|
|
Post by minst7877 on Mar 31, 2009 8:18:33 GMT -5
I'm going to put one or the other of these on a Knight Disc Rifle. If it was you which one of these two would you use and why? No others are even in consideration at this time.
DC
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin k on Mar 31, 2009 18:56:06 GMT -5
hi how ya been ive got the 4200 and love it the 3200 cant be far behind i love the clearness and rain guard today i tried 45-70-405 cast bullets it held up with 62 grains or r7 about 25 shots had a pretty stought kick to it thought they were 300gr but scope held up great talk to ya soon kevin
|
|
|
|
Post by jims on Mar 31, 2009 20:47:36 GMT -5
I never have had a Burris so I cannot compare that directly against the 3200. I have had a 3000 and a couple of 3200s. I like the scope, especially for the money when Natchez or Midway etc. have them on sale, often with a Raincoat from Bushnell. The rainguard is a nice feature, the scopes seem to tolerate recoil well. Some have a Firefly type feature that illuminates the cross hairs in low light. Overall a decent scope and at a decent price.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2009 21:20:41 GMT -5
My Burris Fullfield II lasted 3 mo. on my ml-II but I tortured it pretty hard with 75 grains of 10x.The thing you might want to consider is the factory told me it would be an 8 week turnaround. Rocky
|
|
|
|
Post by ourway77 on Apr 9, 2009 12:06:18 GMT -5
Well i have had and still do . The service of both is very good. I just sent back an older Burris 2-7 eer scope, they sent me a brand new one free of charge and the turn around was 1 month. And I bought it used. Lou
|
|
|
|
Post by tcmech on Apr 9, 2009 21:24:04 GMT -5
I have two of the burris scopes and really have been happy with them.
The older of the two has been mounted on my 10ml2 for the last 4 years, never had a problem with it. I have a second one mounted on my 243 which is my go to rifle season gun.
|
|
