Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40 and 3-9x50

[shooter1992]

Hi fellas, having just moved to the new forum from the other I thought it woudl be a great opportunity to not only test out posting a new topic, but also at the same time ask a question that I am really wondering about.

I am looking for a new scope and I know everyone will say don't waste your money on a <$500 scope, but really not going to stretch my budget and I have come across the Burris Fullfield II which seem to ahve great reviews. Well pretty much I would like to hear from anyone who currently or has used them and I would be very interested to hear your feedback on them. Not sure whether to just go with the 40mm or bother the extra to go up to a 50mm opjective as having high mounts may be annoying for possibly not much gain. Thanks in advanced for any info.

Cheers,
Matthew

[zhuk]

Don't think there's anything wrong with a Fullfield; I learned to shoot with a Tikka T3 mounted with one of these (3x9x40), as a club rig, So obviously had a sh*tload of use and wear over quite a few years and did me well enough to get into a pretty high grade in Service...back in the days before I got uh, distracted by iron sights. Of course more recent and knowledgable people are bound to set you straight on it but it never skipped a beat with me.

Cheekweld is going to be a personal thing, but being of small stature I couldn't have really nestled down into the stock with a 50mm, which was a deal-breaker re positioning.

[shooter1992]

Thanks mate, great to hear positive feedback. For the little shooting at dawn and dusk I do, I am much better off getting a 40mm I think as I myself like a nice cheek weld which is certainly crucial with shooting.

Certainly will greatly appreciate to hear from others as well.

[BlueBikesBlackGuns]

Hey Mate,

I had the Fullfield II with the illuminated balistic plex reticule on my ruger scout. Good scope for the money. I was more than happy.