Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Burris Fullfield II 3-9 x 40

The 2-7 is not really in the same class as the 3x9. It has a short tube length and it’s kind of oddly proportioned. After having it on and off several rifles, it finally found a home on a Howa Mini. It seems pretty good for that.

How does the ballistic plex compare with the Nikon BDC?

They really are nice and I wish I had bought some years ago instead of Leupold. I use them as a fixed scope setting the magnification to match the drop to the ballistic plex then leave them alone. On my 22 and a 350 legend ~ 5X-6X usually is perfect. The L's are almost all gone except some fixed 4's and a couple older friction 2-7's that seem to be holding zero well.

My only complaint is that I wish you could get a little finer crosshair for target work. For hunting, the boldness is just right.

Favorably, it isn’t freaking circles like the BDC.

On the other hand, the 2-7x FFII has exactly the same eye relief as the 3-9x--when set on the same magnifications. I know this due to owning several of both.

Dunno why somebody would be surprised that a lighter scope of less magnification would have a shorter tube ("oddly proportioned") than a 3-9x. This is generally true of Leupolds of the same model, as well as other companies that offer scopes of about 2-7x and 3-9x.

One exception was Bausch & Lomb's last 1.5-6x (made in Japan), which was a LOT longer than the previous version. It was very flexible in eye relief and mounting position, but they didn't sell many. Which is why they're rare.

Had one of those, and it was a big ‘un. Lost it and (sniff) the Kimber Longmaster it was on to a financial crisis. Needed something that would bring in some bucks quickly. Damn Toyota!

It’s not surprise. It’s an accurate observation and cogent description based on reality.

I thought the 2-7’s were discontinued?

Yep, but pretty recently. There are still some available here and there--but I already have two, enough for my purposes.

I had one and I hated it. Couldn't get behind it very well. It's no where near as good as the 3-9x40. One of the reasons I always specify FFII 3-9x40 with ballistic plex. Not just FFII with ballistic plex. There is a difference.

BTDT. The 3-9x40 is the only way to go..

Are there any Fullfield 2 with standard plex reticle being sold out there anywhere?

Sure, there have been for years. My question is why?

The FFII ballistic plex reticle is one of the best reticles I've come across. Great for targets of all kinds. I've actually shot some of my best groups with my hunting rifles with that reticle and the 3-9x40. I don't see a fault of any kind with it, when actually used in the field. One reason, most of my hunting rifles wear one. If you truly want a standard plex reticle, you can find them. Even if you wanted to resort to buying used, which I've done many times in the past. Generally the gloss versions have the plex reticles. You'll go crazy trying to find a gloss version with the ballistic plex retilce. I have 2 and believe at one time they were a special order item from Burris.


Someone asked about the droptine earlier. My buddy just bought one and put it on his RAR 6.5cm. That scope is nice and clear and adjusts properly. He seems to really like it. I looked through it and it seems to have the same glass as the FFII. To my eyes anyways. If I were looking for a fairly inexpensive rifle scope, I'd try one and see how it holds up.

Nikon has several "BDC" type reticles. The FF2 BDC has slightly thicker center crosshairs than those on my Nikon. I like both, but prefer the Nikon.

I have a Burris Fullfield ll 3-9x40 and a Burris Droptine 3-9x40 both have the Ballistic-Plex reticle which I have found to be a very good choice for an all-around reticle choice, particuarily for those of us who like doing holdover rather than dialing.

As far as the optics they both seem to be about the same to me, and I have very good vision. However the clarity, sharpness, and light-gathering is not in the same league as some other lower priced scopes such as the lower end Nikons or some of the other imported scopes in the same price range. Both of my Burris have significant vignetting, this does not make them unusable but it certainly is distracting if looking anywhere except dead center through the lens. They are a perfectly usable scope for most hunting situations and certainly will work for most folks but they are worth about what they sell for IMO.

drover

Drover, what do you mean by vignetting?

Optical Vignetting - In photography and optics, vignetting is a reduction of an image's brightness or saturation toward the periphery compared to the image center.

In both my Burris' it is characterized by bluriness, distortion and discoloration when looking anywhere except through the dead center of the lens, which is generally not that much of a problem but I do encounter it when gopher shooting from the pickup and have to hold the rifle in conditions where I cannot have my eye directly behind the center of the scope because of mirrors or some other obstruction.

drover

I would agree with you that there is noticeable edge distortion, however for me it is tolerable. I like these scopes for their durability and price point for a "optical aiming device".

I got one of these a few days ago because I had a 30-06 that needed a good set and forget scope. I noticed the edge distortion immediately but if it stays zeroed and I can basically forget about it then I’m ok with it for the price.

I have two Droptines. I just took them out and piddled with them. They are as clear at the edges as they are in the center. I put the crosshairs on mark on tree about 100 yards away. I moved the object from the center to the edge, and it never lost its clarity. Neither Droptine behaved any differently from my Meopro. Are the edges blurry only when you look through the center, then clear up as your eye focuses on the edges?