Got my scope mounted and shot yesterday and again today. Here is my initial impressions for anyone interested.
Before mounting the scope I attempted to use the rangefinder on a few things near the house. It did not work well handheld. I was a bit concerned with this but once the scope was mounted it wasn't an issue. The way the rangefinder works, you push the button and then let off it and hold the crosshair on what you want ranged until the range pops up. It isn't instant like in my Leica Geovid binos, but is pretty quick. With the AR rested on the truck window or shooting sticks I was able to range piles of manure from our bulls on a brome field out past 500 yards easily. I was pretty happy with the rangefinder after figuring it out.
One thing I'm not a huge fan of is the 100 yard zero the scope is built to work off of. It's just my personal opinion, but I've always run a zero of 175 to 260 yards depending on what I'm shooting. I have never had to consider that I'd be low at 200 yards before. Now unless I range and use the dot I will be hitting 3" low with the 100yds zero. I wish a 200yd zero was an option, but I can understand why they made the scope this way. At 100 yards environmental factors like wind, elevation, etc have less impact on your point of aim. I might hunt with say the Huskemaw on my 25-06 dialed up to 250 yards, but I still establish my zero at 100 yards.
I'd say that the glass isn't impressive for the price point. It's not terrible, but I looked through the 3.5-10x Leupold right before going into the shop to change scopes. I looked at several signs, steers, and other objects at several power ranges. Right after getting the Burris mounted I went back out and looked at the same objects at the same power. The Leupold gets my vote for being the brighter and sharper image. Later I zeroed both my AR with the Burris and my 25-06 that just got a new 4-16x42 Huskemaw. The Huskemaw was much better glass than the Burris. Seeing bullet holes in the 100 yard target was enough easier with the Huskemaw I would switch guns at times to confirm where the AR had hit.
The field of view isn't great, but it is usable for me. I shoot a lot and tend to be able to find things in a scope pretty quick and easy. I could see it being an issue for someone who is less practiced at this. I think the 3-12x might have been a better fit for my AR really, I'd advise anyone shooting something similar in to performance to my rifle to consider it. At ranges I'd be using any 22 caliber centerfire instead of stepping up to a 6mm or bigger, I think it would be plenty. Glass quality or lack of it shows up more at higher magnification.
After the 100 yd zero was established and the scope was programmed for my load I went to do some field shooting. I put a variety of water filled bottles ranging from 28oz Gatorade bottles to gallon spray jugs between 175 and 350 yards. The scope was great at hitting these quick. I had a light but variable wind at around 5mph. I'd range a bottle, halve the wind hold, and shoot as quick as I could from my Primos Rapid Pivot bipod sitting with no back rest. I was pleased with both the scope and myself, I hit all 10 with 10 shots. I could not shoot further yet, but plan to do so on steel as soon as I get the chance. For me sitting with sticks and nothing against my back to further steady myself that's pretty good shooting. I liked the lighted dot to know my precise elevation, rather than having to split the gaps between crosshairs and do a little guessing like my old Leupold B&C. All I had to do was a little adjusting for wind. Knowing the exact range of a shot as fast as I can with this is very nice shooting the slower load (.398 BC, 2785fps) from my AR. Less mental math and more concentration on the shot.
That's a pretty blunt view of what I like and don't about the scope. I think I'm going to like it for hunting. I don't need as good of glass on a coyote rifle as I do a big game rifle. I don't push the edges of shooting light as hard for predators as I do deer especially. I don't think any of the features will limit my effectiveness at close range enough to offset their benefit at longer range. Time will tell on that once I get to hunt with it. If I was to do all my predator hunting with only one rifle I'd probably go with the 3-12x, or maybe a different scope all together with a bigger field of view and less busy image for close shots. I have a 16" AR with a simple 2.5-10x I can carry when I know shots will be inside 200 yards that has a good power range and reticle for that type of hunting. I'll probably use this set-up much more often, especially in the late season, but having both is nice.
One place I don't see this scope being a big advantage is if you are shooting a really high velocity round and don't plan to shoot extreme range. Some of my bolt guns pushing a fairly light bullet hard just don't have enough drop to 350 yards to make this scope worth putting on them. If I'm shooting much past that I personally need to change shooting positions to something steadier to be confident of anchoring a coyote. My bipod set-up is very quick and forgiving to get on target, but it's not as steady as some of the other options I've used for big game. If I have the time to change shooting positions, I probably have time to use a separate rangefinder and dial elevation on a mechanical scope. For someone shooting say a 6mm Creedmoor with heavy bullets from a tripod with a saddle rest, this Burris might be perfect for you.
I'll update as I get more time behind the new Burris, but that's my thoughts for now. It isn't perfect, but I think it will be pretty slick for a lot of my hunting.