There are things I like about Burris scopes, but damn...it's hard to find anything new from them with a good old plain duplex reticle. Everything has to be some fam-dancy ballistic reticle or something with hash marks all over the field of view. Someone at Burris has gone off the deep end, if you ask me.

Its not just Burris, most of the manufacturers are doing this.

I'll chime in.......

I can like mil-dots, mil-hash, mil-quad, whatever. Or a straight up duplex reticle.

But the BDC stuff seems more complicated than just a straight up MOA or MIL based reticle. The fact that most of these scopes are second focal plane would seemingly complicate matters further.

I guess advertising that you have a mark on the reticle so you too can whack deer at 600 yards with your .270, .308, 7mm, etc. markets well on the outside of the bubble pack at Wal Mart........

For instance the Vortex BDC is not hard to use if you zero and calibrate on the highest power. 9-10x is Plenty for a 300yard shot on a deer sized target. On my Vortex 2.5-10 Viper HS the bottom 2 "hash" markes came out fairly even on my .223 with my velocity. Have I ever used them in a hunting situation? No. Totally unnecessary on a hunting scope imo. To me anything over a 300 yard shot while hunting is marginal. Target shooting 1200 yards is no thing with a FFP and my Dope sheet.

4x is plenty for deer at 300.

A ballistic reticle is no harder to use but has so much more to offer that manufacturers would be silly to limit their market by offering plain duplexes

Just ignore the hash marks if you don’t like them

Maybe it’s the Eurotrash influence since Burris is owned by Beretta.

Consider the possibility that at some point actual sales of the multi-point reticles began to surpass those of plain duplexes. In that case, they are just following the market in order to make money. Just a guess, mind you. I often wonder the same thing about Ruger and their choice of 16” barrels on so many models of bolt actions where say, 20” IMO makes more sense.

I too prefer a plain duplex for most hunting, but find the multi-point version handy for some things. I definitely like the ballistic plex in the FFII better than the E1, but the E1 has dual bias springs, so I’m a bit torn.

It's the fuuking Chinese!

Generally scope companies (like other companies) offer what sells best.

Which is why plain crosshair reticles faded away after every company started offering some sort of "plex" reticle, relatively few "gloss finish" scopes appear anymore, and new fixed-power scopes become rarer every year.

Cmon man

I'm a diehard luddite and have a firm belief that the three best reticles for hunting are the Duplex, German #4 and the German #1. This season I put together a longer range coyote hunting rig to target that space from 200-500 yards. I put together a midweight 20P shooting 40gr NBT's and a 2-12x40 scope with a Ballistic reticle. Shooting off my stool and tripod keeping them in the chest of a coyote at 500 is pretty easy, only wind is the Bugaboo. At 2x I'm covered from my shoelaces out to 200 and beyond that there is plenty of time to turn it up to 12x and then the ballistic dots with a 200 yard zero are dead on at 300, 400 and 500. I'm liking this set up.

The 1-4 and 1.5-6 scopes will make up a the mainstay of my coyote battery but I will keep this rig in my truck for those spots that just might need it, it will open up some areas that I have driven past.

Capitalism is funny that way.

Jack O'Conner and Bob Hagel used to think so.

These corporations have gnomes deep in the bowels of corporate headquarters, with high foreheads, thick glasses, and pocket protectors full of pens and pencils, and computer readouts that know what you are likely to buy...before you do. Market research to nth power. And if you don't think you need what they are peddling...they will design an ad or video clip, info-mercial that will change your mind. You didn't know you needed a 30 mm main tube did you? You didn't know you needed a Picatinny rail did you? But you did, because they made a scope that wouldn't span a standard length action. You didn't know you needed a scope with a 5X multiplier did you? You didn't know you needed a 56 mm objective lens for shooting after nautical twilight? And so it goes.
If you disagree with my analysis, fine, but just look at the bidding competition and prices on Ebay for instance, for plain ol', plain ol, scopes with a reputation for reliability.

If it doesn’t suit you don’t buy it. The Ballistic Plex reticle has been around way before any Burris scope was outsourced offshore.

PS: ^^^^^^^^ what flintlocke said. ^^^^^^

Silly me. And there I was thinking I actually had a mind of my own......

Burris customer service sucks - been trying to get a replacement screw for a set of Signature rings for a few months , bought new rings now . I'll sell these if I ever get the screw - this and other things with burris = no more burris anything for me .

I would imagine that the 'fire members are, by and large, the one's least swayed by marketing gimmicks, partly because of age and experience, although there is a small group on here that thinks a proper hunting rifle is requires a 2 1/2 pound sniper scope. Potsy's last sentence, see his post, is a classic and is just what I am talking about.

That's kind of funny. I just checked Ebay and found a lot of plain ol' scopes not selling, and the minimum-bid prices weren't all that high.

I buy, use and sell a lot of plain ol' scopes. Have several old Leupold M8s on various rifles, along with fixed-power El Paso Weavers and some Bausch & Lombs, including the externally adjustable models. In fact, just purchased a non-adjustable 4x Leupold Pioneer, with adjustable mounts that fit a pre-'64 Model 70 Winchester. What I've noticed, especially on the Campfire Classifieds, is the prices for such scopes dropping over the past several years--part of the reason I often buy them to put on older rifles.

But I sure don't think they're "better" than a Burris Fullfield II, which I've been using since they were made in the U.S., before Burris supplied the same machinery to a factory in the Philippines and taught their workers how to use it. Unlike many of those older scopes "with a reputation for reliability," they're actually sealed against moisture, and have far more reliable adjustments, plus better glass. And gee, even new I can get them for an "affordable" price--with a lifetime guarantee.

I also know a bunch of people "deep in the bowels" of the corporate headquarters of scope companies, including the sales and marketing departments. Can't remember one with a pocket protector, though some have pretty "high foreheads" due to typical male-pattern baldness. And I also haven't run into many that don't use their company's scopes a LOT.

The other reality, of course, is that the vast majority of new riflescope sales anymore are for target models, since the hunting market keeps shrinking and target shooting keeps increasing, even in the U.S.--which is the biggest consumer of hunting products in the world.

That would seem to be COVID related. It wasn't that long ago that I was in the exact situation, needing screws for Signature rings. They sent them right out. I recall more recently somebody at Burris saying they were on reduced hours.

It does suck, and I hope it's temporary.

Paul

Same here. Couldn’t believe how quickly the screw I needed came, free of course, with just a phone call.

I guess that is the root cause, right there.

Likely. A majority of the shooters I see at our local range are paper punchers with target outfits. All well and good, but my only use for target shooting is to practice for hunting. There used to be this Jabba the Hut character that haunted the range incessantly blasting at 300 yard targets with a braked 30-378. Just an annoying situation under a shed roof. I haven’t seen him in a while but owing to his gross tonnage, he’s probably unable to walk from the parking lot. Before I took up sitting at a bench all day, I’d pick a pastime that afforded a bit of exercise.....

A Swiss cheese braked 30-378 was the most obnoxious rifle I've shared the range with. In comparison a shark gill braked 338 Lapua was a pussycat.

Interesting - Zero in Meters.

The voice of reason. Thanks MD

Hate ‘em. Why anyone goes that big for relatively short-range targets baffles me. Fortunately, the last guy that showed up with one around me warned me so I could double up on my ear protection.

With that 30-378 I had plugs and muffs. My eardrums were relatively safe, but the blast and pressure wave coming off that thing caused sinus discomfort and sort of slapped my face.

Yup. Feels like someone thumping me in the chest.

About the only thing I wish was more common is hash marks for windage as I find them at least as useful as the ones for elevation.
Pavementends

Most of my guns have dialing scopes and are in mils so my range finder stays on meters

C4 wind MOA reticle:

WTF is Potsy?

This is a great hunting reticle.

I guess that's Potsy, ^^^

As far as Ebay used scopes, I shouldn't have made such a broad statement, I was just bidding on a K-4 Weaver that was up to 90 bucks, 15 bids and 2 1/2 days to go. My frugality is legendary, so I'm not the best guy to arbitrate the market. But I still thought it was high, maybe not.

WTF is wrong with burris. the rifle scope industry is going through some sort of soul searching right now. If you notice the retail stores keep condensing product lines. They keep drawing in the amount of space they are letting optics take up at the gun counters. I also admit burris doesn't have anything I am interested in but that is just me. IMO I don't trust phillipene manufacturer yet. I do think the burris FF2"s are great for what they are, but that is a plain and simple scope. If I want a scope like that I am going to buy it on ebay its going to be a bushnell elite.

maybe the market is just saturated, look at the bolt action hunting rifle market. Remington is going away. the rest of the makes are pretty much only pushing low end guns like the ruger american etc. can you even get an m77 anymore? I dunno. Maybe just like myself you can find plenty of older used hunting rifles and at the same time optics to go on them. The optics that are selling new are stuff marketed for different uses, ie tactical and long range. I also think people are shopping more and more online for their optics. I know I do. you're not going to see me plunk down my money in a retail store. The last scope I bought in a store was a nightforce NXS, but it was only bought that way because of whatever cabelas was offering and other coupons I had with me, I was able to get about $300 off retail. I also needed a scope quickly because the phillipene made vortex PST2 had tracking error and so did the replacement I bought for it. so I needed and NXS quickly. even $300 off wouldn't have gotten me to buy it locally if I didn't need it quickly.

even mule deer's comments suggest he is a trader of used optics. and that is plenty ok, I buy a ton of used scopes myself. The only thing I am buying new is zeiss v4's because they offer better glass, reliable adjustments (so far) and they are japanese built AND come with features I like.

CC,

I am buying Zeiss V4's myself, but if you "I don't trust phillipene manufacturer yet" you might (or might not) be interested in what I just noted about Burris in my earlier post. They did not just go over and ask Philippine company to make scopes. Instead Burris provided the machinery, and taught them how to use it. This was at least a dozen years ago, and as soon as the Philippine scopes were available I got a 3-9x42 FFII and directly compared it to one of my American-made FFIIs. If anything, the overseas model was better machined, and worked exactly as well in every measureable way. Have been using them ever since, and only had one fail--which was the one I have used the most, on dozens of rifles over the years. (This was a year or so ago. Got it back fixed from Burris within two weeks.) Have had Zeiss Conquests fail sooner.

Have used FFIIS on rifles up to .300 Weatherby with no problems, and the optics might surprise you, since you've never apparently looked through one.

Yeah but the Burris ff2 isn’t a dialing scope. A set and forget optic is dramatically less demanding. I agree like i said they are great scopes for what they. My only gripe with the Burris ff2 is the finish is light and easily whole eye piece turns as well. I think I have one in inventory still. Zeiss conquests were generally meopta assembled.

If a v4 has failed I would be very interested about the situation. Japanese build.

More and more, we are seeing country of origin matter less and less, at least as far as quality goes IMO. It may take some time to get a workforce accustomed to modern quality control processes, procedures, and requirements but when properly implemented it works. It sure won't mask poor design, but that's another issue altogether.

The reason I brought this up is that I decided to try something other than Leupold a while back. I sold off a bunch of them and replaced them with Burris and Sightron.

I wasn't all that enamored of the Burris E1 reticle and I still am not. I did try some Fullfield IIs and they were generally okay, but I did not at all like the entire ocular rotating to change the zoom. I also had been having a bit of trouble getting parallax dialed out with the target in focus concurrently with my Fullfield II E1s (and I've concluded it's my degraded vision causing the problem).

In the meantime, I had found some Sightron SIIs in 3-9x42 flavor with a plain duplex reticle that's just right (IMO) for hunting. They feature Exac-Trac, which is a plus and while the glass itself does not quite measure up the the VX-3's glass it is still more than good enough. That led me to go a little further and try an S-TAC 4-20x with a duplex reticle, and have found that it is very compatible with my vision. I am acquiring more S-TACs (w/ duplex reticle) at this very moment, 3-16x and 4-20x flavors.

I think I'll hang on to the one Burris Fullfield E1 4.5-14x that's on my Model 52 repro and the VX-II 1-4x on my muzzleloader, and four VX-5s (the glass is just amazing and they've worked fine for me so far), but the rest will be Sightron...and these happen to have been made in the Philippines and there's not a damned thing wrong with them.

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.

BURRIS BALLISTIC TOOLS: VERSION 2.4.2

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.

Ballistic plex

Click on the first box that says “reticle analysis”
You don’t have to log in to use it

Thank you!!

I'm very thankful to Burris for being one of the first (if not the first) scope company to put a ballistic reticle in their LER line of optics for specialty pistol shooters. Their LER version of the BPlex reticle (subtensions are different) help start many SP shooters on the journey of long-range shooting back in the '80's. Ernie Bishop and I competed in the International Tactical Rifleman's Competition up in Gillette WY in 2004, and did pretty good against the rifle boys thanks to the 3-12X Burris's/BP reticles we had on our Gre-Tan built XP's.

I have gone back more to the fixed scopes. It is sad to see them go. That is part of the reason why the SWFA scopes are becoming so popular. My favorite scope overall. No screwing with a power ring.

CC:


Thanks for talking the time to reach out and explain your process.

Please feel free to post your reply here if you choose. No objections from me; it's your process and explanation.

I do have a few more questions, but I'll wait until you post, unless you'd rather I pm you?

CC:


Thanks for talking the time to reach out and explain your process.

Please feel free to post your reply here if you choose. No objections from me; it's your process and explanation.

I do have a few more questions, but I'll wait until you post, unless you'd rather I pm you?

Yep. I bought a couple of Muzzle Loader Swarovski's on the used market for a great price. I just focus on the main reticle & have had no trouble.

I’ve never even had any problem with 2.5x at that distance.

I've become pretty fond of their Ballistic Plex E1. I'm not a big time dialer but the Veracity has been solid both dialing and taking being banged around alot. On 5x, the reticle almost fills the field of view. At 2x it mostly worthless but I've used it on 4x without issue.

I'm also with MD on the FF II E1. I had several on deer rifles and they are solid set/forget scopes.

If i wanted a plain crosshair scope, I'd go FF II E1. For hunting/dialing, I'd look at the Veracity. Mine has a few beauty marks from 2 seasons of elk hunting. I'll shoot it next week and will bet it hasn't moved......

I like more magnification than 6, but then I am pretty fussy with shot placement
Moot point anyhow for me, my 3-9 scopes basically stay on 9, been doing that since I was a teenager

I agree with you on both the FF E1 and the Veracity. I don't think there is a better low power set and forget scope on the market for the money than the FF E1. Especially when you could find them on sale for $150ish. Put them in a tough mount and they are pretty idiot proof. I also found that the M.A.D. system turret dials work for the FF E1 one day playing with the dials for the Four-X series of scopes.

I also like the FFP of the 2 - 10 X 42mm Veracity E1 I put one on a 308 AR and then added 2 more for 338 Federal and 358 Winchester ARs. Once I got the dope figured out and verified for the hash marks, I find it a very easy to use system with all 3 rifles. I even ordered the correct elevation dials from Burris even though I have not used them yet.

I may take off my VX-3i 2.5-8 With their duplex and replace with my Fullfield II with the B-Plex. I strongly dislike Leupold’s duplex as there is nothing it’s really good for. The B-Plex might even be better in low light and dark timber. That Burris has been a very solid scope.

How about LEARNing how to use the reticle and how to shoot game beyond 300 yards ?

It's not that difficult if you toss the mini cartridges away and get something that offers the same velocity/energy at 600 yards as the lil shyts do at the muzzle, and PRACTICE ... A LOT....

most guys screw up their hunt before leaving the house due to their cartridge and optics choices.....

I know a guy that worships his dumb 45-70 levergun and claims it's the best "moose thumper" ever, problem is he never gets a moose, skunked every year because the moose ran off before he could get in range .... stupidest thing I ever heard , could have dumped the moose at 500 yards with a 300 RUM like I do

the ballistic plex reticle and the christmas tree reticles are your best friends who want to help you to LEARN how to shoot .... you just don't know it

Some of the hard heads never learn. Recently, one of the guys in my hunting gang got into a discussion as to why he would not shoot at a good mule deer about 325 yards away. He has a really nice old Savage LH .308 bolt gun with very good wood and a pos 4x scope with a fine wire crosshair that you have to get a flashlight to see through. I think he has realistic reservations about shooting past 200 yards with his favored 180 gr Core-Lokt (ugh) ammo. I’ve tried to convince him to upgrade to a Burris FF II and get some better BC ammo and practice out to 300 yards to no avail. It does save money on processor fees to not kill anything. Maybe he should stay with stick and string? Happy Trails

Well, yes, assuming only moderate wind. 300 yards isn't far outside MPBR for most full-power cartridges so it'll more-or-less be a dead hold.

BDC reticles are for longer shots than that, and those with wind holds are for windy conditions. In New Mexico, 25mph sustained winds are not unheard of and that speed WILL affect your POI. My preferred .270 load will drift nearly 23" at 350 yards in a 25mph full-value wind. Personally, I'm not willing to take a shot on a game animal at longer than 300 yards, but paper and steel targets are obviously a different story. My favorite general-purpose reticle is a 4.2 MOA triangle (German #1-style) in a Trijicon TR24, it'll do the trick in a 5.56 carbine to 400 yards and a bit beyond. It's all about knowing your holds and being able to correctly and consistently field-range targets.

BDC reticles don't necessarily bother me. What do bother me are reticles completely dependent on illumination for fast/low-light usage - it's concerningly popular to use tiny reticles floated in the middle of the optic without bars and/or a post to draw the eye to them. This is especially troublesome on FFP optics, where the reticle will be quite small at lower magnification settings.

I wouldn't say there's any particular reticle I don't like other than one I cannot see in dim light.

I have not purchased or used an FFP scope, and part of the reason is that the change in visibility of the reticle as magnification is changed is bass-ackwards in my way of thinking. I'd rather have a reticle I can always see regardless of the zoom. If the target is far enough away to merit the use of graduations on the reticle, then it's far enough away to justify the use of dull magnification IMO and that is why I continue to prefer SFP.

As far as dots and ballistic reticles go, I really can't see why it's so hard to use plain old holdover even with a plain duplex reticle. If I know something about the size of my target and the range it should be no problem. If I am trying to center a basketball at 400 yards and I know I'm dealing with an 18 inch drop I have no doubt I could do it, but I damn sure can't do it if I can't see the reticle. Same thing should apply with wind. But, I'll accept the idea that there are limitations. I would not try Kentucky holdover any further than about 450---depending on the bullet, it's BC, its velocity, and the size of my target and maybe a few other things (including "how do I feel today?").

The fact of the matter is, if your range estimate or your wind estimations are bad enough, you'll miss no matter what scope or reticle you're using.

YMMV.

Interesting views on both sides of this topic. I like the plain old duplex because it suits my hunting needs. I don't have shots over 200 and most are under 100 for deer. I typically set my variables on 4x and forget them. I would have all duplex fixed 4 or 6x scopes if they were easier to find. As far as variables go I like the leupold vx III 2.5-8, it works for menamd that's what matters. I bought a Burris 2-7x32 handgun scope with the ballistic plex for my 44 mag. Ran 24 rounds under it, I don't like it and have no interest in "learning" it It's to busy for my old eyes and is going to be listed for sale soon. If I had a need for a ballistic plex scope I wouldn't be against it, it's no different than pins on a compound bow but the need isn't there.

I am kinda surprised at how civilized this thread actually has been so far. Kudos to all participants, and thanks.



Indeed.

One thing I have observed is that shooters seem to get hooked on hitting targets at extended ranges once they have tasted success.

I always wondered where the fascination with long range shooting originated and I concluded that 21st century operations in Iraq and the M.E. put the spotlight of glamor on snipers, but I more recently remembered the "extreme sports" phenomena of the 90s. Maybe that has a lot more to do with how shooting and optics have changed over the last couple of decades.

I have not played the long/extended range game as of yet, but I've been playing musical scopes on about fifteen different rifles over the last few weeks. I decided to put my "proof" scope, a SS 10x with mil-dot reticle on a Model 70HV in .223 and I've ordered some 70-grain RDFs from SPS. I know the rifle will shoot, so I'll be doing preliminary load development at 200 yards (furthest distance available at the club). Once I think I've got a load that works I'll see about shooting on my employer's property. They do a lot of extended range shooting out there as Huskemaw dealers.

I can't predict how it will all go, but I'm willing to try something new.