Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Burris Fullfield II 2-7x35

Have a 2x7 on my son's 30-30 and it is great. I am a fan of Burris Fullfield II's and have a 3x9 on my CZ 6.5x55. I am fixing to put the 3x9 on a Vanguard 30-06 because I just ordered a Viper 3x9 from Camera Land.

I put one on my Mossberg MVP Flex in .308 win and it has had issues. It keeps losing focus, it takes several clicks before it will begin to move left to right, it floats left to right and today, with less than 100 rounds under it the reticle turned about 45 deg. My first Burris and not happy. Hell, I bet a Tasco would have lasted longer lol Now I get to see how the Burris customer support is.

I wanted to like it. Worked well at low magnification (2-3x). My eyes found it sharper than my son's Leupy 2-7 VX2.

Regrettably, there was not enough eye relief when I turned it up. No such problems with the 3-9x40.

Lots of 'shooters' never fire a rifle in any position but sitting on their asses.

If the scope has enough eye relief, and it's mounted properly, then why is the shooter crawling the stock to see?

As you and ingwe both have said (and I agree). I bought two of them on sale - sold one and the other is on a rimfire. Between the eye relief and the short tube, I had a hard time finding a rifle I could make it work on. I did put it on a Kimber 325 WSM for a couple of shots - when just close enough for a full view it was on the verge of scoping me. I would get light contact each time I fired, so it quickly came off.

I ain't prone to lie. I doubt Tom is either.

I have one on an ar 15. I only paid like 115 for it, I like the reticle but find the view not all that clear. For some reason on that model of scope the glass isn't that great. nutnfancy on youtube reported the same thing about that model of scope. the 3x9 ff2 however I think have great glass for the money. instead I would go with an elite in 3x9, the amount of FOV you give up is almost unnoticable plus more power on the top end and a scope that is easy to get behind at least for me.

If you think a Burris has short eye relief, Bushnell 3200/4200/Elites have way less...I've not mounted one that had the advertised eye relief, and going prone behind anything but a 22, was asking for it. I haven't played with the 2-7 FFII, but the 3-9 works well on a 6# .308.

Well, I'm hoping I like my 2-7x35 as much as I do my 3-9x40's. The 3-9x40 with ballistic plex have been nothing but stellar. One in particular has been on 7 rifles. I've had to send 1 Burris FFII in for repair and that is one of the American made ones that has seen the most use. The eye relief is fine, even for a 9.3x62mm. My 2-7x35 seems to be fine as well, but time will only tell.

something is wrong then in the way your holding the gun. never had a problem even in the slightest bit. long eye relief isn't the panacea many think, otherwise everyone would use scout scopes. It makes eye placement more critical and decreases FOV.

I can assure you that nothing is wrong with the way I hold a gun. I think something is wrong with assuming things about others. I've measured the actual eye relief on several scopes, of different makes and models. When a maker advertises 3-3.5" of eye relief, but actual eye to lense measurements of multiple shooters run from 2.5"-1.4", over 3x-9x, then there's a problem. IF you can get a true 3"-3.5" of eye relief, then it is all that's needed. Heck, anything 2.25-2.5" and more, will work. I think my older Elcans run at 2.5". Now, it is always a possibility that I happened to utilize some anomalous 3200/4200/Elite series tubes vs what is typical for them, with regards to eye relief. I could buy that as a point if disagreement/discussion/debate. Presuming factors unknown is a non-starter.