Back up a sec - what's NOT to like about, for example, a Burris "Compact" scope? Less cost (significantly), lighter, better balancing of rifle (potentially), less to get in the way and get banged up.
Why would anyone use a longer, heavier, more expensive scope on a rifle?
Hell, I would think it could also improve light transmission (just less distance for the light to go through), AND less likely to get bumped off zero or be bent, due to the shorter, more compact/robust proportions of construction. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the adjustable range is not as much, and also slightly smaller objective say 32mm instead of 40 for comparable scope, but this too can be an advantage - get that thing on low rings! 
I'm comparing the Burris Signature with the Burris compacts - perhaps I'm erroneously assuming that the compacts are on a par with the Signatures, but it seems like they are, near as I can tell - I don't think Burris is going to offer any crap scope. I suppose they might be more in line with Burris Fullfields instead, the "economy" Burris line - they don't come out and say - perhaps there's some real hidden values here. When compared to the Fullfield II, the prices of the compacts don't compare quite as favorably, but still better in some magnifications and about the same in others, price-wise.
Same deal with Leupold - their 3 compacts are simply called "Vari-X" - doesn't say whether they're comparable to Vari-X IIIs or not. Their 2 "muzzleloader/largebore rifle/crossbow" scopes say they are VX-IIs, but doesn't say on the other 3 compacts.
I've been scrutinizing the websites of Burris and Leupold, and it's perplexing, but if the Burris compacts compare to the Signature line, they're incredible values; good to great values compared to the Fullfield IIs. If the Leupolds compare to the Vari-X IIIs they're great values; compared to the VX-IIs, however, not so much...
But why else would these companies purposely not tell you which other lines they compare to in terms of construction, optic coatings, and features, unless they just don't want to undercut themselves by letting the cat out of the bag? (but yet they still feel that they can't charge as much for a "compact" scope even though there's a small but steady market for them). Or, OTOH, maybe they're relatively poor in value, since they only compare with the economy lines, and therefore they don't want you to know that fact.
In fact, Burris's website says: "Some other brands relegate compacts to lesser quality. One look through a Burris compact and you'll realize these are serious scopes.", for what that's worth...
Why would anyone use a longer, heavier, more expensive scope on a rifle?
Hell, I would think it could also improve light transmission (just less distance for the light to go through), AND less likely to get bumped off zero or be bent, due to the shorter, more compact/robust proportions of construction. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the adjustable range is not as much, and also slightly smaller objective say 32mm instead of 40 for comparable scope, but this too can be an advantage - get that thing on low rings! I'm comparing the Burris Signature with the Burris compacts - perhaps I'm erroneously assuming that the compacts are on a par with the Signatures, but it seems like they are, near as I can tell - I don't think Burris is going to offer any crap scope. I suppose they might be more in line with Burris Fullfields instead, the "economy" Burris line - they don't come out and say - perhaps there's some real hidden values here. When compared to the Fullfield II, the prices of the compacts don't compare quite as favorably, but still better in some magnifications and about the same in others, price-wise.
Same deal with Leupold - their 3 compacts are simply called "Vari-X" - doesn't say whether they're comparable to Vari-X IIIs or not. Their 2 "muzzleloader/largebore rifle/crossbow" scopes say they are VX-IIs, but doesn't say on the other 3 compacts.
I've been scrutinizing the websites of Burris and Leupold, and it's perplexing, but if the Burris compacts compare to the Signature line, they're incredible values; good to great values compared to the Fullfield IIs. If the Leupolds compare to the Vari-X IIIs they're great values; compared to the VX-IIs, however, not so much...
But why else would these companies purposely not tell you which other lines they compare to in terms of construction, optic coatings, and features, unless they just don't want to undercut themselves by letting the cat out of the bag? (but yet they still feel that they can't charge as much for a "compact" scope even though there's a small but steady market for them). Or, OTOH, maybe they're relatively poor in value, since they only compare with the economy lines, and therefore they don't want you to know that fact.
In fact, Burris's website says: "Some other brands relegate compacts to lesser quality. One look through a Burris compact and you'll realize these are serious scopes.", for what that's worth...
Last edited:
