Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Burris Fullfield II or Bushnell Elite 3200.

So I've got a Bushnell Elite 3200 5-15x40 as well as a Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x42 and I'm planning to use one and sell the other. The only problem is I'm undecided on which one to use and which one to sell. They each have things I like about each of them. On the Burris I really like the size and look of it as well as the glass in it. The glass is great. I also like the turrets quite a bit on it. What I don't like is the eye piece design.

Now on the Bushnell I'm aware the optics are only multi coated instead of fully multi coated like the Burris, but honestly, I can't see much of a difference. If there is a difference it's a fairly small one. I need to do some low light comparisons though as I've not gotten to do that yet. So what I dislike about the Bushnell is the glass is slightly and I mean slightly from what I can see behind the Burris, I don't like the turrets nearly as much. They feel solid, but they are the style you'd see on a Simmons or something like that. I also don't like the paralax adjustment as it goes down really easy, but is a little hard to turn back up. The Burris is better here.
However, I like the fact that the Bushnell has a sun shade, I like that it has the rain guard feature, and I like that the top power is 15x. Not much more, but I prefer 15x to 14x slightly.

So they each have features I like and dislike, and I can't decide which one to use and which one to sell. I will be using this for 60% range use, 30% deer hunting, and 10% varmint hunting. I also a fair amount of deer hunting where I'm not in the stand and constantly moving around and sometimes rough on this gun with it getting bounced around in a mule type vehicle, and similar. So holding up and holding zero is most important for me, but number 2 for me would be glass quality. I want it to be decent in low light situations. I want to be able to hunt to the last legal light, so if the Bushnell wouldn't get me there, I wouldn't want it, but I feel like it probably will get me to last legal light just fine.

So for you guys that have had both what are the pro's and con's, and which one is best to go with?

I would use the Burris and sell the Bushnell. Then get some Dyna-Gun wax top coat for the lenses (equal to RainGuard).

I never heard of this stuff. Could you elaborate ?

It's a new product that hasn't officially been released yet.

Dyna-tek has a product that is applied as a wax. You wipe on as a thin coating and let it dry. Then you come back and wipe off the powder that forms when the liquid dries. This leaves a corrosion resistant, water-repelling coating, similar to RainGuard. It can be used as a top coat on top of Dyna-Gun Shield since it is applied as a wax. It can also be used on glass, as where GS cannot. This coating was tested by Dr. Bill Cross at Bushnell to see if it a) harmed the existing optical coatings, and b) if it decreased light transmission. It tested out negative in both regards.

As Doug's Canadian distributor I have test samples that I'm trying out, but the product is not officially released for resale yet, AFAIK.

Yep.

That's really good news. I wonder if Bushnell will have any ties to the product seeing how Dr. Cross was involved in some of the testing. I say this because Bushnell really went crazy with the "rights" to Rainguard type coatings and as you may or may not know struck a deal with Zeiss only because Zeiss developed a hydrophobic type coating first, but it wasn't suitable for sport optics. In a nutshell, it wasn't worth a lengthly court battle so they struck some kind of an agreement. Either way, it's good news for hunters that have scopes w/o rain repellent type coatings.

Anyone tested the durability of both of these? I've been doing some comparing and it seems like they are very close optically, and really in all other regards. The Burris has a slight and I mean very very slight edge it seems optically, but it's not much of a difference that I can see. I'm just wondering if one will hold up better than the other?

The Burris is a better scope in my opinion in that price range they are hard to beat.

I have very little experience with the Burris FF and none with the 3200. The 4200 is a different story. I have lots of experience with them and it's all been great.

When comparing 2 scopes of very similar quality and price it may boil down to which one has the better warranty or which one treats their customers better. Just something to think about.

That's the way I'd go as well.

So who has the better warranty? I've dealt with Burris once and actually have a scope there again, but so far they have been good to me despite some of the bad reviews I've read. I've never dealt with Bushnell, but have read mixed reviews on them too.

So what are you guys opinions on the warranty and customer service? These scopes just seem so similar in all aspects.

I've actually had good experience with both companies' CS, so I can't help you there, but Burris scopes have been tough as nails for me. The 3200 is a tough scope, but I've had better luck with the FFII, personally.

I had to choose between a Burris FFII 3-9 or a Leupold VX-3 2.5-8. After a significant amount of side by side viewing under nearly every lighting conditions and various ranges I put the FFII on my new rifle. I think the VX-3 is a very nice scope, but it was not better than the FFII. I also have a 4.5-14 FFII on another rifle and it is even better. Can't help with the Bushnell as I've never had one, but I'm very happy with the 3 FFIIs I have.

I would mount each one and take to the range to see which one works best. That's what I did with a couple of my scopes. I ended up keeping the FF II.
And I agree with Jordan Smith since I have found my FF II to be a tough scope. My FF II has taken some severe punishment. I would think that you won't go wrong either way, both are good scopes. I don't think they make the 3200 anymore. Hope this helps.

I would sell both and buy a Leupold. That's an easy decision.

I've never used the Burris but I can speak to the elite 3200. I used one for 6-7 years, every year included mountain backpack hunts where it got banged, dented and scratched, and every year there was lots of hiking for november deer in temps -20C. It finally fogged up on a deer hunt(-20C) but not bad enough to stop me from shooting a decent muley. At the end of the season I sent it in to the warranty center and they sent me a brand new one. Probably cant go wrong with either one.

Not the conclusion I came to based on significant real world comparison. My comparison did not factor in $$. I already owned both. If factoring in $$ it really is not very close.

No thanks. I've had several Leupolds and still have a couple and even the VX-II's I've had aren't up to par with the Burris FF II which is a fraction of the cost. I've just yet to be happy with a Leupolds I've had and I've had 5 of them.

How much of a price difference is there between the Burris FF and a closeout deal on a 4200 3-9. If it wasn't much or it is feasable, that is the direction I would go. I've heard of people getting these closeout deals between $200 and $250.