Which Scope??? Nikon Prostaff or Burris Fullfield II


PDA






mwpslp
February 20, 2011, 02:18 AM
I have really narrowed it down to these 2 scopes listed above. I don't want to spend a ton of money on it and I think these may be my best choices. I have a Stevens .270 Win. that it is going on. The Nikon has the BDC reticle and the Burris has the Ballistiplex reticle (if it matters). Both are 3-9X40 and I can get either one new for about $150. Given the choice of these two, which would you choose and why? Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which Scope??? Nikon Prostaff or Burris Fullfield II" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WTBguns10kOK
February 20, 2011, 02:28 AM
Have numerous Prostaffs. Still considered best bang for the buck, if I remember correctly. Have never let me down. They're so reliable they're boring, it's great.

utbrowningman
February 20, 2011, 02:32 AM
Quality is good with both but the Nikon is much more clear and sharp.

Lloyd Smale
February 20, 2011, 06:20 AM
out of the two id take the burris. Prostaffs that ive had werent very good in low light. Id actually pass on both and buy a 3200 bushnell. there being closed out right now and bushenell has come out with a new model and the price on the remaining 3200s are real bargins.

madcratebuilder
February 20, 2011, 06:52 AM
With the current close out pricing on the Fullfield II it gets my vote for best bang for the buck.

jmr40
February 20, 2011, 07:48 AM
If you were Nikon Buckmaster vs Burris I might say Nikon. But Prostaff vs Burris Id say Burris is the better scope

Abel
February 20, 2011, 08:07 AM
The ProStaff just isn't as nice as the Burris. As said before, the Fullfield II compares more with the Buckmaster series.

Creature
February 20, 2011, 08:59 AM
I have both. The clarity and sharpness are noticeably better on my Nikon, especially at full zoom...

Redneck with a 40
February 20, 2011, 11:04 AM
I have a Pro-Staff on my .308 and a Burris Fullfield on my Mini-14 .223. I have to say, in broad daylight target shooting, I like the Burris MUCH better. To me, the Burris has much better clarity and sharpness. The Pro-Staff isn't awefull, but the Burris beats it. Also, the light transmission on the Burris is 95%, the Pro-Staff, 92%.

suzukisam
February 20, 2011, 11:08 AM
burris or as said above bushnell 3200

NeuseRvrRat
February 20, 2011, 11:24 AM
cabelas puts the prostaff 3-9x40 w/ duplex reticle on sale for $100 pretty often. i have 2 of them. great scopes for the money.

at what ranges will you be shooting the .270? the BDC is rarely necessary. not worth $50 imo.

Mr_Pale_Horse
February 20, 2011, 11:34 AM
The entire Prostaff line is being replaced with a 98% transmission coatings and fast focus eyepiece.

Having hunted with both, I like the 2-7x32 Prostaff much better than my 3-9x40 FFII. Admittedly, that is not exactly a straight up comparison.

BoilerUP
February 20, 2011, 11:59 AM
I have both a FFII and ProStaff 3-9x40.

Both are on rifles that have killed deer, both hold zero very well, and both were reasonably priced. Between the two the Burris would get my vote, but its really a toss-up to whichever looks best to YOUR eye.

That said, I also have a Bushnell Elite 3200 3-9x40 and given the closeouts that are going on right now at Natchez & Midway, you'd be doing yourself a disservice if you didn't at least consider it against the other two.

Red State
February 20, 2011, 12:06 PM
As a few other have said, the Burris is the clear winner here.

If we were talking about the Burris FFII vs. the Nikon Buckmaster, then this would be an interesting thread.

Optically they might be close, but the Burris is way tougher and more durable than the Prostaff.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which Scope??? Nikon Prostaff or Burris Fullfield II" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!