010, 06:48 PM
no. crossfire<diamondback<viper<razor.

and I guess you just helped me eliminate the 3-10x50 viper. so it's either the 2-7 viper or the 4-12 diamondback. I guess. I could really go for the smaller diameter eyepiece size and the design of the vipers, but I sure do like the option on the extra 5x magnification. I probably couldn't tell a difference in the quality of the optics if they were side by side though.

ArtP
August 31, 2010, 06:55 PM
I see. Thanks.

I wanted to add more about the objective lens. As magnification increases, light and sweet spot get smaller (exit pupil), so I always pick an objective in relation to the max magnification. If I were in the market for a 32x target scope, I wouldn't mind a 56 objective.

The scope I own with the most magnification is a 16x with 44 objective. I find the sweet spot to be tiny at 16x. So much so that I would only use that magnification from a bench or other ergonomic setup. I'd call it almost worthless in the field.

If this is review, sorry.

hometheaterman
September 3, 2010, 12:52 AM
While remaining respectful and recognizing we're all just stating opinions, that's a pretty hefty claim, to compare the Diamondbacks to a VX3. I'm very tempted to buy one to see what they're all about.It's not the Diamondback that compares to the VX-3, but the Vipers. The Vipers are what are on clearance right now for some models. Sorry I didn't make myself clearer.

The Diamondbacks are supposed to be more comparable to the VX-2.

As for the warranty, Vortex has the same policy.

MrBob
September 3, 2010, 12:22 PM
I was going to go with a redfield, then I read that article and decided on the diamondback

not a bad choice. I prefer the burris but the diamond is nice too

greyling22
September 10, 2010, 04:04 PM
I got my viper in the mail today from cameraland. nice optic, and they threw in free vortex medium mounts, a sticker, a hat and some coffee. (coffee?!) anyway, looks good, can't wait to mount it. the Viper's stamped made in phillipines.

ArtP
September 11, 2010, 08:21 PM
congratulations! I'm interested in a range report once you take it out.

greyling22
September 12, 2010, 10:58 PM
well......I'm hoping to get it out next weekend at a friend's range, but I might not be able to. my range was closed down for deer season, and I"m not a super duper scope guy, but I"ll let you know as best I can when I can.

magnumman44
September 12, 2010, 11:44 PM
I have two Burris FFII scopes...one is a 3-9x40 on my DPMS Sweet 16, and it is fantastic. I also have a 4.5-14x42 on a Remington 700 sps Tactical 223, and it shoots super groups. You can also get good prices on auction sites and gunbroker.

greyling22
September 13, 2010, 12:51 AM
academy has the bushnell elite 3200 for $150 right now.

cibach
September 13, 2010, 04:49 PM
that is a good deal

slowr1der
September 14, 2010, 10:16 PM
Yep, Academy seems to have good deals, I wish we had one close by, but we don't.

greyling22
September 19, 2010, 11:05 PM
ok, vortex viper range report: pulled off my tasco scope, put on viper, and it shot 2 feet low at 50 yards. I maxed out my elevation and was still 4 inches low. I'm assuming that since my last scope worked out ok, maybe it's the scope. I'll be calling vortex in the morning. I'm open to suggestions.

ArtP
September 19, 2010, 11:23 PM
I can't imagine your action and barrel or the scope is that much out of alignment at only 50 yards. I would immediately replace the base and rings with something quality but simple. A $25 Weaver base and rings should do fine. Check everything again, the Tasco worked. Sure, you could shim a base, but doing that at close range is trying to bandaid a much bigger problem. Did you mount the Tasco with normal mounting gear? Did someone else??

Because you moved your point of aim almost two feet (20 inches) at only 50 yards tells me the scope is offering a normal amount of travel. If I did the math in my head right, that would be 160 MOA of travel, in only one direction.

PT1911
September 19, 2010, 11:35 PM
What size objective did you get, what height rings and base are you using? My guess is you problem lies with one of those variables... a whole lot of people end up mounting their scopes way too far above the bore.

greyling22
September 20, 2010, 12:59 AM
I replaced a 3-9x40 tasco world class with a 4-12x40 viper. I used the same warne rings and bases for both scopes. They're high rings, mounted high to clear the bolt handle. And I get that it could be too high, but feet off at 100 yds? that's got to be due to more than a half inch above the bore.

I mounted just like I always have: insert scope and tighten. everything is tight, no weird gaps, everything looks correctly aligned. I used the same ammo for both scopes.

ArtP
September 20, 2010, 02:45 AM
I don't know what else to offer. Even if your scope is up higher than preferred you would not have the problem you're describing - high mounts don't add up to squat at close range.

If you don't get any immediate satisfaction out of Vortex, I'd bring both scopes and hopefully another rifle (so you have two scopes and two rifles) and swap stuff around until you isolate the problem.

Call me silly or old fashion, but I don't use a bore scope to get close on paper - when sighting in. I start out at 7 yards, if I need to, and work my way back to 100 yards, adjusting and doing the math along the way. I've never had a problem getting "on paper" even at very close range.

I wish I could offer you more. Good luck and keep us posted.

greyling22
September 20, 2010, 04:43 PM
vortex guys said it sounded like classic mount problem. said they'd be happy to take the scope back and check it out, but it really sounded like a mount problem. said maybe I should try the burris adjustable rings. I was pleased with their support.

I used warne rings and bases so I called warne. They guy there asked what rings I used (vertical permanent attached) then asked how I tightened them. I said all of them little by little in a pattern, just like lug nuts. he replied that on his rings you're supposed to tighten the bottoms all the way, then the tops. if that doesn't work I am supposed to call him back. So I'm very pleased with warne's CS as well.

Hopefully that will fix the problem. and who knew you were supposed to put on the vertically split rings that way. (maybe everybody, it probably said so in the directions) but nice polite and helpful people all the way around.

UniversalFrost
September 27, 2010, 07:19 PM
any updates on the vortex scope?

I have several vortex products and am tempted to purchase the viper in 2-7x35 for my 6.8 SPC AR I just built. Nice to buy an product with Customer support that is top notch (both warne and vortex)

greyling22
September 28, 2010, 02:07 PM
not yet. I remounted according to the warne guy's instructions, but I haven't made it to the range and I don't have a bore sighter. I'm hoping to get to the range next weekend.

and yes, customer support is a breath of fresh air. I've had a couple issues with the rifle. a left handed zastava mini-mauser imported by the now defunct charles daly, with no current importer. GAH!!!

<SLV>
September 28, 2010, 03:24 PM
Looking forward to your range report. I'm scoping an AIA M10 A2 carbine, and I'm looking for the best 2-7x value. Right now my list is:

Redfield Revolution
Bushnell Elite 3200
Burris Fulfield II
Vortex Viper

I've owned an Elite 3200 that I absolutely loved. I was thinking about giving the new Redfield a try, but after reading this thread I'm itching to try a Vortex. Why is the line being discontinued? That can't be a good sign. I've never owned a Burris, but I hear good things from those who do.

Mr_Pale_Horse
October 12, 2010, 05:04 PM
I mounted and sighted in a Fullfield II Ballistic Plex 3-9x40 yesterday.

I bought one of the Fullfield Packages from Opticsplanet for $199 after a $20 mail in rebate. That included a 10x39mm Burris Landmark Binoculars.

I can only compare it to the scope I replaced; I left the other guns at home. Prior to opening day (11/13), I will have various Leupold and Bushnell models and to compare it to.

The Nikon 2-7x32 Prostaff it replaced was small and light, but, the light out of the FFII, Image quality, and fast focus (my old eyes seem to have a different diopter every other day) made me glad of the decision to upgrade.

The eye relief was far less critical with the FFII. Moving forward or backward on the cheekpiece did not result in the loss of field of view that the Prostaff had burdened me with (you had to be at the exact eye relief or the FOV shrank and distorted).

Lastly, the internals are finished much better. You could see screws and poorly finished metal surfaces inside the Prostaff if you slid too far forward.

Both seemed to have good stability of POI (I hunted for two seasons with the Prostaff; put 80 rounds downrange yesterday with the FFII).

ArtP
October 12, 2010, 07:30 PM
I went through a similar upgrade about a year ago and my findings were similar. If you ever get the money or the balls the buy a Signature Select, you're in for a real treat. They are even clearer & brighter, and clear edge to edge (I bought a 4-16x44). I notice the FFII is a little blury around the edges but still a fantastic scope for the money, and the edges don't amount to much in practice. If trying to balance cost vs. perfomance I've always favored Burris.

an_drew308
February 10, 2011, 01:32 PM
I know this is an old thread, but ArtP, I've noticed the same thing with my two Fullfield II's 4.5-14x42

I don't remember seeing that blurriness when I first purchased the scopes. I keep my guns in a safe. It does get pretty cold in the room that they're in, though. Would temperature have anything to do with that, or is it just how they are made?

I have a few buddies who have the exact same scope, I'm going to compare this afternoon and see if their scopes are blurred around the edges too.

Also, my parallax adjustment seems to be off now. I have to set it on 200 for it to be clear at 100 yds. 300 for target to be clear at 200 yds.... ???

BTW, the blur doesn't hurt functionality, and it's really not too noticeable unless you look for it...

If you enjoyed reading about "Burris Fullfield II vs. Redfield Revolution" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!