Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Burris Fullfield drop test success

Burris FF 3-9x40mm Drop Eval

Rokslide did their infamous drop test on an old Burris Fullfield II and it did well. Just confirming the solid reputation that it has. Bums me out that they're discontinued. I have no idea how the made in China Fullfield IV would do - it's a completely different design, so who knows.

You should buy ten of them while Amazon still has them. Surely that’s enough to last you a few years.

I did that over the past 2 years and stashed away most of them for future use.

Formid knows how to test them. They are liked by many, for obvious reasons, and then other reasons not known by guys that don't use them. I've always said they are a "set and forget" scope, but with a really useful reticle (FFII with ballistic plex). I've used them since 1998, with no regrets. They are on most of my hunting rifles, as I made the decision a while ago, to get rid of everything that doesn't have a useful reticle for my hunting purposes. I sold Leupolds, Zeiss Conquests, Bausch and Lomb Elites, Bushnell Elites (3200 and 4200), Nikon Monarchs, and others that did not make the cut.

The Burris FFII 3-9x40 with ballistic plex works very well, is reliable, and lightweight, with good enough glass for any kind of hunting situation. One thing I have noticed, is the newer ones have a slightly thicker reticle, and different coatings. I don't like the thicker reticle, and actually prefer the older American made FFII with ballistic plex, but YMMV... I personally would not buy a Chinese made Burris.

Had a 4.5-14 ff2 that was great up until about 20 rounds, then it literally looked like someone threw a can of garbage on the inside. The recoil had debris scattered to the point of being unusable on low power. That said it wasn’t anything mechanical, but the inside of the tube looked like rust or oxidation pealing off and I’m assuming the recoil sent it flying inside the scope. Sent it in and they cleaned it up, good service btw, looked good when I got it back but the diopter was stuck, like welded stuck all the way in.

I was kinda pissed at this point, I ripped the rubber ring off trying to get the diopter unstuck with no luck, so being more pissed I beat the h€!! outta the eyepiece from the side on a wooded fence post, wish I would have recorded it. Diopter broke loose, so I superglued the rubber ring back on and it’s working great so far on an old 06. Glass hits way above its weight and it’s held zero fine so far.

I own Swarovski’s and Burris FF 2’s. Love the Burris’s.

The eye relief/eyebox on my FFII 3-9 is not mediocre but it's getting there. Quality of view is....ok, contrast isn't great though. The BallisticPlex is among the best ballistic reticles on the market I've looked through. The whole ocular turning to change magnification is plumb wierd. Mine is the USA made, don't know how the Taiwan made ones stack up.

Doug keeps telling us the Droptine is the improved version, a friend says he his Droptine is better glass than his FFII.

I should add at the price of the FFII and Droptine they are a good deal though.

Nothing against the Burris but after Formy/Rokslide debacle and getting caught lying about Maven and then having to post a real test anyone who believes anything Formy says is pretty gullible.

But then again a scant few here believe LiL Fish's fake tests.

Any way I would bet the Burris is a fine optic.

Good Luck.

Casey,

Couple questions:

When you refer to the USA made and Taiwan-made ones, which scopes are you referring to? The Fullfield IIs were made until around 2007 or so in the U.S., when then production was switched to the Philippines. This was done by Burris not by contracting with a factory over there to make something similar, but by providing the same (but new) machinery to the Philippine company, and also training their workers how to use it. I requested a Philippine scope to test ASAP, which turned out to be at least the equal of the U.S. scopes optically, which was not a surprise since the glass was already coming from Asia, probably from the same plant. But the machining was smoother in the Philippine scope, and the turret adjustments crisper, probably because of the newer machinery.

Might also mention that the ONLY 3-9x40 Fullfield II that I've ever had fail, out of at least 20, was the last USA-made scope I owned. This happened a couple years ago, but obviously it was my oldest--and had been on a LOT of rifles.

I have never had any trouble with the eye relief/eyebox on the 3-9x40 FFIIs, but I don't shoot (or own) nearly as many hard-kicking rifles as I used to--and don't have 3-9x scopes of any kind on the ones I do. Have also never been bothered by turning the eyepiece to change the magnification, partly because I haven't used flip-up scope covers for a while, having switched to neoprene one-piece covers years ago.

John, Is this the one where they were using the reproduction version and saying it was a production version? I seem to recall that and even ask about the differences in how it looked in better condition than when the test started.

Nothing against Maven, I just haven't found one of their scopes that I think would work for me.

Do you have a NDA with Maven or can you elaborate on what you consulted on? Which models? Have you ran one for a good amount of time to know what the reliability will be, things you would change?

Thanks for your time John

Darryle

No NDA, I say what I want but do not in any way speak for Maven. But I know enough of the inside baseball to call balls and strikes.

Formy got a burr under her saddle with Maven and lied on the review of the RS5. The scope was drop tested and used for hunting by Ron Avery (owns Rokslide) and killed a bull over 900yds but when Formy got the scope it started shifiting zero randomly and failed her drop test in a spectacular manner. The exact same scope Ron Avery drop tested and used for hunting with zero issues.

Maven does sponsor Rokslide. Possibly the fact that Avery used the scope for hunting and drop testing, including killing an elk at over 900yds was discussed? Who knows?

Was there a Come to Jesus discussion at Rokslide with Formy about not being a liar? Maybe?

Now the new RS1.2 Maven, which as far as internals is the same scope, get tested and becomes the best scope ol Formy ever tested. Like a miracle.

Now the avid readers of Rokslide have a scope they think was designed for them. They are happy guys and buy quite a few of the RS1.2s.

All of the above is just my opinion and again I do not speak for anyone at Maven or Rokslide and might have just had a bad dream.

Now I do have a few of the Maven scopes and have not had any issues as far as tracking or anythng else. Very well made stuff.

I am not a fan of FFP but that's my issue and lots of other skilled shooters disagree.

I have a RS1.2 but just have not used it enough to say much. I would be suprised if it does not work exactly as advertised based on a few RS1 I have used quite a bit.

I think Maven has the best scopes coming out of LOW in Japan and if you like the features you won't go wrong.

Would love to see the 24 Hour’, Rokslide battle of the egos.

Formidwhatever claims every Leupold has failed. Burns’s claims failures are due to shi ty guns, mounting and shooting.

I’d kick in the first $100 to watch the YouTube video of the two oversized egos evaluating the same Leupold bought random and evaluated side by side.

Wow, I'm agreeing strongly with you, Burnsy.

Looking at the rings from one of posted "tests", it seemed a little.............amateur hour for ole fishy.

The little I've read from Form was complete BS.

John,
I stand corrected.
I meant Philippines, rather than Taiwan. Knew that….

As I mentioned I don’t know if there is a difference between the two because I’ve never looked through the Philippine version.

I stand by the eyebox critical review. My own scope and other 3-9 FFII’s I have looked and shot through have just adequate eye relief/eye box, but that’s as generous as I’ll go. Fine for the range, but not for my hunting.
Eye relief is important to me, it is something I pay attention to in a hunting scope. I’ve likely been spoiled by Leupold.

As an added note, I can’t stand the Flippie Uppie Push Button scope covers—way too many elk would have gotten away if I used those. For decades I used Storm Queen/Uncle Mikes QD scope covers, but the last few years have switched to the neoprene covers. Scopeshield and Scope Guard of Alaska. There are tradeoffs between the two different approaches of QD’s vs neoprene, but I’ll use the neoprene covers for the time being.

WRT Maven, weren't they using two totally different scopes all along? That was my understanding. The first Maven scope that failed was an entirely different scope than the 1.2 version which is seemingly holding up well now. Right? Is it not reasonable that Maven could have acknowledged the failed scope needed improvements and subsequently made them in the 1.2 which was produced much later? And on the scope that failed, sure one guy may say it passed his "test" and then the next guy said it failed his" test" because the testing procedures were different. Wasn't that indicated all along too? That's not hard to understand and doesn't indicate impropriety to me. Where is the lying? What am I missing? I've got no dog in this fight, I just don't think calling someone a liar should be taken lightly, and as an impartial fly on the wall, I didn't see any deceit. Inform me.

The narrative on Rokslide indicates exactly what you say - the first scope failed, Maven discussed with members of RS, changes were made, scope #2 sent back for test, scope 2 passed.

But it's easier to come up with a conspiracy theory.

Not exactly the scope in question, but if you want to stockpile fullfields, $99 is a very good price:

https://www.natchezss.com/burris-fu...p-balistic-plex-e1-non-illum-matte-black

LOL.

No changes were made and members of Rokslide had no input into the internal design. That's not a "theory".

But I know Maven is selling a lot of the RS1.2s.

Maven sells quality optics and got trashed unfairly by Formy on the RS5 test. Ron Avery had the exact same scope and drop tested it and hunted with it before handing it to Formy.

That's a great idea. I'm not a member of the Cokslide forum and never will be but I'll host these two twatts up here in Alaska for the competition.

Anyhow, all joking aside, I've put thousands of river miles by canoe and thousands of miles of winter trail by machine and dog team using many different burris budget and mid-grade scopes. They've held up very well.

Only one ever got rattled loose: a timberline 2-7. It was my fault, how the rifle was stored on a polaris widetrak lx.

So in one case, two different people “tested” the same scope in two different ways, and came to two different conclusions. Then in another case, one of those people tested two different scopes with the same test and got two different results. Ok, not odd. Different people, different scopes. Seems reasonable to me to experience different ending results. Where is the Conspiracy?