Burris Eliminator III LaserScope - Anybody with experience?

[Watertown_bandit]

I am thinking about buying a Burris Eliminator III scope for my Weatherby 300 Win Mag. Anybody here have one or experience with one? If so, what are your thoughts?

 

[outlawjw]

I gave one away , not enough low light ability. Other than that it worked great when the right drop #s are entered

 

[cdb1]

I've mounted several for customers. What turns me away is to me they are incredibly big, bulky, heavy and unwieldy. The glass didn't impress me either.

 

[macgrumpy]

Not enough low light ability? Hmmm, I guess that the two that I've had the chance to use could have been "special" since they worked just fine at sunset but I really don't think that they were. Personally I don't see how either a 44mm or a 50mm objective lens on a Burris scope would be unable to work well in low light, people have been using Burris scopes that have the same size objective lens without complaint for quite a while.

"Incredibly big, bulky, heavy, and unwieldy" is sort relative, I know that the ones I've used were actually lighter than the typical long range scopes used nowadays (Vortex, Nightforce, etc.). I suppose those characteristics are all relative and the scope might be heavy compared to the average hobby hunter but not to others.

I don't see where the Elliminator is all that useful at short range but past about 300 or 400 yards it starts to become a nice piece of equipment. The scope ranges the target and displays a red dot on the vertical crosshair that represents your aim point. The ranging capability is as accurate out to at least the 500 yards as any other modern range finder. The scopes that I tested were pretty easy to use, you select a cartridge trajectory that matches your cartridge and their list of commercial cartridges is really huge. They list cartridges .17 cal to .50 cal.

 

[cdb1]

Different strokes.

 

[GooseGestapo]

I have an acquaintance that has one he mounted on an AA M700 in .300BO with a suppressor.
It took me the better part of a morning to get it sighted and set up for 208gr Hornady Amax. One I got it set, it would auto range and compensate to about 160yds. This was the mechanical limit of the scope with the arcing trajectory of the subsonic round. The owner used it to shoot coyotes on his property in E.Alabama.
After educating the survivors, he switched over to a 5.56 upper with an inexpensive illuminated ballistic reticle scope with a 250yd zero. With 53gr Vmax, he's Point and shoot to 300yds, and a holdover beyond that.

The Burris is likely to be a better fit to the flatter shooting .300mag.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

ive bet they've cause more wounded deer then they have saved them. You still have to be able to pull off a shot at 400 yards. All they do is give a inexperienced shooter more confidence to pull the trigger. Go out and learn your rifle and load and you don't need gimmicks like that.

 

[Davek1977]

"Incredibly big, bulky, heavy, and unwieldy" is sort relative, I know that the ones I've used were actually lighter than the typical long range scopes used nowadays (Vortex, Nightforce, etc.). I suppose those characteristics are all relative and the scope might be heavy compared to the average hobby hunter but not to others.

a vortex crossfire 2 scope weighs 15 ozs as compared to 29 ozs for the eliminator. Thats nearly twice the weight, not 'lighter'' than a typical scope. the largest of the the large nightforce scopes come in at around 32 ozs, with most coming in well under the weight of the Burris as well.

 

[macgrumpy]

As I said in my post - It's all relative isn't it? What you seem to consider a typical scope might not be what I'd call a typical scope. While a Vortex Crossfire 2 scope might be a good scope to you, to me it's a waste of time on a 300 mag. The whole concept of a big magnum caliber is to reach out as far as you can and picking a little deer rifle scope (the Vortex Crossfire) wouldn't be my choice of scopes for that rifle. I'd want the biggest scope tube I could get so that I could dial in as much drop as possible without having to use a canted scope mount. I used to do a lot of long range shooting so I'm comfortable with a heavier scope, they really don't bother me. I've got a Vortex Razor on my Loaded model M1A that I've used out to 1100 yards (that Vortex scope weighs just under 49 ounces).

As I also mentioned, I don't think that the Elliminator is all that useful past 3 or 400 yards, that's not because it can't do the job, it's because I'd normally use this scope for game hunting and I don't like to take shots on game animals past that range (regardless of caliber), there are too many variables that complicate the shot and reduce your odds of making a clean kill.

So in the end, I guess that you are just one of those average hobby shooters that I mentioned that isn't used to handling a professional grade, long range scope that would normally be found on a long range capable rifle.

 

[Davek1977]

LOL...based on one post, you assume to know what kind of shooter I am or what kidn of rifles I have experience with. Thats pretty darn intuitive. You seized upon my comment on the Vortex, but completely ignored the fact that I also mentioned the Nightforce series of scopes, with the exception of one model,, ALL typically come in at under the weight the Burris in question as well

 

[outlawjw]

I have several top tier scopes & that is why I gave the eliminator away , it didn't stack up for my uses. I did keep it in the family

 

[browningguy]

I don't have one, yet, but have shot one quite a bit and don't see it as a gimmick at all. I use all kinds of modern technology, GPS, binoculars, red dots, and rangefinder. I don't see a problem integrating it into a scope. It's 2016 , not 1916, why not use modern stuff.

 

[cdb1]

I don't have one, yet, but have shot one quite a bit and don't see it as a gimmick at all. I use all kinds of modern technology, GPS, binoculars, red dots, and rangefinder. I don't see a problem integrating it into a scope. It's 2016 , not 1916, why not use modern stuff.

I believe in using modern stuff but I'm not going to use an Eliminator because as was previously stated
they are incredibly big, bulky, heavy and unwieldy to me. And for what they cost I'm underwhelmed by the glass. I've compared one in low light to a MeoPro and a Conquest and found it lacking. I like Burris, have owned a couple of Fullfield II's and have a TAC30 on my son's AR. Just don't care for the Eliminator. It's okay to like them just as it's OK to not like them. That is why we have choices.