Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Burris FF II 4-12 ?

Is the 4-12 FF II considered as good a scope as the 3-9 FF II? I'm considering this for shooting steel plates out to 500 yards. I've been using the 3-9 FF II for this but believe a little extra magnification wouldn't hurt.

There is no Fullfield 2 4-12. There is a 4.5-14x 42mm is that the one you're inquiring about? There was an older Fullfield 4-12x.

I like the 4 ½ - 14x42. It will give you an adjustable objective and a larger Objecitive lens for a little better field of view. What cartridge are you shooting?

Thanks Phil & OSU. The 4.5-14x 42 is correct. I''m shooting a 223 Rem & 308 Win. Not doing too bad with the 3-9 FF IIs I've got on them but thought it might be a little easier and less eye strain with more magnification. We get a lot of foggy mornings here in the winter.

Are you currently shooting the ballistic plex reticle on your 3-9?

I have this one on a Tikka 223 Compact and really like it.

https://shopdunns.com/product/burri...llistic-plex-reticle-rifle-scope-200349/

OSU, Both 3-9s have the Ballistic Plex Reticle. Like it a lot, it's simple and works.

Houser, Thanks for posting. That looks like a good price for that scope.

I like it because it has the regular Burris ballistic Plex and not the E1 Christmas tree reticle.

I have 2 on 300 magnums & 1 on an AR & mounted a couple of others on friends elk hunting rifles - they all have worked flawlessly. I got them on Amazon for as little as $109 but today they are $159.

I showed a friend of my grandson some scopes this weekend so he could have firsthand knowledge. He was shocked that a scope that clear & useful was available for that little money.

I have 2. The first one I bought on Amazon when they were $129. It's mounted on my Tikka 223. The second one is an earlier model that I bought on here for $55. I put that one on my 10/22 target gun.
I really like them. The extra magnification really helps but I only crank it up to 12x. For some reason my eyes don't like it on 14x. The adjustable objective is especially useful on the 10/22. I don't use the ballistic hash marks at the ranges I normally shoot so I can't comment on that. The one thing I really noticed is the weight difference. The 3-9 is 13 oz. and the 4.5-14 is 18 oz. but that 5 oz. difference is really noticeable. I don't think you'll find a better deal for the money than the Burris FF II.
To answer you original question, yes, I think the 4.5-14 is every bit as good as your 3-9.

I have the side focus model with the ballistic plex reticle and like it a lot.

I have a couple of the 4.5-14x42's and they've been great. I prefer the extra magnification over the 3-9, but they are both great scopes. One of the best values in a hunting scope imo.

If they would make the parallax adjustment come down to 10 to 15 yards instead of 50 these scopes would be an even bigger seller.

My comments would echo those of River Ridge. Day in and out I prefer the 3-9 just because of what I do but the 4.5-14 have been good to me. It is funny because over 12x, I have a hard time also. They were a hell of a deal at $109. Wish I had bought a couple more

Thanks to all for the info. I'll eventually get one but will give it a little time and see if the price drops again.

I am always saying this. The Fullfield II models have been discontinued from the Burris line. Once existing inventory stockpiles are exhausted in 2029, there will be no more.

Yeah grab them while you can cause when they are gone the price will only go up.

The 3-9x40 is my favorite in the FFII line. I've had the 4.5-15x42 FFII before, but had an issue with the ocular on one. After sending it in, and getting it back, I sold it and continue to use the 3-9x40 religiously. For my kind of hunting (mainly elk in the timber), the lighter simpler 3-9x40 is better. However, where I live now, I could see the 4.5-14x42 as having an advantage with the higher magnification. The ballistic plex reticle is going to be the same, with either scope.

Your thread reminded me of when my buddy and I went to the range, a few months ago, after I set him up with a new Burris FFII 3-9x40 on his RAR Ranch in 223 rem. He was ringing steel out to 500 yards with that rifle. From 100 out to 500 yards, he rang the steel easily. At 500 yards, he consistently rang the 10" plates with no problem with that rifle.


The reticle was pretty much on at each distance. At 500, he used the thick part of the crosshair, right below the 4th hash mark down. That is the beauty in using that reticle. It works that way with most standard cartridges.

Cool to hear about others using it the way it was designed to be used. I think you should buy the 4.5-14x42 and report back with a comparision between the 2 scopes. I also agree with the others: You better grab one, or a couple while you still can. After they are all sold out, they will be more expensive. I expect the FFII 3-9x40 to be over $200.00 after they are all sold out.

The first FFII I bought was the 4.5-14x42 about 22 years ago. Since then, I've acquired a 3-9x40 and 2 6.5-20x50s. All have been excellent scopes