Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics WTF's wrong with Burris??

CC,

Actually, Burris made a dialing version of the FFI 3-9x40 fairly early in the dialing era, with a heavy coil spring at a 45-degree angle to make sure it dialed correctly. I still have mine, and it still dials correctly after a lot of use--despite not weighing 20 ounces. But it apparently failed in the marketplace because so many shooters believed it simply couldn't work, because it didn't weigh 20 ounces.

In fact, it was apparently the same design as the C4+. I know this due to getting a 3-9x40 C4+ 2-3 years ago, which was exactly the same length/weight, etc. The only difference I could tell (aside from the windage-hashmark reticle) was the exposed turrets of the C4+ (which proved to adjust very repeatably (even without being C-clamped to a post), as I proved by shooting it a lot. But again, apparently too few people believed that could happen.

--
,

Can change it to yardage if you want.

If you need more than a standard Duplex to hit a Deer at 300yds. You need to stay home. I to would like to Buy a Burris scope with the standard Duplex

you're acting as if I am saying burris sucks, is that what you are reading into my comments? its not about people believe what is possible or not. I think, at least myself if a scope is not very expensive is going to have a hard time holding up to extensive dialing. I don't believe burris widely marketed a coil spring setup as being superior, maybe they should have? nightforce markets a cryo treated titanium spring as a feature. I personally think scope company's should market and tout repeatability. In fact I think a company should include a video test of that particular scope passing QC tests and include it in the box the scope comes in. probably wouldn't sell or mean much to many people because all they do is shoot it test it, then wonder why groups wander, spread, zero changes. the wind blows in an unexpected fashion or why the shots are .5 moa off when they shoot to 1000 yards.

maybe the average joe public doesn't really care generally if their scopes track perfectly. maybe they don't even realize its a problem and its only us internet jockey's that seem worried about it. I dunno, the average hunter puts 1 box of shells through his rifle every 4 years. Maybe what we want is not what the marketplace speaks as important, and if it is, nightforce has it covered.

love the mock of the C clamps, I am highly interested in your static testing fixture, you do realize those clamps can and have supported my entire body weight hanging off them? I am interested in your method of determining tracking error down to 1% accuracy. And if my fixture is moving I would be very interested in your explanation for how and why the scope returns to zero ON CAMERA. listen I am teaching something, or you can keep blathering on pimping the brands the advertisers want or acting like you know everything while coming up with non original ideas. .

I've used a number of Burris FFII 3-9x40 scopes in recent years. I like the ballistic plex reticle and think they are a real bargain for the price. They are lightweight and reliable, and work well for the type of hunting I do, which is often in open country but rarely involves shots over 400 yards. I imagine there are a lot of other hunters who like scopes with similar qualities.

And a lot of other things.


Okie John

CC:

I originally posted the following in a different thread; however, you didn't address concerns in regards to the legitimacy of your testing results in that thread, and since you're again assigning relevance to and trying to influence opinions with your "static testing" I'll repost the questions here:

"I think most readers here understand the arithmetic involved in deriving percentages. The issue with your "static testing" results on any scope you opine on being presented as the end product of a scientific process is how can we, or even you, know your equipment and procedures are capable of producing a verifiable and repeatable outcome that measures a number as precise as +/- 1% of 25 moa?

For starters, there's the manner through which your equipment is secured to the static structure. A vigorous turret turn could easily cause enough movement in the C clamps themselves and/or in their connection points to the scope base and the structure to effectuate the appearance of much larger tracking errors than 1%. Likewise with atmospheric or man induced movements in the structure itself during the testing process. Further, there's variables within the scopes themselves that can mimic tracking errors if not accounted for during the testing process that will result in the appearance of greater than 1% tracking errors, while in point of fact, the scope itself is working as it should be.

Perhaps you have accounted for all identifiable variables and, by extension, your testing is valid and I just haven't yet come across the in depth explanations of your tests.

At any rate, this is not to denigrate the scopes in reference; I hope they turn out to be great and all one could ever hope for. The reason I checked out this thread in the first place is research for new purchases. To that end, like most people in the market for something new, I'd like read reports of use and testing that contribute to understanding of the subject matter in a substantive way."

Could someone tell me the name of that app/program that the screen shot of the Burris reticle is taken from? Thanks!

Give me a heavy duplex any day.

I would just appreciate a fine crosshair myself, in a rimfire model would be icing on the cake.

your questions are valid and well thought out, I will PM you the answers directly.

PM?!?
Post up your reply here.

if he says I can I will.

If he says you can, they were asked on an open forum, answer them on an open forum, unless you are not confident in your responses, no reason to make them public

It's from the Burris website. Under Explore.

Is it a trade secret Starbuck owns?

GMAFB. The questions have been asked before; the potential errors inherent to your “method” have been articulated. Same song, different dance. If you are truly interested in improving your testing, post your answers so that there can be a critical discussion.

do you publish communications you wrote to someone in private, public without their permission? I don't, its improper manners, come on man.

The questions were asked on an open forum.
You are the one who *chose* to make it private.
You are being volitionally obtuse.