BURRIS Eliminator 6 WOW!

[skipglo]

I have nothing to hide. I'm just here to set straight the difference between fiction and reality

These scopes could be pretty handy. I have a Swarovski ds that is probably going to be going to Tajikistan for a Marco Polo and 2 ibex this winter. These Burris scopes have all of the same features. Being able to range and get a fast, accurate solution can make the difference between success and failure, or even worse, wounding an animal

It's best to read the owners manual rather than either of us debating the value of a product neither of us has used.im merely here to let folks know as you say...the difference between fact and fiction.....Burris clearly states that the operating temperature range of this product is between 110 F AND MINUS(- 4 F) ... not good for Alberta hunters! Or most of the Northern States and Western Canada either. My laser rangefinder takes the same battery....it failed to read or function at all at minus 5. But it only cost 599.00 and only performs 3 functions...not 6-8.. At the end of the day...it's just buyer beware....and I'm making all aware of its potential short comings.

 

[AGT06]

Probably, the "perfect" optic for out west, when you need accurate data, at great distances. I, bought one.

 

[choprzrul]

Probably, the "perfect" optic for out west, when you need accurate data, at great distances. I, bought one.

I'd be curious to know, over the long term, if the zero ever shifts on you. Particularly, after a bumpy ride or a 'mishap' where it gets jarred or dropped.

.

 

[Frog4aday]

If the battery dies you still have a fully functional "conventional" scope. Not the end of the world, IMO.

 

[Marky_mark]

It's best to read the owners manual rather than either of us debating the value of a product neither of us has used.im merely here to let folks know as you say...the difference between fact and fiction.....Burris clearly states that the operating temperature range of this product is between 110 F AND MINUS(- 4 F) ... not good for Alberta hunters! Or most of the Northern States and Western Canada either. My laser rangefinder takes the same battery....it failed to read or function at all at minus 5. But it only cost 599.00 and only performs 3 functions...not 6-8.. At the end of the day...it's just buyer beware....and I'm making all aware of its potential short comings.

what laser rangefinder do you use? Because my range finding binoculars have no problem down to the mid -30's. The big advantage with these are the speed that you get an accurate holdover. You bump a big mule deer and it stops on top of a hill 700 yards away. You have 5-10 seconds to send a bullet. With this, it stops, you hit the button, it lights the dot, you send it. I've seen a lot of big deer hit the ground, if I didn't own a ds, I'd buy one of these

 

[Kmccord]

My take on state game commissions/departments banning scopes that can give firing solutions via an on board ballistic engine is: "What is wrong with giving the game a greater chance of a quick death as opposed to being gut or leg shot with a standard scope and wandering for days before dying and the hunter going on to perhaps do the same thing again?"
There is everything ethical in a scope giving a hunter a BETTER firing solution for a BETTER chance at a clean kill. After all, it IS about a clean kill, right? You still have to judge wind hold.
->Even you use a hand held Kestrel weather station that gives you wind speed at your location (the ballistically most important wind reading) you still are having an average speed and have try for a bit of lull in the wind between gusts.
I think regulations that ban scopes like the BURRIS Eliminator 6 or SIG Sierra 6 BDX are not well thought out.

My exact thoughts as well, so stupid the people who impose such regulations. I remember as a kid bow hunting in TX, it was regulated that you could not use a mechanical broadhead for hunting. At that time, there was one that would create a 3" hole, but was illegal in my state to use. I don't know, would that not kill cleaner, quicker?? Anyway, sorry did not mean to detract from the thread.

 

[Muddybuddy]

My exact thoughts as well, so stupid the people who impose such regulations. I remember as a kid bow hunting in TX, it was regulated that you could not use a mechanical broadhead for hunting. At that time, there was one that would create a 3" hole, but was illegal in my state to use. I don't know, would that not kill cleaner, quicker?? Anyway, sorry did not mean to detract from the thread.

I disagree. Only thing that will change is that guys will think they can make shots that are even further than before. I'd agree with your argument if hunters had a max distance and increased technology made them more lethal at that distance. As a kid I remember when 400 seemed so far away, now with new technology 400 is a chip shot. 800 is the new 400. Same number of animals being wounded and missed, just a lot farther away.

Sign me up for ALL the weapons restrictions!!!!!!!!

 

[Bob Milek]

My take on state game commissions/departments banning scopes that can give firing solutions via an on board ballistic engine is: "What is wrong with giving the game a greater chance of a quick death as opposed to being gut or leg shot with a standard scope and wandering for days before dying and the hunter going on to perhaps do the same thing again?"
There is everything ethical in a scope giving a hunter a BETTER firing solution for a BETTER chance at a clean kill. After all, it IS about a clean kill, right? You still have to judge wind hold.
->Even you use a hand held Kestrel weather station that gives you wind speed at your location (the ballistically most important wind reading) you still are having an average speed and have try for a bit of lull in the wind between gusts.
I think regulations that ban scopes like the BURRIS Eliminator 6 or SIG Sierra 6 BDX are not well thought out.

As usual, there is more than one side to this story. Those of us old enough to remember the first range finders will recall the arguments for and against were nearly identical to these. Your statements are correct that it will often enable a hunter to make a more accurate shot. However, the flip side is that there are those who will take shots beyond their capabilities or the effective ballistics of their equipment simply because they are offered a firing solution. Hunting always has and always will be governed primarily by personal ethics. Unfortunately, there are enough among our ranks that fall below what most of us consider appropriately that we all pay. If it were not so, there would be far fewer regulations on the books- and this applies to all areas of our lives, not just hunting.

So maybe cut the game commissions/departments a bit of slack- they do a tough job.

 

[Marky_mark]

As usual, there is more than one side to this story. Those of us old enough to remember the first range finders will recall the arguments for and against were nearly identical to these. Your statements are correct that it will often enable a hunter to make a more accurate shot. However, the flip side is that there are those who will take shots beyond their capabilities or the effective ballistics of their equipment simply because they are offered a firing solution. Hunting always has and always will be governed primarily by personal ethics. Unfortunately, there are enough among our ranks that fall below what most of us consider appropriately that we all pay. If it were not so, there would be far fewer regulations on the books- and this applies to all areas of our lives, not just hunting.

So maybe cut the game commissions/departments a bit of slack- they do a tough job.

That shouldn't be for a govt employee to decide. Game depts don't need to get cut any slack. They need to get back to the basics and worry about wildlife management, not equipment policies

 

[Recon$$]

That shouldn't be for a govt employee to decide. Game depts don't need to get cut any slack. They need to get back to the basics and worry about wildlife management, not equipment policies

No kidding. Unfortunately, that's like priority 13 after dei and inclusion training which is top 3.

 

[JAYgs8163]

That shouldn't be for a govt employee to decide. Game depts don't need to get cut any slack. They need to get back to the basics and worry about wildlife management, not equipment policies

Without some of the "equipment policies" wouldn't we risk a severe reduction of tags? If the success ratio of a hunt goes to say 70-80% the herd gets reduced significantly over time. Something has to give. Don't the equipment policies to an extent help control the success ratio which then in turn is managing the herd of Elk, Deer, etc?

With regards to the OP comment though it's for sure a nice piece of equipment and I would like to try one out in the field for sure.

 

[Muddybuddy]

That shouldn't be for a govt employee to decide. Game depts don't need to get cut any slack. They need to get back to the basics and worry about wildlife management, not equipment policies

I strongly disagree. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Marky_mark]

I strongly disagree. I'll leave it at that.

That's probably a good idea

 

[Marky_mark]

It's best to read the owners manual rather than either of us debating the value of a product neither of us has used.im merely here to let folks know as you say...the difference between fact and fiction.....Burris clearly states that the operating temperature range of this product is between 110 F AND MINUS(- 4 F) ... not good for Alberta hunters! Or most of the Northern States and Western Canada either. My laser rangefinder takes the same battery....it failed to read or function at all at minus 5. But it only cost 599.00 and only performs 3 functions...not 6-8.. At the end of the day...it's just buyer beware....and I'm making all aware of its potential short comings.

Looks like I'll have my hands on the first ones that land in Canada