Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Nikon Monarch or Burris Fullfield 2

I am wondering what the opinions of all you optic experts on which of these two you would recomend and why.
I sold the VX 1 3-9 I had on my 257 Weatherby and although I liked it quite well I want something with higher power. I cant afford to spend a lot of money so I was wondering about these two that I can get for a simular price.
A Fullfield 2 4.5-14 x 42 or a Monarch 5.5-16.5 x 44. Looking through them both in the store I really liked the Burris but how do they compare, and how about low light?
Thanks a lot for any help.

There are few scopes that beat Monarchs in low light, and they won't beat it by much. However, I am pretty sure either will work until the crosshairs disappear. I would go with the Monarch, but I haven't used a Fullfield II only the Fullfields. A sleeper of sorts you might consider are the Weaver Grand Slams. Either a 4.5-14 or 6.5-20x in 40mm. Optics comparable with the Monarch in every way.

I owned the 4.5-14x42 FFII for a brief period and it was about the blurriest scope I've ever owned. You could try and focus it any way you wanted and you were not going to see bullet holes at 200 on paper. You could lay it down, pick up a Monarch and see them with ease.

I also own the 5.5-16.5 Monarch. It is a far better scope than the FFII.

I have several Nikon, Zeiss, Bushnell Elite, Leupold, Simmons (Aetec & WE), and Burris scopes on quite a few rifles and the only two I've ever had complaints about the clarity were the Burris FFII and the Elite 3200. I do however have a lower powered scope in each and they seem clear. The higher mag scopes and clarity is where better glass really shines.

Monarchs have "The" best glass for the money you can buy.

I just got an email flyer from Natchez on some great deals on Monarchs. The 5.5-16.5 with BDC ret. was only 289!

Reloader7RM

Your comments about blurry Fullfield II's sound familiar. That is what was wrong with Fullfields. I called them Blurris. At no range were they ever focused looking. They claimed the same coatings and mechanism. And I found them to adjust quite well, and in fact worked like the coatings were top notch. They were just always darn blurry. I have read conjecture that they used lower grade glass which was the difference.

I have owned a couple of Burris Signature's which were very good. I would say the easy clarity was better than Leupold and only a bit short of Euro glass. The coatings on the Sig's did appear to be what was on the Fullfields.

Just agreed to purchase a second hand Burris Sig on this site, hope it looks nice like the other Sig's. If the Fullfield II's still look blurry, I wonder about Burris. In one sense, for just hunting they were alright, and good in low light. But I got a bad feeling every time I looked through it with the blurry image.

I have a buddy with a 3x-9x Burris Fullfield II and I have a Monarch. I think that the Monarch is much clearer, that's why I bought it. He's thinking about replacing his after he used my rifle.

Hey guys, Thanks a lot for the advice. I was leaning toward the Burris but I think I am changing my mind.
Keep em coming.

Just bought a Monarch 3.5-10x50 & mounted it on my 25-06.....wow, what a scope. Burris is nowhere near the quality, even in the Select series.....and I own/shoot an 8x32 on my 223. Burris is way behind the curve. Just heard Nikon is coming out with an even better line this September with etched glass reticles. Maybe you want to hold off on that scope purchase..or pick up the "old" monarch after the newer line comes out/ Chaz

I think if you want a closer apples to apples in the brands of nikon & burris you will have to either step the nikon down to a buckmaster series or step the burris up to a sig series.

My first thoughts were that it didn't seem fair to be comparing a FFII to a Monarch. A burris Sig series would maybe be more comperable to the monarch... but I have no idea how they compare price wise?

The reason I compared the FFII to the Monarch is I can get them for the same price.

In that case I think I'd buy the Monarch.

is it new? seems funny you can buy it for the same $ as an FFII?

Like Reloader7RM posted earlier you can get a Nikon Monarch 5.5-16.5 for $289 from Natchezss right now and I just ordered me one.

I'd second everything said on the Monarch. I have the most recent Monarch, before they will release their newer version. I actually think the Monarch 3-9*40 are on par with the VX-II...and I paid I think $200 for it...way less than the Leupy VX-II are. I had one before and let it go and decided to get another one. I think you will like the Monarchs and canot compare to the Burris as I never had one. Been tempted a few times but why change when a VXII and Monarch works. If it was me, I'd get the Monarch before current supplies dry up and the newer ones come up and price rises somewhat...

Have not looked through Monarachs much, burris fulfield 2 in clarity is comparable to buckmaster if not better imho. The only thing that leads me away from nikon is the fact no matter which selling house you pick up, from graf and sons to natchez shooting supply there is a cornucopia of factory refirbs in the nikon brand, to me that says somethin';

+1 on that! I have often wondered the same thing. May be unrelated but, I have had Nikon binos crap out on me for no apparent reason. Also, two Nikon 35mm cameras in a row went south. Even so, I had to try one of their scopes. IMO the Burris adjustments are more positive than the Nikon's. Also, if you are considering a ballistic style reticle I'd recommend really spending some time evaluating the Nikon BDC. IMO the circles are so large they are distracting. Scopes are like women, few are perfect and it really is just personnal preference, as they all can get "the job" done. grin

I agree, I am a little concerned about all the factory refirbs with Nikon, and thscope has any problems it will be the last Nikon I ever get.
Your point on the the BDC reticle is also valid and I may not like it at all because of the circles, but I guess I will take the risk and see if they are as wonderful as some people say.

Funny, but when I compared them I liked the FF II better. Mine is exceptionally clear and easy with good eye relief and brightness. It is a fixed 6x and that might play into it. It garners a lot of praise from those who have compared their own various scopes to it. I also have a 3x12 Sightron SII and find it comparable to the variables mentioned. After everything I will strongly +1 on the Grand Slam suggestion. Worth serious consideration