So I've got a Bushnell Elite 3200 5-15x40 as well as a Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x42 and I'm planning to use one and sell the other. The only problem is I'm undecided on which one to use and which one to sell. They each have things I like about each of them. On the Burris I really like the size and look of it as well as the glass in it. The glass is great. I also like the turrets quite a bit on it. What I don't like is the eye piece design.
Now on the Bushnell I'm aware the optics are only multi coated instead of fully multi coated like the Burris, but honestly, I can't see much of a difference. If there is a difference it's a fairly small one. I need to do some low light comparisons though as I've not gotten to do that yet. So what I dislike about the Bushnell is the glass is slightly and I mean slightly from what I can see behind the Burris, I don't like the turrets nearly as much. They feel solid, but they are the style you'd see on a Simmons or something like that. I also don't like the paralax adjustment as it goes down really easy, but is a little hard to turn back up. The Burris is better here.
However, I like the fact that the Bushnell has a sun shade, I like that it has the rain guard feature, and I like that the top power is 15x. Not much more, but I prefer 15x to 14x slightly.
So they each have features I like and dislike, and I can't decide which one to use and which one to sell. I will be using this for 60% range use, 30% deer hunting, and 10% varmint hunting. I also a fair amount of deer hunting where I'm not in the stand and constantly moving around and sometimes rough on this gun with it getting bounced around in a mule type vehicle, and similar. So holding up and holding zero is most important for me, but number 2 for me would be glass quality. I want it to be decent in low light situations. I want to be able to hunt to the last legal light, so if the Bushnell wouldn't get me there, I wouldn't want it, but I feel like it probably will get me to last legal light just fine.
So for you guys that have had both what are the pro's and con's, and which one is best to go with?
I would use the Burris and sell the Bushnell. Then get some Dyna-Gun wax top coat for the lenses (equal to RainGuard).
Then get some Dyna-Gun wax top coat for the lenses (equal to RainGuard).
I never heard of this stuff. Could you elaborate ?
It's a new product that hasn't officially been released yet.
Dyna-tek has a product that is applied as a wax. You wipe on as a thin coating and let it dry. Then you come back and wipe off the powder that forms when the liquid dries. This leaves a corrosion resistant, water-repelling coating, similar to RainGuard. It can be used as a top coat on top of Dyna-Gun Shield since it is applied as a wax. It can also be used on glass, as where GS cannot. This coating was tested by Dr. Bill Cross at Bushnell to see if it a) harmed the existing optical coatings, and b) if it decreased light transmission. It tested out negative in both regards.
As Doug's Canadian distributor I have test samples that I'm trying out, but the product is not officially released for resale yet, AFAIK.
I would use the Burris and sell the Bushnell.
Yep.
That's really good news. I wonder if Bushnell will have any ties to the product seeing how Dr. Cross was involved in some of the testing. I say this because Bushnell really went crazy with the "rights" to Rainguard type coatings and as you may or may not know struck a deal with Zeiss only because Zeiss developed a hydrophobic type coating first, but it wasn't suitable for sport optics. In a nutshell, it wasn't worth a lengthly court battle so they struck some kind of an agreement. Either way, it's good news for hunters that have scopes w/o rain repellent type coatings.
Anyone tested the durability of both of these? I've been doing some comparing and it seems like they are very close optically, and really in all other regards. The Burris has a slight and I mean very very slight edge it seems optically, but it's not much of a difference that I can see. I'm just wondering if one will hold up better than the other?
The Burris is a better scope in my opinion in that price range they are hard to beat.
I have very little experience with the Burris FF and none with the 3200. The 4200 is a different story. I have lots of experience with them and it's all been great.
When comparing 2 scopes of very similar quality and price it may boil down to which one has the better warranty or which one treats their customers better. Just something to think about.
When comparing 2 scopes of very similar quality and price it may boil down to which one has the better warranty or which one treats their customers better. Just something to think about.
That's the way I'd go as well.
So who has the better warranty? I've dealt with Burris once and actually have a scope there again, but so far they have been good to me despite some of the bad reviews I've read. I've never dealt with Bushnell, but have read mixed reviews on them too.
So what are you guys opinions on the warranty and customer service? These scopes just seem so similar in all aspects.
I've actually had good experience with both companies' CS, so I can't help you there, but Burris scopes have been tough as nails for me. The 3200 is a tough scope, but I've had better luck with the FFII, personally.
I had to choose between a Burris FFII 3-9 or a Leupold VX-3 2.5-8. After a significant amount of side by side viewing under nearly every lighting conditions and various ranges I put the FFII on my new rifle. I think the VX-3 is a very nice scope, but it was not better than the FFII. I also have a 4.5-14 FFII on another rifle and it is even better. Can't help with the Bushnell as I've never had one, but I'm very happy with the 3 FFIIs I have.
I would mount each one and take to the range to see which one works best. That's what I did with a couple of my scopes. I ended up keeping the FF II.
And I agree with Jordan Smith since I have found my FF II to be a tough scope. My FF II has taken some severe punishment. I would think that you won't go wrong either way, both are good scopes. I don't think they make the 3200 anymore. Hope this helps.
I would sell both and buy a Leupold. That's an easy decision.
I've never used the Burris but I can speak to the elite 3200. I used one for 6-7 years, every year included mountain backpack hunts where it got banged, dented and scratched, and every year there was lots of hiking for november deer in temps -20C. It finally fogged up on a deer hunt(-20C) but not bad enough to stop me from shooting a decent muley. At the end of the season I sent it in to the warranty center and they sent me a brand new one. Probably cant go wrong with either one.
I would sell both and buy a Leupold. That's an easy decision.
Not the conclusion I came to based on significant real world comparison. My comparison did not factor in $$. I already owned both. If factoring in $$ it really is not very close.
I would sell both and buy a Leupold. That's an easy decision.
No thanks. I've had several Leupolds and still have a couple and even the VX-II's I've had aren't up to par with the Burris FF II which is a fraction of the cost. I've just yet to be happy with a Leupolds I've had and I've had 5 of them.
How much of a price difference is there between the Burris FF and a closeout deal on a 4200 3-9. If it wasn't much or it is feasable, that is the direction I would go. I've heard of people getting these closeout deals between $200 and $250.
How much of a price difference is there between the Burris FF and a closeout deal on a 4200 3-9. If it wasn't much or it is feasable, that is the direction I would go. I've heard of people getting these closeout deals between $200 and $250.
I think I could probably sell this Burris to a buddy and get enough, well probably a tad more than it would cost for a Elite 4200 3-9x40 from Cabela's for $200. The only reason I don't want to do this is I came from having a decent 3-9x40 on this rifle and it just wasn't working for me. I never found myself using anything under 5 power, and I often found myself wishing I had more power. I'd like the glass of the Bushnell Elite 4200, but it seems like once I get into the higher magnification ones the price increase is huge. I really want something with a minimum of 14x on the top end, and the higher the better. I also want a max of 5 or maybe 6x on the low end. That way it will fit all of my needs in every situation. Both of these seem to fit that category pretty well, but it seems like to step up to much better glass you have to pay 2 or 3x the price, and you don't seem to get 2 or 3x the glass quality.
Burris scopes have been tough as nails for me.
Same here for my Burris FFII.
I agree with the 4200. Save your $$ and go with the 4200 4-16x50mm. I have two of the old side focus versions and they are super clear and plenty of power for the ranges I shoot at. I also have a few of the pentax pioneer original model 4.5-14x42 scopes, from what I hear they are very similar to the burris fullfield II line. They have been pretty excellent on clarity etc. The reticle is a little fine for right at dark, but its a nice built scope for what I paid for them. The fit is super tight on them as well.
I agree with the 4200. Save your $$ and go with the 4200 4-16x50mm. I have two of the old side focus versions and they are super clear and plenty of power for the ranges I shoot at. I also have a few of the pentax pioneer original model 4.5-14x42 scopes, from what I hear they are very similar to the burris fullfield II line. They have been pretty excellent on clarity etc. The reticle is a little fine for right at dark, but its a nice built scope for what I paid for them. The fit is super tight on them as well.
I really like that 4200 4-16x50, but I see they sell for around $420 and I'm just wondering if I'm really going to see that much difference between it and the Burris or 3200 to make it be worth the extra cost. To be honest, that's more than I paid for both of these scopes and I feel like for my needs the glass in the Burris is more than enough, and the 3200 so far seems decent. I'd like to test it out more in the field, but so far seems decent.
I've got both and would opt for the Burris for a couple of reasons. The first, is the crappy service I recieved from Bushnell in regards to the 4200 I sent in to them to have fixed. The second reason is the FFII is a very good scope for the money. I've got 4 of them on different rifles and have never had a single problem with them. I do really like the clarity of the elite series though (3200 and 4200). I feel your frustration in choosing which one to pick as they are so close in comparison. However, I'd have to reiterate my feelings from my previous post and go with the one with the better CS. I believe you mentioned the eye piece on the Burris being a drawback and I'd have to agree with you there: You can't put a flip-up type scope cover on it to help keep moisture and dust out which is a drawback for me, but I still continue to buy and use the FFII's. My last 3-9x40's (Burris FFII) were less than $150.00 shipped (new) from ebay and the 4.5-14x42's were selling for $242.00.
The only 3200 Ive looked through is the 5-15x50 model and the clarity to my eyes wasnt the best. Out of the two models you list I would go for the burris ff II if I had to chose between only those two models I would have a 4.5-14x42 burris on the way
It's funny the amount of times we've talked and you still don't remember who's left handed on this forum. I use them and they work just fine, just not on the burris FFII's where the whole eye piece rotates when you crank up the power. When you turn the power up it places the flip-up in the way of the bolt, making it a hindrance to say the least...... I think we need to start a thread on "who's left handed in this damn forum" just so you don't feel out of place nsaqam
. How about here's some I know of:
1. LBP
2. nsaqam
3. Redneck
4. Bea175
5. bsa1917hunter
6. utah lefty
7. War eagle
8. Jim in idaho
9. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are not alone in this forum nsaqam.
Like I said in another thread, I think that lefties are disproportionately represented on this site.
A few others I can think of offhand are
Moosemuncher, srwshooter, and MontanaMarine.
There are many others though.
As to the use of BC scope covers I can't use them on any scope because when I place the flip up tab so it clears the bolt handle the damn cover flips directly in front of my right eye and blocks all my peripheral vision.
How hard would it be for BC to make a mold for a LH version?
I purchased a Burris FF II 3-9 with the BallisticPlex reticle to experiment with three years ago. It ended up on my Hart-barreled Ruger .280AI and has given me great service. Has held zero for the last 2 seasons of riding in pickups and on ATVs and delivered one-shot kills on a mule deer buck and a nice 14" antelope. After 30 years of using Leupold scopes I am impressed with the Burris.
OTOH, my son bought a Bushnell 3200 3-9 last year and asked me to mount and sight in the scope for him. I was VERY disappointed with the inaccurate windage and elevation adjustments on that scope. After every adjustment I had to tap the turrets with the handle of a screwdriver to get any movement of zero. Even so, the first shot after the adjustment always caused additional movement as evidenced by the shift in impact of the second and third shots from the first shot. I hate scopes that do not accurately shift zero on the first shot. It's one of my demands from any scope. The Burris does it, the Bushnell doesn't. Sell the Bushnell.
BTW, I never had a Leupold "hang up" on adjustment either. From about 1968-9 until October 24, 2009, I never shot at any game animal with any scope other than a Leupold and I have never been disappointed with the performance of those scopes. Never had to send one in for repair either. I just bought my 10th one from slowr1der today, a used 2-7X33 VX-IIc. It will end up on a Browning BLR in .358 Win. Whitetails, black bears and Newfoundland moose better beware.
Also, count me in as another lefty. I remember when only Weatherby and Savage made LH bolt guns. Thankfully Remington 760s, Marlin 336s and Savage 99s allowed us to experience scope-sighted accuracy in a hunting rifle.
I purchased a Burris FF II 3-9 with the BallisticPlex reticle to experiment with three years ago. It ended up on my Hart-barreled Ruger .280AI and has given me great service. Has held zero for the last 2 seasons of riding in pickups and on ATVs and delivered one-shot kills on a mule deer buck and a nice 14" antelope. After 30 years of using Leupold scopes I am impressed with the Burris.
OTOH, my son bought a Bushnell 3200 3-9 last year and asked me to mount and sight in the scope for him. I was VERY disappointed with the inaccurate windage and elevation adjustments on that scope. After every adjustment I had to tap the turrets with the handle of a screwdriver to get any movement of zero. Even so, the first shot after the adjustment always caused additional movement as evidenced by the shift in impact of the second and third shots from the first shot. I hate scopes that do not accurately shift zero on the first shot. It's one of my demands from any scope. The Burris does it, the Bushnell doesn't. Sell the Bushnell.
BTW, I never had a Leupold "hang up" on adjustment either. From about 1968-9 until October 24, 2009, I never shot at any game animal with any scope other than a Leupold and I have never been disappointed with the performance of those scopes. Never had to send one in for repair either. I just bought my 10th one from slowr1der today, a used 2-7X33 VX-IIc. It will end up on a Browning BLR in .358 Win. Whitetails, black bears and Newfoundland moose better beware.
Also, count me in as another lefty. I remember when only Weatherby and Savage made LH bolt guns. Thankfully Remington 760s, Marlin 336s and Savage 99s allowed us to experience scope-sighted accuracy in a hunting rifle.
Great post raystown...
Agree that the 4200 is a big bump over the 3200. I think Nikons are better than 3200's, at least the Japanese ones, probably not those from the Philippines. I have a VX-3 3.5-10x40 CDS. I think It's a big notch above a 3200. Check out the SWFA scope comparisons on line and see where they rank them. They have the VX-3 right up there near the Conquest. I personally don't think they're quite up to the Conquest, but they're pretty darn good. Save up for a 4200 if you're going Bushnell. There are some great deals out there right now on the Conquest 3-9x40, in the $350+ range. IMHO, that can't be topped, quality for the buck, period.
IMHO,
DF
The 4200 is a much better optical comparison to the FFII than is the 3200, IME. So I would say "no", you won't see a big enough difference between the FFII and the 4200 to warrant the additional cost.
Well, I've had a fair bit of experience with my Burris Fullfield 3-9x40 and some experience with the 4.5-14x42. So I decided to mount the Bushnell Elite 3200 5-15x40 and give it a shot. I took it to the range today. My initial impressions when looking through it were pretty good. Optically, it would do 100% of what I wanted it to do. Was it as nice as a Zeiss Conquest? No, but it wasn't bad at all and was a fair bit better than the Nikon Prostaff I had on this rifle previously, and the Leupold VX-I I've got. I don't think it's quite as good as the Burris, but I didn't have them today to do a side by side comparison, but when I did one at shorter ranges earlier in the week the Burris seemed to have a very slight edge.
Now onto sighting it in. I shot it at 25 yards to see where it hit. I made a few adjustments. It needed a ton of adjustment as it was about 6" low and 6" left. I adjust it by just turning it and not even counting the clicks. I took another shot and hit about 1" high and 1" left. I adjusted it 16" clicks down and 16" clicks left and hit right in the bullseye. So then I moved on out to 100 yards. I shot a few shots and it seemed to be hitting about 1" high and 1" left at 100 yards. I moved it 4 clicks down and 4 clicks right. For some reason it now hit about 1" low and 1" right instead of in the bullseye like it should. So then I made some more adjustments and got it centered. The problem I had is that the adjustments didn't seem to be very accurate. I didn't do a box test, and kind of wish I had, but I wanted to do some other shooting too, so I decided to hold off on the box test. However, I'd be willing to bet it wouldn't pass just because the adjustments seemed to be geared towards someone who will zero the rifle and leave it set. Once set it seemed to work perfectly, but the adjustments just didn't seem all that accurate. This is the only Bushnell Elite 3200 with regular turrets I've had to compare this on. It could have also been me pulling on those two shots, but I kind of doubt it as when I moved it back it got pretty close. I had a 10x Elite 3200 Tactical a while back and it did seem to track pretty close.
So I like everything about this scope quite a bit except for the tracking. It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't perfect either. However, since I do set the scope on this rifle and leave it alone I'm not sure it would bother me. That being said, I'm still undecided on which I'm going to keep. I think I'm going to use this one a bit longer to do some tests and see how much I like it, before making my decision. I think so far the Burris has the edge in glass(Slightly) and in tracking, but there are several other features I like better about this Elite 3200.
The Burris really shines in low light. I've often been out hunting with my buddy, and right at last light (twilight) we like to compare our rifles scopes for clarity, resolution, etc. He's got a Zeiss Conquest on his rifle, and I take my Tikka deer hunting quite a bit, which has a Burris FFII on it. Both scopes are 3-9x40. On equal power settings it's hard to see a difference during those twilight moments. My buddy has said to me before that he thinks he can see a bit more detail with my Burris, and that it's a bit brighter. They seem to be about equal to me.
That's good to know, Jordan!
How much of a price difference is there between the Burris FF and a closeout deal on a 4200 3-9. If it wasn't much or it is feasable, that is the direction I would go. I've heard of people getting these closeout deals between $200 and $250.
I think I could probably sell this Burris to a buddy and get enough, well probably a tad more than it would cost for a Elite 4200 3-9x40 from Cabela's for $200. The only reason I don't want to do this is I came from having a decent 3-9x40 on this rifle and it just wasn't working for me. I never found myself using anything under 5 power, and I often found myself wishing I had more power. I'd like the glass of the Bushnell Elite 4200, but it seems like once I get into the higher magnification ones the price increase is huge. I really want something with a minimum of 14x on the top end, and the higher the better. I also want a max of 5 or maybe 6x on the low end. That way it will fit all of my needs in every situation. Both of these seem to fit that category pretty well, but it seems like to step up to much better glass you have to pay 2 or 3x the price, and you don't seem to get 2 or 3x the glass quality.
I will say, 5x on a 3x9 can be a very different thing than 5x on a "big" scope like a 4.5-14 or 6-18 or the like.
Just an observation.
How much of a price difference is there between the Burris FF and a closeout deal on a 4200 3-9. If it wasn't much or it is feasable, that is the direction I would go. I've heard of people getting these closeout deals between $200 and $250.
I think I could probably sell this Burris to a buddy and get enough, well probably a tad more than it would cost for a Elite 4200 3-9x40 from Cabela's for $200. The only reason I don't want to do this is I came from having a decent 3-9x40 on this rifle and it just wasn't working for me. I never found myself using anything under 5 power, and I often found myself wishing I had more power. I'd like the glass of the Bushnell Elite 4200, but it seems like once I get into the higher magnification ones the price increase is huge. I really want something with a minimum of 14x on the top end, and the higher the better. I also want a max of 5 or maybe 6x on the low end. That way it will fit all of my needs in every situation. Both of these seem to fit that category pretty well, but it seems like to step up to much better glass you have to pay 2 or 3x the price, and you don't seem to get 2 or 3x the glass quality.
I will say, 5x on a 3x9 can be a very different thing than 5x on a "big" scope like a 4.5-14 or the like.
Just an observation.
Wouldn't 5x be 5x no matter what the scope is? I'm learning more and more everyday. I appreciate all the posts guys.
Depends. Some manufacturers claim 5x magnification, when the true mag is something like 4.6x, etc.
