Thoughts on Burris 2-7 35mm balistic plex?


PDA






BOOM
March 8, 2006, 08:19 PM
I've heard good reviews on Burris optics and they're comparably priced with the Bushnell Elite 3200 in 2-7, which I've also read good things about. I kinda like the idea of the balistic plex reticle. This will go on a 7 '08 deer rifle.

If you enjoyed reading about "Thoughts on Burris 2-7 35mm balistic plex?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Don't Tread On Me
March 8, 2006, 09:10 PM
Good choice. Burris is so underrated compared to scopes like Leupold. They are their equal.


The ballistic plex reticle is great. That alone is worth it.

rbernie
March 8, 2006, 09:15 PM
Good choice. Burris is so underrated compared to scopes like Leupold. They are their equal.I've got (and had) mid-range to high end on both sides, and I do not consider Burris to be the equal of Leupold when the going gets tough. But Burris scopes are still bloody good, and dollar for dollar are better values for range or light field use.

The big issue that I have with the Ballistic plex is that it's on the second focal plane, so it's not nearly as useful as it appears.

lawson
March 8, 2006, 10:02 PM
for what they cost, Burris is hard to beat. i have a 3-9 40mm ballistic plex on my .30-30. great scope for the price. i would definitely buy their products again.

BOOM
March 8, 2006, 10:43 PM
The big issue that I have with the Ballistic plex is that it's on the second focal plane, so it's not nearly as useful as it appears.

rbernie, I'm not sure I understand your comment. Can you clarify or direct me to a source of information about the second focal plane? Thank you.

Don't Tread On Me
March 8, 2006, 10:50 PM
What he's talking about is how the reticle works when you change magnification. On most scopes, when you go from 2x to 7x, the reticle remains exactly the same size. On a 1st focal plane scope, as you bump up the zoom, the reticle also zooms along with the view.


The ballistic plex reticle is meant to work on 1 magnification, usually the highest magnification on a particular model. If you go from 7x down to 2x, and the reticle stays the same size in relation to what you're seeing, the calibration will be off. There will be a much larger amount of space between the lines on 2x, than there will be on 7x. So the lines will not correspond with the calibration. You will not be able to do any drop compensation.


Now, I don't know if you'd want to take a 300-400 yard shot on 2-4x...but that's what he's talking about.

BOOM
March 8, 2006, 11:59 PM
DTOM, thank you for the insight! I understand. Actually, after looking a bit further into the technical specs of this scope, it appears the adjustments are 1/2 MOA rather than 1/4. I don't think I'd be satisfied with that. I'm looking for a good semi-compact scope, but also a good value.

rbernie
March 9, 2006, 12:05 AM
On most scopes, when you go from 2x to 7x, the reticle remains exactly the same size. On a 1st focal plane scope, as you bump up the zoom, the reticle also zooms along with the view.Exactly - thanks for the clarification.

Now, I don't know if you'd want to take a 300-400 yard shot on 2-4x...but that's what he's talking about. In the areas that I hunt, I'm changing zoom fairly frequently. I use 2x-3x in the woods, run it out to 5x-6x for the clearcut shots, and occasionally step out to 7x-9x for the cross field stuff. Given this, the Ballistic Plex doesn't help me out a whole lot. I imagine that for a range gun or a rifle used to hunt from a stand, the BP might make a lot more sense.

Y'all don't get me wrong - I like my Fullfield II with the Ballistic Plex just fine for a basic scope. It's got better glass (clarity, distortion, brightness) than the Nikon Buckmasters against which it competes price-wise, and is probably as nice overall as a Leupold Rifleman for a few dollars less. The Nikon Monarch has better glass than the FFII, but a NIB Monarch costs a bit more and doesn't seem quite as robust. I'm mo' partial to the Sightrons than Burris in just about every way (glass, repeatability, durability, customer support) but Burris does have some offerings (IER scout scopes, for example) that Sightron just doesn't yet offer.

In the end, I'll still take a used VXII or FXII over either of just about any other sub-$300 scope when I need to put glass on a working rifle.

Don't Tread On Me
March 9, 2006, 03:23 AM
That's what I mean. To effectively use the ballistic plex, you'd have to make a shot at 300 yards or more. Shots at 200 yards are flat enough in most cartridges so that you can just hold over with a regular plex. Making shots at 300 or more require an accurate set up, as well as some sort of resting. Also, if you are going to shoot at 300-400 or more, you might want a laser rangefinder so that you can select the proper holdover with the ballistic plex. These are long shots, and if you're a sportsman, you'd want to make sure you can make a clean shot at such ranges, so you'd need to be rested, as well as have the exact yardage for holdover. I don't know what the % of hunters taking deer at over 200 yards are, but I'd imagine that the vast majority is under 200 yards.


I think a lot of people buy the ballistic plex as a nice dual-purpose type scope. A good hunting scope, as well as a good anti-personnel scope. In a SHTF scenario, it's a nice capability to have 200-500 yard holdover built into the reticle.

rbernie
March 9, 2006, 10:35 AM
Also, if you are going to shoot at 300-400 or more, you might want a laser rangefinder so that you can select the proper holdover with the ballistic plex.If you're shooting from 300-500 yards, why would you not take the money that you spent on the Burris BPlex and the laser rangefinder and simply buy a SPP scope with mil-dots or some other form of reticle adornment?

Dunno for sure, but one simple (non-electronic) device with rangefinding and holdover built in seems like a better mousetrap to me if SHTF 300-500 yard shots are your concern....

antarti
March 9, 2006, 03:34 PM
for what they cost, Burris is hard to beat.

I've found this to be very true. Burris scopes are a very good value in every way, probably an extra good value concerning durability.



If you're shooting from 300-500 yards, why would you not take the money that you spent on the Burris BPlex and the laser rangefinder and simply buy a SPP scope with mil-dots or some other form of reticle adornment?

Dunno for sure, but one simple (non-electronic) device with rangefinding and holdover built in seems like a better mousetrap to me if SHTF 300-500 yard shots are your concern....

I wish American companies would offer Dragunov reticles for this reason exactly.

Don't Tread On Me
March 9, 2006, 03:49 PM
http://www.burrisoptics.com/newfor2006.html


There you go. Combination scope/laser rangefinder.


If you're shooting from 300-500 yards, why would you not take the money that you spent on the Burris BPlex and the laser rangefinder and simply buy a SPP scope with mil-dots or some other form of reticle adornment?


Some people (like myself) do not want to count mil-dots or do any sort of math in our head. I think mildots work best in a military role. What can you accurately measure in the wild? What can you find out in the wild that is a constant size so that you can relate that to the mil-dot reticle so you can determine an accurate range? In a combat zone, you can measure adult male humans, vehicles, bricks, windows, door jams, tires, and all sorts of other things that are pretty much the same size all the time.


Ballistic plex makes it easy. Dragunov reticle makes it even easier. (at least for SHTF use)


300,400 and 500 yards is pretty much an unheard of shot here in Florida. Probably not so in a place like Colorado (where the Burris folks are from). Either way, if you want to make a humane kill on any game at those ranges, you better have your act together. The Bplex will work, but it will only work if you can rest the rifle to make the shot and if you have accurate range information.

BOOM
March 9, 2006, 11:57 PM
To effectively use the ballistic plex, you'd have to make a shot at 300 yards or more. Shots at 200 yards are flat enough in most cartridges so that you can just hold over with a regular plex. Making shots at 300 or more require an accurate set up, as well as some sort of resting. Also, if you are going to shoot at 300-400 or more, you might want a laser rangefinder so that you can select the proper holdover with the ballistic plex. These are long shots, and if you're a sportsman, you'd want to make sure you can make a clean shot at such ranges, so you'd need to be rested, as well as have the exact yardage for holdover. I don't know what the % of hunters taking deer at over 200 yards are, but I'd imagine that the vast majority is under 200 yards.

After reading this, I realize now that I really have no use for a ballistic plex. It's extemely rare for me to have shots at distances beyond 250-300 yds where I hunt.

BOOM
March 10, 2006, 11:29 AM
Although I've decided I have no real need for this type of plex. I guess it wouldn't hurt anything to have it anyway. I'm still intrigued by this little scope.

Can anyone tell me if the 1/2 MOA click adjustments would be a serious disadvantage? Keeping in mind this would be on a field gun, not a range gun.

unlearned69
April 4, 2008, 09:27 AM
It should not be a problem at all. My wife has had no problem on-shot dropping several deer with her 700 topped with an FFII out to 175 yards. Farthest shot she has had so far. You won't be able to tell a difference when you shoot game with it. Neither will your quarry.

Edited to Add- Sorry to drag up a 2 year old post. Its early, I haven't had any coffee, and I'm posting from my phone. I forgot that I was doing a search rather than looking at new threads. My apologies again.

If you enjoyed reading about "Thoughts on Burris 2-7 35mm balistic plex?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!