Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Weaver Classic Riflescope vs. Burris FFII

I'm looking for a basic hunting scope or two. Am not looking to dial. I've got SWFA SS and Trijicon Accupoint/Credo earmarked for other rifles. Anybody try out these new Weavers from Natchez? Yes, I know they're not made in Japan like the originals.

https://www.natchezss.com/3-9x40mm-classic-riflescope-with-ballistic-x-reticle-wew803940bx

Korean made. Decent size and weight. Affordable. The ocular doesn't turn when the power is adjusted like the Burris. That drove me crazy when Butler Creeks were attached.

Maybe another decent alternative to the venerable Burris Fullfield II. What say you? Anybody have personal experience with one?

I'd like to know about the new Weavers too. Sure miss the ones these are replacing, especially the rimfire models.

Both are JUNK....haven't touched a Weaver in over 50 years.....haven't touched a Burris in over 40 years and will never touch one.....wouldn't put either one on a BB gun.....

Alrighty then. Schmidt & Bender or forfeit your second ammendment rights.

I recently checked out a Weaver Classic at my LGS. IMO it is not in the same class as my Burris FFII.

You think todays Weavers are the same as the ones 50 years ago?

I brought this up in a recent thread where I mentioned looking at a Tract Response. I loved the Weavers Classic K's and recommended various Slams from Natchezss. One big thing for me is that the Buriss FF2, E1's and the new Weaver are NOT Chinese. The Weaver is South Korean which sounds fine to me.
I am a big fan of the Burris Fullfield II's. I own a 6x40 #4 made and found that #4 illuminated dot deal at Natchezss. I can tell you I compared the last one with my VX3 well past legal shooting and it is EVERY bit as good as my Leupold. The one thing Weavers always had over Burris- or Leupold for that matter were the adjustments. The Burris and Leupold are identical and mushy. Weavers have precise feeling clicks which I like.
The turrets on the newer E1 are much easier to read than the Fullfield 2- but not sure if they are crisper or not. Weaver turret looks nice and neither are those overly tall tacticool types.

I think the Weaver is a safe bet - at least to my thinking for the paltry price. My only personal negative on them might be the skinny posts. The ballistic reticle doesn't rally look usable and really tilts things in favor to the FF2 as it has a nice BDC reticle. According to one report the E1 power ring is large and required medium rings. I have lows and don't want to change.
I wouldn't discount what 4570fan says though.

Added - I added the latest iteration of the Sightron S1 to the mix. It checks off a lot of boxes but is another $100. Can get a sort of #4 reticle and made in Philippines like the Burris.

Thank you 4570fan and kenjs1. I appreciate hands on experience rather than the random "it's crap" statements I knew any question about an inexpensive scope would bring. I guess I can only buy SB, TT, ZCO, Kahles, NF and the like now... lol

4570fan can you expand upon your opinion?

The Weaver looked and felt cheaper made. The glass wasn't as bright and clear to my eye. It also seemed to have a shorter eye relief.
Honestly the new Redfield (Academy exclusive) is a better scope (I have a 4-12x40) than the new Weaver. They also come with a lifetime, no hassle, in store replacement warranty at all Academy Sports stores.

That Sightron S1 3-9×40 Mil has caught my attention too. If it holds zero... maybe could be a less pricey alternative to the accupoint.

I think highly of the Burris FF-II. They used to be right at $200 MSRP, but I'm seeing them actually selling for $130-$150 for the 3-9X40. I'd rate them BETTER than a comparable $400 Leupold. I think their Ballistic Plex reticle is the best on the market.

I don't like the E1 at all. I've had limited experience with the newer FF-IV. I suppose it is OK, but I still like the FF-II better.

The ocular turning when changing magnification is a non-issue to me. And it is my understanding that this is part of the reason they have a reputation for ruggedness.

I have no experience with the Weaver.

JMR40- I was really excited about some of the FFIV models- but discovered made in China.
The ocular on the E1 does not turn when changing magnification on the E1's as it did on the FF2- as I understand it.

You are correct on both statements. I despise the E1 reticle. I don't have an issue with the ocular turning on my FFII but I can see where some my not like it.

IMO the Burris Droptine is a viable alternative. I have a couple of the FFll and a couple of the Droptine, all with the ballistic plex. If there is any difference in the lens of the two models I cannot tell it, and I have pretty good eyesight. The best part of the Droptine is that the ocular does not turn when changing power, that always bothers me when I change power on the FFll's.

The ballistic plex is the best holdover reticle available for a hunting reticle IMO. But the downside to the Burris is the mushy clicks, they seem to work ok but are surely indistinct, but I am not a dialer so it is a non-issue to me.

drover

The Burris is impossible to beat especially at the current price point.

Then, how the FUGG would you know a damned thing about either brand of them, good or bad?

The exact same thought I had.

drover

Being clueless seems to be a trend here lately.

Um...ughhhhh.... Stormy Daniels!

Burris E1's can be had with the normal Ballistic Plex reticle if you don't like the E1, you might even stumble on to one with Duplex. I personally like them a bit better than the FFII, but use both. Don't know anything about the new Weavers.