All of the observations, conclusions and opinions that follow are strictly my own views. There will be others who see things differently or don’t like the test procedures, I can only do my best. I hope this review helps some Hide members who are wondering about the Burris Eliminator 6, or integrated aiming solution scopes in general. My view is that this type of scope is the future of long-range shooting for some, but not all, application scenarios.
Background:
I have been following the development of electro optical scopes with integrated laser range finding (LRF) and/or ballistic aiming solutions displayed on the scope reticle for over a decade. Until now I haven’t felt that the combination of optical quality, targeting accuracy and price justified an investment. The Burris Eliminator 6 (E6) was reported to be a significant step up in optical and aiming accuracy compared to previous Eliminator models, and the price is reasonable for what it does, so I decided to purchase an E6 to see if it is “good enough” for some of my long range shooting applications. For my purposes, I defined “good enough” to mean:
Here is my latest 100 yard zero group for this rifle, cartridge and Razor Gen 3 on a day with not much wind, to provide an idea of the accuracy:
Recently I upgraded from a monocular LRF and older Kestrel to a Kestrel 5700 Elite AB paired with a Fury 5000 AB. This system has the Applied Ballistics custom bullet drag models, sends the range, direction of fire and inclination from the Fury to the Kestrel and the Kestrel does the ballistics, wind hold and then sends the firing solution back to the Fury heads up display. Before purchasing the E6, this was the fastest targeting workflow for long-range shooting I have trained with. I assumed any change in target hits and misses when swapping from the Kestrel / Fury / Razor system to the E6 would be due to the difference in optics and ballistic solution performance.
Targeting Workflow Comparison:
For those not familiar with the targeting workflow differences between the E6 and separate LRF, Kestrel (or other weather/ballistics solution device) and conventional turret or tree reticle scope, here is a comparison:
E6 Form Factor and Aesthetics:
Unlike some past versions of electro optic scopes with built in LRF and ballistics that need special mounting systems and/or look somewhat odd due to extra appendages to house the LRF and electronics, the E6 is a normal looking scope. Someone who doesn’t know what it is would think it looks like a scope the Burris XTR or XTR Pro line, except for the smaller turrets:
Programming the E6:
The E6 is programmed using the Burris Connect App on your phone or tablet:
I won’t go into all the ins and outs of using the app to program the scope because there are several good online sources for this and the instruction manual that comes with the scope is pretty good, albeit not as complete as one would like. Here is one of many overview links, albeit a little salesy:
When programming the E6, I adjusted the Burris Connect app bullet velocity so that the come-up value predicted in the Burris Connect app dope card matched the come-up on the Kestrel 7500 Elite range card. I have tuned the bullet velocity for the Kestrel 5700 for the cartridge used in this test and have confirmed many times it provides reliable and accurate hold over and hold off (provided I get the wind right which is always the weak link).
When the Kestrel uses the Applied Ballistics custom drag models and the velocity tuning procedure is used to match specific rifle and cartridge shooting results with the Kestrel output, the system allows for reliable first shot hits out to at least 1,200 yards (as far as I have shot). In the testing reported here, even though the wind was quite high, the Kestrel / Fury / Razor system produced first round hits near center of mass out to 960 yards. The E6 seems to use either G1 or G7 BC instead of the AB custom drag models, but with proper velocity and/or BC value tuning good results out to 1,000 yards and beyond for long-range cartridges can be achieved with G7 ballistics.
In the test results and conclusions I discuss some questions that came up regarding how the Burris Connect App and the E6 operate, specifically where the E6 gets the information required to set up the ballistics solution, and more specifically the density altitude, temperature and environmental conditions at the time of zero.
Optical Quality and Reticle Comparisons:
In my opinion, the Vortex Razor Gen 3 6-36x50 is better in all optical aspects as compared to the E6. The resolution, contrast, color rendition, and eye box are all perceivably better for me. I’m not an optics expert like DLO, Glassaholic and others, so the differences need to be meaningful for me to notice. However, the optical quality of the E6 is respectable and works pretty well IMO when you consider the value of the reduced targeting workflow with the integrated targeting electronics. The optical quality of the E6 reminds me of the Burris XTR III line, maybe the XTR Pro line. The zoom ratio, size and other aspects of the E6 are similar to the XTR line so it may be based on the same basic optical platform family. I have two XTRs and the optical performance is acceptable out to 1,000 yards and the turrets are accurate, so I like them quite a bit for the price. The E6 is about twice the price as the XTR line, but it has all the integrated electronics and laser for the automated targeting solution, representing a good value IMO.
The E6 has an X177 SFP reticle with hash marks along the horizontal cross hair and little crosses on a regularly spaced grid for the reticle tree. The elevation aiming solution is displayed as a dot on the vertical cross hair, and the heads-up display provides the windage hold off value measured in the number of horizontal crosses from the aiming dot.
Because there is a lot of empty space between the horizontal crosses on the E6 tree reticle, it is not as easy to hold for a precise aiming solution as compared to dialing the turrets and holding along the main horizontal cross hair in a conventional turret scope like the Vortex Razor Gen 3, or as compared to holding over and holding off on a mil or MOA tree reticle with more closely spaced hash marks, again like the Razor Gen 3. The sparse reticle marks is something Burris can easily, and should improve in their next version.
I have not been able to find the specs for E6 X177 reticle subtension dimensions and I did not have time to precisely measure them on a calibrated grid target. I was able to estimate the spacing between the little crosses at 20x magnification by dividing the come up in mils from the Kestrel aiming solutions by the locations of the aiming dot on the E6 reticle (measured in grid spacing increments) times 3.46 MOA/mil. This results in an estimate for the cross grid spacing on reticle very close to 2 MOA, so I assume the spacing is 2 MOA on 20x magnification. If anyone has the Burris published subtension specs for the E6 on 20x magnification that would be great.
For the way I use long range scopes, the Vortex EBR-7D MRAD mil tree reticle is considerably better than the Eliminator X177 reticle. The “little crosses” spaced at about 2 MOA on the E6 reticle tree requires more time to accurately center the POA on target because you need to estimate where the POA is in the significant empty reticle space between the crosses. Even after taking the extra time, for me the POA accuracy is not as precise as can be achieved with the Razor tree reticle that has lines on the tree and finer, 0.2 mil marks. This is something Burris could address in the next Eliminator version. However, the E6 reticle is quite usable out to about 1,000 yards as evidenced by the shooting results reported below.
Past versions of the Eliminator product line were reported to have a yellowish tint that resulted from the coatings necessary to display the aiming dot along the vertical cross hair. There might be a slight discoloration in the E6 image, but it is not very noticeable (if at all) to me.
There seems to be more parallax error with the E6 aiming dot than the reticle marks, also more than a conventional scope reticle that has good parallax performance. In the testing I carefully tuned the parallax knob and tried to center my eye in the eye box to reduce parallax error for the aiming dot.
Long Range Accuracy Comparison Test:
In my view the ideal wind scenario for this testing would be something like a steady 10 mph, 90 degree wind to compare the accuracy of the wind hold values. The day I did the comparison the wind was variable with 16 to 18 mph average and approximately 12 to 22 mph peak variation from a direction of close to 3-oclock. This wind strength and variability made the windage solution comparison more difficult at the longest target distances, but it should not affect the elevation solution comparison much (the Kestrel considers aerodynamic jump, not sure if the E6 does too). I decided that this challenging wind scenario would help stretch the wind hold calculation capabilities of the two solutions so I went ahead with the comparison.
Comparison Procedure:
Shooting Results With Kestrel / Fury / Razor Equipment:
Kestrel / Fury / Razor Shooting:
The wind speed and the density altitude were both higher than they were when I previously zeroed the Vortex scope, so the Kestrel solution at 100 yards said 0.2 mil down and 0.2 mil right given the real time wind speed and density altitude measured by the Kestrel. I dialed 0.2 mil down, held 0.2 mils right and punched three touching holes about 0.15” to the left of center.
I did not end up shooting the entire ladder with the Kestrel / Fury / Razor combination because there was no need to shoot all the targets with this proven system. The wind call was averaging 16 mph and proved good, so after first shots hit center of mass (CoM) at 300 and 400 I skipped to 700 with another first shot CoM hit and then to 960 with a centerline impact for elevation and slightly right of center for the windage. I attributed the right of center impact to a real time wind reduction below average.
E6 Shooting:
After removing the Razor and mounting the E6, I zeroed the E6 at 100 yards on max 20x magnification with the group centered at the waterline and 0.7” left (0.2 mils) to account for the wind. This windage value for zero in a 16 mph R-L average wind is what the Kestrel provided. When I zeroed I was not sure if the E6 app and scope used the density altitude and temp that were in the ballistics parameter entry screen in the app or if the environmental parameters were determined by the on-board barometer and temp sensor in the scope. I assumed it was taking the current density altitude and temperature in the on-board scope electronics so I did not set the zero 0.2 mil high like the Kestrel said. I later asked Burris customer support where the E6 gets the environmental data, the scope or the app, and the customer support person said he thought it came from the scope even if you input different values in the Burris Connect app ballistics screen, but he was not sure. After the shooting session I did find a screen where you can override the on-board environmental electronics, so I assume without the override the E6 gets it’s environmental data in real time from the on board electronics.
After zeroing the E6 I shot the steel target ladder. The wind picked up a little between shooting with the Kestrel / Fury / Razor equipment and the E6, so at 600 yards I adjusted the wind value in the Burris Connect app and re-upload it to the E6 scope. All of the E6 shooting was done with magnification set to 20x. Note that the stated target ranges (300, 400, 500, etc) are approximate and the actual laser measured distances were different and change with shooting position on the firing line.
Summary of Shooting Results with E6
I again emphasize that the contents of this post are only my personal shooting results, observations and opinions. Others will see things differently. My only goal is to share information that I could not find in the hope it is helpful to someone considering the same questions and tradeoffs I was considering.
I am impressed with the Burris Eliminator 6. Even my first time out with this sophisticated integrated ranging, ballistic solver and aim point display device, I was able to get respectable long-range performance, which is promising. With just a little time spent with the app, and nowhere near enough time to optimize the system performance by adjusting ballistics parameters, out to 600 or 700 yards I got first shot hits in 16 to 18 mph average wind with +/- 5 mph variability.
It is a little concerning that the Burris Connect app dope card had the same come-up at 960 yards as the Kestrel, I confirmed that the Kestrel at 960 was spot on, but the aiming dot in the E6 scope did not have enough come-up. This means there is a difference between what the E6 app dope card says and what the scope aiming dot sets up for reticle hold-over. I could correct for this by simply reducing the bullet velocity in the Burris Connect app enough so that the scope aiming dot comes up 0.3 mils. This is essentially what the Kestrel calibration procedure does, albeit in a little more sophisticated way. However, this would build-in a difference between what the Burris Connect app says to hold and what the actual hold is. Before living with this "fix", I first want to make sure the long range drop calculation error in the E6 scope vs Burris Connect app dope card is not due to differences in environmental conditions between the conditions in the app and the real time condition measurements inside the scope. I tried to make the two were sure were the same by using the Kestrel real time density altitude in the Burris Connect app settings before uploading the ballistic data, but I didn't record the density altitude the scope was displaying so the E6 might read different environmental condition values than the Kestrel. To make sure the Burris connect app has the same environmental conditions as the E6 scope, next time out I will use the density altitude in the E6 display for the settings in the Burris app instead of the Kestrel density altitude. Once I figure out if I can get the Burris Connect app come-up at around 1,000 yards to match what the E6 scope actually shoots, whether or not they match I will tune the bullet velocity to get center of mass hits at the longest range the scope can reach and then shoot the ladder again to see if that fixes the come-up at all ranges.
I also want to test how well the E6 corrects for changes in environmental conditions. One of the best performance aspects of the Kestrel 5700 Elite is that it accurately accounts for environmental changes from the time you zero to the time you shoot, and it updates the required drop and wind values in real time to keep on center of target even when density altitude changes by thousands of feet. Since the E6 has on board environmental monitoring, I’m hopeful that it will also accurately update the ballistic solution in real time as the environment changes. I will test this over a long day with substantial change in density altitude and temp, and also over different range days without changing zero with the E6, and then provide an update to this review.
Am I thinking about trading in my Kestrel, Fury and Vortex Razor Gen 3 6-36x56, or many of my other conventional scopes, for more Eliminator 6 scopes? No. The Kestrel and Fury combination has proven to be very accurate on many different rifle/cartridge/scope combinations and it does not take long to range and dial scope turrets with this system. My conventional scopes are well proven to be robust and reliable, don’t need batteries, have great optical quality, turret quality and excellent mil tree reticles. If the best possible accuracy is called for, I was more accurate with the Kestrel / Fury / Razor system as compared to the E6. The huge eye box and wonderfully bright and clear sight picture of scopes like the Razor Gen 3 6-36x56 is also less straining on the eye and a bit more enjoyable to use at longer distances. A good FFP mil tree reticle with 0.2 mil reference marks will always be more accurate that an SFP tree with sparse marks and lots of empty space, at least for me. While the gap in long-range accuracy performance between the two systems tested here is likely to be reduced as I train with and fine tune the E6, I am confident there will still be a meaningful gap.
The Eliminator 6 has a permanent home in my collection, sitting on top of a 6.5 Creedmoor match grade AR10 for PRS / DMR type use. In this type of use case, it makes sense IMO to gain substantial speed for engaging multiple targets at max range less than 800 yards or so at the expense of a modest reduction in accuracy. A second E6 scope may end up on one of my bolt rifles for hunting, where max range is lower due to ethical constraints and speed can be very important. Whether or not it ends up on other rifles depends on how things go with the ballistics fine tuning and testing to determine how accuracy holds up with environmental changes from time of zero.
It will be interesting to see how this segment of the market improves and grows over the next 3-5 years as Burris/Steiner, Vortex, Swarovski, Revic and other manufacturers compete to develop integrated electro-optic scopes with LRF and aiming solution that are easier to use, more accurate and less expensive.
Background:
I have been following the development of electro optical scopes with integrated laser range finding (LRF) and/or ballistic aiming solutions displayed on the scope reticle for over a decade. Until now I haven’t felt that the combination of optical quality, targeting accuracy and price justified an investment. The Burris Eliminator 6 (E6) was reported to be a significant step up in optical and aiming accuracy compared to previous Eliminator models, and the price is reasonable for what it does, so I decided to purchase an E6 to see if it is “good enough” for some of my long range shooting applications. For my purposes, I defined “good enough” to mean:
- optical performance that provides clear target acquisition, id and aiming on approximately 10” to 18” target hit zones, hopefully out to at least 1,000 yards with an accurate long range rifle and cartridge, and
- a combination of ranging accuracy, ballistic solution calculation accuracy and displayed aiming point accuracy with better than ½ MOA (0.15 mil) total aiming error.
- a Vortex Razor Gen 3 6-36x56 EBR-7 MRAD (RG3),
- a Kestrel 5700 Elite for determining environmental conditions and calculating the ballistic aiming solution, and
- a Vortex Fury 5000 AB paired with the Kestrel to measure range, bearing and inclination used to calculate the ballistic solution.
Here is my latest 100 yard zero group for this rifle, cartridge and Razor Gen 3 on a day with not much wind, to provide an idea of the accuracy:
Recently I upgraded from a monocular LRF and older Kestrel to a Kestrel 5700 Elite AB paired with a Fury 5000 AB. This system has the Applied Ballistics custom bullet drag models, sends the range, direction of fire and inclination from the Fury to the Kestrel and the Kestrel does the ballistics, wind hold and then sends the firing solution back to the Fury heads up display. Before purchasing the E6, this was the fastest targeting workflow for long-range shooting I have trained with. I assumed any change in target hits and misses when swapping from the Kestrel / Fury / Razor system to the E6 would be due to the difference in optics and ballistic solution performance.
Targeting Workflow Comparison:
For those not familiar with the targeting workflow differences between the E6 and separate LRF, Kestrel (or other weather/ballistics solution device) and conventional turret or tree reticle scope, here is a comparison:
E6 Form Factor and Aesthetics:
Unlike some past versions of electro optic scopes with built in LRF and ballistics that need special mounting systems and/or look somewhat odd due to extra appendages to house the LRF and electronics, the E6 is a normal looking scope. Someone who doesn’t know what it is would think it looks like a scope the Burris XTR or XTR Pro line, except for the smaller turrets:
Programming the E6:
The E6 is programmed using the Burris Connect App on your phone or tablet:
I won’t go into all the ins and outs of using the app to program the scope because there are several good online sources for this and the instruction manual that comes with the scope is pretty good, albeit not as complete as one would like. Here is one of many overview links, albeit a little salesy:
When programming the E6, I adjusted the Burris Connect app bullet velocity so that the come-up value predicted in the Burris Connect app dope card matched the come-up on the Kestrel 7500 Elite range card. I have tuned the bullet velocity for the Kestrel 5700 for the cartridge used in this test and have confirmed many times it provides reliable and accurate hold over and hold off (provided I get the wind right which is always the weak link).
When the Kestrel uses the Applied Ballistics custom drag models and the velocity tuning procedure is used to match specific rifle and cartridge shooting results with the Kestrel output, the system allows for reliable first shot hits out to at least 1,200 yards (as far as I have shot). In the testing reported here, even though the wind was quite high, the Kestrel / Fury / Razor system produced first round hits near center of mass out to 960 yards. The E6 seems to use either G1 or G7 BC instead of the AB custom drag models, but with proper velocity and/or BC value tuning good results out to 1,000 yards and beyond for long-range cartridges can be achieved with G7 ballistics.
In the test results and conclusions I discuss some questions that came up regarding how the Burris Connect App and the E6 operate, specifically where the E6 gets the information required to set up the ballistics solution, and more specifically the density altitude, temperature and environmental conditions at the time of zero.
Optical Quality and Reticle Comparisons:
In my opinion, the Vortex Razor Gen 3 6-36x50 is better in all optical aspects as compared to the E6. The resolution, contrast, color rendition, and eye box are all perceivably better for me. I’m not an optics expert like DLO, Glassaholic and others, so the differences need to be meaningful for me to notice. However, the optical quality of the E6 is respectable and works pretty well IMO when you consider the value of the reduced targeting workflow with the integrated targeting electronics. The optical quality of the E6 reminds me of the Burris XTR III line, maybe the XTR Pro line. The zoom ratio, size and other aspects of the E6 are similar to the XTR line so it may be based on the same basic optical platform family. I have two XTRs and the optical performance is acceptable out to 1,000 yards and the turrets are accurate, so I like them quite a bit for the price. The E6 is about twice the price as the XTR line, but it has all the integrated electronics and laser for the automated targeting solution, representing a good value IMO.
The E6 has an X177 SFP reticle with hash marks along the horizontal cross hair and little crosses on a regularly spaced grid for the reticle tree. The elevation aiming solution is displayed as a dot on the vertical cross hair, and the heads-up display provides the windage hold off value measured in the number of horizontal crosses from the aiming dot.
Because there is a lot of empty space between the horizontal crosses on the E6 tree reticle, it is not as easy to hold for a precise aiming solution as compared to dialing the turrets and holding along the main horizontal cross hair in a conventional turret scope like the Vortex Razor Gen 3, or as compared to holding over and holding off on a mil or MOA tree reticle with more closely spaced hash marks, again like the Razor Gen 3. The sparse reticle marks is something Burris can easily, and should improve in their next version.
I have not been able to find the specs for E6 X177 reticle subtension dimensions and I did not have time to precisely measure them on a calibrated grid target. I was able to estimate the spacing between the little crosses at 20x magnification by dividing the come up in mils from the Kestrel aiming solutions by the locations of the aiming dot on the E6 reticle (measured in grid spacing increments) times 3.46 MOA/mil. This results in an estimate for the cross grid spacing on reticle very close to 2 MOA, so I assume the spacing is 2 MOA on 20x magnification. If anyone has the Burris published subtension specs for the E6 on 20x magnification that would be great.
For the way I use long range scopes, the Vortex EBR-7D MRAD mil tree reticle is considerably better than the Eliminator X177 reticle. The “little crosses” spaced at about 2 MOA on the E6 reticle tree requires more time to accurately center the POA on target because you need to estimate where the POA is in the significant empty reticle space between the crosses. Even after taking the extra time, for me the POA accuracy is not as precise as can be achieved with the Razor tree reticle that has lines on the tree and finer, 0.2 mil marks. This is something Burris could address in the next Eliminator version. However, the E6 reticle is quite usable out to about 1,000 yards as evidenced by the shooting results reported below.
Past versions of the Eliminator product line were reported to have a yellowish tint that resulted from the coatings necessary to display the aiming dot along the vertical cross hair. There might be a slight discoloration in the E6 image, but it is not very noticeable (if at all) to me.
There seems to be more parallax error with the E6 aiming dot than the reticle marks, also more than a conventional scope reticle that has good parallax performance. In the testing I carefully tuned the parallax knob and tried to center my eye in the eye box to reduce parallax error for the aiming dot.
Long Range Accuracy Comparison Test:
In my view the ideal wind scenario for this testing would be something like a steady 10 mph, 90 degree wind to compare the accuracy of the wind hold values. The day I did the comparison the wind was variable with 16 to 18 mph average and approximately 12 to 22 mph peak variation from a direction of close to 3-oclock. This wind strength and variability made the windage solution comparison more difficult at the longest target distances, but it should not affect the elevation solution comparison much (the Kestrel considers aerodynamic jump, not sure if the E6 does too). I decided that this challenging wind scenario would help stretch the wind hold calculation capabilities of the two solutions so I went ahead with the comparison.
Comparison Procedure:
- I first confirmed zero and velocity for the rifle and Razor Gen 3 scope at 100 yards.
- The plan was to shoot a distance ladder at 100 yards (paper) for zero then 300, 400, 500, 600, 700 and 960 yards (all iron) with the Kestrel / Fury / Razor combination and record the target ranges, turret elevation settings, wind holds and hits/misses with impact locations on the plates or in the dirt next to the plates. The iron target sizes are about 12" at 300 & 400, about 18" 500, 600 and 700 and about 24" at 960. The targets progress up a small mountain which tested the inclination detection in the Eliminator ballistic solution, with inclination starting at about 2 degrees and finishing at about 5 degrees. I would have also recorded the inclination values for both systems, but while the Fury displays inclination in degrees the E6 does not so I only recorded the Fury inclination values. I did confirm with Burris that the E6 does have electronics to determine inclination and that this is used in the ballistics calculation.
- Then I changed scopes to the E6 leaving the rings in the same location on the rifle receiver rail, adjusted the eye relief and set the scope cant so that the electronic level in the heads up Eliminator display matched the ring bubble level.
- I then shot the target ladder at 100, 300, 400, 500, 700 and 960 yards with the E6 and recorded (a) the target range values displayed by the E6, (b) the elevation hold-over of the aiming dot visually estimated by the number of reticle tree lines down the vertical cross hair (estimated to one decimal), (c) the windage hold-off displayed in the scope heads up display, and (d) the hits/misses with impact location on the plates or in the dirt next to the plates. At each range, I also recorded the real time Kestrel come-up and wind hold value as the density altitude and temperature changed.
Shooting Results With Kestrel / Fury / Razor Equipment:
Kestrel / Fury / Razor Shooting:
The wind speed and the density altitude were both higher than they were when I previously zeroed the Vortex scope, so the Kestrel solution at 100 yards said 0.2 mil down and 0.2 mil right given the real time wind speed and density altitude measured by the Kestrel. I dialed 0.2 mil down, held 0.2 mils right and punched three touching holes about 0.15” to the left of center.
I did not end up shooting the entire ladder with the Kestrel / Fury / Razor combination because there was no need to shoot all the targets with this proven system. The wind call was averaging 16 mph and proved good, so after first shots hit center of mass (CoM) at 300 and 400 I skipped to 700 with another first shot CoM hit and then to 960 with a centerline impact for elevation and slightly right of center for the windage. I attributed the right of center impact to a real time wind reduction below average.
E6 Shooting:
After removing the Razor and mounting the E6, I zeroed the E6 at 100 yards on max 20x magnification with the group centered at the waterline and 0.7” left (0.2 mils) to account for the wind. This windage value for zero in a 16 mph R-L average wind is what the Kestrel provided. When I zeroed I was not sure if the E6 app and scope used the density altitude and temp that were in the ballistics parameter entry screen in the app or if the environmental parameters were determined by the on-board barometer and temp sensor in the scope. I assumed it was taking the current density altitude and temperature in the on-board scope electronics so I did not set the zero 0.2 mil high like the Kestrel said. I later asked Burris customer support where the E6 gets the environmental data, the scope or the app, and the customer support person said he thought it came from the scope even if you input different values in the Burris Connect app ballistics screen, but he was not sure. After the shooting session I did find a screen where you can override the on-board environmental electronics, so I assume without the override the E6 gets it’s environmental data in real time from the on board electronics.
After zeroing the E6 I shot the steel target ladder. The wind picked up a little between shooting with the Kestrel / Fury / Razor equipment and the E6, so at 600 yards I adjusted the wind value in the Burris Connect app and re-upload it to the E6 scope. All of the E6 shooting was done with magnification set to 20x. Note that the stated target ranges (300, 400, 500, etc) are approximate and the actual laser measured distances were different and change with shooting position on the firing line.
Summary of Shooting Results with E6
- Note 1: After shooting the first 600 yard shot I determined that the wind had picked up down range and the hold needed to be increased. I increased wind value from 16 to 20 mph in the Burris Connect app, uploaded the updated ballistics to the E6, and shot 600 again.
- Note 2: After shooting the second 600 yard shot I concluded I had overcorrected the wind value. I tried adjusting the wind value to 18 mph in the Burris App and re-uploading ballistics, but the wind hold in the heads up display did not go down. After re-reading the manual and looking online for quite some time I could not find any information about why the wind hold was not changing when I changed the wind speed in the app and re-uploaded the ballistic parameters. After going through the Burris Connect app screens for quite some time, I stumbled upon the fact that there are two places to enter wind speed in the Burris app. One place to enter wind speed is in the "Ballistics" app tab which apparently updates only the Burris app dope card but DOES NOT update the wind speed during upload to the scope. Another place to enter wind speed is in the "Optics" app tab which apparently does not update the app dope card but DOES update the wind value for the scope during upload. After the first 600 yard shot I must have adjusted wind speed to 20 mph using the "Optics" tab and then tried unsuccessfully to change it back to 18 mph in the “Ballistics” tab . For the third shot I used the "Optics" tab to change wind speed which uploaded to the scope correctly at 18 mph. I then reshot at 600 yards. Burris should correct this so that there is only one place in the app to enter wind speed and other environment variables to avoid this kind of confusion and eliminate differences between the app dope card and what the scope is actually doing. The only way to know what the scope is doing is to either read the dope card or shoot with the scope, and it would be way better if the dope card represented what the scope is actually doing.
- Note 3: After the first shot at 960 yards it became clear that the E6 elevation solution was about 0.3 mils +/- low. For the second shot at 960 yards I came up from the E6 aiming dot about 0.3 mils (as estimated using known target size of 24x24”).
I again emphasize that the contents of this post are only my personal shooting results, observations and opinions. Others will see things differently. My only goal is to share information that I could not find in the hope it is helpful to someone considering the same questions and tradeoffs I was considering.
I am impressed with the Burris Eliminator 6. Even my first time out with this sophisticated integrated ranging, ballistic solver and aim point display device, I was able to get respectable long-range performance, which is promising. With just a little time spent with the app, and nowhere near enough time to optimize the system performance by adjusting ballistics parameters, out to 600 or 700 yards I got first shot hits in 16 to 18 mph average wind with +/- 5 mph variability.
It is a little concerning that the Burris Connect app dope card had the same come-up at 960 yards as the Kestrel, I confirmed that the Kestrel at 960 was spot on, but the aiming dot in the E6 scope did not have enough come-up. This means there is a difference between what the E6 app dope card says and what the scope aiming dot sets up for reticle hold-over. I could correct for this by simply reducing the bullet velocity in the Burris Connect app enough so that the scope aiming dot comes up 0.3 mils. This is essentially what the Kestrel calibration procedure does, albeit in a little more sophisticated way. However, this would build-in a difference between what the Burris Connect app says to hold and what the actual hold is. Before living with this "fix", I first want to make sure the long range drop calculation error in the E6 scope vs Burris Connect app dope card is not due to differences in environmental conditions between the conditions in the app and the real time condition measurements inside the scope. I tried to make the two were sure were the same by using the Kestrel real time density altitude in the Burris Connect app settings before uploading the ballistic data, but I didn't record the density altitude the scope was displaying so the E6 might read different environmental condition values than the Kestrel. To make sure the Burris connect app has the same environmental conditions as the E6 scope, next time out I will use the density altitude in the E6 display for the settings in the Burris app instead of the Kestrel density altitude. Once I figure out if I can get the Burris Connect app come-up at around 1,000 yards to match what the E6 scope actually shoots, whether or not they match I will tune the bullet velocity to get center of mass hits at the longest range the scope can reach and then shoot the ladder again to see if that fixes the come-up at all ranges.
I also want to test how well the E6 corrects for changes in environmental conditions. One of the best performance aspects of the Kestrel 5700 Elite is that it accurately accounts for environmental changes from the time you zero to the time you shoot, and it updates the required drop and wind values in real time to keep on center of target even when density altitude changes by thousands of feet. Since the E6 has on board environmental monitoring, I’m hopeful that it will also accurately update the ballistic solution in real time as the environment changes. I will test this over a long day with substantial change in density altitude and temp, and also over different range days without changing zero with the E6, and then provide an update to this review.
Am I thinking about trading in my Kestrel, Fury and Vortex Razor Gen 3 6-36x56, or many of my other conventional scopes, for more Eliminator 6 scopes? No. The Kestrel and Fury combination has proven to be very accurate on many different rifle/cartridge/scope combinations and it does not take long to range and dial scope turrets with this system. My conventional scopes are well proven to be robust and reliable, don’t need batteries, have great optical quality, turret quality and excellent mil tree reticles. If the best possible accuracy is called for, I was more accurate with the Kestrel / Fury / Razor system as compared to the E6. The huge eye box and wonderfully bright and clear sight picture of scopes like the Razor Gen 3 6-36x56 is also less straining on the eye and a bit more enjoyable to use at longer distances. A good FFP mil tree reticle with 0.2 mil reference marks will always be more accurate that an SFP tree with sparse marks and lots of empty space, at least for me. While the gap in long-range accuracy performance between the two systems tested here is likely to be reduced as I train with and fine tune the E6, I am confident there will still be a meaningful gap.
The Eliminator 6 has a permanent home in my collection, sitting on top of a 6.5 Creedmoor match grade AR10 for PRS / DMR type use. In this type of use case, it makes sense IMO to gain substantial speed for engaging multiple targets at max range less than 800 yards or so at the expense of a modest reduction in accuracy. A second E6 scope may end up on one of my bolt rifles for hunting, where max range is lower due to ethical constraints and speed can be very important. Whether or not it ends up on other rifles depends on how things go with the ballistics fine tuning and testing to determine how accuracy holds up with environmental changes from time of zero.
It will be interesting to see how this segment of the market improves and grows over the next 3-5 years as Burris/Steiner, Vortex, Swarovski, Revic and other manufacturers compete to develop integrated electro-optic scopes with LRF and aiming solution that are easier to use, more accurate and less expensive.
Attachments
Last edited:
