Still trying to figure out what I'll be topping the Weatherby 340 Accumark with and have been looking at the usual names. I'm not to familiar with the Burris line and was wondering what you guys think of the Burris lineup... I was looking mostly at the XTR line at the 3 - 12 x 50.. Your thoughts and opinions are greatly appreciated...

Ken....

Some of the "Burris" scopes are now made in Asia under contract. Insofar as I know, they are typical of Asian optical products with fairly good glass but a lot of engineering shortfalls that make the difference between a good telescope and a useful optical gunsight.

American-made Burris products have had a spotty reputation ever since the group of folks that formed Burris broke off from the old Redfield company. My complaint about them is that they are typically longer and heavier than need be, and on some models the eye relief is critical. I am totally unfamiliar with the particular Burris line you're asking about, so these comments may not apply.

I can say that there are more situations in which a 50mm objective's disadvantages outweigh its advantages, so you may want to rethink the size of the objective on the scope you buy.

So far so good, thanks Stonecreek... I probably should've taken this thread in the direction of scope suggestions for a hard thumping rifle but I know that could get ugly.. I just don't want to spend the Swaro, S & B type of dollars but I do want a quality, durable riflescope...

Ken....

Hey Heat

My experience with Burris is with 2 scopes, a Black Diamond 4x15x50x30mm with Ballistic Mil Dot and side parallax adjustment and a friend's Signature 3x12x44x1" scope with Ballistic Plex. I have had no problems with my Black Diamond and it is one of the brightest scopes I have. His Signature is functional but not as clear and in using his I came to the conclusion that I will never have a scope over 9 power without a parallax adjustment.

The Black Diamond is their top of the line and the Ballistic Mil Dot can be made to fit the trajectory of a flat shooting rifle

http://www.bearbasin.com/blackdspecs.htm

I have had it on a 270 and presently it is on a pre-64 winchester 264 mag. It is a very long scope though and I have used offset bases and offset rings to make it look right.

The Ballistic Plex can not be made to fit a flat shooter and you have to shoot a fairly slow bullet to come close.

quote:

Some of the "Burris" scopes are now made in Asia under contract. Insofar as I know, they are typical of Asian optical products with fairly good glass but a lot of engineering shortfalls that make the difference between a good telescope and a useful optical gunsight.

As for the reality of the situation:

"Having been at Burris for over ten years and our president for over 30 years, it pained both of us and our staff to recognize the necessity for some alternative manufacturing. It is not simply evil manufacturers on a quest to displace American workers that is in play here. What has happened is the American consumer (excepting you and a very small minority of consumers) has abandoned us US Manufacturers with their all mighty dollars. A Burris Fullfield 3X-9X riflescope has now been retailing at the same price point for over 10 years. Because American consumers have put their vote on foreign imports, Burris has not been able to increase what we can sell our main line scope for by even 1%! Our American workers over the same time period have had their wages move 40% to 50%. Our raw material costs, plant maintenance costs, and utilities costs have risen at a similar pace. Our fringe benefit costs, especially in the health insurance area, has far outpaced this rate of change in costs.

Burris has continually invested in more modern and more efficient manufacturing equipment and higher paid and more skilled machinists in our effort to compete with foreign made scopes. Burris was faced with either harnessing the global manufacturing market or simply allowing the majority of American consumers to put us completely out of business. The path we chose was NOT to simply do like the importers do of finding a scope series in the orient, put our name on it, and sell it here. Rather we chose to maintain a higher level of quality and consistency by taking our engineered design, our tolerances, our lens specifications, our assembly processes, our quality control measures and installing all these competencies into a lesser labor market ONLY for our Fullfield II riflescopes. Other than the location of manufacture, these imported scopes are identical to our USA made scopes. These are also final tested here, final inspected here, packaged here, and serviced here.

Our other scope lines in the Signature Select, Short Mag, Euro Diamond, Black Diamond, and Handgun scopes have not been faced with quite as severe foreign competition because the volumes are less attractive. All of these scope series are still made in the USA and we have no intentions of changing this. Therefore you still have every opportunity with Burris to purchase made in the USA products.

The world has turned into a much smaller place and a much more competitive place. You don’t like it and we don’t like it. You have conveyed your taking offense to Burris abandoning or betraying the American worker. Nothing could be further from reality. We take great offense to this claim. It is the vast majority of American consumers who has abandoned the US manufacturer. I applaud your position on buying USA, and I applaud your service to our country and to our economy. Businesses such as Burris don’t set the landscape for this global economy and seamless world, that is done by the American consumer and by our federal government. We small businesses simply have to respond to the American consumer and give them what they want. A great many of them want the Burris quality you speak of, but want it at a price which competes with imports while at the same time some would prefer Burris not go bankrupt, though I question how much of a concern this last point really is.

As your fellow American who has and continues to do what he can to support our country, our workers, and our way of life, it is from this perspective that I am speaking with you. You may purchase whatever brand you choose without our judgment, but please, let us not be enemies.

Sincerely,


Patrick Beckett
BURRIS

I posted a link to some basic discussion about scopes and what to look for.

http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh/scope.html#diff

Then, I started a thead --

"Rifle Scope, Money No Object." -- That pretty much touches on stuff you're seeking here, except I'm looking for a "brush" scope and you're looking at more like a open plains or bench gun scope.

Locals here (Oregon) really like Leupold -- because it's a local product.

The VXIII is what I opted for on my 45/70 for "the brush."

I found a Weatherby at a pawn shop locally with a Leupold VXII -- 3 - 9X 40mm on it. That's the "standard" scope that's always "on sale."

There's the Leupold VXL ("long range") with large objectives. Large glass means lots of light at high mags. But it also means a large scope.

Really "high end" would be Swarovski or Zeiss, and then some European stuff.

Cabela's has a decent selection of scopes with some "reviews" -- although posts in here warn that the "reviews" from Cabela's are in house articles to sell their in house products.

Since I assume you won't be varmint hunting with this rifle, and since price seems to be an issue, I'd recommend the old standby of a Leupie 3x9 VXIII as much for their warranty on your hard kicker as anything else. Unless you are planning on REALLY long range shooting 9x will be more than adequate for any distances up to at least 500m. Most hunters buy high mag scopes and don't need them in their actual field use.

Yeah, high mag.

I had a Rem. 700 PSS with a Springfield "Range Finder" 40mm and 4 - 14X. I always shot it on 14X, but from a bench, at targets.

Leupold makes a decent scope, well respected. And their warranty is tighter than a frog's butt. *S*

Leupold's warranty is absolute. It's also transferable. The only thing that would not be covered would be if you took the scope apart and modified it in a manner it's not intended for.

Otherwise -- and I've talked with their reps. on the phone. Their policy is, "You screw it up shooting, and we want to see how you did it so we can engineer that shortcoming out of the product. And we'll send you a new scope."

I'm finding that out in the field, 6X is about where it's "practical" -- a balance between seeing the target and having some sort of field of view.

9X in anything other than off a bench, and you're going to be watching your heart beat bouncing the reticle.

I am buying Zeiss scopes now and getting rid of older models.

I would put a 3-9 Zeiss Conquest on that rifle. That Conquest has outstanding eyerelief and it's optics are better than Leupold.

Some retailers are selling that Conquest for under $400.

quote:

9X in anything other than off a bench, and you're going to be watching your heart beat bouncing the reticle.

And hitting your eyebrow with your Leupold if it's on a 340 Weatherby.

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:

quote:

9X in anything other than off a bench, and you're going to be watching your heart beat bouncing the reticle.

And hitting your eyebrow with your Leupold if it's on a 340 Weatherby.

Eye relief on Leupold is one of the highest in the market. 4" while Zeiss and Swarovski, Nikon have more like 3.25" nominal relief.

-- and let me "temper" that statement with the caveat that I've been lately shopping for a scope and looking at zillions, with zillions of features, powers, objective dia.

And so, what I remember is that Leupold has more eye relief than other scopes, generally. But I'd be tossing out generalities. Don't let's quote me on the numbers, eh?

Keep the replies coming... One caveat I should've added was that it has less to do with the dollars then simply a quality durable scope. I could see spending 7 or 8 hundred dollars but I just can't see myself spending as much on a riflescope as I have on my telescope...

Ken...

I've never owned a Leupold but doubt theres a better scope on the market at any price. Theres also no better guarentee at any price. You can pay say $250 for a scope or you can pay $800 for a scope. I doubt you'll get $550 more quality out of the $800 scope.

One thing I have noticed over the past 40 or so years is that the only really consistent quality scope has remained Leupold. And I'm an old Redfield fan!

.45/70:

There is a constant 4 inch eye relief on the Conguest, which is 1/2 inch more than a Leupie at 10x.

Don:

Of course there are better scopes than Leupolds for some uses, the buyer has to make up his mind if the usual significant difference in dollars spent is worth the small increase in marginal usage. In real life hunting situations, it probably is not worth it at least 99.9% of the time, but some people have the money and want the best on their rifle, whether it is a wise use of their money is their call.

quote:

There is a constant 4 inch eye relief on the Conguest, which is 1/2 inch more than a Leupie at 10x.

Take manufacturer's specifications with a very large grain of salt. I've found the weights, lengths, and particularly the eye relief specs to be largely fictional with most manufacturers, including my stand-by brand of Leupold.

Generally speaking, Leupold prefers to give up field of view in favor of eye relief (the two being inversely related by the laws of physics). So, generally speaking, Leupolds exhibit longer eye relief. In real world application, Leupolds have a wider window of acceptable eye relief than scopes like the Conquest. Typically, a Leupold will have about one and a half to two inches of leeway between the miniumum and maximum distance of eye placement, whereas a Conquest will be four inches, plus or minus a very much smaller margin, say a half-inch or so. This is a part of the price you pay in creating a "constant" eye relief in a variable power scope.

None of this is to say that one is always superior to the other; it is only to say that there are no apples-to-apples comparisons and each shooter should judge which scope he prefers by how it suits him personally.

Personally, I think that the critical eye placement on some scope makes is problematic and the forgiving eye placement on other scopes is underappreciated by some shooters. But my priorities may not match yours.

Since this discussion has turned to comparing Leupolds I feel compelled to add my 2 cents, might be worth what you pay for it, you decide.

I reload for over 20 guns, it's amazing how many more friends you have when they find out you reload. Some of them have Leupolds. I was at the range not too long ago with my rifle with a Zeiss Conquest 3x9x50 and a friend's Leupold 3.5x10x50 VXIII. I adjusted the Leupold for clarity as best I could from one end of the threads on the eyepiece to the other end (I know this only adjusts the reticle, but it was the only adjustment on the scope). After shooting the rifle with the Leupold I could not see the bullet holes. I had to wait until I had the rifle with the Zeiss benched to see where the holes were.

The Leupold sells for $200.00 more than the Zeiss and has a larger magnification. The Zeiss is exceptionally clear and has a much larger field of view (which is important IMO).

Just like Savage99 in this thread and even VarmintGuy in this thread
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1421043/m/473101925
I do not believe the Leupolds can even come close to comparing to the Zeiss Conquests.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

Take manufacturer's specifications with a very large grain of salt. I've found the weights, lengths, and particularly the eye relief specs to be largely fictional with most manufacturers,

That is the understatement of the year.

I agree with several here that the Zeiss Conquest is the best bang for the buck in a scope for your 340. They aren't quite S&B but the difference only shows up very late and very early. For my eyes they are quite a bit better than my Leupold Vari-x III and for $400 for a 3x9x40 a heck of a deal. I am pleasantly surprised every time I look through mine after shooting with something else, most recently a weaver grand slam on a freinds rifle that I thought looked nice and clear until I looked through my conquest.

I agree with the Zeiss Conquest recommendations. For my old eyes, they are noticably clearer and eye relief is as good as any. I have (4) of them from 3x9 to 6x20 and am totally satisfied with all of them. Any future buys, they will get first consideration.

Another vote for the Zeiss Conquest.
bigbull