Discussion in 'Long Gun Accessories and Optics' started by cdb1, Dec 6, 2019.
that's about what I paid for mine used! definitely a good deal.
Probubly that's a better scope but I also saw on eBay from a big seller the Nikon Buckmaster II 3x9 40mm for $109. Price hidden till checkout.
IMO, the Burris Fullfield II is a much better scope than the Buckmaster II. The original Buckmasters was closer in quality to the Burris, but I would still choose the Burris. I haven't owned the Buckmaster II, but own the original Buckmasters, along with a couple of Fullfield II's. I would also trust Cameralandny over any eBay seller.
I'd have to pay tax, still a deal. I do need one for my 7x57ai now.
I believe the Fullfield II is significantly better than the Buckmasters II. I think the original Buckmasters and the Fullfield II are pretty close in good light, but in low light I see quite a bit better through the Fullfield II.
Ten or eleven years ago I had three Fullfield II’s, a 3-9x40 on a 30-06, a 2-7x35 on a Marlin 336 and a 2-7x35 on my daughter’s .243. They are by far my favorite sub $200.00 scope.
The FF-II is my go-to recommendation for an entry level scope even at the $200 MSRP. At that price it is hard to go wrong.
It wasn't that long ago you could get the Crossfire scopes in high powers for about $200. They have really jumped up in price. Anyway I went ahead and ordered that Nikon to put on a 17 HMR Savage bolt. Hopefully it's gentel enough.
The Buckmasters 2 should be functional, its just dosent carry very good glass....and i LIKE nikon glass lol.
The original Buckmasters would give the FF2 a run for its money, and I actually prefered them do to having slightly cleaner adjustments, and not having to turn the ocular bell to adjust power.
Yup your right about good glass. I wish I never sold my Zeiss Conquest with the gun I sold 8 years ago. Too expensive now even on sale for my blood. Until I bought that scope I never knew what good glass meant. I could see clearer with that scope then my spotting scope, the definition was so crisp, bright, and clear even at long range and low light.
Where was this when I bought the Bushnell 6 - 18. I would have gotten 2.
Another vote for Burris FF 2. I used one last night on a 44mag rifle until 30min past sunset (530pm EST) and I felt confident I could plug a deer in that light. It definitely outshines my Nikon Prostaff. I am actually debating on tossing the two nikon scopes I own and putting FF2 on the rifles.
I’m of the opinion scopes from companies of European origin are better in low light as a rule than scopes from companies of Asian origin, even if a European origin scope is made in Asia as is the case with the Fullfield II. Big game hunting at night is legal throughout much of Europe which is why I think the scopes tend to be better in low light. I have no scientific data to back this up, it’s just conjecture.
The conquests opened my eyes years ago also. Not trying to hijack the thread from the fullfield but that quote so said what I experienced the first time I looked thru one. Now they are priced way up there and they sure aren't being talked about as much, my friend the gunsmith looked thru one of mine on his range when I was shooting into a setting sun, bought 2 within days and now hes keeping the ones he stocked to sell since they went up.
I have the old Conquest that was made for Zeiss by Meopta. Haven’t looked through a current Conquest. Has anyone looked through both? I’d think the two scopes would be very different, and that Zeiss reconstituted the Conquest name after the Terra debacle.
Id like to get my hands on a V6, but I dont have another rig that justifies a 1-2k scope.....yet. Those are also getting up into the price points of some of the other top contenders, so hopefully while expensive, they continue to offer a good value.
What was the Terra debacle about? This is the first time Ive taken a serious look at Zeiss scope (besides the microscopes which are standard fair in our industry), and dont know much beyond the fact that i like my HD5 just fine.
When Zeiss discontinued the original Meopta made Conquest they replaced it with the Terra which was made in Asia. The backlash was like what happened when Winchester went with the post 64 Model 70 but on a smaller scale obviously. People said the Terra was inferior in every way. I looked through one and the glass did seem inferior to my Conquest. I wonder about the power of suggestion though because John Barsness whom I respect tested the Terra and said it was a pretty good scope.
Interesting, thanks for the info!
I wonder if it wasnt just a bit of sour grapes. Folks wanted a cheap Zeiss, not an affordable scope made/branded by Zeiss.
Kinda like the Mauser M18s tepid (at best) reception. People wanted an affordable/cheap Mauser, not an affordable rifle made by Mauser.
Compared to Its other contemporaries, Like the Tikkas and other tube guns, Its actually a very good rifle, with some features that put it a step above.
It appeals to my sensibilities to get another m18 (in 7mm remington magnum) and pair it with a Zeiss Terra, and see how they compare to something like my buddies T3x in .270WSM.....
I wonder if mauser will have anything for shot show this year, at least for us in the US.[/QUOTE]
I’d much rather have a M18 than a RAR, Axis or Remington 783. I’d also much rather have a Terra than many other scopes, including the Fullfield II which I like a lot.
That makes me definitely want to try a Terra.
I agree on the m18, and I really LIKE RAs .....as most folks here already know lol.
Maybe five years ago Conquests were being closed out. I bought a 3-9x40 for around $300, about 1/2 price IIRC
I compared it to my VX-3. I thought the Conquest would blow it away. Side by side, they were probably as equal as you could get, with a slight edge in clarity going to the VX-3
I kind of agree. While my older 3-9x40 Conquest appeared brighter and sharper than my Fullfield II's, my Nitrex 3-9x40 seemed awful close to the more expensive Zeiss. And my bargain Cabelas Leupold American Marksman 3-9x40 models also are very close to the Zeiss. Of course, my eyes aren't exactly Swarovski quality themselves.
Separate names with a comma.