Has anyone tried the Burris Timberline 4.5-14x32 scope? If so, what did you like and dislike about it?

I haven't played with mine at different ranges yet, but satisfied so far.

Clear

I like the reticle

Thinking it's a bit heavy for its size, but that might make it tougher?

Right... I see it listed at 15 oz. I am thinking about trying one out. Do you find the longer eye relief (3.75-5") a negative for mounting purposes? I want to put this on a Cooper 38 which is a very short action.

Dang it...now ya got me second guessing the eye relief. Kidding.

Thinking that was on my mind when I mounted it but ne problems cropped up for me. It's on a short action Ruger 77. I just went down & took it outside to recheck. All seems good & the Ruger rings don't leave much room for mounting out of the norm.

I don't have a Cooper, but their are surely enough mounting options.

Thanks, gunzo. I am going to give one a try.

32mm or 42mm? Mine is the Fullfield 42 and I like it a lot.

It is a 32 mm. The Fullfield seems to have a good reputation, but I wasn't sure about this compact scope.

I've used the Fullfield compact with a 32mm but not the Timberline.

I have had one on my lightweight CLR 7 mag for some time now and have been very pleased. It has held up to the recoil and has been reliable in the "dialing" dept. with an old Stoney Point knob that I found a long time ago. The eye relief is it's only weak point in my opinion but I have been able to work with that, Never had any "scope eye" either with many shots taken over the Stoney point bipod prone.

I briefly tried swapping it out a couple of years ago with a Leupold 3-9 compact w/ CDS turret but missed the extra magnification and dialing reliability of the Timberline and changed it back!

As a side note, I had an American made 4.5-14 Burris Short-Mag but actually thought the Timberline was "cleaner" to look through... didn't see any of the "internals" so I got rid of the Short-Mag and kept the Timberline! Get the Ballistic Plex reticle if you get one because the Stoney Point knobs for the old Burris scopes are hard to come by and Burris will NOT retrofit a turret to these.

I thought I read that the Timber Line has a very generous eye relief? Thought I read 5"?? Is that not the case??? Was kinda considering one for an older Remington BDL 25-06 because of the 32 Objective, thought it might clear the rear sight on the rifle as I like to mount my scopes as close to the bore as possible.

Thanks
HeavyBarrel

Eye relief is 3.75 - 5", pretty danged generous.

Never seen the eye relief #'s. Perhaps a better way to say it is that the eyebox at 10-14x is not as comfortable to get behind, for me anyway, than a 3-9 or 3.5-10 Leupold is.

With that said, it sits on my rifle because it performs. Mine usually is set at 10x most of the time. Seems like the SWFA 2.2-10x would be very similar w/ the same or more bang for the buck.

Hope to take a nice San Rafael antelope with the CLR/Burris combo this weekend!!!

I found a picture of one online and it looks like the power ring on the eyepiece is plastic? Anyone can confirm or deny it? Also does anyone have the Fullfield II 4.5-14x42? Just wondering how they compare?

Interesting that you ask, there is a current thread over at RFC comparing these two (beginning on pg 3):
https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1169815&page=3

I have been reading up on the Timberline due to a current sale price...

Had one - worst scope I’ve ever owned. Everything is a compromise! Eye relief is shortest I’ve ever seen. Any magnification past 6X couldn’t be used except on bright, sunny days. Reticle was a joke. You couldn’t run fast enough to give me one.

Thanks for the feedback. I expected some compromise to get it in that compact package, I passed on it before... With the current sale price, I was thinking about it again. I think I'll pass again.

A friend wanted my thoughts on this particular scope a while back and sent one to me. I was not impressed. The eye box was extremely critical at higher powers and also when the light was low, and the eye relief varied considerably as you went up and down the magnification scale.

Beyond 7x or thereabouts, the edge distortion became quite annoying as well. In fact, there was enough distortion -- including loss of detail in the sweet spot -- that I suspected a slight misalignment of lenses.

The mag ring also had a tight, gritty spot around 5x.

Color rendition was fairly accurate, and the adjustments seems to work as advertised. But it's not a scope I'd want to have.

I've had 2 of the Fullfield II 4.5-14x42 and had no issues with those. They offer lots of performance for the $$.

Thank you, Bobby. I always enjoy reading your reviews on optics.