zeiss or burris
- Thread starter rick 37
- Start date
For what its worth I think Burris scopes are hidden gems in the scope world. While not trendy they punch above their weight in terms of quality and value and I have used several over the years and not regretted it. I think GMK are the official importer and they also bring in Leupold so probably don't 'push' Burris too heavily but a dealer told me Burris sold well in areas without a Zeiss dealer. Hope this helps you make an informed decision.
blunderbust
Well-Known Member
I have a Burris Fulfield 30 3.5 -10 x 50 E dot on my 243 and it is a cracking scope. I have had it on the rifle for nealy 2 years and have never needed to adjust it. The glass is great and the biuld quality is on the ball. They are well worth the money.
western woodsman
Well-Known Member
I bought a Burris Fullfield II 3X9 for very little money for my .17 HMR, and to be honest it would be perfectly fine for a deer rifle. Optical clarity is good, the fine crosshair is great. It is a no nonsense scope that I do worry about in the field.
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
the only Burris I have the mis fortune of holding in my hands was the one designed for the Sako Quad.
didnt like it.
but as a comparison I am not sure it is straight forward to compare a high end brand bottom of range scope with a low end brand top of range scope.
but if you fancy selling your zeiss I am looking for another 6x42!
didnt like it.
but as a comparison I am not sure it is straight forward to compare a high end brand bottom of range scope with a low end brand top of range scope.
but if you fancy selling your zeiss I am looking for another 6x42!
Paul at Fechan
Well-Known Member
the burris is very good and being a variable gives you a little room to play with above the zeiss. But it isn't a zeiss
bobjs
Well-Known Member
I have three Burris scopes, two of which (both compacts) have crosshairs that are 2hrs adrift on the clock face of perfect alignment with the adjustment turrets!
Bigboab29
Well-Known Member
I've got a fullfield 2 on my 22 it's the 4.5-14x42 and it is a cracking scope, the optics are nice and clear an I like the balistic ret on it, an I think it would be fine on a cf rifle. It's decent in low light as well. But I would think the zeiss would b better glass quality and build quality. However to get that magnification range on a top end scope like zeiss your into £1000+
The Burris will defo do the job, u just maybe lose 5mins or so at last light.
The Burris will defo do the job, u just maybe lose 5mins or so at last light.
sir-slots-alot
Well-Known Member
What dont you like about the Zeiss exactly - Is ia the small mag - or reticule.
Surely not the optics.
Nothing at all wrong with the fullfield, i had one that i used for the range and deer, bought a meopro to replace it till i looked through them side by side, the burris was better so the meopta went back. Now have a Swaro that is better than the burris but not by as much as the price tag would suggest.
Hw60sniper
Well-Known Member
Why dont you just go to specsavers and get your eyes done instead of blaming the scope
..
Did you get the scopes changed over?
The Fullfield II that sits on my Finnbear .270 has the satisfaction of knowing, that every deer that has been in it's view has ended up residing in my freezer.
Similar threads
