Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Burris Fullfield II vs Bushnell Elite 4200 |
Post Reply |
Author | |
slowr1der
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 247 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: February/17/2011 at 21:51 |
Anyone directly compared these two? Obviously the Bushnell is going to be better, but how much better? Having not been able to compare both of them side by side, I'm wondering if I should pick up a Bushnell Elite 4200 that's on sale right now, or if I should just use the Burris FFII's you can pick up used for about $100. I'm wondering if there is a huge performance difference that would be worth an extra $100, or if it would be a small difference that's barely noticeable?
|
|
neilbilly
Optics Master Joined: February/07/2010 Location: Sweeny TX Status: Offline Points: 999 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Where are you finding a 4200 for $200 ???? If you find one for that JUMP on it. The Burris is a good scope, just not nearly as nice as a 4200 |
|
If God didn't want me to play with it, he'd of made my arms shorter.
|
|
helo18
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: December/02/2006 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 5620 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The big advantage of the 4200 is the rainguard. That stuff is nice. The 4200 is optically better. Maybe I got lucky on my FFII, but they are close to me. I like both of those scopes.
|
|
To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
GEORGE WASHINGTON |
|
WYcoyote
Optics Apprentice Joined: April/06/2010 Location: Kane,WY Status: Offline Points: 154 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The Elite 4200 3-9x40 is indeed on sale at $199.99, I picked one up no sales tax OTD price in MT.
I see that SWFA does not offer this model anymore but I'm still not sure if it is proper protocol to mention the retailer here.
I did jump on it.
|
|
slowr1der
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 247 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The reason I can't decide if I want to jump on it is I've just not been thrilled with any other Bushnell product I've had in the past. I'm wondering if this is that much better. I had a 3200, and while it was decent, I still didn't think it was optically as good as the FFII. I know that's a lot less scope than the 4200 though which is why I'm wondering about it. Edited by slowr1der - February/17/2011 at 22:42 |
|
WYcoyote
Optics Apprentice Joined: April/06/2010 Location: Kane,WY Status: Offline Points: 154 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
[/QUOTE]Can't post it as it's not SWFA, but it's a major retailer that starts with a C. [/QUOTE]
|
|
WYcoyote
Optics Apprentice Joined: April/06/2010 Location: Kane,WY Status: Offline Points: 154 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Geez, I tried to be a little more diplomatic than that.
|
|
Vermin93
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/22/2010 Status: Offline Points: 104 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I picked up a new 4200 3-9x40 for $199 a few weeks ago and so far I'm liking it. I did a basic optical comparison with some of my other scopes and my eyes told me that it's right up there with my SII Big Sky 3-9x42 and Conquest 3-9x40.
Two years ago I compared a FFII to a 3200 and bought the 3200 because it was a little clearer and brighter. I think the view through the 4200 will be noticeably better than the FFII. I would definitely spend the extra $100 for the 4200. |
|
tman1965
Optics Master Joined: July/20/2010 Location: South Georgia Status: Offline Points: 1456 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have all 3.... the 3200, 4200 and FFII. I would rate them as the FFII better than the 3200 and not quite as good as the 4200, but not really all that far behind it. The rain guard is a nice feature, and actually does work.
|
|
EchoWhiskeyOne
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/13/2010 Location: Manassas, VA Status: Offline Points: 175 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have what is supposed to be a FFII equivalent...a Hunter Wicked Optics (HWO) 3-12x-42mm.
I have done a pretty extensive comparison between the two of them (HWO and 4200). If you do a search for Hunter Wicked Optics on here (I'm sure it's the only one) you can do a bit more reading on the differences between the two through my eyes. Optically, clarity, brightness, light transmission, and Rainguard goes to the 4200. The HWO DOES have multi-coated lenses that seem to perform decently in foul weather, but not up to snuff compared to the 4200. Eye relief, adjustability (adjustable objective), price and, in my opinion, looks, goes to the HWO. I have had them both at the range. The HWO is sitting on a .300 WSM, the 4200 on a .270. Both of them are holding zero just fine. You'll do fine with either, but if I had to determine a winner, since we're talking about optics here, the 4200 wins by a margin. The ONLY thing that makes it margin-able is the significantly greater eye relief of the HWO (at least an inch better). If you're mounting on magnum calibers, this is a GREAT thing for positional reasons as not to blacken your eye and/or having to creep up the butt to get the full field of view. Price wise, you always get what you pay for. I just wish that the 4200, for the price, could match the eye relief of the "cheaper" scope...then there would be no question that the 4200 is a better scope. Looks of an optic does mean something, but I would rate it as the LAST thing that I care about when making my purchase. So the looks of the HWO being better, for all intensive purposes, isn't a determining factor for me...I just wanted to throw in that it's not a bad looking scope at all.
Edited by EchoWhiskeyOne - February/18/2011 at 06:18 |
|
If you find it arbitrarily pleasing to burn our Nation's Flag, do all the rest of us a favor and wrap yourself in it first.
|
|
Tip69
Optics Master Extraordinaire Tip Stick Joined: September/27/2005 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 4155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I didn't like the FFII I put on my son's rifle and got rid of it. I have a 4200 3-9X40 on a .204 and love it! Not sure I'd put one on a heavy kicker as it's eye relief is a bit short.
|
|
take em!
|
|
pyro6999
Optics Retard OT TITAN Joined: December/22/2006 Location: North Dakota Status: Offline Points: 22034 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
i would take the 4200 over any ffII. the signature select may be more of scope to look at if you want a burris.
|
|
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead" 343 we will never forget God Bless Chris Ledoux "good ride cowboy" |
|
Cooper25
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/01/2010 Location: MN Status: Offline Points: 50 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
4200 would be my pick also. My biggest problem with the FFll is the whole eyepiece turns to adjust power, I hate that, well that and the eye relief is real touchy for me
|
|
Jeff
|
|
FunShot
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/18/2008 Status: Offline Points: 91 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I've got both. The burris is on display, also did not like the eyepiece and the turrets seem cheap compared to other scopes in it's price range, the glass is good though probably arguably equal in image quality to the 4200. The 4200 i have is the scope i use a lot, it's the best scope i have in my limited collection comprised of entry level to mid priced scopes, and the rain guard does work. In the wet and humid conditions i hunt in, it helps a lot.
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |