Burris XTR Pro or Zeiss S3

I have an XTR-III 5.5-30x56 SCR2 and a Zeiss S3 6-36x56... Both have great glass and good reticles. The Zeiss reticle is slightly thicker than the SCR2, and some say it's a bit too thick when zoomed all the way in, because it will cover the targets at long distances. Which I will admit, I do wish it was a bit thinner... I really love the SCR2 reticle. It's the perfect thickness and I like the layout. The turrets on the Zeiss are better, but they're really tall... So, that's something to consider. I really like my S3, but unless Ziess offers better reticle options (thinner lines) in the future, then I won't be buying another one. That's really the only thing I dislike about it...But that's the part you see and use the most. I would absolutely buy another XTR-III 5.5-30x56 SCR2.

Of those 2, I'd save the money on the XTR-Pro and just get an XTR-III... I've been told the Japanese glass is actually better in the XTR-III, than the Greeley, CO glass in the XTR-Pros. Don't know if that's true, just what I have heard. Other than the glass, and one being made in America, there really is no difference that I'm aware of between the XTR-III and XTR-Pro to justify the extra cost of the Pro.

I own a Pro and like it, but if I had to buy another from your two options I'd get the S3.

S3 is probably going to take the edge in "glass quality", and everyone who has ever compared the two seems to talk favorably this way. I also really dislike the red accents on the Pro. I thought I'd get used to it, but it has only gotten worse. Finally, my Pro has more slop in the elevation adjustment than my old XTR III does...it's repeatable, but not something a flagship line should brag about.

Some stuff I like about the Pro better: 12 mil per rev, tooless rezero turrets. The parallax is marked in distance. Plus you get an extra race dial turret.

I see no real advantage of the XTR Pro over XTR3. I love my XTR3 as it served me well this year on Bergara B14r. I think it also contributed to winning a TRS long range match last weekend with it.

S3. I prefer the thicker reticle compared to the SCR2. I actually felt the SCR2 was too thin in my XTR IIIs. I haven’t spent much time behind the pro to compare to the Zeiss, but the S3 glass is pretty phenomenal.
Neither one will hold you back, but my vote goes to Zeiss as I greatly prefer the reticle and the glass is outstanding.

I run an XTRIII with SCR2 in PRS22. There is a race dial available for it from Burris.

I heard great things on the S3 although I have not personally seen one yet.

Agreed with the post above. S3 is better all around than the PRO.
To my eyes the S3 is marginally better than the ATACR glass. With the possible exception of the 7-35 which seems better that the others to me.

NCStaccato said:

thanks for all the commits. Think I'll go with the S3. One last question for those of you that also have Atcar's and ZCO's as well . How does the S3's glass quality compare to them?

Thanks again!

Click to expand...

Hit me up at 916-628-3490 and we can get an S3 shipping to you this afternoon -Richard

If eyebox matters, go with the XTR Pro. If not, flip a coin, they're both very good.

NCStaccato said:

thanks for all the commits. Think I'll go with the S3. One last question for those of you that also have Atcar's and ZCO's as well . How does the S3's glass quality compare to them?

Thanks again!

Click to expand...

ZCO doesn’t compete with the S3…They’re not in the same ballpark. The ZCO will be noticeably better than the S3, but the price is also noticeably higher, too. If you got ZCO money, go ZCO.

ATACR F1 glass is pretty good…Not MSRP good, but if you get a good discount like the MIL/LEO/FR discount, it’s worth the money. I have an ATACR F1 5-25x56 MIL-XT, as well. I really like the MIL-XT reticle.

very similiar scopes. i choose the pro over the zeiss for 2 reasons.

one, tooless rezero is by far one of my fav features in a scope. i lose allens like a bad habit. love this

two and as a match directo maybe more important. i have never seen any zeiss stuff on a prize table. not once, on the other hand I have seen burris stuff at all 8 matches I shot this year. all of them.

support those who support us.

GL!
DT

I would go with the XTR Pro over the S3 because of the reticle options. Nothing wrong with the S3, but I like the feature set better on the Pro. If I were needing all of the elevation available in the S3 then it would definitely get the nod. Both are good solid scopes, just a bit different in the way I would use them if that makes any sense.

Rob01 said:

Zeiss sponsors matches. Look around.

ETA Had to find it but here is the announcement

ZEISS - 2024 AFFILIATE PARTNER OF THE PRS​

Precision Rifle Series| Press Releases

The Precision Rifle Series is the preeminent rifle organization in the world, structuring a yearly points race for both the PRS Pro Bolt Gun Series and the PRS Regional Series. The PRS Championship Shooting Series is synonymous with precision rifle shooting.

www.precisionrifleseries.com

Click to expand...

still havent seen any at the matches I shoot or did they respond to my match... and i wonder if its directly from zeiss or vendors that carry zeiss.

must be an east coast thing. out west there are no zeiss representation.

maybe only PRS gets the attention. gonna ask around also. i cant shoot all the matches!

glad to see it tho.


eta - just read the PRS link. looks like they are doing 10 prs matches! with rimfire as well. good on them.


so as I say with almost all scope questions, if over 1500$ get the one with the rect you like in your budget and be happy.

GL
DT

I'm still curious about the S3, and may get one in the next year or so. I was at this same point (XTR Pro vs S3) about a year ago, and went with the Pro based off of features. When I asked this same question here I got a lot of good feedback.

It is nice to see independent reviews on here from non-biased individuals who spent their hard earned money on both. I tried to watch a few reviews on YouTube of the S3 recently, but most of the ones from larger channels were obviously sponsored or affiliated.

Junk ass Burris, questionable QC, jankey customer service vs Zeiss quality and glass. There’s only 1 clear winner and it isn’t even close

I don't know if I'd go that far. My Pro did have the elevation adjustment come apart internally on me, but the scope was working fine until then. I got an RMA the following day after my inquiry, and I had my scope back to me in 3-4 weeks. I read the thread where a guy on here got treated poorly. I don't doubt it, but that wasn't my experience.

For ~$1,500 I don't think there is glass that beats it, and it'll do well enough against glass $1K more that you aren't going to get left behind in any style of competition.

Now the QC coming out of Greely...I might agree that it could be better.

River44 said:

Junk ass Burris, questionable QC, jankey customer service vs Zeiss quality and glass. There’s only 1 clear winner and it isn’t even close

Click to expand...

Somebody got butt hurt! Tell us all how you feel but I dont give a fuck.

Rob01 said:

Between those two the S3. The glass is better, reticle is better, and more elevation for rimfire shooting. I have had multiples of both and have had them side by side and used them in matches. The S3 reticle is about perfect. It is not too thick at all. It's dark and easy to see which some mistake for thick. It's an excellent reticle for holds.

The S3 turrets are not taller than the Pro. Below is a pic of them side by side. Neither is overly tall and they are easy to grab. The S3 is easier to read.

Get the S3 between the two. The Pro is a good scope but the S3 is better.

View attachment 8478947

View attachment 8478956

Click to expand...

Hey Rob01,
What scope caps do you have on that Zeiss?

Thanks,
Cuz

It seems like Burris has fairly frequent QC issues and iffy customer service, that alone would push me to Zeiss. I've ran into a few posts of unhappy experiences with Burris CS on various shooting forums. Seems like a lot of scopes get returned "meets factory specs" after having issues. A post above mentioned their Pro had way more knob slop/lash than their XTR 3, but we've had quite a few comment about having lash in their XTR 3 knobs too. My experience was the exact opposite, my XTR 3 had a bad windage dial, almost could not feel the clicks (Burris fixed on the first trip back by replacing a "pin") and enough lash to go half way between marks on the elevation dial that they wouldn't fix in two trips back, despite it being the reason it was sent in twice for repair. That said they did handle it fast, even though they didn't fix it, so if you had a failure they could not ignore they would probably handle it quickly.

Just had an awesome member here loan me his S3 4-25 to compare directly to my XTR Pro.

Only had it in hand for 2 minutes (just to make sure that the FedEx guys didn't Ace Ventura it the whole way here).

Initial thought: It compares pretty favorably right off the bat.

I'm going to have it for about a month or so and get to head-to-head with a couple other options in the same approximate price range. I'm limited to the Burris XTR III/Pro, Bushnell DMR2, Vortex Razor G3, and ATACR. Am curious about the Tract Toric as well, but will probably have to get one of those myself later down the road and check it out then.

I'm no pro at reviewing optics, but I know what is important to me and can at least structure a few sentences to convey my thoughts.

Played musical optics this afternoon after loosely mounting the S3 where my new ATACR calls home.



Ran it side-by-side with a G3 Razor and the XTR Pro. FWIW I really appreciate getting the opportunity to test this scope out. I'm still contemplating getting rid of the XTR Pro, and the S3 is on my short list for two different rifles.

Today was a great day to test humidity and mirage. I will continue to run these together in low light, rain and fog (if any), and into the sun in the mornings/evenings. I've got this S3 for a little bit, so I should get plenty of time for most conditions.

Right off the bat, I'm impartial to the ZF-MRi reticle vs the SCR2. I definitely think that the SCR2 is going to be preferred by guys who shoot at little bullseyes more, while the ZF-MRi is probably going to be faster to acquire for the crowd that favors PRS etc... If you forced me to live with either, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I really like the EBR-7D for target shooting, and it us probably my current favorite reticle.

I've actually already recorded some videos on the turrets, parallax, and magnification adjustments. I even included the older U. S. made XTR III as mine doesn't suck near as much as someone else's. I'll eventually put all of them together and post a shitty video on it. For now, the guys who like it when you can hear them dial from 10 yards away - will like the G3 Razor the best. I'll also add that the Razor is the most tactile, and the parallax and magnification adjustments are the smoothest*. Basically tied in the parallax and magnification ring arena with the Razor is the S3. It is extremely smooth and nice. The elevation adjustment is very nice too, better than the XTR Pro. However, the tactile feel of the windage in the S3 is even with the Pro, and there is some noticeable play (I got it on video) in the windage knob of the S3 when you unlock it. The Pro had noticeable slop in the elevation - not sure if that has anything to do with the removable drums or not, but it also has the least positive detents...even worse than my XTR III. However the windage adjustments are even in their feel and sound with the S3.

The S3 has much easier parallax and magnification adjustment than the Pro for the samples I have on hand.

*** Here's where I randomly throw in that the included lens caps (at least I'm assuming) of the S3 blow the Pro (Butler Creek cheapies) out of the water. If these were added after the fact by the owner, I'll correct this part. They're better than the Vortex ones too.

The XTR Pro and III have locking diopters. I am a big fan of that. Doing stuff like putting a Triggercam on the back of your scope a lot will screw with your quick-adjust diopters. I'm also a big fan of yardage on the parallax...not because it is ever that accurate, but because it gives me an easier reference point to start fine tuning .

HIGH HEAT AND HUMIDITY

Focusing on cows at 150 yards, I really didn't see as much of a difference when switching back and forth between the S3 and Pro. I'll definitely give the contrast to the S3 though as there was certainly more definition in the colors, while the Pro had a slightly warmer look to it. I left all optics on 25x (the max of this S3). Unfortunately that means that the exit pupil disadvantage will go to the S3, but there really wasn't any discernable difference in the heat of the afternoon.

I started to try to make out bark patterns on a tree at 200 yards, and noticed that the parallax on this S3 is picky. There is definitely a smaller window where everything is in proper focus. As a matter of fact, when I did my crappy through the scope photos of that mossy trunk, I actually didn't have the S3 in focus well at all. I thought I was as good as I could get at the time. Here's where I prefer the XTR Pro over the S3.

The Razor G3 was actually a "clear" winner here. I was really surprised. It wasn't night and day...but it is absolutely noticeably clearer, and has equal contrast with the S3. I remember doing this same test with my Razor and buddy's S&B PMII 5-25, and how close they were. Vortex really did a good job on these (although stories of failures are seemingly higher than some other manufacturers).

My crappy cell phone camera doesn't do it justice, but it does reflect the differences my eye was seeing.

Razor G3


LRP S3


XTR Pro



If anything, maybe the above photos will at least show how well you will pick up the reticle in a complex background. The S3 wins here over everyone hands down.

It is way too early to tell, but I'm liking the S3 a lot. I should probably also mention that my Pro's elevation adjustment shit the bed on me and had to go back to Greeley for repairs. As such, my confidence isn't as high in it.

I'll also mention that I paid $1,400 for my Pro new, and an S3 will cost me $4-500 more...just like my Razor ran me $2,400. It is a $1K window, so I wouldn't expect equal performance.

So far, glass and most of the adjustments are in favor of the S3. However, the Pro is no slouch and has a few better features.

We'll see how I feel after some harsher condition testing.

Nice eval, the more of these posts we see the more it shows that there's a way more sample to sample variation in the Burris products than there every should be. For example my XTR Pro has been great, and optically it's noticeably better than my non-USA XTR 3. I will say the clicks are pretty solid/positive on the XTR 3, more-so than my XTR pro, but my XTR has no obvious lash in either dial, while my XTR 3 has a huge amount of slop in the elevation that Burris did not fix twice, and needed parts replaced in the windage dial new out of the box. The only issue I noted on my Pro was that the elevation zero stop "cam" was cranked down WAY too tight from the factory, so much so it was binding the elevation knob during rotation in spots. The cam has if I remember right 3 in/lb marked on that and it was WAY tighter than that, I have a 4 in/lb fix it stick I use on scope adjustments quite a bit, and after using that it was fine.

In your photos above it's interesting that the S3 and XTR Pro images are quite a bit sharper toward the bottom of the field of view than the center, where the G3 is more even, I'm not sure parallax would account for that. Also you probably know this but for others that might not and are reading this thread be careful when adjusting parallax for "focus" you really want to verify that the reticle is not moving. Often even with nice scopes the best parallax free setting at a particular yardage is not always the most "in focus" setting though it's usually very close and often good enough for a rough/quick setting. It's a great display of how well the thicker reticle sticks out though from the background and as you said the S3 is a clear winner there.

It's too bad we don't see more comparisons using optical charts, but one of the big problems with scopes versus say camera lenses, or spotting scopes is that how clear the image/reticle looks is a function of not just the parallax but the diopter and if they are not both set consistently, which is really hard on some scopes esp. those with too fine or too coarse an adjustment, the image just won't "look" right.

Interesting, I admit I just assumed it was thicker due to it's darker nature. If it's not thicker, what causes it to be so much darker than the others?

ToddM said:

In your photos above it's interesting that the S3 and XTR Pro images are quite a bit sharper toward the bottom of the field of view than the center, where the G3 is more even, I'm not sure parallax would account for that. Also you probably know this but for others that might not and are reading this thread be careful when adjusting parallax for "focus" you really want to verify that the reticle is not moving. Often even with nice scopes the best parallax free setting at a particular yardage is not always the most "in focus" setting though it's usually very close and often good enough for a rough/quick setting. It's a great display of how well the thicker reticle sticks out though from the background and as you said the S3 is a clear winner there.

Click to expand...

The sharpness of the image in any part of the scope is simply going to be due to operator error holding the camera behind the optic. There is nothing scientific about the stuff that I do...especially in a one-time scope comparison where I see no need to build anything fancy like optical charts or tracking targets.

I'll save that for the guys that really enjoy doing this, or wish to get some kind of monetary/equipment reimbursement for their time.

I'm just a dude to wants to know if it is worth selling one optic to buy another.

I tried to get as good a photo of how the reticles look like against a small target. The dots are 3/4" @ 100 yards.

I didn't bring out the Razor G3, as in my mind the "glass" and reticle are noticeably better to the point where guys who want that next step up from these are willing to shell out the additional $500+.

* I'm convinced at this point that my crappy cell camera isn't compatible with the S3 in its ability to get a clear photo. What my eye sees is more defined than what the picture states.

^ That being said; I had both of these out for 20 minutes just a bit ago again, and I'm not seeing any clarity advantage against natural backgrounds...BUT...the S3 definitely shows more contrast to my eye. Maybe I'm not stating that correctly, so I'll put it this way: No difference in detectable definition of items like leaves, plants, dirt, or fence posts - but the colors are more "rich" in the S3.

Regarding the reticles here; my preference for the SCR2 on small paper targets (and probably steel too) still stands. As does for the ease of getting the parallax just right on the Pro. However, these are simply personal preferences and I would expect the next guy to disagree.




I'm going to go back out and look at a tree at 250 yards this evening about 15 minutes after sundown, and I'll do it again tomorrow morning about 20 minutes before sunup (especially because the sun will be in my eyes). Will play with the illumination while I'm at it too.

Might have to wait a few weeks for some inclement weather.

Rob01 said:

Well you are turning a 36x scope(Gen 3) down to 25x and maxing out a 25x scope so of course it's going to look better. Take the 6-36 S3 and put it on 25x and 36x near the Gen 3 and you will not see much if any difference and I thought the S3 was better but they are basically a push. Even turning down a 30x(Pro) to 25x will not really give a fair representation when comparing to a 25x max scope.

Click to expand...

I can't run any of my optics above 25x for about 5-6 months out of the year (unless I'm checking mirage), so I don't see this comparison as being as much of a practical disadvantage as you apparently do. Frequently I'm shooting at 18-20x, and that is why I am more interested in the 4-25 than I am the 6-36. I'd compare them all at 20 power, but then I'd be committing the same error...which would also negate a fair 6-36 S3 vs XTR Pro comparison as well if we went by this rule.

Either way, I like the S3 and probably more than the Pro, but I'm not ready to put it right up with the Razor G3 yet. Maybe my mind will change, but I see the Razor G3 and ATACR being a few percentage points up the ladder from the S3 and Pro.

I have 2 pro’s, mainly because of the 1/4 mil spacing and fine reticle. Makes me able to see my misses and trace better.

If you guys compare them to the razor g3 and the s3 I’d like to know where one can get either of these two for $1.4K ? That’s how much my last pro was. Thanks.

Arguing with aging dudes who wear corrective lenses and are a decade or two away from cataracts surgery about "glass" quality, and whether one of us sees it the same as the other is pointless. I'm not far off from fitting this statement as well, but very damn few of us possess the eyesight to see things well enough that any observations are anything other than subjective.

So you either take what the other guy's opinion is based on what he sees, or you don't. I'm certainly not worried about how anybody else sees through these. This is my test to see if I am going to buy an S3, two S3s, or none.

I'm sharing what I'm seeing. If you don't like it, save yourself 2 minutes and scroll on.

Did low-light testing both yesterday evening and this morning.

I included my old Bushy DMR2 in this test because that is one of the scopes I am looking to upgrade first. I hate saying that too, as that old girl has been a workhorse. Never lost zero, always repeatable, reticle is easy to pick up etc... Probably have 40-50 coyotes under her belt.

I put all three scopes (DMR2, S3, and XTR Pro) on my shooting bench and focused them on my 250 yard tree while I waited for the light to get low enough to make a difference. I was also able to check out the treeline at 340 yards, and the cows and calves that wandered around at ~125 yards.



All scopes were set to 16x, or at least as close to what I thought 16x was on the Bushnell. I also tested the Pro at 18x in addition to 16x as that would make the exit pupil about equal to the S3 and DMR2.

At what would be last shooting light - The DMR2 is noticeably behind the other two in gathering light...like you will be losing a few minutes of capable hunting light versus the Pro and S3. However, the G3 reticle of the DMR2 (not to be confused with the G3 Razor optic) is just about as dark as the S3's, making it easier to pick up than the SCR2 of the XTR Pro. The DMR2 also has a lot more of a fishbowl effect around the edges...this was not something that I'd ever really paid attention to until doing a head-to-head, but it exists.

You will not lose the ZF-MRi reticle of the S3 in low-light conditions, and if you somehow end up where you can't see it (you'd be shooting in illegal hunting times) the illumination is stupidly bright. I probably wouldn't run it on anything higher than 1 or 2 for killing critters to keep from obscuring the target. The ZF-MRi reticle darkness and thickness are about perfect for this kind of situation...but I still find the reticle a bit busy because of the height/width of the subtension lines. This is a personal thing, and if given the choice of this or the Pro's SCR2, I'll gladly take the S3's ZF-MRi. I also much prefer how well the illumination works in the S3 at the scope's minimum magnification. None of these optics are what I'd run for sitting in a tree stand, but the ZF-MRi would make the transition the easiest (at least the 4x...I can't speak on the 6x).

Where I find the SCR2 better for shooting paper, I find that it falls a little behind here until you turn the illumination on. Once the reticle is lit up, the disadvantage goes away. However, I'd rather run the ZF-MRi reticle on a hunting rifle because I'd rather not have to rely on the illumination working.

As far as light gathering in the morning - the continued daylight trend of the S3 showing more contrast continued. It makes more of a difference here though as I would be more willing to take that shot during questionable light with the S3 than I would the Pro. If there was a brightness advantage to the image between the Zeiss and Burris, I'd give it to the S3 by about 1%. Unfortunately for the old Bushnell, looking towards the sunrise this morning really made it apparent the handicap I'd been putting myself through. It was almost like looking through an old glass vase with a layer of dust on it. The eyebox became much tighter too before that layer of dust started to look like a layer of dirty water. The reticle was still just as visible as the S3, but that doesn't matter when you can't see what you are trying to place it on. This was the most apparent disparity that I've seen between any of these optics at this point.

I could also make out a really feint redish glow around the outside of the image in the S3 when the sun crested the trees and was head-on to the scopes. I am guessing that this came from the lens coatings. Does it make it less effective during that ~30 minute window? Probably not, but how annoying that is will depend on the shooter. I'm sure they make sunshades somewhere for it.

All-in-all, I certainly wouldn't choose the XTR Pro for a hunting rig anyway...that is not what it was designed for. I do kill quite a bit of stuff around the ranch though, and having the capability to crawl out on the porch and shoot something as soon as it gets light enough to see is something that I need in a scope. I give the advantage to the S3 over the XTR Pro here, but more for the reticle than what I perceive as "glass quality". I did not observe at any point with the reticles illuminated a condition where I would take a shot with one scope, but not the other. Both are noticeably better than the Bushnell DMR2 that I had been running for many years (and apparently need to upgrade soon).