Mueller quick shot / Burris FF

[jonhaga]

Hey guys I've always been uncertain about these optics but seeing so many people using them they must be working for people. My question is whats the difference between the two any help is appreciated

[Skeeterbait]

Well the FF is smaller, lower profile, probably better made, probably more water resistant.  It also costs considerably more.  The Mueller (and Tru-Glo) have a larger window, Larger field of view, mult-reticle selection, can change the battery without removing the sight from the gun, and comes in camo.

[sugarray]

I posted up my review again on the Mueller Quick Shot.

I don't think the FF II is more water resistant than the Quick Shot nor better made.  Now I have a full hunting season to go and we have very little experience with the Quick Shot, but enough guys are getting them, so we will have some real world experience.  I have already engaged a preliminary interest in making a guard for the Quick Shot, too.  So we'll just have to see how this season goes.

[Mailman]

I dont know about the muellers life on the battery but the FF are suppose to last about 5 years. Taking the site off every 4 years and replacing the battery aint nothing. Only 2 screws. You shouldnt have to resight after doing this but as with any scope on any gun I would put a round down range just to make sure. The cost is a difference but why? I always have been a believer that you get what you pay for. just my 2 cents.

[TauntoHawk]

im going through the same tough decision.

the FF battery life is amazing, it will last 4-5years of periodic use and can be left on and will run for several months. I was also told that someone put one in a glass of water for 3 months and it still worked so you know its waterproof not just water resistant. Gobbler also makes a guard for them so if it is dropped the guard completely protects it.

the mueller saves you a hundred dollars and has mutli reticals. if you dont like a single dot the mueller has a nice circle retical and the battery should last the whole season.

For me its all gonna come down to how much money can I spare when its time to get one, I dont think you would regret either

[bird]

Why drive a KIA (Mueller) when you can drive a BMW (FF2) for $100 more.

[sugarray]

I wouldn't quite say it like that Bird, maybe why drive a GMC when you can drive a Cadillac.  I do not feel there is that much difference in them.

[Flash]

Last year I used the truglow reflex red dot (with multiple redicles). It worked pretty good. I really didn't have any issues hunting with it. Shot it a bunch, shot two turkeys with it. I like that its camo. However, if you changed the redicle you need to re-sight it in, if I were too rough with it I had to check and do minor adjustments. I will say I shot it in a lead sled and it moved very little. I would just always bore sight it before a hunt to be sure. I would usually need to do some minor changing. It really wasn't that big of a deal and it has worked well; overall I'm happy with it.

After reading posts and reviews and really liking a reflex red dot I went and got a ff II. Now holding the two and switching them on the gun the fast fire is a better sight. I have not shot the gun with it on yet. I will say having the two sights side by side the fast fire is just a better view and is without paraflexing (whatever the term for bending the image on the sides). The turglow has minor para-whatever on the side.

For an extra $80-$100 get a fast fire II.

Just my opinion.

[BurrisOptics]

I'm not sure you can go wrong either way.  I always suggest that interested parties always attempt to handle the optics in person before making a decision. 

As Skeeter pointed out, the FF will sit lower and weigh less but sacrifices the rheostat dimmer and multiple reticle feature to do so.  FOV is relative.  Mounted in the same location on the same gun the Mueller will have a larger FOV.  The upside to the FF is that you aren't restricted to using a weaver/picatinny mount and therefore allows you to dictate it's mounting location, mounting height, and FOV to some degree.  For example, the FF mounted on a SpeedBead mount has a larger FOV lower profile, and a farther rearward mount location.  The FF also has an easier on/off switch requiring less movement and a battery life of 20,000 hours which (as pointed out) should last you approx. 5 years. 

We are rating our optics at the low end of IPX7 waterproofing ratings which is defined as "Protected against the effect of immersion between 15cm and 1m".   I've been told that Mueller rates their optics at IPX4 although I cannot verify that.  The definition of IPX 4 is "Protection against water sprayed from all directions – limited ingress permitted"

I don't anticipate you taking a bath with your turkey gun but I know I've come out of the field more than just a little wet a couple of times. 

As to which is better, I'm not sure there is a correct answer.  We don't make a $100 sight therefore the Mueller is the better $100 sight.  The FastFire II is the best $200 sight hands down.  Apples to apples, gentlemen.  I think this is more like green apples to red apples.   

[bird]

  Apples to apples, gentlemen.  I think this is more like green apples to red apples.   

Or a Kia compared to a BMW.....  

[sugarray]

I'm not sure you can go wrong either way.  I always suggest that interested parties always attempt to handle the optics in person before making a decision. 

As Skeeter pointed out, the FF will sit lower and weigh less but sacrifices the rheostat dimmer and multiple reticle feature to do so.  FOV is relative.  Mounted in the same location on the same gun the Mueller will have a larger FOV.  The upside to the FF is that you aren't restricted to using a weaver/picatinny mount and therefore allows you to dictate it's mounting location, mounting height, and FOV to some degree.  For example, the FF mounted on a SpeedBead mount has a larger FOV lower profile, and a farther rearward mount location.  The FF also has an easier on/off switch requiring less movement and a battery life of 20,000 hours which (as pointed out) should last you approx. 5 years. 

We are rating our optics at the low end of IPX7 waterproofing ratings which is defined as "Protected against the effect of immersion between 15cm and 1m".   I've been told that Mueller rates their optics at IPX4 although I cannot verify that.  The definition of IPX 4 is "Protection against water sprayed from all directions – limited ingress permitted"

I don't anticipate you taking a bath with your turkey gun but I know I've come out of the field more than just a little wet a couple of times. 

As to which is better, I'm not sure there is a correct answer.  We don't make a $100 sight therefore the Mueller is the better $100 sight.  The FastFire II is the best $200 sight hands down.  Apples to apples, gentlemen.  I think this is more like green apples to red apples.   

Thank you for the post.  I was hoping you would post, as I haven't handled a FF II as yet.  I just like the circular reticle vs the single dot for turkeys, camo is a plus and cost is a plus, but not the limiting or deciding factor.  Now that I have used it, I am very pleased and really like it, as you can tell.

[BurrisOptics]

Thank you for the post.  I was hoping you would post, as I haven't handled a FF II as yet.  I just like the circular reticle vs the single dot for turkeys, camo is a plus and cost is a plus, but not the limiting or deciding factor.  Now that I have used it, I am very pleased and really like it, as you can tell.

Oh don't get me wrong.  I see some very distinct reasons to use the Mueller sight.  I wouldn't blame anyone for going that route.  If I didn't work here then I'd probably have one myself.

btw, PM inbound.   

[paladin]

these(Mueller/fastfire) really should not be compared.
The leopold deltapoint sight is much more like a fastfire at twice the price.
The Sightmark Mini is also close but requires a base and so taller and heavier at 80 bucks.

[GeorgeShu]

I have a Meuller on my bow and love it.  After learning about the FF, I purchased one and just got it back today from mounting on my 870 by a gunsmith.  Haven't fired it yet but have looked through it.  Looks good to me.   I like its smaller size but like the camo, reticle choice, auto dimming and price of the Meuller.  Both will probably do the job we ask.  Don't think anyone would be disappointed with either.

I like the red/green apples analogy.  Two similar but somewhat different sights - each with good points in its favor.  I don't see any downsides to either.

Just my opinion...