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

The 2.5-15x44 is a stock LOW design and a very nice one at that. A couple of companies use it. Maven and Tract come to mind. LOW puts different turrets on it depending on the customer and occasionally different lenses (typically in the eyepiece because different people want different things and there are a couple of different eyepiece versions), but on the inside they are pretty much the same. Again, that's a good thing since this is a very nicely worked out design.

I hope Maven moves a lot of them. It is a nice scope. I have more mileage with the Tract version and like it quite a lot.

ILya

Just a second there!! You are throwing logic into the discussion - how rude.

drover

Things can get really complicated for stupid people like Johnny drunk fùck.

Yeah.

It's an interesting case study in sales psychology. Some of the members of Rokslide needed to believe there was some magical change to the guts of the scope and those members heard what they wanted to hear.

Now Rokslide has ownership in the Maven RS1.2 and love the scope. I have not used the RS1.2 much but have used several RS1s and agree it's a nice scope. I am not a fan of FFP, unlike many, but LOW's quality and design is very solid and Maven offers a good value.

Jeff, whom you talked to about suppressors at SHOT, mounted the RS1.2 on his AR so I have not used that one much, yet.

Scopes are funny things because, for most, the inner workings are basically black magic.

I don’t care for variables. I much prefer fixed power scopes. But I do have some variables and most are Full Field II’s due to positive test results made by MD.

I would never ever buy anything from the communists unless I didn’t know that’s where it was manufactured and I’m pretty careful.

Do you happen to know why there is a large price difference between the tract and maven version?

Sales psychology? Maybe you should work on that. It seems slapping the “proprietary” moniker on everything hasn’t worked to well… lol #snakeoilsalesman. Too bad that has failed for you every time… except for the current… yet? Their issue was clearly from not matching the thermal expansion of the scope to their bedding block! Lol. You’re an obnoxious D’bag, always have been.

Not a clue. All companies make their business decisions in their own ways.

ILya

Got it. So apparently Ryan Avery is telling people BS when he says:

"We didn't participate in the design of the RS1.2. But after the RS.5 failed the drop test Maven asked a bunch of questions focused on the scope that passed. I email each company after form does the pass or fail. Maven and Zeiss are the only companies to call and ask me questions. Maven by far had had the most communications with me. They also asked what the perfect RS scope is and this is what I sent them:"

Specs then followed. One of the specs was pass the RS drop test. Apparently they succeeded. Seems like Maven completely ignored anything Avery had to say about the failure of the first scope.

Having a conversation about the mechanics that failed, then doing whatever they/Maven did to the internal workings of the 1.2 doesn't seem like much of a stretch. I suppose in your understanding of design, the fact that slide rules, computers, and engineer speak may not have occurred is proof that RS/Avery had no input into the "internal design". Carry on.

If you're asking me, conspiracy may not have been correct word. Having read the RS posts on the Maven scopes, Avery stated he had conversations with Maven after the first scope failed. Apparently Maven was interested in form's findings and was picking Avery's brain on why it failed and also apparently sought his input on what could be better. Whether that involved engineering speak, I have no clue but am equally sure not all product testers have insight into the engineering mechanics of the items they test.

At first blush, it seemed that Burns was indicating form was inventing a story on failing the first scope because of his biases ("Formy got a burr under her saddle with Maven and lied on the review of the RS5."), then "miraculously" changed his mind on scope 2 (the 1.2 version) and nothing changed between versions except some conversation between form and Avery. As has been pointed out, somehow two different people can't come to different conclusions.

I have no dog in this fight, I don't own a Maven scope. I do get tired of blanket statements by Burns that come with zero foundation or evidence. He is basically calling form and Avery liars for: A. getting different results on a scope "test", B. having no input into Maven scopes beyond the first one that failed, despite the direct quote from Avery I posted earlier. I don't know if Maven made changes to the 1.2 or any other Maven scope based on RS/Avery input - but neither does Burns. I'm also not opining that they are liars and somehow a giant coverup is occurring because RS/Avery may or may not have a vested interested in Maven. I also find it ignorant to claim that all RS members are somehow like sheep and follow form/Avery advice without using their noggins. My take on that group of folks is very similar to here on the 'Fire - they can sift through the BS and use the data for what its worth when they make choices. I will say, I will look at the 1.2 based on form's drop tests and feedback from RS members on the scope, and folks I trust here on the 'Fire on said scope.

I may have to relook at them. If they have the same quality glass as conquest and you sold all your conquests, then they are worth looking at. Thanks. If I find an old one somewhere sure may give em a try.

The ones I had from the 80s glass sucked.

Koshkin, I wondered if they were the same scope basically, as I'd been looking at both. Please excuse the dumb question, but what do you think causes the 3+ ounce weight difference between the two? That's the difference in weight, at least according to published specs.

Bill

I followed the link and the post starts out indicating the scope that was tested was made 20 years ago. Burris has not made any changes since then?

A big chunk of the personal back and forth that comes up in every Leupold thread has one side essentially saying that they used to be good but now they suck, and the other side searching up quotes from back then and saying "see you said they were good".

I have not looked at that especially carefully, to be honest. Tract has their own turret design that is pretty beefy, so the bulk of the weight difference is likely coming from that.

ILya

Good question. I think MD, JB addressed this in an earlier post. In that post, he said that the only one he had issues with was an older FFII, which was American made. I can honestly say that I've had to send 2 American made FFII's back as well. However, the one that I've had the longest (since 1998), has worked like a champ. The last I counted, that scope has been on 11 different rifles. Why? Because it is one I trust. It's held up for a long time. Also, to be fair: One of the ones I had to send back was one that I bought off of ebay for $100.00. Burris sent it back fixed, and now it resides on a buddies 22-250, without any issues. I asked that they repair that scope, instead of sending me a Philippine Burris, if that tells you anything.

If you check ebay, you'll also notice the American made FFII's sell for more than the newer ones. To me, the older ones looked better, as the new ones have some different logos on the scope that I don't care for. For all intents and purposes, they are the same internally though. The same turrets, that you can turn by hand (because they are knurled), or use a coin in the slot.

Although, one thing I have noticed is the different lens coating they use. Does it draw in more light, or help with chromatic aberration or help the crosshairs from fading out in direct sunlight? I don't know. I haven't noticed much difference between the 2 (American vs. Philippine) iterations, except maybe the crosshair thickness. To my eye, it looks like the newer Philippine FFII has a thicker crosshair. Even a buddy of mine commented on that, and I had to agree with him.

All in all, they are great scopes that I have put a lot of trust into. Formid's test only confirms what I've seen over the last 26 years. First using them on my 300wm, and then every other cartridge you can imagine, which would include 22LR-375 H&H.

Here's my newest rifle:


Doing a little testing with a brand new FFII, right out of the box. Even though it is not a general practice here, to use a centerfire scope on a rimfire, this one works well enough, and keeps the weight down on this 5.5 pound rifle.

The proof is generally on the target:


That one is no different than the others I have. Seems to be working as it should..

How good at holding zero is that Tract? What kind of zero retention testing have you done with it? Or the Maven?

What’s the problem using a scope generally meant for center fire on a rim fire?

I have a 1" tube 3X15X50 Track Toric mounted on my 35 Whelen that rides in my truck 24/7for the last 3 1/2 years and the zero has not shifted. The adjustments are extremely accurate and glass quality is excellent

I had two of them, one illuminated and one non illuminated. No zero retention issues with either through a couple of hunting seasons. One was on a muzzleloader. Another was on the Fix in 8.6BLK. lots of sitting with both. Lots of driving off-road. Lots of hiking uphill, etc. Usual hunting stuff.

If you are wondering whether I did anything as silly as intentionally throwing the rifle around all over the place, I did not. No need to re-hash what I think about that practice.

ILya

You should have stayed into Highpwoer rifle. You could have been the champion shooting groups like that one!