Rifle Scopes Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50 mini review and comparison to Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50

[beetroot]

Yes, I had a pretty good conversation about the direction Burris was going with LPVOs. With the cancelation of the RT8, they pretty much removed themselves from the market for a while.

My push was for a 1-10×28 XTR3. They already had a 28mm objective tube design in the XTRII 1.5-8×28. At least get us an 8x.

What came up as a limiting factor is the fact that $1k and up LPVOs is a very small market. The 8x XTRII was a very nice LPVO, but it never really blew out. They sell 20 full size scopes for every one of those,, if not more.. the NX8, the Kahles, the more expensive LPVOs just don't sell at a brisk pace. They are a very niche market. I think Burris has gotten to where they are by selling a high quality, feature rich optic, at a great price, great value.

So I'm not sure what they are going to do yet.

Interesting that the high end LVPO market is that small, wouldn't have guessed it based on every other manufacturer.

Maybe Burris could do a 2.5-14x36 / 2.2-12x36 type scope instead, with the super wide FOV it would be like the 1.5-8 on steroids.
If they could use all of 7x erector and make a 2-14 that would be bloody cool!

No idea if anyone else would buy one but if they did a mini tree SCR2/EBR-9 combined type reticle I certainly would!

 

[JDB55]

Interesting that the high end LVPO market is that small, wouldn't have guessed it based on every other manufacturer.

Maybe Burris could do a 2.5-14x36 / 2.2-12x36 type scope instead, with the super wide FOV it would be like the 1.5-8 on steroids.
If they could use all of 7x erector and make a 2-14 that would be bloody cool!

No idea if anyone else would buy one but if they did a mini tree SCR2/EBR-9 combined type reticle I certainly would!

Great idea. I would equally purchase one, and if anyone knows a quality one similar let me know and I'll buy that one haha

 

[koshkin]

High end LPVO market is not that small and it is growing. However, it has a few very strong competitors, so Burris/Steiner have to decide where exactly they want to play.

Personally, I think, that they will have to come out with a 1-7x28 FFP LPVO as a part of the XTR3 line eventually. The big question is with the type of reticle illumination to use and how to price it. Given that excellent FOV is the outstanding feature of the existing XTR3 scopes, it will have to carryover to the LPVO. I am confident they can pull it off. Price-wise, if they can come out with such a design that is assembled in the US and retails for under $1500, it will sell well. I am not sure if I would necessarily push for the 1-10x. If they compete base don magnification ratio, they are playing on someone else's terms.

For the sub-$1k market, they will have to come up with an RT model of some sort, but that will be an OEM product of some sort and there are tons of options there.

ILya

 

[JDB55]

High end LPVO market is not that small and it is growing. However, it has a few very strong competitors, so Burris/Steiner have to decide where exactly they want to play.

Personally, I think, that they will have to come out with a 1-7x28 FFP LPVO as a part of the XTR3 line eventually. The big question is with the type of reticle illumination to use and how to price it. Given that excellent FOV is the outstanding feature of the existing XTR3 scopes, it will have to carryover to the LPVO. I am confident they can pull it off. Price-wise, if they can come out with such a design that is assembled in the US and retails for under $1500, it will sell well. I am not sure if I would necessarily push for the 1-10x. If they compete base don magnification ratio, they are playing on someone else's terms.

For the sub-$1k market, they will have to come up with an RT model of some sort, but that will be an OEM product of some sort and there are tons of options there.

ILya

I agree with this 100%, I think the LPVO market is only going to grow from here as people transition from red dots to them. Not saying red dots aren't relevant at all, but the LPVOs perks are going to continue to be seen and sought. The military transitioning to them will, I believe, convince many who have been unwilling to go that way to try it and will help drive the market. Just my 2 cents, I don't know much. Haha.

 

[Mike_in_FL]

What came up as a limiting factor is the fact that $1k and up LPVOs is a very small market. The 8x XTRII was a very nice LPVO, but it never really blew out.

I would ask Burris if that's what they truly believe or it was the fact that the bottom end was 1.5 rather than a true 1.0.

 

[Mike_in_FL]

They already had a 28mm objective tube design in the XTRII 1.5-8×28.

Thanks for the clarification but you tricked me with this. The XTRII 1-8 is/was x24, not 28. So you were asking to produce a 34mm 1-10x? Or am I still confused, lol.

 

[Glassaholic]

I recently obtained another NX8 2.5-20x50 Nightforce scope and this "new" version does not exhibit any of the edge distortion that was prevalent in my original copy, in fact, the differences are so great I almost feel like NF changed their optical formula, it felt like two different scopes. This was either a QC issue that my early model had, or this is representative of some pretty significant sample variance. This would also explain why some NX8 2.5-20 users have declared their scopes to be similar to my original copy (significant edge distortion) while others have not had this issue.

In lieu of this "new" observation and based on the latest NX8 model, I am inclined to say that the NX8 now offers more viable competition for the XTR III; however, with the recent price drop and added illumination, the XTR IIIi continues to offer greater value due to a much lower price point. That being said, I feel the latest NX8 models offer performance justified by their price as compared to the competition at this price. And for the new XTR IIIi, if the scope holds up to the same quality as the original will offer a value that is unmatched at its price point.

 

[Jcaplinger199]

I recently obtained another NX8 2.5-20x50 Nightforce scope and this "new" version does not exhibit any of the edge distortion that was prevalent in my original copy, in fact, the differences are so great I almost feel like NF changed their optical formula, it felt like two different scopes. This was either a QC issue that my early model had, or this is representative of some pretty significant sample variance. This would also explain why some NX8 2.5-20 users have declared their scopes to be similar to my original copy (significant edge distortion) while others have not had this issue.

In lieu of this "new" observation and based on the latest NX8 model, I am inclined to say that the NX8 now offers more viable competition for the XTR III; however, with the recent price drop and added illumination, the XTR IIIi continues to offer greater value due to a much lower price point. That being said, I feel the latest NX8 models offer performance justified by their price as compared to the competition at this price. And for the new XTR IIIi, if the scope holds up to the same quality as the original will offer a value that is unmatched at its price point.

How is the eyebox on this “new version” ? Same.?
Building another rifle that is a more traditional rifle with Mcmillian HTG Hawkins bdl with fixed comb. I want a good scope under 2k I can get behind easily and I realize I may still have to a stock pack. I feel a 30mm tube will help keep it lower to the bore. I love my NX8 4-32 but that rifle has an adjustable cheek riser. This makes me want to try the 2.5-20 but the eyebox comments people have made concern me.

 

[beetroot]

How is the eyebox on this “new version” ? Same.?
Building another rifle that is a more traditional rifle with Mcmillian HTG Hawkins bdl with fixed comb. I want a good scope under 2k I can get behind easily and I realize I may still have to a stock pack. I feel a 30mm tube will help keep it lower to the bore. I love my NX8 4-32 but that rifle has an adjustable cheek riser. This makes me want to try the 2.5-20 but the eyebox comments people have made concern me.

Tube size won't make a difference to mount height, 34mm rings come in low heights by many manufacturers, certainly low enough to mount a 50mm objective scope as low as practical.

 

[Glassaholic]

How is the eyebox on this “new version” ? Same.?
Building another rifle that is a more traditional rifle with Mcmillian HTG Hawkins bdl with fixed comb. I want a good scope under 2k I can get behind easily and I realize I may still have to a stock pack. I feel a 30mm tube will help keep it lower to the bore. I love my NX8 4-32 but that rifle has an adjustable cheek riser. This makes me want to try the 2.5-20 but the eyebox comments people have made concern me.

Like most scopes it’s more forgiving at lower magnifications and gets tighter as you increase, I can’t say for certain it was any different from my original. With proper fundamentals you should be okay, but if you think you’ll be out of position a lot then I might steer you to the XTR III.

 

[Jcaplinger199]

Like most scopes it’s more forgiving at lower magnifications and gets tighter as you increase, I can’t say for certain it was any different from my original. With proper fundamentals you should be okay, but if you think you’ll be out of position a lot then I might steer you to the XTR III.

Just curious If scope weight and xtr3 cost for the illuminated model were not an issue would you go xtr3 or razor g2 3-18?

 

[RFutch]

I recently obtained another NX8 2.5-20x50 Nightforce scope and this "new" version does not exhibit any of the edge distortion that was prevalent in my original copy, in fact, the differences are so great I almost feel like NF changed their optical formula, it felt like two different scopes. This was either a QC issue that my early model had, or this is representative of some pretty significant sample variance. This would also explain why some NX8 2.5-20 users have declared their scopes to be similar to my original copy (significant edge distortion) while others have not had this issue.

In lieu of this "new" observation and based on the latest NX8 model, I am inclined to say that the NX8 now offers more viable competition for the XTR III; however, with the recent price drop and added illumination, the XTR IIIi continues to offer greater value due to a much lower price point. That being said, I feel the latest NX8 models offer performance justified by their price as compared to the competition at this price. And for the new XTR IIIi, if the scope holds up to the same quality as the original will offer a value that is unmatched at its price point.

What made you try another one out?

 

[Glassaholic]

What made you try another one out?

A friend had one and kept talking about how good it was so I asked if I could check it out and he said “sure”, mostly it was my own curiosity as I know sample variance tends to play a bigger factor in “cheaper” scopes. In hindsight I ought to have sent my original scope back to Nightforce and asked “is this scope okay?” Live and learn, would have been curious how NF would have responded.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

A friend had one and kept talking about how good it was so I asked if I could check it out and he said “sure”, mostly it was my own curiosity as I know sample variance tends to play a bigger factor in “cheaper” scopes. In hindsight I ought to have sent my original scope back to Nightforce and asked “is this scope okay?” Live and learn, would have been curious how NF would have responded.

With an NDA.

 

[Glassaholic]

With an NDA.

No, the friend is on the Hide. Many of you would know him, he’s especially prominent in the NV and thermal world, username starts with Wig and ends with itus @wigwamitus

 

[RFutch]

I played with a 4-32 today at the range. It was noticeably better than my XTR3. I think it might be my next scope.

 

[Glassaholic]

I played with a 4-32 today at the range. It was noticeably better than my XTR3. I think it might be my next scope.

The 4-32 range doesn’t excite me very much, at least not with a 50mm objective, but it’s design parameters are more conducive to being more forgiving all around vs the 2.5-20

 

[Wysongdog]

I played with a 4-32 today at the range. It was noticeably better than my XTR3. I think it might be my next scope.

What made it stand out for it to be your next scope? I’ve been trying to decide between these 2 for a couple months now to put on my 22 trainer.

 

[RFutch]

Basically a step up in glass over my XTR3, Razor, and NXS without spending ATACR money. I really like the Mil-C reticle.

The XTR3 is still great though especially for a 22.

 

[RFutch]

I just don’t like the reticles in the Pro but yes that’s another option.

 

[Wysongdog]

Too many good options. Lol. What a problem to have.

 

[aaronk]

I picked up an XTR III in 3.3-18x based largely on this review and Camera Land’s killer deal. Optically quality has been a huge disappointment though, my sample is pretty bad. Something seemed strange when I had to set the parallax to well over 200 yds when sighting in at 100 yds. I could get rid of all the parallax, but the image was not especially clear. I tried re-focusing the reticle and it didn’t help. I notice that the manufacturers print on the plywood that was outside the center of the reticle seemed much clearer then my target in the center, strange.

After sighting in I headed for some clear cuts to stretch it out a bit more. The image clarity still felt out of focus, the picture didn’t have much contrast and was very flat. Chromatic aberration is also pretty bad, I can live with it in a scope, but usually I don’t notice it unless I’m looking for it, it really jumps out at you through the Burris though.

I’m going to give Burris a call on Monday. Something has to be wrong with my sample as I’ve looked through or own the glass that a lot of people say the XTR hangs with and I wouldn’t even mention it in the same sentence as those scopes. At least it tracked solid.

 

[st1650]

I’ve never looked through a XTR III but I was really impressed with the XTR Pro. I know it’s a sample of one and it might have been hand picked for a social media “influencer” but I was really impressed- a definite notch above the Razor Gen 2

 

[Glassaholic]

I picked up an XTR III in 3.3-18x based largely on this review and Camera Land’s killer deal. Optically quality has been a huge disappointment though, my sample is pretty bad. Something seemed strange when I had to set the parallax to well over 200 yds when sighting in at 100 yds. I could get rid of all the parallax, but the image was not especially clear. I tried re-focusing the reticle and it didn’t help. I notice that the manufacturers print on the plywood that was outside the center of the reticle seemed much clearer then my target in the center, strange.

After sighting in I headed for some clear cuts to stretch it out a bit more. The image clarity still felt out of focus, the picture didn’t have much contrast and was very flat. Chromatic aberration is also pretty bad, I can live with it in a scope, but usually I don’t notice it unless I’m looking for it, it really jumps out at you through the Burris though.

I’m going to give Burris a call on Monday. Something has to be wrong with my sample as I’ve looked through or own the glass that a lot of people say the XTR hangs with and I wouldn’t even mention it in the same sentence as those scopes. At least it tracked solid.

I agree with birddog, unfortunately your copy sounds very similar to the very first copy I had which I sent back to Burris. I just sent in my 5.5-30 to get the magnification loosened up a bit (which they did not do, simply said it was within speck and sent it back) and the turn around time was right around two weeks. You might also contact Doug at Cameralandny, he's a good guy and if you haven't shot the scope he may be willing to accept a return and replace with another unit, at least worth a call. I realize it is a real pain but hopefully Burris will take care of you like they did me when they first began shipping the scopes. Having read my review you've already played around with the diopter, it was really finicky on my 3.3-18 and I had to spend a lot of time getting it just right, but if you'd done all that and it's still underperforming I'd say send back to Burris.

 

[aaronk]

I agree with birddog, unfortunately your copy sounds very similar to the very first copy I had which I sent back to Burris. I just sent in my 5.5-30 to get the magnification loosened up a bit (which they did not do, simply said it was within speck and sent it back) and the turn around time was right around two weeks. You might also contact Doug at Cameralandny, he's a good guy and if you haven't shot the scope he may be willing to accept a return and replace with another unit, at least worth a call. I realize it is a real pain but hopefully Burris will take care of you like they did me when they first began shipping the scopes. Having read my review you've already played around with the diopter, it was really finicky on my 3.3-18 and I had to spend a lot of time getting it just right, but if you'd done all that and it's still underperforming I'd say send back to Burris.

I'm going to spend a little more time playing with it before I give up. I had the gun up in the tripod last night and was playing around with the parallax and diopter focus some more, seemed slightly better. It's on a hunting gun, so I'm not spending a ton of time behind the glass on this particular gun as opposed to my match rifle. I really like everything else about the scope and it seems to track solid and return to zero, so I'm almost willing to give up a little image quality but know that it's functionally solid. That and mounting scopes and zeroing rifles is my absolute least favorite thing to do

 

[Twistid]

Natchez had some of these for $800. Fingers crossed I didn't get a turd

 

[Glassaholic]

Natchez had some of these for $800. Fingers crossed I didn't get a turd

I saw that, great price if you don't need illumination. Keep in mind the parallax, turrets and/or mag ring can be pretty tight on these units, but glass should impress for the price.

 

[headwind]

Anyone know what prevented Burris from putting Made in USA on the pre illuminated models?

 

[Glassaholic]

Anyone know what prevented Burris from putting Made in USA on the pre illuminated models?

There are many rules around "Made in USA", the Greeley XTR III's are "Assembled in USA" from parts obtained outside the USA, I forget what portion of parts were actually made in Greeley. @Birddog6424 likely remembers.

 

[headwind]

Bill is right. There are a lot of rules surrounding a Made in the USA moniker. I'm pretty sure that Burris could have gotten away with it, Leupold has for years. They toyed with putting Made in Colorado tags on them, but also decided against that as well.

The American made XTRIII/Pro are VERY largely American made. There are some bulk screws that are outsourced that go in lots of different scopes and optics. The glass is sourced from Japan and the reticles are laser etched in Greeley. Everything else is made from scratch in Greeley. I've been through the plant and watched A to Z scope production on XTR Pros. Leupold operates the same way.

Wow, awesome pictures. I didn't know they milled out the tubes from such heavy stock. That's a lot of material.

 

[jb0311]

@Glassaholic I see a 2017ish review on the bushnell dmrII, wondering if you’ve had the DMRIII and if so thoughts vs the Xtr III? I really like the G4P reticle on the bushnell, just wish the center dot was illum. Otherwise the two seem pretty close in specs and price.

 

[Glassaholic]

@Glassaholic I see a 2017ish review on the bushnell dmrII, wondering if you’ve had the DMRIII and if so thoughts vs the Xtr III? I really like the G4P reticle on the bushnell, just wish the center dot was illum. Otherwise the two seem pretty close in specs and price.

I have not had the DMR III or Pro, the FOV is very limited on the DMR series and for that reason I began to lose interest in them as an option, I think they are great scopes otherwise, but they could use an optical formula update with a wider angle eyepiece to really benefit. Many 4x (at bottom mag) scopes have wider FOV and even some 4.5x scopes. For the price, I think the XTR IIIi 3.3-18x50 offers a better design as the DMR wasn't particularly spectacular at high magnification I feel the greater FOV of the XTR IIIi more than makes up for this, but you have to like the reticles that Burris offers. My first XTR III was lacking optically and I sent it back in, the replacement Burris sent was stellar even at 18x so I would say if you get an XTR III that you feel doesn't perform really well then it might be worth a trip to Greeley.

EDIT: For clarity, when I mention DMR III or Pro above, I meant the DMR Pro and not the XTR Pro.

 

[jb0311]

I have not had the DMR III or Pro, the FOV is very limited on the DMR series and for that reason I began to lose interest in them as an option, I think they are great scopes otherwise, but they could use an optical formula update with a wider angle eyepiece to really benefit. Many 4x (at bottom mag) scopes have wider FOV and even some 4.5x scopes. For the price, I think the XTR IIIi 3.3-18x50 offers a better design as the DMR wasn't particularly spectacular at high magnification I feel the greater FOV of the XTR IIIi more than makes up for this, but you have to like the reticles that Burris offers. My first XTR III was lacking optically and I sent it back in, the replacement Burris sent was stellar even at 18x so I would say if you get an XTR III that you feel doesn't perform really well then it might be worth a trip to Greeley.

always appreciated

 

[R_A_W]

The Pro is so close to the clarity of the ATACR glass it's hard to pick a winner. And has a larger eyebox than the NX8, more forgiving parallax and DOF. Better glass and features. Better value for your money.

This was surprising to read. How does the Pro handle mirage beyond 1,000yds?

eta - at 15x, 20x, 25x?

 

[R_A_W]

That's the strength of the Pro. The clarity in mirage is quite good. Thats where it leaves the MK5 and the NX8 in the dust. Same for the GenIII Razor. Compare them on a day with no mirage and I give the nod to the Razor. Get them out in mirage and they are sixes.

Haha the Gen3 Razor part even more surprising to me - I really like the quality of glass the Gen3 Razor has, although I've only used once (<300yds). It hasn't heated up enough to get a feel for how the XTR3 will handle mirage, but I think the NX8 may have a slight edge @ higher magnification. TBD.

Guess I'll need to get behind a Pro at some point. Very cool behind the scenes pics, btw.

 

[supercorndogs]

No kidding! A solid aluminum bar turned down to a scope tube. There's a LOT of material hitting the floor.

Luckily they gather it all back up and recycle it.

It was very cool watching them assemble the optics in the clean room. It's an assembly line process where it goes from one technician to the next, everyone adding a component. The last stop is the pic with the heat lamps, that person glues the objective into place, checks the optical performance through an open window, and places them under a heat lamp.

It's fun to watch the process.

I have a picture of the window where they checked the first XTRIIs.

 

[Itsadryheat]

Based on this review I picked up a XTR iii 3-18 scr2 with illumination for a Larue 6.5 should be a good combo

 

[Jnull]

I’m hoping @Glassaholic woudlnt mind sharing his opinion as he has experience with all of these. I’m looking for a crossover but mostly hunting, can be woods or open fields/woods with shots from 10-500 yards.

These are the scopes I’m considering
-XTR3i 3.3-18 SCR2
-NX8 2.5-20 MIL-C or MIL-XT
-March FX shuriken 4.5-28x52 TR1 or PDKI

I get none of these are even close cost wise with the March being 3x the cost of the XTR3 street price (Liberty), I’m not real worried about that. My biggest concern is usable reticles at the lowest magnification, is the thicker SCR2 illuminated usable at 3.3x? I really like the March TR1 but marches website pictures on low power make me think like it’s not a good option where the PDKI looks like it would be fine on 4.5x. The NX8 is in last place, I have a 4-32 MIL-XT and it’s fine for what it is but the March and Burris are probably better options. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[R_A_W]

I’m hoping @Glassaholic woudlnt mind sharing his opinion as he has experience with all of these. I’m looking for a crossover but mostly hunting, can be woods or open fields/woods with shots from 10-500 yards.

These are the scopes I’m considering
-XTR3i 3.3-18 SCR2
-NX8 2.5-20 MIL-C or MIL-XT
-March FX shuriken 4.5-28x52 TR1 or PDKI

You ought to take a look at the NF 4-16x42mm ATACR

 

[koshkin]

I have the illuminated XTR3i 3.3-18x50 and XTR Pro 5.5-30x56 at the moment.
It takes me a good amount of time to start releasing impressions, but I am pretty much getting there not that I have spent some time with both.
I think Burris did very well with these.

ILya

 

[Jnull]

How usable would you guys say the SCR2 is on 3.3x?

 

[Itsadryheat]

That⁰ll treat you great. I have an 18x on my 6.5 gasser..

I have it installed, been doing some comparison between a ATACR 4-16 and the XTRiii 3-18, I don’t know about durability or tracking of the optic but for the price point it’s impressive. I have one gripe and that’s the parallax knob is pretty stiff, maybe it will work in a bit after some use. I should be able to take it out and sight it in this Sunday.

 

[FuhQ]

@Glassaholic and @koshkin what are your thoughts on the new production Burris XTR-II 5-25x50 SCR FFP reticle with the 34mm tube?

EuroOptic has them on sale for $650 right now, and I bought 2 of them to replace some cheaper quality scopes, like the Arkens and Vortex HS-T's in my lineup. How is the glass and CA, and what would you say it's comparable to? I haven't looked through a Burris scope in years, so I have no idea on the new stuff. Just curious yall's thoughts. If they're good quality, I will probably buy more to replace most of the other inexpensive scopes and start selling off the cheaper stuff just to get rid of it.

 

[Faronth]

This thread might be worth a read.

Rifle Scopes - Burris XTR II

I talked a friend of mine into buying his first rifle, he got a new RPR in 6.5 creed, and he's looking to me for advice on a scope. His budget is around 1k, most of my stuff is top tier, so I don't have a lot of experience with scopes in the price range he has to spend. My research has me...

www.snipershide.com

 

[Jnull]

This thread might be worth a read.

Rifle Scopes - Burris XTR II

I talked a friend of mine into buying his first rifle, he got a new RPR in 6.5 creed, and he's looking to me for advice on a scope. His budget is around 1k, most of my stuff is top tier, so I don't have a lot of experience with scopes in the price range he has to spend. My research has me...

www.snipershide.com

The last post in that thread was in 2017, years before the XTR III came out.

 

[Faronth]

If you look I believe FhuQ was asking about XTR II's. Was trying to help him out with some info.

 

[Jnull]

If you look I believe FhuQ was asking about XTR II's. Was trying to help him out with some info.

The village idiot is on my ignore list so I don’t see or care about what his dumbass posts.

 

[koshkin]

@Glassaholic and @koshkin what are your thoughts on the new production Burris XTR-II 5-25x50 SCR FFP reticle with the 34mm tube?

EuroOptic has them on sale for $650 right now, and I bought 2 of them to replace some cheaper quality scopes, like the Arkens and Vortex HS-T's in my lineup. How is the glass and CA, and what would you say it's comparable to? I haven't looked through a Burris scope in years, so I have no idea on the new stuff. Just curious yall's thoughts. If they're good quality, I will probably buy more to replace most of the other inexpensive scopes and start selling off the cheaper stuff just to get rid of it.

If you already bought them, why are you asking? you should be able to look and decide if they are appropriate for your use.

ILya

 

[hellzna]

@Glassaholic and @koshkin what are your thoughts on the new production Burris XTR-II 5-25x50 SCR FFP reticle with the 34mm tube?

EuroOptic has them on sale for $650 right now, and I bought 2 of them to replace some cheaper quality scopes, like the Arkens and Vortex HS-T's in my lineup. How is the glass and CA, and what would you say it's comparable to? I haven't looked through a Burris scope in years, so I have no idea on the new stuff. Just curious yall's thoughts. If they're good quality, I will probably buy more to replace most of the other inexpensive scopes and start selling off the cheaper stuff just to get rid of it.

I’ve used Xtr2’s for years (SCR and h59)

Recently bought some xtr3’s and the glass is much better in all aspects.

For sub $700, I still think xtr2’s are a deal, but I’m glad I upgraded.

 

[Lightning8]

@Glassaholic and @koshkin what are your thoughts on the new production Burris XTR-II 5-25x50 SCR FFP reticle with the 34mm tube?

EuroOptic has them on sale for $650 right now, and I bought 2 of them to replace some cheaper quality scopes, like the Arkens and Vortex HS-T's in my lineup. How is the glass and CA, and what would you say it's comparable to? I haven't looked through a Burris scope in years, so I have no idea on the new stuff. Just curious yall's thoughts. If they're good quality, I will probably buy more to replace most of the other inexpensive scopes and start selling off the cheaper stuff just to get rid of it.

Dvor has been running the "sand camo" Burris XTRII 5-25x50 SCR (MIL) for $600ish for almost 2 years - they pop up and then disappear only to reappear. I have four of these XTRII 525 on my 223 trainer and backup rifles. They are fully functional and have been mechanically reliable. Easy to set zero. Glass is OK - used them on my PRS rifle to 1200 yards until about 6 months ago I upgraded to XTRIII (non-illuminated) on my primary PRS rifle. The XTRIII glass is significantly better than the XTRII. For me it becomes a price point issue - I think the XTRII is a good buy at $600ish because it is reliable. I sent one XTRII back to Burris because I was dissatisfied with the parallax adjustment and they promptly sent me a replacement.