I'm looking for a basic hunting scope or two. Am not looking to dial. I've got SWFA SS and Trijicon Accupoint/Credo earmarked for other rifles. Anybody try out these new Weavers from Natchez? Yes, I know they're not made in Japan like the originals.

https://www.natchezss.com/3-9x40mm-classic-riflescope-with-ballistic-x-reticle-wew803940bx

Korean made. Decent size and weight. Affordable. The ocular doesn't turn when the power is adjusted like the Burris. That drove me crazy when Butler Creeks were attached.

Maybe another decent alternative to the venerable Burris Fullfield II. What say you? Anybody have personal experience with one?

I'd like to know about the new Weavers too. Sure miss the ones these are replacing, especially the rimfire models.

Both are JUNK....haven't touched a Weaver in over 50 years.....haven't touched a Burris in over 40 years and will never touch one.....wouldn't put either one on a BB gun.....

Alrighty then. Schmidt & Bender or forfeit your second ammendment rights.

I recently checked out a Weaver Classic at my LGS. IMO it is not in the same class as my Burris FFII.

You think todays Weavers are the same as the ones 50 years ago?

I brought this up in a recent thread where I mentioned looking at a Tract Response. I loved the Weavers Classic K's and recommended various Slams from Natchezss. One big thing for me is that the Buriss FF2, E1's and the new Weaver are NOT Chinese. The Weaver is South Korean which sounds fine to me.
I am a big fan of the Burris Fullfield II's. I own a 6x40 #4 made and found that #4 illuminated dot deal at Natchezss. I can tell you I compared the last one with my VX3 well past legal shooting and it is EVERY bit as good as my Leupold. The one thing Weavers always had over Burris- or Leupold for that matter were the adjustments. The Burris and Leupold are identical and mushy. Weavers have precise feeling clicks which I like.
The turrets on the newer E1 are much easier to read than the Fullfield 2- but not sure if they are crisper or not. Weaver turret looks nice and neither are those overly tall tacticool types.

I think the Weaver is a safe bet - at least to my thinking for the paltry price. My only personal negative on them might be the skinny posts. The ballistic reticle doesn't rally look usable and really tilts things in favor to the FF2 as it has a nice BDC reticle. According to one report the E1 power ring is large and required medium rings. I have lows and don't want to change.
I wouldn't discount what 4570fan says though.

Added - I added the latest iteration of the Sightron S1 to the mix. It checks off a lot of boxes but is another $100. Can get a sort of #4 reticle and made in Philippines like the Burris.

Thank you 4570fan and kenjs1. I appreciate hands on experience rather than the random "it's crap" statements I knew any question about an inexpensive scope would bring. I guess I can only buy SB, TT, ZCO, Kahles, NF and the like now... lol

4570fan can you expand upon your opinion?

The Weaver looked and felt cheaper made. The glass wasn't as bright and clear to my eye. It also seemed to have a shorter eye relief.
Honestly the new Redfield (Academy exclusive) is a better scope (I have a 4-12x40) than the new Weaver. They also come with a lifetime, no hassle, in store replacement warranty at all Academy Sports stores.

That Sightron S1 3-9×40 Mil has caught my attention too. If it holds zero... maybe could be a less pricey alternative to the accupoint.

I think highly of the Burris FF-II. They used to be right at $200 MSRP, but I'm seeing them actually selling for $130-$150 for the 3-9X40. I'd rate them BETTER than a comparable $400 Leupold. I think their Ballistic Plex reticle is the best on the market.

I don't like the E1 at all. I've had limited experience with the newer FF-IV. I suppose it is OK, but I still like the FF-II better.

The ocular turning when changing magnification is a non-issue to me. And it is my understanding that this is part of the reason they have a reputation for ruggedness.

I have no experience with the Weaver.

JMR40- I was really excited about some of the FFIV models- but discovered made in China.
The ocular on the E1 does not turn when changing magnification on the E1's as it did on the FF2- as I understand it.

You are correct on both statements. I despise the E1 reticle. I don't have an issue with the ocular turning on my FFII but I can see where some my not like it.

IMO the Burris Droptine is a viable alternative. I have a couple of the FFll and a couple of the Droptine, all with the ballistic plex. If there is any difference in the lens of the two models I cannot tell it, and I have pretty good eyesight. The best part of the Droptine is that the ocular does not turn when changing power, that always bothers me when I change power on the FFll's.

The ballistic plex is the best holdover reticle available for a hunting reticle IMO. But the downside to the Burris is the mushy clicks, they seem to work ok but are surely indistinct, but I am not a dialer so it is a non-issue to me.

drover

The Burris is impossible to beat especially at the current price point.

Then, how the FUGG would you know a damned thing about either brand of them, good or bad?

The exact same thought I had.

drover

Being clueless seems to be a trend here lately.

Um...ughhhhh.... Stormy Daniels!

Burris E1's can be had with the normal Ballistic Plex reticle if you don't like the E1, you might even stumble on to one with Duplex. I personally like them a bit better than the FFII, but use both. Don't know anything about the new Weavers.

On the websight the only regular old fashioned nice BP reticles are caliber specific :Shotgun, muzzle load, 350 Legend and 450 Bushmaster. No idea if there is really a difference between them - or it would matter. Fullfield are a great deal and solid as heck scopes.

Do you know if the E1 turrets are crisper than the FF2's? At least they are a lot easier to read (more 'things' I am looking for)

My other thread and some text with friends is a hilarity of circular process and over thinking trying to get 'exactly' what I want. Probably familiar with this drill yourself.

Not Chinese.... rule #1
Love old Weavers but not sure about the latest iteration Vista Outdoors Weaver and am sort of warded off it - and not thrilled with skinny reticle.
Didn't like the E1 reticle but was trying to get past that ...could make due maybe- but needs taller mounts.
Started by looking at the Tract Response but pretty underwhelming feedback -and more than either Weaver or Burris which is a known quality to me,
Checked out Sightron and was leaning after seeing the Gen2 S1 getting good marks. Not uber tall turrets but not great reticle...
looked Bushnell....passed....only duplex....and Chinese ....I tihnk.

You won't believe where I wound up ....about five minutes ago. About to send Doug and order and pull the trigger ....afraid to say it on this forum......lol

ah c'mon you can tell me.... it's just us two here... lol

That would be a question to ask Burris, IME they have been very good about answering emails.

As to the turrets, see MD's comments here:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...is/Search/true/re-burris-e1#Post17563240

Enjoy your Leupold!

I bought two VX-3's in the past week. No worries.

LOL. That's a grand slam homer right there.

Personally, I was a little disappointed with the optical quality of some of the new Weaver Classics I tried (6-24Xs, IIRC). They aren't a ripoff and I didn't perceive them to be junk...they just weren't up to my own requirements or desires. To be perfectly fair I had to spend a good bit more to get an optic that pleased me, and what pleases me might be a lot more than what is needed by someone else, or a lot less. It's all a "YMMV" proposition.

No experience with Weaver, but I just ordered my 6th Burris. 3 FFIIs, one E1, and 2 4Xs. In over 20 years haven't had an issue.

Shhhh........they'll hear, but yeah....you got me!

After taking a look it ticked off all the boxes...ALL of them... including reticle and turrets and mounts.......maybe not quite the killer deal but to get 'exactly' what I want is so very rare and worth a few extra bucks. It still isn't expensive in scope terms. I admit I have gotten spoiled over the years with the performance of Fullfields and Weaver K's for dirt cheap but I don't feel I am being charged ball park beer price here- and I get to support Doug's business- AND I know both he and Leupold will make things right if needed. I have aVx3 that's been rocking for years. What I got was a VX-Freedom Hunt Plex. Up until yesterday I had not even looked at or considered them and was pleasantly surprised by what I saw.

Those old FFII with adj. objective are good ones. I've 3 of the original 4.5-14 with bal plex reticle and like them. They stay where adjusted and don't get moved, don't lose zero. Awhile back I stumbled onto someone online selling them pretty cheap, don't remember the place though. Also have several of the older V-16 Weavers and like them too. You see them for sale occasionally.

*****. Amazon has those old FF!!'s.

.

I'm pretty sure the Bushnell's are Korean made also as they fall under Vista Outdoors also.

I have a brand new 3-9x40 E1 with a standard plex reticle (not ballistic plex), and I'll be danged if I can remember where I got it (sux getting old). I think I'm going to mount it on a Savage 16 in .260 Remington that I've had for ten years and have a total of 35 rounds through. It's a cartridge that just never seemed to fire me up.

The Burris E1 standard duplex is pretty thick,as in easy to see in low-light…

I had a Weaver V10 on my Win 70 .280 Rem for 20 years of PA deer hunting and it never lost zero. I think I paid a whole $230 from Midway. Too bad they didn't keep the same Japanese manufacturer. However, I have been considering the current Weaver offering for a CZ 457 Varmint that needs a scope.

Baydog you are correct. Both Weaver and Bushnell. Doesn't seem anything wrong with either but those (Philippine) Burris are just such a known quantity- and a bargain.

I like them both. I've been buying Full Field scopes lately, because of MD's write up on them.

Bought several from Natchez a couple years ago on a blowout.

If those are what we are discussing?
Was impressed by everything for the price range.

Except, the eyebox.
Harder to get into than Leupold or my Elite 3200s.
Not terrible, but I only used the rimfire and one of 3 3x9s.

Personally, getting field of view is the #1 thing.
Optics don't matter until you see them, neither do reticles, or adjustments.

I know that's not exactly true, but I'm a hunter.
Playing peek a boo in the 2 seconds one has to shoot a deer is not acceptable.

Not the same scopes. The new Weaver Classics are a Natchez exclusive build series and are made in South Korea. Very similar to Bushnell's "Prime" series I believe.

A comment on the Burris FF II in 4.5-14x42 anyway.

I have had one on a Win 70 in 264 for many, many years. Have never been displeased with it in any way. I have a brand new one in the box in the safe.

I am currently setting up a Win 70 in 7 RM for my son. This Burris FF II touches the barrel in low Talley LW ring mounts.

The Talleys are all I have on hand at the moment, so the rifle got a Bushnell Elite 4200 3-9x40.

I have some medium Talleys on order. We may switch out the scope later if the son prefers a bit higher magnification.

If he thinks it needs a Shmitt and Bender, he is welcome to buy one. But that Bushnell presents a beautiful sight picture. Possibly brighter than the Burris.

ETA: at $130 for the 3-9x40 or the 4.5-14, they are a steal on Amazon. Available in kits with rings or covers for a bit higher.

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?

For many years, it has held up well and it has not spent its life riding a bench.

Nice bull! Might have to pick up one of the muzzy scopes too!