Burris Fullfield E1

[I6turbo]

I thought I seen the E1 for under $150 with the normal redical tho.

Possible, but that would be a great sale price for the E1. I think I've seen the FF II version at that kind of price lately, which IMO would make it an amazing bargin for what you get.

Sportsmans Supply has been selling TONS of Burris scopes on GB for the past several months. They start the auction at $.01 and let them run for a week. The lowest 4.5-14x42 E1 ending prices have been in the $170-ish range + $10 shipping. They are also selling some the 6.5-20x50 at very aggressive prices. Sportsmans Supply sometimes blows out quantities of scopes like this. I bought a few Weaver V-24s from them a while back at an average of $232 delivered, which was a great price at a time when most of the well-known sellers were getting $400 +/-.

One other note on the Burris scopes currently on offer, a lot of them are the Long Range MOA reticle. That one is way too busy to suit ME (might be ideal for others). I'm a big fan of their Ballistic-Plex reticle, and would want that one in any Burris FF or E1 that I buy.

 

[LoonWulf]

tried messing with the parallax on my timberline, lasered the tree limb at 86yds, set the ao for something just under 100. At max power I was getting little or no parallax as long as I wasn't going into the black.
tried to get a video, it's pretty crappy.

 

[I6turbo]

tried messing with the parallax on my timberline, lasered the tree limb at 86yds, set the ao for something just under 100. At max power I was getting little or no parallax as long as I wasn't going into the black.
tried to get a video, it's pretty crappy.

Thanks for reporting back on this. It's odd, but I took my Timberline and a FF II out this afternoon to compare, and to take another look at the parallax error that I'd observed in the Timberline last time when I was doing a scope comparison. I observed very much LESS error at 50 yards than I did last time. Very strange, but I'm happy.

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the physical size. The Timberline is a very compact scope for the magnification range. The FF II (on the bottom) is not a large scope, but quite a bit bigger than the Timberline. There's a very noticeable difference in the scopes in use. The FF II just doesn't give one much to complain about, IMO. To my eyes, it takes approximately $500 street price to buy a Leupold, Nikon, Vortex, or Sightron that is as good or better.

 

[high country]

Wow, thanks for posting all those photos gents! That is very helpful, and I could look at CZ527 pictures all day... As you mentioned, they are all the long range MOA reticle, rather than the ballistic plex. They both look a little on the busy side, and I can't say I have a strong preference, but it looks like the MOA reticle has a finer cross hair at the middle which I prefer. I may try to land one of those ones up for auction. At those prices, even if I don't love it, I can set it aside for a spare.

Having to shift the timberline forward like that is my concern. I am also 6'2" with a bird neck, so almost always have to have scopes set forward more than normal. A scope that has to be set on the forward side generally is likely to require a DIP rail and rings which I want to avoid.

 

[LoonWulf]

I'd agree, I'm probably going to go the dip route. That or I'll put the timberline on another rifle.

 

[high country]

At the price I was able to pick up a Fullfield E1 with the MOA recticle from a gunbroker auction, I couldn't pass. Should be here next week. Thanks all for the input, I will update once I get it mounted and give it a try.

 

[I6turbo]

As you mentioned, they are all the long range MOA reticle, rather than the ballistic plex. They both look a little on the busy side, and I can't say I have a strong preference, but it looks like the MOA reticle has a finer cross hair at the middle which I prefer.

I don't have an E1 Ballistic Plex, but I have some of the regular Ballistic Plex reticles. Burris' website says that the cross hair subtensions are the same for the two. I can tell you that I find the Ballistic Plex to be a very good compromise of thick enough for most hunting scenarios, but thin enough for all but the most precision target-shooting efforts. I have some other scopes with fine crosshairs, and fine crosshairs and various size dots. All things considered, I'd just as soon have the Ballistic Plex reticle as any of them. It's just a great, versatile reticle, IMO. I look forward to your feedback on the scope once you've had a chance to try it out in person.

 

[jtmaster6]

Those are some older Leupold rings without the Leupold logo on top. That scope on all three of the guns above is the Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x42 (42-mm Objective, of course). Here are some closer shots of the scope and rings. Sorry that the photos aren't all that good, but I hope they help.

View attachment 856182

View attachment 856183


I think you'd really like this scope, or from what others here say, the E1 version of it if you want Side Focus. A couple of my favorite scopes to shoot with, so long as 14 - 16x is enough magnification for the task at hand, are the Burris above, and the Weaver Grand Slam 4-16x44 with Side Focus. Here's a shot of the Weaver on a CZ 452 Scout (a youth-size rifle, but the same quality as the rest of the 452 line). The Grand Slam is slightly smaller than the Burris, and a great scope in use.

View attachment 856184

Thanks! I do like Weaver scopes (Made in Japan models) and have one on a Winchester 70 in .280 Rem which has taken many deer. For my 527 American I ended up ordering a Meopta Meopro 4.5-14x44mm and Warne high rings. I will post pics when I get everything mounted.

 

[I6turbo]

Thanks! I do like Weaver scopes (Made in Japan models) and have one on a Winchester 70 in .280 Rem which has taken many deer. For my 527 American I ended up ordering a Meopta Meopro 4.5-14x44mm and Warne high rings. I will post pics when I get everything mounted.

That should be a nice setup!

 

[NMachine]

I have the 3-9x40 with the e1 ballistic Plex reticle. The subtensions are finer than I thought they would be. But I actually like them better that way. They don’t distract or cover too much target like some reticles do. This is also an etched reticle which I see as a benefit. The glass is very nice and beats many more expensive scopes.

 

[high country]

Took the Fullfield E1 to the range today, bolted to the top of my CZ 527. Very happy with that choice. The glass is far, far better than the Vortex crossfire I have, and quite close to the quality of a Hawke Sidewinder i have had for a long time. The Fullfield is a couple inches shorter and 3/4 pound lighter than the Hawke, so it is a much better fit on a small rifle like the CZ 527.

I like the MOA recticle, the crosshairs are very fine, which is nice for paper punching. I would have liked to give the ballistic plex recticle a try too, but am really impressed by the quality of the glass at that price point. At that price, it is not unlikely that I will end up with more than one of these scopes.

The scope is very forgiving on head positioning to get a good sight picture, with the right amount of eye relief for me without having to go to any extraordinary lengths getting the scope forward on the rifle. No fuzziness or other distortion was apparent even when cranked all the way up to 14x.

The side focus worked great, and the turrets has good positive clicks. I didn't get a chance to test how well the scope works when adjusting for windage and elevation because this was just a sight-in and rifle break-in trip (and I was shooting horribly, 100% operator error, the equipment worked great).

Thanks all for the feedback, and for those looking for recommendations, I would say this scope would be tough to beat at the price point if you like side focus.

 

[mshootnit]

I just picked up a fullfield E1 4.5-14X42 Ballistic plex. I am wondering if anyone has experience with this and if so how is it?

 

[LoonWulf]

I just picked up a fullfield E1 4.5-14X42 Ballistic plex. I am wondering if anyone has experience with this and if so how is it?

Well enough that this one is going on my new Mesa.


These arnt dialers scopes, as the turrets are mushy and imprecise.....they track fine for sighting tho.

 

[mshootnit]

I compared my Rt6 against a trijicon both side by side when I bought it. I was favorably impressed with the RT6. I am hoping the E1 has the same quality.

 

[LoonWulf]

I compared my Rt6 against a trijicon both side by side when I bought it. I was favorably impressed with the RT6. I am hoping the E1 has the same quality.

Im curious to see how you like it.
Optically i put them on par or a little better than leupolds vx-fs, and as set it and forget it scopes i think they are an excellent value.

 

[mshootnit]

I will let you know, I think I am going to throw it on a stainless Ruger 25-06

 

[I6turbo]

I just picked up a fullfield E1 4.5-14X42 Ballistic plex. I am wondering if anyone has experience with this and if so how is it?

Since the time of my posts up above, I have picked up some of the E1 4.5-14X42s with Ballistic-Plex reticle and have compared them to some of my other scopes. As best I can tell, the optics are identical to the FFII in terms of clarity and resolution. At times I thought I might give the edge to the E1 by the smallest margin that I could detect, but then again, I wasn't sure, so that's how close they are. You can see from my other posts how highly I think of the FF II based upon my comparisons and on using them on a variety of guns. The E1 has Side Focus, which to me is substantially preferable to A/O, so IMO, it's my choice between the two. They are GREAT scopes for the price, and good scopes even at 2x their price.

Two days ago I compared the FF II against two scopes that cost much more; Nitrex TR-2 3-15x50 (same as Weaver Super Slam), and Sightron S-TAC 4-20x50. I was shocked to see that at any power up to 14 (the max for the FF II), it was BETTER than either of the other two. The TR-2 came in 2nd. The FF II beat them badly - brighter, more contrast, more clarity, no parallax error, and just more pleasant to look through.

As I said, I was shocked at the outcome. I was especially disappointed with that Sightron because it has terrible parallax error when you have it focused to the target distance. The worst I've ever seen -- about an inch at 65 yards. Also, there are no yardage markings on the Sightron's focus knob. That might be because you have to twist the focus knob quite a bit to refocus it when you change magnification levels, so there's no way they could put a scale on it and have it correct for various magnification settings. The TR-2 has this issue as well, but nowhere near as badly as the S-TAC.)

Here are the three while testing. The Sightron (in the middle) is a much larger scope (30mm tube vs. 1", and good bit longer than either of the other two), but the positioning relative to the camera skews the perspective.

 

[mshootnit]

Nitrex is the old Weaver LOW scopes?

 

[I6turbo]

Nitrex is the old Weaver LOW scopes?

Yes, LOW-made and at the same time that the parent company owned Weaver and launched Nitrex. The TR-2 is widely claimed to be the same as the Weaver Super Slam, and appears to be from what I've seen. I like the Nitrex quite a bit better than this particular Sightron, but the FF II really surprised me in this comparison because I thought the Nitrex/Super Slam offered better resolution than what I saw in this test. I was looking at an optical resolution target, BTW. Like the one below, and also looking at leaves and tree bark and miscellaneous other stuff.

 

[Hugger-4641]

Optics planet has a special right now, Veracity 3-15x50 and E1 4.5-14x42 Ballistic plex for $727. If I didn't already have a couple of each I'd jump on this, the Veracity is normally $650+ no matter where you buy it and the E1 4.5-14 is $250+ .

 

[I6turbo]

Optics planet has a special right now, Veracity 3-15x50 and E1 4.5-14x42 Ballistic plex for $727. If I didn't already have a couple of each I'd jump on this, the Veracity is normally $650+ no matter where you buy it and the E1 4.5-14 is $250+ .

I've yet to have a Burris scope or other optical device that didn't impress me for the price and purpose. Have you ever closely compared those two side-by-side?

 

[Hugger-4641]

No, haven't really compared the two, but I have 5 different Burris scopes in service right now and happy with all. I have E1 and FF2 on 30-06's and on 6.5cm and 22-250. I have a 3-15 and 4.5-20 veracity on 300wm's and Rt-25 on another 6.5cm. I also have some Vortex, Nikkon, Athlon, Sig, and others that I'm happy with, but Burris seems to jump off the shelf at me quicker than the others for some reason.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

I just got a Fullfield E1 6.5-20x50mm. Im very happy with it. I have it on a 17HMR for now. In the future i want to get another rifle to put it on. So i can take advantage of the scopes capabilities. I was going to put it on my .223. But i like the scope i have on it.

 

[Hugger-4641]

I have a unique variety of scopes on my AR-15s. One of them I built just for fun to see how cheap I could. It would probably get laughed at by most, but I get 3" groups at 300yds with it. It's an Anderson lower with stock trigger, Palmetto upper, custom 1/7 nitride carbine, and a Tru-glo Tac 6x24 on Burris quick detach. It shoots almost as good as my high end custom AR with a Strike Eagle, for 1/3 the money!

 

[mshootnit]

Yes, LOW-made and at the same time that the parent company owned Weaver and launched Nitrex. The TR-2 is widely claimed to be the same as the Weaver Super Slam, and appears to be from what I've seen. I like the Nitrex quite a bit better than this particular Sightron, but the FF II really surprised me in this comparison because I thought the Nitrex/Super Slam offered better resolution than what I saw in this test. I was looking at an optical resolution target, BTW. Like the one below, and also looking at leaves and tree bark and miscellaneous other stuff.
View attachment 990040

I once had a Sightron which would fail that chart test miserably at 200m. Even with parallax adjustment it was garbledy gook.