I am going to buy a Burris Fullfield ll 4.5-14x42 ballistics plex reticle or a Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14x40 with the mill-dot reticle or the BDC one in the next day or so, they both cost pretty much the same but the Nikon has a side focus and the Burris doesn't.
Looking for input to help me decide from people who have one of these or maybe both and which they like better.
Thanks for your help

What kind of rifle will you be putting it on and for what type of use?

I have both and give the edge to the Nikon BM. The primary difference between the two is the edge-to-edge clarity and resolving power of the Nikon. Therefore, if you will be punching lots of paper, particularly at higher-power settings, the nod definitely goes to the BM.

Either, however, would serve you quite well for most government purposes.

Actually, if the truth be told, I prefer the pre-05 Nikon BM 4.5-14x40 with the conventional AO over the newer side focus model, but those are getting more difficult to find.

It will be going on a Tikka in 270 WSM. I will be using it for hunting out to around 500 yards or so. I also like to punch paper at further distances, still practicing. Hunting is main purpose though.

Hey Bobby, why do you like the AO over the side adjustment? Just curious.

Get the Nikon.There have been some super Buy It Now prices on Monarchs on Ebay.Not much more than the Buckmasters!!!

I mounted a friend's Burris Black Diamond for him. It wouldn't focus, i.e. the reticle remained fuzzy. I sent it to Burris. They sent it back saying it was OK. My friend threw it away. $500 in the WC.

Definitely the Buckmaster over the Burris, but look for deals on the previous generation of Monarchs. Even as good a deal as the Buckmaster is, the Monarchs are even better especially at some of the closeout prices available.

LWD

The reason I favor the older model over the new in that particular scope has nothing to do with the AO or SF. The older model simply has a more generous field of view.

Granted, the new model has some wonderful improvements, but I had been using the pre-'05 version for so long that I am just a bit set in my ways.

The other posters are right about the closeouts on the standard Monarchs; some fantastic deals can be had. I recently picked up a 3-9x40 Monarch for $199.

I've owned both, the Nikon is a much better choice. Nikon knows glass.

Reloader

The Burris Fullfield II is a fine scope for the money..I have the 4.5-14 x 42 with the ballistic plex on a Rem 700 CDL in 7mm mag...works great.

Nikon is also a good choice...don't think you could go wrong with either one.

Good luck

Thank you for all the replies, I went with the Nikon with most of you suggesting it. It will be here friday and I will take it to the range on Saturday.