I reckon a couple hundred rounds from my 6.5x284 was more than that one could handle, 'cause the Millett TRS I had on top is trackin' like a blind poodle with no sniffer. I have had good experiences with Burris in the past. IMHO, the Burris I have on my go-to deer thumpin' .308 is an accurate brick with a couple of pieces of glass at the ends. It has lived a HARD life, bless its heart. Have any of you good folks had a chance to run a Veracity in any flavor? Preferably a 4-20, but I'll take info on any of 'em.
I gotta get somethin' I can trust when I start dialin' and dopin', and Millett ain't doin' for me.
Thanks in advance.
Been knockin' the Nightforce SHV thing around my noodle, but $200 more is a lot what with this 16 y.o. daughter I have attached to my back pocket. Besides, I just like Burris.
"Do you trust the government?" If the answer is 'Yes,' you can accurately surmise they don't understand the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.
I'm a big Burris fan, but can't speak for the Veracity. Mine are Fullfield 2's and track nicely for scopes at their level.
The Millett has a lifetime warranty, through Bushnell I believe. Mine was feeling kind of squishy in the elevation turret last time I used it. It may not be long for mine too. Even if you've lost faith in it, I'd still get it repaired and sell it.
Tell you what - give me a smooth $150 and you can have it repaired. LOL I wonder if that warranty is transferable. I have a Fullfield II on my .308 w/ ballistic plex. That is one tough optic right there, I kid you not.Originally Posted by barrel-nut
"Do you trust the government?" If the answer is 'Yes,' you can accurately surmise they don't understand the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.
I have one already, thanks.
The Burris Fullfield 2 definitely has better glass too in my opinion. The Ballistic plex is about perfect for hunting purposes too.
I have not used the burris in question (have used some) will not claim to have much against them but.............with only a $200 difference= nightforce.
.
On another note and not intended to be argumentative or sarcasm :
"track nicely for scopes at their level" what exactly is this intended to imply? I see it often through out the forums.
Dose it track reliably? Does it not track reliably? Is it repeatable but not the correct measurement? Does it do the job and just not feel tactile?
Good questions all. Sorry for being vague in my previous comments. I'll take a stab at explaining.
Scopes like the Fullfield 2's that I have, as well as most other scopes "at their level", I believe, are not really intended for the hardcore dialers who use their adjustments regularly and extensively. I'm not really a hardcore dialer either, more so what I'd call an occasional dialer. The relatively shorter ranges that i shoot down here (up to 600yds only occasionally, usually much shorter) just don't require a lot of frequent adjustments. I think that the intent of the designers of these scopes was probably more so for shorter range shooters, hunters especially, who by and large tend to sight their rifles at a given distance and hold over for anything longer. Purely speculation on my part, but that seems to be the intent what with the way the turrets are designed. With that being said, back when the Burris's were the best scopes I owned, I did a fair amount of dialing on them, even sent one back to the factory to have the standard turrets replaced with target-style turrets. I always found the adjustments to be repeatable and fairly correct as far as measurement. They will do the job, but in standard form on the Fullfield 2's, the little tiny knobs you have to twist are definitely not very easy to use if you are counting clicks. Even after I had the larger knobs installed, it's still not really user friendly due to the very small markings on the knobs and the odd number of MOA's that make up one round. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly usable, and I made do with them for a few years. But once I moved up to scopes that were designed to be twisted a lot, like Nightforce and even some higher-end Weavers I have, I realized how crude by comparison the Fullfields were. But that's hardly a fair comparison, given the price and design differences. Hence, "they track nicely for scopes at their level". They do much, much better than two Leupolds I have that were at about the same price-point. I hope that helps a little to illustrate what I meant.
Thank you, that was well explained and I appreciate it.
I am very pleased with my Burris Veracity 4-20x50mm Riflescope w/ Ballistic E1 FFP Reticle http://www.longrangehunting.com/foru...eticle-130833/
Once zero (or near) is set, I have just shy of +55 MOA of elevation.
Ammo used: leftover .270 Win handload (150 NBT, 55.5 H4350, WLR, RP brass) before the re-barrel.
Above is a 12-shot series @ 100 yards in my attempt to test the zero repeatability. Each shot is consist of 2 random elevation adjustments (from zero to X elevation and then back to zero) and + and - windage adjustments (from zero to L then back to zero and from zero to R and then back to zero).
This is all I have time to do for today (more to follow). I'm very pleased thus far. What do you guys think?
(Last cold bore shot at 200 yards before the 2014 hunting season - 175 Matrix VLD)
Deer hunt >>> http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.as...ms=.270,AI,1st
Last edited by FEENIX; 02-01-2015 at 01:25 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks