Burris New Eliminator III with X96!!!

[FishxHunter]

Hi There

I was wondering do have any real world info?!! or is this really works on your rifles????
Any hands on or experience will be appreciate.

Thanks,

 

[Sako7STW]

This is the next scope on my list to mess with.

 

[marinetowgunner]

Went to visit Burris last summer and got to play with the new eliminator on a couple of rifles. 1st round hit at 700 with a Tikka in 223 impressed me.

Burris Eliminator Laser scopes

 

[TXBodean]

Hi There

I was wondering do have any real world info?!! or is this really works on your rifles????
Any hands on or experience will be appreciate.

Thanks,

Purchased an Eliminator III and it sighted in at 100yds easily. Did the bullet drop at 600yds (didn't have a safe 750 range) and it exactly matched my Kestral Atrag calculated drop for 600yds. Shooting out to 600 the holdover in the scope worked perfectly, but I had to return the scope because when the reticle would time out I would have to remove the battery and reinstall it to range again. Received a replacement scope in one week from Burris and it works as designed, but I haven't had an opportunity to set the bullet drop at 600yds yet.

I plan to use the scope in a LR competition this Spring, figuring if all goes south electronically I still have a mildot reticle left.

 

[jarheadhunter]

Looks like there is a lot of people on this site that don't like the Burris Eliminator scopes for one reason or another. I don't know if they think its to easy or cheating? Anyways I will share my experience with it. I put it on my 300 win mag and after sighting in at 100 yds with factory ammo and factory setting I shot gongs at 540yds and 664yds first shot connections. I just figured out my drop at 750 yds and entered that and my bullet BC into the scope. I still need to get out and shoot it to see if my adjustments are correct.

For me and what I want to do the Burris E3 was the ticket.

 

[TXBodean]

To me it is all subjective anyway. I've read hundreds of threads on different scopes and people tend to be much more passionate on things they don't like, objective or subjective. Those who like a particular brand or model generally just plod along quietly enjoying their scope. Drawing the line on what qualifies as too much technology or assistance is equally subjective. What works for you is really all that is important, everything else is just noise.

 

[ZSteinle]

I have one on a 280 remington factory rifle. Got it all dialed in and I don't see how there could be a faster set up for hunting purposes! Anything within 800 should be a 10 second max deal. There are a lot of companies right now making the ballistic turrets to make things faster. Well this takes that to a whole new level. Range finder is good, not as good as a leica or swaro but I have been able to range gongs at 1000 easily. At a range I have gongs set up from 400 out to 1000 and i was able hit 400, 500, 600, and 700 yard ranges in under a minute. If you were really pushing it and going fast im sure it could be done in far less time than that. The glass is good, its not great but when you consider its 1500 and all the things that it can do. I would put it on par with vortex PST glass to my eyes.

 

[jarheadhunter]

You make a very good point TXbodean. It's kind of like the whole Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge thing. Different strokes for different folks. ZSteinle I have to agree for strictly hunting purposes there isn't anything faster for long shots.

 

[lloydsmale]

Id love to have one but with my buget im going to have to wait till that technology cost 500 bucks instead of 1200!!

 

[LouBoyd]

When a scope is available which can correctly measure and correct for downrange crosswinds I'll buy one. Until then it just makes doing the wind calculations more difficult than using visual wind estimation and the distance given by a hand held laser rangefinder.

 

[TXBodean]

When a scope is available which can correctly measure and correct for downrange crosswinds I'll buy one. Until then it just makes doing the wind calculations more difficult than using visual wind estimation and the distance given by a hand held laser rangefinder.

I am not shire that I am understanding you. I don't see any difference between a s ops laser rangefinder and a hand held other than covenience. So how does that make it more difficult? I'm not arguing about your preference, I suspect anyone shoots better with what they personally are comfortable and trust.

 

[LouBoyd]

I am not shire that I am understanding you. I don't see any difference between a s ops laser rangefinder and a hand held other than covenience. So how does that make it more difficult? I'm not arguing about your preference, I suspect anyone shoots better with what they personally are comfortable and trust.

From the Burris Eliminator III website:
"The X96 reticle provides a convenient and accurate METHOD to more easily compensate for wind. However, complete wind compensation is NOT fully automated within the scope. It still requires some thinking on the part of the shooter. In addition to distance, the digital display will show a 10 MPH Wind Value for your specific cartridge at the indicated range to your target. This is a "Dot Value" that corresponds to the dots on each side of the reticle's vertical post. These dots let the shooter precisely hold into the wind. The shooter still needs to estimate the cross-wind and convert the 10MPH Wind Value displayed to the appropriate value for the estimated actual MPH cross-wind value. The shooter then holds into the wind using the appropriate "Dot Value" as shown in the examples below. "

That's not what I want in a riflescope. When distances become long enough to need a laser rangefinder assuming crosswinds are uniform over the trajectory is often insufficient.