Burris fullfield 2 or nikon buckmaster scope


PDA






RBelott
November 6, 2010, 09:34 PM
I am wanting to purchase a scope for my new savage FP 10. I considering getting a Burris 6.5 x 20x50 or a nikon 3x9x50 any input on these 2 optics would be greatly appreciated.

If you enjoyed reading about "Burris fullfield 2 or nikon buckmaster scope" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
magnumman44
November 6, 2010, 10:01 PM
I had a 4.5-14 Nikon buckmaster on my Remington 700 sps tactical, and after every 3-4 shots, I had to readjust the scope's magnification back to 14. It got aggravating after awhile, so I took it off, sold it, and bought the Fullfield II in 4.5-14x42. Problem solved, and I get 1/2"-1" groups at 200 yards depending on the ammo. I like it so much, I bought the 3-9x40 for my DPMS sweet 16, and plan on a 2-7x35 for my new Vortek muzzleloader. I have Leupold on everything else that's scope, but I really like the Fullfield II line.

ZeroJunk
November 7, 2010, 04:55 AM
I took a 3X9 Fullfield II to Montana this year. Rained and snowed every day. I don't think a cat could walk through all the frozen blowdowns without falling down every now and then. Scope functioned flawlessly.

RBelott
November 7, 2010, 10:51 AM
Thanks for the info guys

G27RR
November 7, 2010, 11:05 AM
I have a 4.5-14x40 Buckmaster, and it's got nice glass and holds all adjustments perfectly. Sounds like magnumman may have gotten a bad one. Nikon generally makes very nice scopes. I also have a Monarch 4-16x40 that has very good glass that's up there with the Bushnel Elite 4200 series.

The only Burris I have is a FastFire II, so I can't compare the Buckmaster to the Fullfield. In my opinion, the turrets on the Nikons are nicer than the Fullfield I looked at in the store, but if you're a set it and forget it guy it won't really matter.

nastynatesfish
November 7, 2010, 01:27 PM
I just put a 6-18x40 buckmaster on my 7mag and I love it. Clear as all hell and possitive clicks. Its 1/8 click which is nice and midway has them on sale now for 309.99
My next will be a monarch

browningguy
November 7, 2010, 04:43 PM
I think between my FFII's and Buckmasters I would go with the FFII. I have the FFII in 3x9 and 4.5x14 and both seem just a tad better in dim light than the Buckmaster in 3x9. I have a Monarch in 3x9 also and it seems better than the FFII by a small bit.

magnumman44
November 7, 2010, 05:12 PM
I might have gotten a bad one, I had not thought of that. I also had a 3-9x40 Prostaff on a different rifle that we never could get zeroed in. I really liked the glass on both Nikon's I owned, and I love their rangefinders. I just can't put my trust in a scope that we can't zero or needs constant readjustment. They do have some nice features, I will say that. I guess my luck just lives with the Burris!!

grtwhthntr
November 7, 2010, 07:56 PM
I have Nikon Buckmasters on my both my deer rifles. I have a 4.5-14 x 40 on my .308 and a 3-9 x 40 on my .243. Both scopes are very clear and bright, and hold their zero. I've been very happy with both of them.

viking499
November 7, 2010, 08:02 PM
I have four Nikon Buckmasters and one Nikon Primos. Never had a problem with any of them. One is on a AR-15, two on 243's and two on 6.5x55's.

Also have a Leupold on a CZ 452 and one on a 7 mag. No problems with those either.

Never had a Fullfield. Can not comment on them.

sleepyone
November 7, 2010, 08:16 PM
My Buckmasters have worked flawlessly for two years now. Great light gathering capability and very clear.

slowr1der
November 8, 2010, 08:25 AM
Burris Fullfield II would be my choice although why so much magnification on it? On a deer rifle I wouldn't want much over 4 power on the low end. However, the Vortex Vipers that are on clearance right now are better scopes than both of the ones you mentioned.

rbernie
November 8, 2010, 09:20 AM
I have FFIIs and Buckmasters. Between the two, I think that the Buckmaster has slightly better glass and a more robust feel. They are also more forgiving of variations in eye relief and eye placement.

I also believe that any scope that STARTS at 6x magnification is not well suited to most field purposes.

Mr_Pale_Horse
November 8, 2010, 09:53 AM
I traded my last Nikon for an FFII last month.

On paper, you have to go to Monarch to get the same coatings and light transmission as the FFII.

In use, the FFII steel on steel turrets adjust more repeatably on the Burris, than they did on my Nikons. The Nikons would stay zeroed once adjusted, but getting there was unpredictable.

I considered a Nikon Monarch, VX-3, Conquest before buying the FFII. The VX-3 was the only real contender due to it being lighter and more compact.

I plan on ordering a VX-3 2.5-8x36 custom shop model with German #1 post reticle for my lightweight rig.

If you enjoyed reading about "Burris fullfield 2 or nikon buckmaster scope" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!