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

Good post. You are right about the Bushnell having slightly better glass than the Burris FFII. However, What some of you guys do not get is the usefulness of the ballistic plex reticle in the 3-9X40. That is where the Bushnell fails. The tracking is not perfect with either scope as well: That should be pointed out, for those that don't know. However, when you have a reticle as useful as the ballistic plex, you don't have to worry about tracking. As long as it holds zero well. And they generally do. I've had many elite 3200, 4200's and got rid of them and replaced them with the more useful FFII.

The same can be said for the many Zeiss rifle scopes I've had. I actually have 3 Zeiss rifle scopes that were recently replaced with FFII 3-9x40 with ballistic plex and one with a NF. Even though the glass is better on the Zeiss, compared to the Burris, that means diddly squat. I'd rather have a useable hunting scope that I trust to make solid hits on game out to 500 yards, because the reticle is so useable. I've also had the FFII 4.5-14x42, and the only thing you really gain is weight, size, and some magnification. If you really want a better scope that you can actually dial, look at the now discontinued AR556 and AR7.62 4.5-14x42 with C4 windplex reticle. That is an excellent scope with great glass and works well on AR's, and bolt actions alike. I run them on some of my magnum rifles and have no complaints. I also run one on a 10-22. That is a scope that a lot of guys don't even know about, but a damn good one.

My 4200 elites will stay with me until i die. Nothing else out there for the money thats any better. I have owned a few burris ff2 scope and liked them but know where near as much as the 4200

Especially when Cabela's cleared them out for $99 each. I got the last two in Boise that day.

How do you like the Sightron S1, been thinking of putting one on my .308.

Heym06, the Sightron I had was actually an SII 3-12x42 which I was super excited to get and seemed like it would be perfect. It adjusted great but eye relief was just awful. Heard others make some complaint on this one particular Sightron scope. The new S1's are improved versions of the prior SI but I just was not crazy about the reticle on it. The more I looked at the less enthused I got but that is personal choice no knock on the scope itself. The posts are very short and once I saw a 'normal'#4 available on the Freedom I went that route. If you are okay with the reticle I would say go for it but really, I would steer towards at least a look at the FFII with the old fashioned Ballistic Plex reticle. It is such a proven winner and bargain. I spent more for the Leupold but it wasn't prohibitive and I was sure I knew what I was getting. I know I would be loving the FFII BP and the cost savings though. I mentioned that I am not all that anxious to part with the FF2 6x40 #4 that the Leupold will replace. The new iteration of Weaver got me interested as I have had, endorsed, and been a fan of Weavers. I did let a rather lukewarm review of it by one poster sway me against the Natchezss version. In truth so many of the last budget friendly scopes I have actually seen have really impressed me and I would be comfortable with a number of them.

The Ballistic Plex and the E1 recital uses the same spacing for the hold over spots. The only difference is the E1 is a Christmas tree recital.

Christmas recitals are the best.

Good point. Everyone loves Christmas recitals. Now, getting back to the point about the Burris FFII with ballistic plex reticle.

Any of you guys have proof that your Elite 4200's are precise enough to make solid hits out to say 400 yards with a simple no frills hunting rifle???? Please post up your results. I'll post my most recent outing with one of my new to me rifles (old pre 64 model 70 270 fwt), using off the shelf factory ammo (Federal blue box):

100 yards confirmed zero (first 5 shot group I took with rifle/scope combo):


Now we go over to the 400 yard range and verify the scope, ammo and rifle:


200 yards:



300 yards:



400 yards:


I use a 7" diameter circle to represent a deer's vitals. Even though we know their vital zone is bigger than that. But just to be on the safe side, that's what I use. The scope being used is new out of the box, and has been discontinued, so it's just as much of a test for the new scope, as it is for the new rifle:


Using pretty low BC ammo as well:


That little test has been done very many times by myself and some friends that have tried the Burris FFII 3-9x40 ballistic plex rifle scope, that we know they can be counted on. Some of the other scopes mentioned in this thread can not hold a candle to that type of demonstration. It's simple, yet effective, the reason I keep buying them. What I have laid out in front of you in this thread is very straight forward and a great test. I urge any of you to do the same test with your scopes and post the results. Myself, I like the hash marks provided in the ballistic plex reticle. It makes shooting at known (ranged) distances a lot quicker and more precise. A win win, when hunting big game..

Let's also keep in mind that if you are only shooting out to 100 yards, damn near anything will work. I kept an old Zeiss 3.5-10x44 on my 338wm for a long time because I knew it would only be used to 200 yards max. Scope worked excellent for that application. The glass on that Zeiss is far better than any elite 4200 I've looked through as well, so there's that too.

Weavers su k, not clear to the edge and poor glass. My opinion, ymmv!

I didn't know the early Weavers were built in Korea. I thought they were built in El Paso, TX. Learn something every day.

bsa1917hunter, just look at those bullets. They are no good, not pointy enough.

So you are a southpaw shooting a right handed rifle?

Here you are again wanting pictures as proof.

Weren’t you asked a week or so ago for some proof regarding Burris scopes?

BSA1917Hunter,
Nice write-up of your sighting procedure at distance and more over Excellent shooting! Those are real world results that will definitely hunt at practical ranges. I personally like the Burris FFII reticle, it has put meat on the ground for me several times, i have fancier turret twisting scopes now but there is something about point and shoot when you know your dope card.

Anyway, great shooting BSA1917Hunter.

Yep, I am

LMAO ...

Very nice that the hash marks on the ballistic plex reticle was on out to 400 yards with Federal 270 round nose ammo. I wonder how the same ammo with spire points would do?

Agreed srwshooter, never taking my 4200 Elite off of my Customized BSA .30-06. Works like a charm!

When my father gave me this rifle it had a Weaver on it, horrible scope. Was on a horseback hunt with it in the Rockies, it snowed and the lens fogged up really bad, and because of that, I could not even take a shot at a nice 6x6 herd bull, man was I pizzed.

I replaced it with the 4200 Elite as soon as I got back to civilization!

I have a few Burris FFII's. I have one or two "new Weavers" and four El Paso Weavers. The FFII's are all 3x9, I believe. The newer Weavers are low power, the old Weavers are J4, two K4's, and a K10.

I have had no problems with any of these scopes. I believe that the Burris FFII's are a very good buy. Some of these scopes have been on higher recoil rifles such as 350 RM Remington 600.

Most of my scopes are fixed power Leupold's and I think their price on average is getting high. I have not purchased any of Leupold's lowest cost variable scopes. Other scopes like Zeis, I had to have my left hand not knowing what my right hand was doing with I sent off my CC info.

Pretty hard to argue with BSA's pics along with a lot of other testimonial. I did have one on my muzzleloader... and it worked just fine for that. Then I sold that rig. I now need to scope up two Mod 70s, a 270 and a 30-06... so will likely just get two FF2s and play with them. Thanks to those of you that had constructive / informed input.

Anybody ever try out the FF2 muzzy scope?