Burris v.s. Nikon

   Hey guys I am new to the fourm my question is I want to buy a good scope for shooting varmints and targets out to 600yds.  Thinking about the Burris Signature Select 6-24 or the Nikon Monarch 6.5-20 I know both have good glass so what would be the way to go thanks

http://www.riflescopes.com/products/6575/nikon_6.5-20x44_mon arch_ucc_riflescope.htm

 

Everybody's has there pick, but here's mine.

 

A lot of scope for the money.

Target knobs, sun shade, AO, and a real nice duplex reticle called a Nikoplex.

Good all around varmint scope.

 

BE ADVISED!!!!!

My nemisis, who goes by the handle "koshkin" will try to dissuade you from the Monarch. But don't let him do it!!

Resist his clever rebuttal to my post!!

He will "try" to have you believe that the Burris SS is a superior optic to my beloved Monarch. As if he could....

 

Both scopes will serve you very well.

Also, those higher power scopes (20x or more) are more susceptible to mirage when it gets hot too.

 

Welcome to The OT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

 

 

Edited by cheaptrick

I'd pick the Nikon any day.FFII burris isn't even the same class as a Monarch (or a VX-III), maybe the Signiture series might be as good.

Signature Select scopes are quite good and I would take them over Monarch and VX-III.  Yes Dale, they are quite a bit better than Fullfield II.

 

Since I have apparently been promoted to an official "nemesis" status by cheaptrick, I felt obliged to not disappoint him and voice my opinion. 

 

Lee31, since it looks like you are new to the forum, here is a disclaimer: we all have our brand preferences.  Cheaptrick likes Nikon and Zeiss.  I like Sightron, Burris and IOR.  Dale and mwyates seem to like Leupolds.  Roy Finn is an Elite 4200 man (although his resolve has been faltering lately).

 

Bottom line though that all reputable manufactureres in the midpack price range make good scopes that are nearly interchangeable.  I consider Leupolds very overpriced but nice scopes nevertheless.

 

With that having been said, here is why you need to get a Burris Signature Select instead of that Monarch:

 

Reticle selection.  If you plan to be shooting pretty far a holdover reticle can come in quite handy.  Burris offers both BallisticPlex and Ballistic MilDot that work very well.  Nikon's plex reticle, while certain to cause euphoric adoration from my friend cheaptrick there, really does not excite me a whole lot.  I am not a big fan of dialing in range and counting clicks (for varmint shooting), so I like holdover/MilDot reticles for drop and wind correction. 

 

Also, I found that Burris scopes tend to be a little more forgiving for eye placement than NIkons, but I do not think that's going to be a factor for scopes with high magnification.  Also, you will probably find that more often than not you will not use magnification above 15x or 16x or so.  Hence it makes no difference for most people whether the top end is 20x or 24x.

 

ILya

 

 

Edited by koshkin

If you can't afford a Leupold  I don't think you'd go wrong with either.  I haven't used either of these but I have had a Monarch 5.5-16.5 and a Burris SS 4-16.  I preferred the Burris between these two.  It's a little more money but if you can swing it look at the Conquest.  I've got a 4.5-14X44 I like a lot better than either of the above.

mwyates wrote: It's a little more money but if you can swing it look at the Conquest.

 

I agree with yates.

The Conquest is the best scope in it's class right now, IMHO.

But, it's a little more money too so you'll have to make that call.  

Just to add to koshkins post, the Burris "Forever Warranty" is a real nice feature too.

 

Koshkin made an excellent comment about hold over style reticles.

If your interested in a hold over style reticle, Nikon doesn't seem to offer much.

But, I'm more of a clicker, so the duplex works for me.

Unless I go with a mil dot or similar.