Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Burris Scopes vs Heavy Recoil

This is my first Burris scope experience. Open question to the group regarding your experience with Burris scopes on heavier recoiling big bore rifles.........

At a gunshow a few days ago and picked up what looked to be an older, unfired Interarms X Whitworth (Zastava) in 458 WM, with factory synthetic stock and factory muzzle brake. This is NOT the "Express" model with iron sights. My research seems to indicate this was a bit of a limited run from late 80's to early 90's. The indications that it was "unfired" or at least nearly "unfired" was there was literally dust/lint in the barrel and not a single mark of any kind on the bolt face. It also came with a Burris 2-7x35 Fullfield scope in Burris rings and Burris one piece base. Scope glass was clear/bright, focus came in fine and magnification adjustment ring was smooth. I picked it up for a 1/3 of what a new Zastava would cost. Anyway.....

Got it home took it all apart. Cleaned everything - some dried grease inside the bolt/firing pin and spring and in the trigger group furthering my belief this was likely a "safe queen" for the last 30-years. Reassembled, function checked etc. Used a laser bore sight to confirm at least initial sight in would be on paper at 50-yds and headed to the range yesterday. The load was my normal 458 WM hunting load - 350gr TSX over 71gr of H4198 for a chono'd 2585-2595fps (20"barrel) that I use in my Custom Zastava 458 WM with a Leupold VX-R 1.25-4 on it (no MB) with well over 750 rds thru it.

Set up and the first two rounds were about 8" high and left. Counted the appropriate number of clicks down/right and next two rounds were still 2" high/left - not to bad, at least it was tracking. Adjusted again and next round was spot on - 1" high at 50-yds. Was feeling pretty good about my lucky purchase. Then it all went to [bleep].....

Next round and the scope completely lost focus - not just a little "blurry" I mean completely. I had the magnification set at 2x and was able to get the focus back with LOTS of adjustment. Next shot was fine but then I tired to move the adjustment ring and it was stuck on 2x. I was able to get it to move but the magnification stayed the same - 2x. Decided to fire a few more rounds, mostly to get to know the rifle and two shots later the focus is completely gone again and no amount of adjustment will even get it close. So, scope is pretty much tits up.

I did put an RMA request into Burris yesterday and figure with their "Lifetime Warranty" they will likely repair or replace it with a newer model/version. So, with the background above, if/when I get the scope back or it's newer replacement should I put it back on the rifle or move it to a lower recoiling one and put a Leupold on the the 458. With the MB, the felt recoil is somewhere between a hot 9.3x62 and hot 375 Ruger. I have had one friend tell me that his experience with Burris has been they are fine on low recoil firearms but never last long on big bore. My concern is this rifle WILL be used in Africa and without backup iron sights I need a scope that I can have confidence in and so far, I don't have it with this one. Realize the scope is 30-yrs old and tech with the newer Burris has probably (hopefully) advanced a good bit. I have shot a couple of Leupolds "loose" too over the years but, not with under 10-rds on them.

I'm curious to hear others who are more familiar with the Burris products with their experiences with them. I'm not intending to start a "Burris Bashing" thread, just honest first hand experience with them on heavy recoil rifles.

Two words.... iron sights.

Maybe a 2.5x Leupold will hold up on one. Might be what Mr. Phil runs on his.

Pappy - fully understand the "iron sight" comment. Everything else I have that I take over always has back up irons. On this rifle, those are kind of the "last resort" option. The reason is that when Whitworth (England) ordered these barreled actions from Zastava they required a very very high end blueing that is exceptional. If I have my "smith" put a soldered on NECG banded front and express rear, it will have to be re-blued. I'd rathe just change the bases out and put a set of QD bases/rings on it and just carry a spare pre-zero'd scope.

I've thought about just a fixed Leupold 2.5x but, still like the 1x setting so I can shoot close up with both eyes open. 2.5x with glasses, no line bifocals, I just can't do it.

I'm not a Burris basher have several like them.The issue with newer 2-7 is eye relief I had one on a lightweight muzzleloader every shot it would just kiss your eyebrow didn't really hurt but after several shots where it hit would start to get tender.I have seen others post about the eye relief on the 2-7s.Never had this issue on any other Burris scope.

I think Burris scopes are about as tough as any of the scopes in their price range, but a 458 is a lot ask of a $150 scope and as Willy mentioned the 2-7FF isn't really a big eye relief scope.

Just for reference my 375 Ruger ( my biggest) wears a 1.75-5x32 Sig Safari Posilock #4, and I am pleased with it, (although the posilock is a PITA when zeroing)


No matter what I choose for a big gun, I would shoot enough to feel confidant in the scope, having a back up scope isn't a bad idea. Any scope, cheap or expensive can fail on the next shot, in a way your lucky it happened at the local range not after the first zeroing shot on a far off trip. As a general rule the things that you shoot with a 458 cost a lot of money to shoot and most of us don't get to shoot them but a couple of times in a lifetime so buying a good scope for a 458 isn't the place to skimp.

No need to reblue. My 416 Rem M70 has an "epoxied" on Wisner banded front sight and has many rounds through it including a buffalo hunt in Zimbabwe. I did the same on a BRNO 602 375 H&H, no issues. The 'smith does need to be competent. I used a Leupold VX-III 1.5-5X on both rifles with no issues. The 416 now wears the discontinued Burris Signature Safari 1.75-5X with Posi-Lock to get a bit more low light capability. Good reviews on this scope.

I have a newer model 2-7 on a .50 cal muzzleloader. I’m not sure where they rate in the world of recoil but I don’t own any bigger bores so there we are. So far it’s held up just fine but to be fair I’ve probably only shot the gun 50 or 60 times between the range, in the field and annual 3 shot zero check. It’s not a gun I really take out plinking. But like I said, so far so good?

In 98 or so, I had one on a Ruger 300wm. Lam/syn.

Went TU in 17 rounds. No tracking, no adjustment and no focus.

Sent it in, they "repaired" it. TU in 5 rounds. Reticle spinning.

Haven't owned another since.

Been a long time since, they might be decent but I've looked elsewhere since.

Don’t watch cable any more, but when I did I noticed a fair number of PHs using small red dots on their heavy hitters, even double-barreled ones. I play with them a good bit and can say for certain they are absolutely precise enough for big game to at least 100yards. The battery life on ones like Aimpoints is literally years. I have an FF3 mounted on a very light Mauser .308 that I plan to try out in the woods once I get it dialed in.

I like burris too, but that is way too much to ask for a $150.00 rifle scope. The 2-7x35 is by far the worst burris scope I've ever experienced though. The eye relieve (or lack thereof) sucks big time. The problem I see with that big 458 is the concussion produced by the damn muzzle brake. Good luck finding any scope that's going to hold up to it.. Also, the OP is talking about going to Arica. DONT BE CHEAP for fuggs sake..

For that beast I'd put a fixed 6x on it and call it good. Probably Meopta.

OP:

The heaviest recoiler I have is a Browning A-bolt SS in 375H&H. It is lightweight for this round. For many years it had first a Leupold 1.5-5 and then a 1.75-6; they both worked well, but they didn't receive a ton of rounds and or that much abuse in the way of falls and knocking around. I had a Leupold 1.5-5 with wandering zero on a BLR in 450 Marlin; I also had a couple 3.5-10x40 that didn't move correctly when dialed and would intermittently not return to zero after being dialed. Leupold CS is great, but I've lost the faith a bit, so guns that will be taken on more expensive or harder to obtain tag hunts have been getting different glass. To this end, I put a 1-6 HD SWFA on the 375 H&H. Overall, this scope has greatly increased the utility of this rifle and cartridge on both ends of the spectrum for which it could be used. For quick shots at close range, the doughnut on 1x is like a peep that stands out well even without illumination and very quickly draws your eye to center; for long shots at lighter skinned game, the Milquad is fantastic at 6x, and the ability to dial reliably helps take full advantage of how accurate this particular Browning 375 H&H is. Additionally, the illumination is done well, you get 10 mil per rev, and I like that the turrets can be run capped or uncapped for this application.

I like the set up so much, it'll likely be seeing more use in the field for instances in which I previously wouldn't have thought about grabbing this rig.

For what it is worth, I have a Burris Scout Scope on my 12 gauge Ithaca 37 deer barrel. It has gone through a lot of practice/sighting shots (and a few fired for effect) over the years and has held up well. I don't know how it feels about the amount of recoil generated by that, but I have always been quite impressed by it.

A friend bought a Burris about 30 years ago. It broke twice on his 300 WBY.

Have used numerous Burris FFII scopes on rifles chambered up to and including the .300 Weatherby with only one "failing," an American-made 3-9x40 that had been on a bunch of rifles over more than a decade of use. Which is why I suspect some problems with them are due to that old devil, over-tightening the ring screws.

However, they would not be my choice for a .458 Winchester Magnum. Like Phil Shoemaker, I prefer low-power fixed scopes for "magnums" of .40 up.

Thanks for all the input so far.

Mostly just wondering what others experience is with Burris scopes in general and specifically on heavy recoiling firearms. I'm genuinely unfamiliar with them and what I had "heard" in the past they were OK but didn't tolerate too much.....abuse. I did like the glass, was clear and gave a pretty good image etc. I do like the smoothness of the magnification adjustment ring and the 2x7x magnification is in the range I usually like to put on our rifles. It may just need to be relegated to a .30 cal class or so rifle when it's repaired.

When I saw it on the rifle before I bought it, I kind of scratched my head a bit but, at the price I paid, even if the scope was a throw away I was money way ahead. Plus, I thought, just maybe the brake would take some of the sharpness off the recoil and it might hold up. The other thing that gave me a pause was the one piece base is the style that has the two windage adjustment screws at the back. Really not a good idea on a big bore.

I had given Pappy's idea of a reflex sight on it. I've used them in the past for "short work" and they are terrific. Regardless of your head position, as long as you can see the dot and put the dot on target, you're on target. Only down side I can see with them is they don't offer any magnification at all. I normally like to stalk/hunt on a 4x setting and sometimes when a client asks me to do immediate back up shots, I need to be able to reach out beyond 150m with it and then when doing close follow-up on wounded game in thick brush, drop down to a 1x or 2x setting so I can shoot with both eyes open.

Maybe Burris technology has improved in the past 30-years and maybe they will end up sending me a new model scope that I can try out. I do know I'll be replacing the one piece base with 2-piece steel and QD mounts regardless. I do have a double ele hunt in Bots early April that I'm planning on being just a backup gun and water boy for. If I don't get this sorted out by then, I'll just take my other 458 Zastava.

Have a box of scopes taken from various rifles I have purchased. I considered them throwaway scopes, only mounted on the rifle to make the package more attractive. Never considered a scope to add extra value and never paid the asking price of a rifle with mounted scope.
YMMV

g

I thought you used and "praised" the Burris I am now using mentioned above. No?

Yes, I did use the 1.75-5x Burris Safari for years, and it was really tough. Ross Seyfried also used a higher-X Burris variable on his .416 Remington Magnum he used for a while when PH'ing in Tanzania, and had no problems. In fact Ross claimed that generation of top-grade Burris variables were just about unbreakable. But that was some years ago, and Burris no longer offers those specific scopes.

Instead, like many scope companies these days, their emphasis in tougher scopes is NOT on relatively compact hunting scopes, but much bigger "dialing" scopes, because by far the biggest, most lucrative scope market these days is long-range competition shooting, where shooters are willing to spend more than hunters.

The average hunter isn't willing pay nearly as much for a scope, partly because the average hunter doesn't shoot nearly as much. Which is exactly why Burris sells far more Fullfield IIs than any other model: They work extremely well for the average whitetail hunter--who these days tends to use smaller, lighter-recoiling cartridges, and prefers higher magnification scopes, which result in a better image in dimmer light.

All of which is exactly why the scope you are "now using" (and I praised) is no longer made.

Few have mentioned the muzzle brake. The recoil impulse of a braked rifle is somewhat complex, and it doesn't seem to be kind to scopes. A braked hard kicker is probably even worse, and of course hard kickers are the ones most apt to have a brake installed. I suspect someone, somewhere, has done some good, science based technical investigation. Regardless, muzzle brakes being hard on scopes seems to come up fairly often in the writing of those that have a lot of experience. Their explanations do not always make good sense to someone who has a good understanding of physics. But their experiences speak for themselves, and should not be ignored.