Burris Ballistic Plex scopes

shooter mcgavin

shooter mcgavin

New member
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
Winnipeg
I am thinking of picking up one of these scopes(Burris full field 11) with the
ballistic plex reticle and was looking to get some opinions on them. I like the
idea of the ranging reticle and it would be for my deer hunting rifle mainly.
 
I use one for my .270 and I use it for moose and deer. For the price, its pretty good. Sure, its no Swaro, but a decent lower end scope.

The ONLY thing I dislike is that to increase the zoom the entire bell moves, which is a pain if you want to use lens covers. Other than that I can't complain considering the price.
 
I used a 3-9 bll plex to shoot a buck at 487yrds. Ranged it with my nikon and used the 500 line. Iwas using .308 so there isn't much "adjusting" for the calibre. The more exotic calibres require a lot of head math at longer ranges and use of the simple tables they send with the scope. I've been really happy with it though.

I would get the full field 30 range next though. Once you try a thirty of any brand you get spoiled.
 
I really like this scope and the ballistic plex reticle. The glass on these scopes is very good. For a no thrills (No parallax adjusment etc) scope they are great. I have one on a Winchester M70 in 243WSSM, and on a SVT-40 7.62x54R.
 
Last edited:
It seems to be a good, practical scope for someone not wanting to spend the money to go up into the higher price bracket. Its what I use on my hunting rifle.
 
I lost interest in Burris when their manufacturing went from the USA to the Philipines, I liked their posi-lock scopes prior to the move to the island of optical brilliance, or maybe it was the Bingham squirrels rifles.
 
ben hunchak said:
I lost interest in Burris when their manufacturing went from the USA to the Philipines, I liked their posi-lock scopes prior to the move to the island of optical brilliance, or maybe it was the Bingham squirrels rifles.
Click to expand...

Yet ironically the USA made Burris scopes I've looked through all had marginal glass while the Philippines ones have had excellent glass. :confused:
 
The glass for the Philippine models may come from Japan, but I don't care for these sweat shop products and much prefer USA made products if avail., as I mentioned, their record of gun related production is not stellar.
 
IMHO, unless one is seriously into 350 + yard shots, ballistic reticles are probably more of a hindrance than an asset.

Things happen quickly at the moment of truth, why complicate immediate decisions with a glass full of lines and/or mil dots to sort out?

I'll take a simple duplex over all of 'em every time.
 
sir_springer said:
IMHO, unless one is seriously into 350 + yard shots, ballistic reticles are probably more of a hindrance than an asset.

Things happen quickly at the moment of truth, why complicate immediate decisions with a glass full of lines and/or mil dots to sort out?

I'll take a simple duplex over all of 'em every time.
Click to expand...

The main cross hairs are prominent and run all the way across the field of view as do standard reticles. You won't mix them up with the smaller ballistic plex cross lines that appear below it.
 
I used one on my .22LR; sighted in for 50yds, the hash marks graduate in 25yd increments for .22LR and where pretty much bang on out to 100yds.

Good scope for the $$$ IMHO...
 
It would be pretty hard to get confused on this reticle...

opplanet-burris-timberline-4-5-14x32mm-ballistic-plex-riflescope-201344-reticle.jpg


I hunt mostly short range, but wanted a rifle/scope that could shoot 300+ if the opportunity came up. With the .270 the lines are definitely accurate at range for a hunting kill shot.
 
I love the simplicity and ease-of-use of the ballistic plex reticle. I have one on a .17HMR and another on a .300 Win Mag. I use the secondary stadia lines a great deal on the rimfire. On the .300 I have actually used the extra crosshairs a grand total of once...but that one time they were invaluable and I successfully made a long shot that I probably wouldn't have tried otherwise.

You do have to commit to a lot of practice with them at various ranges in order to learn how they work with your caliber/rifle choice. Once that's done, it's all good.

John
 
sir_springer said:
IMHO, unless one is seriously into 350 + yard shots, ballistic reticles are probably more of a hindrance than an asset.

Things happen quickly at the moment of truth, why complicate immediate decisions with a glass full of lines and/or mil dots to sort out?

I'll take a simple duplex over all of 'em every time.
Click to expand...


I like a simple reticle as well. The ballistic plex is not at all complicated, very little to distract you from your sight picture for the majority of shots taken at close-t0-medium ranges. If a long shot does occasionally present itself, you normally have enough time to settle in and think it through, using the extra crosshairs to good advantage. Things don't always happen quickly at "the moment of truth"...sometimes you have plenty of time, and this is where the long-range reticles shine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom