AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/19/2003 6:43:00 AM EDT
|
I am trying to decide which scope to put on my Bushmaster Varminter. I will use it mostly for target shooting, possibly some Varmint hunting. I am considering the Springfield 4-14X40 223, and the Burris Fullfield 4.5-14x42. I would like to hear some opinions on these two scopes, or just the mfg's in general. I am not very knowledgeable about glass and need some help. Thanks. |
|
If you want either one of the two with no deviation: Burris. Springfield scopes are bashed the world around as generally junk with a high price tag. If you want outside suggestions: Weaver Grand Slam and Nikon. Leupold if you need some of the features that Weaver and Nikon don't offer. IOR Valdada if you like best bang for the buck. German glass -- low price. Ed |
|
Quoted: Get the Burris, but move up to the Signature Series. Leupold quality has gone down and they don't even think enough of their customers or their scopes to send lens covers with them. It has[?] My two Mk4's and one M3LR Ill. would disagree with your assessment. I think the other companies have FINALLY caught up. [:D] This is a good thing for all of us "scope whores". [jump] Ed |
|
Go with Leupold. I can say that Burris has good customer service since two of the 3 Burris scopes I've owned had to go back for problems. In one the reticle started rotating in the other it came apart. One was on a .223 AR the other was their air rifle scope on my RWS 48. Both Burris and Springfield make crap. I love my Leupolds. |
| I have the SA 4-14x40 tactical and I got it to replace the CRAP leupold that I have. The SA is a fine scope that is clear to the edges and on a good day I can see .223 holes at 200 but the range finder was designed to work at 1.5" off the barrel not 2.5" off of a flat top or 3.75" off of a carry handle. |
| Springfield scopes are made by Hakko (sp?) in Japan. The biggest problem with them is the longer the range the closer to the edge of the lense the aiming point. The outer edges of "all" lenses are the area of the greatest visual distortion. Plus the Sprongfield reticles are just plain too busy to use in the field. Just settle for a mil-dot reticle with target knobs or a BDC. I love my Leupold Mark IV M3 and my 3.5-10 Tactical with a Premier Reticles mil-dot. |
|
Quoted: Go with Leupold. I can say that Burris has good customer service since two of the 3 Burris scopes I've owned had to go back for problems. In one the reticle started rotating in the other it came apart. One was on a .223 AR the other was their air rifle scope on my RWS 48. Both Burris and Springfield make crap. I love my Leupolds. And I have purchased 4 Burris scopes, 3 Fullfield IIs, 1 Black Diamond and they all have worked great for he last three years. Yet another case of "Unsupported Generalization." |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Go with Leupold. I can say that Burris has good customer service since two of the 3 Burris scopes I've owned had to go back for problems. In one the reticle started rotating in the other it came apart. One was on a .223 AR the other was their air rifle scope on my RWS 48. Both Burris and Springfield make crap. I love my Leupolds. And I have purchased 4 Burris scopes, 3 Fullfield IIs, 1 Black Diamond and they all have worked great for he last three years. Yet another case of "Unsupported Generalization." [rolleyes] Or could it be that you have good examples and I_B has bad examples of similar scopes? As far as he's concerned he made a true statement -- so did you. Doesn't mean you have to agree. He supported his side, you did likewise with yours...[peep] |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Go with Leupold. I can say that Burris has good customer service since two of the 3 Burris scopes I've owned had to go back for problems. In one the reticle started rotating in the other it came apart. One was on a .223 AR the other was their air rifle scope on my RWS 48. Both Burris and Springfield make crap. I love my Leupolds. And I have purchased 4 Burris scopes, 3 Fullfield IIs, 1 Black Diamond and they all have worked great for he last three years. Yet another case of "Unsupported Generalization." [rolleyes] Or could it be that you have good examples and I_B has bad examples of similar scopes? As far as he's concerned he made a true statement -- so did you. Doesn't mean you have to agree. He supported his side, you did likewise with yours...[peep] His conclusions fail all scientific, emperical, and research theory. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: His conclusions fail all scientific, emperical, and research theory. Your "sample" of eight scopes doesn't even qualify for a valid sample size.[lol] He said, she said....you offered your .02 -- now let it drop. Your missing the entire conceptual issue here. I didn't make any statements or conclusions about Burris quality. My argument is that one cannot generalize or even form a pattern baed upon limited test "samples" or experiences. In addition, I didn't offer any emotionally charged statements, or slander any other products. I'm basically pointing out a contradiction in findings between our two "sample" groups, thus innocent_bystander has an unsupported claim. If he were to have 100 Burris scopes and say more than 50% or so were defective, then he could say "Burris scopes seem to have a quality control problem." I could even accept the statement, "Burris makes shitty scopes!" What concerns me even further is your hypocritic persistence to fuel this discussion, and then tell me to just let it go. The way I look at it, your pissing on the camp fire here. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: His conclusions fail all scientific, emperical, and research theory. Your "sample" of eight scopes doesn't even qualify for a valid sample size.[lol] He said, she said....you offered your .02 -- now let it drop. Your missing the entire conceptual issue here. I didn't make any statements or conclusions about Burris quality. My argument is that one cannot generalize or even form a pattern baed upon limited test "samples" or experiences. In addition, I didn't offer any emotionally charged statements, or slander any other products. I'm basically pointing out a contradiction in findings between our two "sample" groups, thus innocent_bystander has an unsupported claim. If he were to have 100 Burris scopes and say more than 50% or so were defective, then he could say "Burris scopes seem to have a quality control problem." I could even accept the statement, "Burris makes shitty scopes!" What concerns me even further is your hypocritic persistence to fuel this discussion, and then tell me to just let it go. The way I look at it, your pissing on the camp fire here. I am fairly certain he gave you exact numbers: Of three Burris scopes, two went back. 75% initial failure rate. Included with your "sample", that would represent a 18.1% failure rate. I have looked at myriad optics and can say with certainty that I find the upper Leupold's, IOR's, Zeiss', S&B's, NF's all transmit light better and appear more clear than any Burris. Burris is a nice scope, amusing for the lower end of the spectrum. I think their "high end" scopes are easily outclassed by the mid to high end scopes from other vendors for the same money. To add more fuel to my argument, I have yet to have a Leupold fail. I have access to 18 more Leupolds that have been on rifles and shotguns since the 1970's, and none of them have failed. So when you compare optical quality and the scope comes up short -- then you mix in the failure rate we illustrated so far, it becomes more of a certainty that Burris will, and should, be ranked below Leupold. Obviously, you are a Burris fan. Great! I am an optics fan. In my book, and several others above -- Burris does not rank in the same breath as Leupold. They have some great new scopes and they are starting to make headway, but they aren't there yet. I don't need to run a government inquiry to know this or bear this out. Simple anecdotal evidence, combined with first hand experience, will do quite nicely. I'm sorry if I offended you by telling you simple truths. Have a good weekend. Ed |
| Great questions, lot's of opinions, I'm not clear what I want for my new Bushmaster Varminter. Is it safe to assume you get what you pay for? I'm leaning toward the upper Leupold's, or an IOR. What is the difference between the IOR Valdada and the IOR Bucuresti tactical as seen in the Bushmaster catalog? Also, who has the best prices on mid to higher end scopes? |
|
88Balanced: SWFA is a good start. They may not be the cheapest but they will give you a good diving off point. Sableco has some very good prices on some of their Leupold stuff. IOR's are AWESOME. Very high quality glass. I think Bushmaster may have just listed two different names for the same company. Try here for details on the IOR's: [url=www.valdada.com]IOR Valdada[/url] |
AR Sponsor