Burris Eliminator scope

[onehorse]

Anyone seen the new Burris "Eliminator" scope yet? Just introduced at last month's SHOT Show. It's a scope with a built in ranger-finder. Put crosshairs on animal; press switch on forearm; distance appears in the scope and, at the same time, a white dot appears on the vertical crosshair which shows where the bullet will hit; place the white dot on the target and shoot. Around $850. Check it out on the Burris website and tell me what you think.

[kemster99]

jmo, i try to stay away from alot of the fancy stuff, when gun hunting. i want my harvest to be based on my skill with my rifle. but that is just me. don't have any scopes with the BDC reticle, and don't use my range finder during gun season. i don't knock anyone for trying the latest and greatest equipt. i just prefer not too. seems like more stuff to go wrong. more batteries to carry with you and such.

[WisconsinDeer]

To much technology...

Originally Posted by kemster99

jmo, i try to stay away from alot of the fancy stuff, when gun hunting. i want my harvest to be based on my skill with my rifle. but that is just me. don't have any scopes with the BDC reticle, and don't use my range finder during gun season. i don't knock anyone for trying the latest and greatest equipt. i just prefer not too. seems like more stuff to go wrong. more batteries to carry with you and such.

question for you, where's the line? why not just go with iron sights. i don't see any real distingtion if you are using a scoped rifle. i guess we all draw it for ourselves and thats fine. not knocking it, just don't see it.

[onehorse]

Originally Posted by ronn

question for you, where's the line? why not just go with iron sights. i don't see any real distingtion if you are using a scoped rifle. i guess we all draw it for ourselves and thats fine. not knocking it, just don't see it.

I'm not endorsing it, per se. But it seems this has sparked a bigger issue relative to what each of us considers to be ethical. So, let me play devil's advocate for a minute by answering your question.
How about I "draw the line" at doing everything possible to avoid a cripple or wounded deer that might not be recovered. After all, the rifle doesn't shoot by itself - the hunter still has to find the game and aim accurately, good rest, squeeze the trigger and all that stuff. This is just another tool. How many guys still use open sights, or, for that matter flint-tipped arrows?
Now here's an idea that I had for a scope many years ago. At that time, it was purely a pie-in-the-sky fantasy, sci-fi really, but now I'm quite sure it's doable. How about a scope that was integrated with the trigger mechanism on your rifle. With an advanced computer on board that holds electronic digitized "templates" of your game animal at every possible angle. If the crosshairs are placed on a kill zone and the computer recognizes a good aim, you pull the trigger and the rifle fires. If you don't place the crosshairs on a kill zone, the gun won't fire. It has to be re-aimed, the trigger released and pulled again. This would be not only be the ultimate safety, but would result in zero wounded or lost game. This, too, would not shoot by itself and would still require all the same hunting and shooting skills that hunters have always needed - just minus the potential for "inhumane" kills or taking bad shots in the excitement of the moment. Well...?

Originally Posted by onehorse

I'm not endorsing it, per se. But it seems this has sparked a bigger issue relative to what each of us considers to be ethical. So, let me play devil's advocate for a minute by answering your question.
How about I "draw the line" at doing everything possible to avoid a cripple or wounded deer that might not be recovered. After all, the rifle doesn't shoot by itself - the hunter still has to find the game and aim accurately, good rest, squeeze the trigger and all that stuff. This is just another tool. How many guys still use open sights, or, for that matter flint-tipped arrows?
Now here's an idea that I had for a scope many years ago. At that time, it was purely a pie-in-the-sky fantasy, sci-fi really, but now I'm quite sure it's doable. How about a scope that was integrated with the trigger mechanism on your rifle. With an advanced computer on board that holds electronic digitized "templates" of your game animal at every possible angle. If the crosshairs are placed on a kill zone and the computer recognizes a good aim, you pull the trigger and the rifle fires. If you don't place the crosshairs on a kill zone, the gun won't fire. It has to be re-aimed, the trigger released and pulled again. This would be not only be the ultimate safety, but would result in zero wounded or lost game. This, too, would not shoot by itself and would still require all the same hunting and shooting skills that hunters have always needed - just minus the potential for "inhumane" kills or taking bad shots in the excitement of the moment. Well...?

my point exactly. If it makes me a more proficient/efficient shooter i'd be all for it. using a scope but not one with millidots or the like, is like being a little bit pregnant in my mind.

now i see i didn't get to your post, onehorse. i can see a good use for the scope you mention in say shots over 300 yards and burris does make good optics. but most deer hunters use normal calibers that sight in an inch high at 100 and its a kill out to 300 without hold over not to mention that 90% of shots for most deer hunters are 100 yards or less.

[kemster99]

Originally Posted by ronn

question for you, where's the line? why not just go with iron sights. i don't see any real distingtion if you are using a scoped rifle. i guess we all draw it for ourselves and thats fine. not knocking it, just don't see it.

i see your point. never really thought about it like that. have always hunted with a scoped rifle. and i do sight in high at 100 yds. have hunted with iron sight 30-30 s until the leverevolutions come out. decided to scope it then.

[onehorse]

A lot of this has to do with our individual points of view based on the conditions and terrain where we do our hunting. Out here, a 300 yard shot is not unusual, and when you start bumping 400 and beyond, a scope that automatically compensated for the distance could come in real handy. I've passed on shots that I thought were too long or not just right for one reason or another, but I have also missed, and, although I hate to re-live this in my mind, even wounded game on long shots that I thought were rock solid and well within my ability based on lots of practice at the range. (Luckily, I have always been able to finish the job on these, but it wasn't pretty.) So, a scope that might prevent something like this has some appeal. On the down side, they are usually a little on the heavy side, (this one weighs 26 oz. with mounts) not to mention expensive.

[cloven hoofed stalker]

hey sounds great . but i see electronics in the field especially a scope something more to breakdown especially in the winter and if i had it it would happen at a crucial moment with my luck lol. im not condemning technology at all we all love our gadgets . But.. i would and do prefer a hand held range finder with the combo of my burris full field 2 ballistic plex scope which is like a xbow scope except each notch is a 100 yrds pending on calibur its a great scope for a reasonable price leupold has 1 for twice as much money for the same performance. but i ve said it once ill say it 10 000 more times its up to you and what you your self if you like by all means get it its what makes you happy thats my moto ... cheers all

[cloven hoofed stalker]

and before anyone gets on me lol my range finder is in my inner pocket body heat saves batteries lol in the cold lol