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?

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!

How about a round count? Or is that silly too?

How about you get an elk killed then you can worry about round counts.

Thanks.

Hey look, someone woke up the fat drunk. Lol

Still yammering about elk. Lol

These are not the guns where I keep significant notes. Muzzleloader shoots 275gr pointy bullets at about 2400fps. I think I fired about 45-50 shots with Tract on it, but the scope was originally tested on a 308. That was probably in the 250 round range.
The second scope was on the 8.6 when I was doing some load development and then did some practice. It is not a very flat shooting round, plus spin drift is a bitch with 1-in-3" barrel twist. Getting used to that takes some deliberate practice. Probably 350-400 rounds with that scope.

ILya

I've yet to see a Burris worth a fhuqk and ESPECIALLY mechanically. Hint.

Just sayin'.....................