Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Burris FFII 4.5-14x42 vs Nikon Monarch 4-12x40

Intended use, elk and deer hunting western WA. FFII has ballistic reticle, Nikon has BDC. Both have AO. FFII has that annoying rotating eyepiece which makes using butler creeks tough during our rainy elk season.

Which of the above does the campfire favor and why?

Sellem both and get something without an AO

Interesting. I would not have one without it.

You don't need an AO on a hunting scope... ifin you know how to shoot.

TFF


Take care, Willie

I've got 3 of the Nikons. I love those older UCCs. I'm not a big FF fan but many on here think highly of them.

I like the Burris better, but haven't used a version with AO. I agree the rotating eyepiece is a PITA if using scope covers. You should seriously consider the Burris Six X for sale in the classifieds right now. Awesome scope and has a normal zoom ring.

Get the 3-9x40 FFII with ballistic plex and thank me later. Take a little time and find a good American made one too. They seem to be better than the Philippines made ones... However, of the 2 you are asking about, the UCC is the better scope. I'm not sure if the older UCC with BDC has the circles like the newer Nikon BDC reticle. If it does, I'd really get a 3-9x40 Burris FFII and not look back..

I would look through both. I bet you will see better through one of them. I sure do.

I hear that Burris 45-14x42 is a great scope, but side with "bsa". I've came full circle and find I like plain and simple. Make mine a 3 x 9. If it's too far for 9x, it's too far for anything you can hold from your shoulder. Your mileage may vary.

If you're hunting West side of Washington no need for 12 power.
I'd go with the monarch 2.5-10.
That's what I have with bdc. At 400 yards the circle is about the size of a 8" shoot n c target. It is not for long range target shooting as you have to guess where center of bulls eye is at that range or further. I still shoot it sub moa from bench.
But it is great for quick general shot placement.

I don't like the Nikon BDC with the circles. Had one scope and sold it. The FFII ballistic Plex is good. 3-9 should be enough for elk I'd you don't like the AO.

Stay away from the E1. Reticle is too fine.

I would respectfully disagree. At least where I hunt, a bull needs to be a 3 point or larger and trying to count points on foggy mornings or in the pouring rain at 300 yards is difficult. My main 2 elk rifles have a Swaro z6i 2-12 and z5 3.5-18 for just such a purpose and have been used to good effect in such situations.

I recently bought the two scopes in the title used for a backup rifle and thought I'd ask the campfire what their thoughts were. I think the Monarch is better optically and the eyepiece doesn't turn so I'm leaning that way.

Get a good set of binoculars and a 3-9 or 3.5-10 scope, forget the AO

I have both, like the Nikon glass better

338rcm



Maybe I'm missing something here, but if one uses say 7X of 8X binoculars and a maxed out 9X of 10X scope how can you make out even the same detail that an adjustable objective 12X or more scope will give?

I have had one of the Pentax versions of the Burris in the past and it was a very nice scope with the only knock being it is a bit heavy. If I needed that much magnification I would not hesitate to purchase another. As to the nikon I have no experience with that model.

I like the Nikons but their BDC sucks.I have two of the Burris with Ballistic Plex on Varmint Rifles and they are plenty good for that and I have never had them fail.

I have both and see no difference in glass quality. The rotating eye piece doesn't bother me since I have switched most of my field guns to Scope Shields of Alaska. They are far superior to any flip up scope covers and I have used a bunch of them.

http://scopeshieldalaska.com/catalog/i15.html