$144 sale for Burris Fullfield II still on at Cameraland

[Newtosavage]

Here is a pic of the ballistic plex reticle. The E1 has a floating reticle as you mentioned and the Fullfield ll has a full plex reticle with the hash marks. The ballistic plex reticle is a lot easier to see in low light or dark timber than the E1.

The slightly heavier crosshair is in fact easier to see in real hunting conditions and that's something I appreciate about the FFII vs. others. Fine reticles are awesome on the range, but don't work that well in fading light with a partially covered critter at a distance.

If I need a crosshair that fine, I'm probably too far from the animal in the first place. If I can't see my crosshair, that's probably a sign that it's too dark to be shooting.

 

[Motown]

I just ordered one as well. You guys cost me a lot of money!!

I have ordered 5 in the past week alone so I don’t want to hear it!

 

[BCD]

I have ordered 5 in the past week alone so I don’t want to hear it!

Only 5?? LOL

 

[Motown]

Bought a CA Mesa 6.5 Creed a few weeks back as a lightweight 300-400 yard gun for here in PA for whitetails. Just threw one of these Burris’s on it and I really like the setup.

 

[sigguy3]

The 3-9x40 is available from eurooptic for $119.

 

[Sanchez]

I bought two at $ 125 each. I have this scope on my primary rifle a Tikka 270 WSM that performs excellent on deer, elk and antelope out to about 450 Yds. However, I am running out of ammo for this gun and can't find any more.

Since I can't find 270 WSM ammo, I got my older Rem. 700 in 270 and Rem. 600 in 308 out. They both have cheap scopes from 40 years ago that I am replacing with the new Fullfield 2 in 3-9. This gives me two good shooters with functional scopes that I can actually find ammo for, and the price was right.

 

[JustSomeGuy35]

I bought one after reading this thread and it arrived today. Here's my experience so far:

Tonight, from overcast sunset til dark, I sat on my back porch comparing the Fullfield II 3-9x40 to a Vortex Diamondback 4-12x40 BDC and SWFA 3-9x42 MD (mildot). The terrain is rolling hills of hay bordered on 2 sides, by thick woods. The snow has melted off and all leaves dropped. I was looking at several trios and pairs of whitetail deer feeding at distances of 120-370 yards.

*the vortex was set at 9x to match the others.

At sunset, all 3 scopes produced bright, clear images of deer and reticles. 12-15 mins from full darkness, a skunk stepped out at roughly 260 yds and I could see it clearly thru the swfa and burris. The skunk appeared blurry thru the Vortex but I could still make out the reticle.

In the last 10 mins of light, I could (mostly) make out the reticles of all 3 scopes. The swfa was clearest of all (of course). The deer were blurry in the burris but I could see enough detail that I would've felt comfortable shooting any of them. The vortex's image was too blurry to differentiate deer from shrubs and the reticle wasn't as visible as the Burris's. I still would've felt comfortable shooting the deer that were within 150 yds of me and out in the open field though.

Ultimately, I think the Burris is at least a half-step above the Vortex when the sun is still out. Once the sun goes down, I think the Burris is a full step above it. Images are slightly more clear, the reticle is easier to see, and the eyebox is more forgiving. I couldn't see the reticle hash marks in the last 10-12 mins of light but that was true for all 3 scopes.

I'm not sure which rifle the Burris is going on yet but I am glad I saw this thread and bought one before they're all gone. I paid $145 total and it's worth every penny!

Either tomorrow or Saturday night, I plan on comparing the Burris to a Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 3-9x40 duplex and Vortex Razor LH 1.5-8x32 g4 bdc. I'll post the results afterwards. Maybe somebody will gleam something useful from my amateur opinions!

 

[sigguy3]

Thanks for your impressions. I did buy two from eurooptic, one to use now and the other just in case. Arrived yesterday but won't have time to play with them until the weekend.

 

[JustSomeGuy35]

I did a full daylight and sunset comparison between the Fullfield, Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 3-9x40, Vortex Razor 1.5-8x32, and SWFA UL 2.5-10x32 BDC. In all light conditions, the Razor g4 bdc was absurdly visible and the glass was superior so I put it away and focused on the other 3 scopes instead.

The Bushnell has side parallax focus which helps resolve the image clarity at 250-400 yards. This gave it a slight advantage over the Fullfield II and the SWFA as well. For the purpose of putting meat on the table, its not important though.

After sunset, the Fullfield's thicker ballistic reticle was more visible than the Bushnell's thin duplex. The SWFA reticle was slightly more visible than the Fullfield's but I couldnt decide by how much. It should be noted that all reticles were more visible than usual because of the snow that fell this weekend.

Overall impressions:

Optical clarity, eye box, and reticle visibility was roughly the same between all 3 scopes. Easily good enough for killing critters out to 300yds. If I was to rate them (along with Diamondback 4-12 and SWFA 3-9), based on 300 yd big-game hunting capabilities, I'd say they all are equally capable.

If rating them strictly by optical performance (not durability or dialing ability), on a scale of 1-5 stars, it'd look like this:
5 stars: Razor
4 stars: swfa 3-9
3 stars: swfa UL, Fullfield, Bushnell
2.5 stars: diamondback

That's just my opinion though. Hope this is interesting or helpful to someone!