Burris vs Bushnell vs Redfield

[Ormachek]

So I'm looking for a new .22 scope. The three that have made the short list are:

Bushnell 3200 elite 2-7x32 (Multi-X)
Burris Fullfield II 2-7x35 (Ballistic Plex)
Redfield Revolution 2-7x33 (Accu range reticle)

Now, I'm not overly concerned about the quality of glass, all three should be good enough for my purposes, what I'm really wondering about is the crosshairs. I like a rather fine crosshair. I do have a 3-9x40 3200 elite on one of my rifles and I'm quite happy with it so let's use it as a reference point. I havn't had the oppurtunity to look through a burris or redfield so, compared to a 3200 how thick are their crosshairs?

Thanks guys!

 

[Toxid]

Can you get a Redfield Revolution 2-7x33 with the 4-Plex reticle? I'd say that one is more "minimalistic" then the Accu-Range.

I've recently bought a Nikon Prostaff 3-9X40 with a Nikoplex reticle and am very pleased, both with reticle and scope overall. You might want to check Nikon out, I got mine for $200, don't know what 2-7X version goes for. When shopping for the Nikon I had the opportunity to play with a Redfield Revolution w/ Accu-range; it seemed like a good quality scope but I ultimately chose the Nikon because I preferred the Nikoplex reticle, it was $20ish less and still came with a great warranty.

Bushnell is generally a good option, especially when talking about the elite series. I like the Multi-X reticle though I'd say the Redfield 4-plex reticle is more minimal. IMO the Accu-Range reticle is probably the most cluttered of the reticles you mentioned. I have no direct experience with the Burris.

 

[bassman]

I assume you are talking about a .22 rimfire. If you are stuck on the 2-7 power range, I'd go with a Nikon Prostaff with the 32 mm objective. It has a shorter parallax setting at 75 yards compared to the usual 150 yds or so for centerfire scopes. I have two on rimfires and like them a lot. They are clear, durable and have a nice fine reticle and have forgiving eye placement and long eye relief. Should be able to find one in the $150-$175 price range.

Another option would be a 2-7x28 Leupold rimfire scope. A bit more cash and in my opinion, not much better than the Nikon.

Just remembered...I have a Weaver 2.5-7 rimfire scope on a .22. Decent scope, good optics. I find the reticle is a bit thicker than the Nikon or the Leupold. Priced between the Nikon and the Leupold.

Hope this helps, hope it doesn't mess you up even more...

 

[BCP]

This will not be an exact comparison, but hopefully it will help you decide. I have a Burris FFII with ballistic plex and a 3200 Elite with multi-x. Both are 3-9x40. Looking through both side by side the multi-x reticle is slightly thinner. I don't know if the reticles will be the same on the 2-7 models, or if both will scale the same.

 

[Epoxy7]

Of the three the Burris glass will be the best.

I personally really like the ballistic plex reticle. It's practically a necessity with a .22LR. It allows you to plink at long ranges (up to 200 yards) without adjustments.

The only thing you should be aware of is that these scopes don't have a parallax adjustment. If you plan on doing target shooting you'll want this.

You can find the Burris Fullfield II 3-9x 40mm for $200 new if you look around.

Although I've never tried one, I've heard good things about the higher end Votex scopes as well. Just another consideration.

 

[Ormachek]

OK, I've added the Nikon prostaff to the list. Toxid: I was looking at the accu-range reticle because it happens to be the one available semi-locally, they're sold out of the 4-plex.

Hopefully this weekend I can find some time to get out and actually look at them!

Thanks for all your advice!

 

[Ormachek]

Got out and looked this weekend. Didn't get to look through the redfield but checked the 3200, burris and nikon. The nikon Prostaff wound up following me home. I'm really impressed with the glass, the very fine crosshair, and the price! Thanks everyone!