Burris XTR Pro 🇺🇸

[Rob01]

I agree that it’s not the scopes fault. I just don’t care for it enough to give up my ARC mount. I found the reticle hard to see below 16x and just didn’t like it that much overall. I much preferred my Gen III Razors although I did have to return a couple to Vortex and the NF 7x35 ATACR. I guess variety is why they make different models. Sucks too because I had high hopes for the Pro.

Totally understandable and some of us like one over the other and luckily plenty of optic choices now. I just didn't want someone looking in here for info to think that that was an issue with the scope no matter what mount/rings you used. I almost tried the ARC mount but heard of that issue by a few members here on other scopes so figured I would stick with MDT and similar.

 

[Birddog6424]

I agree that it’s not the scopes fault. I just don’t care for it enough to give up my ARC mount. I found the reticle hard to see below 16x and just didn’t like it that much overall. I much preferred my Gen III Razors although I did have to return a couple to Vortex and the NF 7x35 ATACR. I guess variety is why they make different models. Sucks too because I had high hopes for the Pro.

Yeh, definitely the mount there... The illuminated SCR2 is a .035 mil thickness. Making it pretty much an average thickness for FFP scopes. It's by no means a thin reticle like the original SCR2 at .022(?). It does still surprise me when folks have trouble picking it up.

Sorry you didn't like the scope.

Edit; correction for reticle thickness

 

[Kiba]

Yeh, definitely the mount there... The illuminated SCR2 is a .043 mil thickness. Making it pretty much an average thickness for FFP scopes. It's by no means a thin reticle like the original SCR2 at .030. It does still surprise me when folks have trouble picking it up.

Sorry you didn't like the scope.

Isn't the non-illuminated SCR2 0.020 mil and the illuminated 0.03 mil? 0.043 mil is like a sharpie with a worn tip thick, lol

 

[wade2big]

Isn't the non-illuminated SCR2 0.020 mil and the illuminated 0.03 mil? 0.043 mil is like a sharpie with a worn tip thick, lol

I had an illuminated xtriii with a SCR2 reticle (not a pro). It was in no way .03mil thick. It was far thinner. Way too thin just as @JustPewIt and many others agree. A .04 mil thick reticle would getting about right for this magnification range. I would prefer a bit thicker than that but that’s me. I sold the xtriii without ever putting it on a rifle.

 

[Kiba]

I had an illuminated xtriii with a SCR2 reticle (not a pro). It was in no way .03mil thick. It was far thinner. Way too thin just as @JustPewIt and many others agree. A .04 mil thick reticle would getting about right for this magnification range. I would prefer a bit thicker than that but that’s me. I sold the xtriii without ever putting it on a rifle.

I have an XTR Pro and XTR 3i 3-18, and I agree the reticle is a bit thin... but not excessively so, at least for me. It's ok at higher mag but can be difficult to see at lower mag especially if the background is shaded or cluttered (that could really be helped by daylight bright illumination.) I tend to prefer right about 0.030 mil thick for reticles but that also depends on mag range and use. For the 3-18 version I really think going about 0.035 mil might be better, while on the 5.5-30 I kind of like the current thickness, at least from about 14x on up. Maybe making the 5.5-30 reticle 0.025-0.030 thick might be better.

Looking at the SCR2 illuminated reticle manual for the XTR Pro (which is a bit of a mess since the letters used to denote line thickness are bunched together with no leader lines in some of the views so you aren't 100% sure what they're pointing at), the tree and center cross is 0.020 mil, while the main vertical and horizontal illuminated lines appear to be 0.030 mil... assuming the manual is correct. It's certainly somewhere in the 0.020-0.030 mil thickness range though, there's no way it's 0.043 mil as was stated above. I've had reticles that thick before and the SCR2 isn't that thick.

If the non illuminated reticle was even thinner than the illuminated version, then that would be very thin indeed. I've never looked though a non illuminated SCR2, but I'm guessing the entire reticle was 0.020 mil thick?

 

[AznTactical]

I did not buy the M-brace for that reason too.
-Works fine on my Razor G3, Zeiss S3

-Blocks my view for the following optics:
-Razor G2
-Schmidt & Bender PMII 5-25
-Steiner TX6i 4-16
-Leupold MK5 5-25

 

[ZCOklahoma]

I did not buy the M-brace for that reason too.
-Works fine on my Razor G3, Zeiss S3

-Blocks my view for the following optics:
-Razor G2
-Schmidt & Bender PMII 5-25
-Steiner TX6i 4-16
-Leupold MK5 5-25

Thanks for this info. I am now considering picking up another Razor or the Zeiss S3

 

[Birddog6424]

Isn't the non-illuminated SCR2 0.020 mil and the illuminated 0.03 mil? 0.043 mil is like a sharpie with a worn tip thick, lol

I had those numbers in my head, but let me go to the source.

Lord knows I've been wrong before..

 

[Gtscotty]

Received my XTR Pro and ARC MBrace last night and when I mounted it, I couldn’t see the turret marks without coming completely off of the gun. Probably back to the Razor Gen III for me. Just not impressed with the Burris.

View attachment 8242263

I didn't really notice that issue when using mine, hopefully it doesn't start bothering me now though.

My main beef with my XTR Pro is that, for me, the parallax knob is WAY, off. The 1000 yd berm is in focus when the knob shows 300 yds, 750 yd berm is in focus when the knob is between 200 yds and 300 yds, and so on. I sent the scope out and got it back with a note saying it's in spec... Maybe it's something with my eyes, but it would have to be something that doesn't show up with all the other scopes I've had, because they've all been at least reasonably close to actual parallax distance on the knob.

Other than that, it gets noticeably dimmer above 25x, but that's probably to be expected. I do like the turret, zeroing system and the 1/4 mil reticle though.

 

[Birddog6424]

Ok fellas. I confess, I was wrong. Anyone who has ever spoken to my ex-wife would hear that it's common territory for me

The main vertical and horizontal lines of the illuminated SCR2 is .035, not the .043 I believed. The person I spoke to believed the non-illuminated SCR2 was .022, but that was shooting from the hip, not a confirmed number.

I know the original SCR2 is thin. I think its a great reticle for its intended purpose of competition use. But not a great choice as a reticle option in a crossover optic. I dont believe its too thin in the new illuminated version. And it's personal.preference of course, I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what to like or dislike. But from a visibility or functionality standpoint, I think its plenty of both. I'm well into my 2nd hunting season using both an 18x and 30x, I'm having no issues even on low magnification. My default hunting setting is 7x.

 

[Rob01]

.035 is not really thin. The Vortex 7D is .03 and the NF Mil XT is .033. Never hear anyone say those are too thin. Not sure why the Burris gets called thin.

 

[wade2big]

.035 is not really thin. The Vortex 7D is .03 and the NF Mil XT is .033. Never hear anyone say those are too thin. Not sure why the Burris gets called thin.

I sold my Gen 3 razors for the same reason. I will say the Burris SCR2 illuminated reticle appeared far thinner than the 7d Razor reticle. Maybe it is lighter or less bold. I’m not sure.

I think the .2 mil marks and the thin reticles just don’t work for my eyes. The EBR2c reticle of Vortex is .03 and I could work with it but it’s a .5 mil hash reticle. The 3-18 gen 2 Razor with the ebr2c reticle was a bit thicker at .04mil even though the literature stated otherwise and I did like it better. I want to try a Burris Pro with the scr2 1/4 mil reticle to see if it works a bit better. Maybe I’ll give it a chance.

 

[UpSideDown]

Since I’ve never found a dimension sheet or any data on it, how thick is the reticle on the Bushnell LRHSi G2H? That’s a fairly thick reticle even excluding the donut of death and would serve as a good comparison for a lot of people I think.

 

[wade2big]

Since I’ve never found a dimension sheet or any data on it, how thick is the reticle on the Bushnell LRHSi G2H? That’s a fairly thick reticle even excluding the donut of death and would serve as a good comparison for a lot of people I think.

I believe those are .06mil and same for the LTRSi. Perfect for a 3-18. I sold a Steiner T6X 3-18x56 with the msr2 reticle without mounting it on a rifle. Way too thin for a 3-18. Seems these high power FFP scopes are killing the smaller mag range scopes as well. Manufacturers are foolishly putting these thin reticles in their low power scopes now.

Edit to add:
That .06 mil reticle covers just 2 1/8” at 1000 yards on any magnification power and is easier for the eye to pick up at any power. Unless a man is shooting grid paper in fclass, I don’t see how that is covering too much of the target. Others disagree.

 

[UpSideDown]

I believe those are .06mil and same for the LTRSi. Perfect for a 3-18. I sold a Steiner T6X 3-18x56 with the msr2 reticle without mounting it on a rifle. Way too thin for a 3-18. Seems these high power FFP scopes are killing the smaller mag range scopes as well. Manufacturers are foolishly putting these thin reticles in their low power scopes now.

Edit to add:
That .06 mil reticle covers just 2 1/8” at 1000 yards on any magnification power and is easier for the eye to pick up at any power. Unless a man is shooting grid paper in fclass, I don’t see how that is covering too much of the target. Others disagree.

Thank you for that info. I do find my 4.5-18 to have a reticle thicker than I prefer for shooting even 100yd groups because it covers quite a bit. It isn’t unbearable annd it’s an incredible reticle for hunting though. Im selling off my LRHSi/LRTSi to try out the XTR3i. I have yet to find crosshairs too difficult to see outside of one or two unique times. I hunted with a razor G2 3-18 for a bit. It’s helpful to see the updated dimensions in this thread for the illuminated Burris. In comparison to the scope I have in really looking forward to the increased FOV and better eyebox and glass.

 

[beetroot]

.035 is not really thin. The Vortex 7D is .03 and the NF Mil XT is .033. Never hear anyone say those are too thin. Not sure why the Burris gets called thin.

Most of the complaints came from the original non-illuminated models, which if it is .02 or .022 then that is thinner than most on the market.

.035 as you said is pretty much the same as every other popular reticle n the market.

 

[Rob01]

Most of the complaints came from the original non-illuminated models, which if it is .02 or .022 then that is thinner than most on the market.

.035 as you said is pretty much the same as every other popular reticle n the market.

I realize that but the people here are complaining about the illuminated version.

 

[Rob01]

I sold my Gen 3 razors for the same reason. I will say the Burris SCR2 illuminated reticle appeared far thinner than the 7d Razor reticle. Maybe it is lighter or less bold. I’m not sure.

I think the .2 mil marks and the thin reticles just don’t work for my eyes. The EBR2c reticle of Vortex is .03 and I could work with it but it’s a .5 mil hash reticle. The 3-18 gen 2 Razor with the ebr2c reticle was a bit thicker at .04mil even though the literature stated otherwise and I did like it better. I want to try a Burris Pro with the scr2 1/4 mil reticle to see if it works a bit better. Maybe I’ll give it a chance.

Could be the boldness. Not sure.

 

[beetroot]

I realize that but the people here are complaining about the illuminated version.

Some people don't know their arse from their elbow.

 

[beetroot]

I sold my Gen 3 razors for the same reason. I will say the Burris SCR2 illuminated reticle appeared far thinner than the 7d Razor reticle. Maybe it is lighter or less bold. I’m not sure.

I think the .2 mil marks and the thin reticles just don’t work for my eyes. The EBR2c reticle of Vortex is .03 and I could work with it but it’s a .5 mil hash reticle. The 3-18 gen 2 Razor with the ebr2c reticle was a bit thicker at .04mil even though the literature stated otherwise and I did like it better. I want to try a Burris Pro with the scr2 1/4 mil reticle to see if it works a bit better. Maybe I’ll give it a chance.

The EBR 7 reticles do appear thinker than other ones with the same stadia thickness. I think it's to do with the way the hashes are done, making the reticle appear thicker.

The SCR reticles have pretty fine/small hash marks so maybe that's what makes them look thinner than they are.

I never used the .04mil thick 3-18 reticle but the .052mil reticle in the PST 3-15 was almost perfect for the mag range.
I was pissed when my 3-15 with the EBR-7C turned out to be .03mil thick.

The topic of reticle thickness (like scope weight) needs to be considered in the right context.
In a 5.5-30 competition scope, .03mil is about right and if it weighs 48oz who cares (in some ways its a good thing).

A 3-18 scope on the other hand leads itself to fall into the hunting/crossover category so .03mil is probably too thin (especially at 3x) and if it weighs 46z then bot man people will buy it.

Hence why the 3-18 Razor proved to be considerably Less popular than the 4.5-27.

 

[Birddog6424]

Burris uses a different laser to etch the glass than most manufacturers.

I know very little about lasers, but I know I saw it when I toured the facility last summer. And was told it was state of the art, purchased specifically to cut the SCR2 glass in Greeley. A high magnification zoom shows crazy good corner detail on all the cuts of the reticle versus a lot of rounded corners and edge fuzziness versus other reticles. I don't know if that impacts the appearance to the naked eye, but the reticle is definitely a finer cut.

 

[beetroot]

Burris uses a different laser to etch the glass than most manufacturers.

I know very little about lasers, but I know I saw it when I toured the facility last summer. And was told it was state of the art, purchased specifically to cut the SCR2 glass in Greeley. A high magnification zoom shows crazy good corner detail on all the cuts of the reticle versus a lot of rounded corners and edge fuzziness versus other reticles. I don't know if that impacts the appearance to the naked eye, but the reticle is definitely a finer cut.

A different phenomenon but tangentially related.

I recently picked up a used LRHS 4.5-18 as I wanted to see what the all the rage was regarding the reticle.

Doing some low light testing I found in low light, despite the thicker reticle it would almost disappear on very dark (black cattle) targets, my older Fullfield 2 you could easily pick out the reticle on any background.

After some more testing and thought, I came to the conclusion in certain lighting conditions the glass was to "clear" on the LRHS and meant there wasn't enough contrast in the optics to make the reticle stand out. Whereas the poorer quality glass in the FF2 (with a slight yellow tinge) made the reticle the stand out against the target.

Once the lighting got even worse the Bushnell would all of a sudden become superior for picking out the reticle over the FF2, Im guessing something to do with the light transmission/exit pupil.

TLDR;
It would seem there is a lot more to reticle thickness (or the appearance of) than just the stadia thickness.

I'm sure there is a technical description of all this but it's beyond my vocabulary.

 

[Bigjake83]

Hello burris Pro Owners..

I recently just picked up a few of these XTR Pro's, after learning more about them they fit the bill for everything that I need in a budget-friendly scope. I'm very pleased with the glass quality and the functionality of these scope.

But!!! ... the other day when it came time to clean the lenses I noticed that I actually have debris or dust inside the scope on the back side of the ocular lens and the Bell in both of them. I'm assuming whatever it is shook loose from recoil. I've already contacted Burris and they're going to take care of it, thier customer service seems to be outstanding. Has anyone else in here had this same issue or am I just The Unlucky One?

Those dot you see are inside on the back of the lens.

Also did anybody else have a throw lever come with a unthreaded hole?

 

[Kiba]

I've had debris inside a few scopes over the years.

Phone book method fixed a couple, the others had to go back for disassembly and cleaning.

 

[Rob01]

Never noticed any in mine but never had to clean the lenses since I had them. If it doesn’t effect the view through the scope then ignore it.

 

[srt-4_uk]

Also did anybody else have a throw lever come with a unthreaded hole?

I did on one of them. Submit a message through their online portal and they will get a new one out to you.

 

[Bigjake83]

I did on one of them. Submit a message through their online portal and they will get a new one out to you.

They're going to throw a new one in when they go back for the lenses.

 

[FuhQ]

Thanks for this info. I am now considering picking up another Razor or the Zeiss S3

You can't go wrong with the Zeiss LRP S3... It will impress you.

 

[Birddog6424]

Hello burris Pro Owners..

I recently just picked up a few of these XTR Pro's, after learning more about them they fit the bill for everything that I need in a budget-friendly scope. I'm very pleased with the glass quality and the functionality of these scope.

But!!! ... the other day when it came time to clean the lenses I noticed that I actually have debris or dust inside the scope on the back side of the ocular lens and the Bell in both of them. I'm assuming whatever it is shook loose from recoil. I've already contacted Burris and they're going to take care of it, thier customer service seems to be outstanding. Has anyone else in here had this same issue or am I just The Unlucky One?

Those dot you see are inside on the back of the lens.
View attachment 8244967

Also did anybody else have a throw lever come with a unthreaded hole?

I had a Bushnell (inexpensive version) and a Leupold MK8 CQBSS that had debris on the inside that got on the lens. I ignored it on the Busnell, Leupy took care of it on the MK8.

They all go to great lengths with full clean room assembly on optics, but I think it occasionally happens to everyone.

Even Schmidt went through a period of having internal grease spattering on their glass.

I've heard of another time or two that the throw lever has been unthreaded. Those come from a second party provider. At the rate they grab them and stuff them in a box, they probably don't look at them very close.

 

[ZCOklahoma]

You can't go wrong with the Zeiss LRP S3... It will impress you.

I wound up getting a ZCO from a local guy. The Pro is in the PX waiting for someone to steal it for what I have it listed at.

 

[Bigjake83]

I had a Bushnell (inexpensive version) and a Leupold MK8 CQBSS that had debris on the inside that got on the lens. I ignored it on the Busnell, Leupy took care of it on the MK8.

They all go to great lengths with full clean room assembly on optics, but I think it occasionally happens to everyone.

Even Schmidt went through a period of having internal grease spattering on their glass.

I've heard of another time or two that the throw lever has been unthreaded. Those come from a second party provider. At the rate they grab them and stuff them in a box, they probably don't look at them very close.

I know, shit happens. Burris Customer Service seems to be top notch so far. We'll see how long it takes to get them back, I was quoted 4 weeks.

 

[RFutch]

Can you see the spots while looking though the scope? if not, I'd just run it.

 

[Bigjake83]

Can you see the spots while looking though the scope? if not, I'd just run it.

On one of them is was very noticeable, hence why I wanted to clean them. They've already shipped out. Regardless if it's noticeable or not it shouldn't be a issue to begin with.

 

[Birddog6424]

I know, shit happens. Burris Customer Service seems to be top notch so far. We'll see how long it takes to get them back, I was quoted 4 weeks.

It's more like two weeks normally. But optics manufacturers are overrun by Fudds every hunting season

 

[lash]

It's more like two weeks normally. But optics manufacturers are overrun by Fudds every hunting season

Who you calling a Fudd?!?

 

[RFutch]

Who you calling a Fudd?!?

Oh no, they are among us!

 

[DJL2]

I believe those are .06mil and same for the LTRSi. Perfect for a 3-18. I sold a Steiner T6X 3-18x56 with the msr2 reticle without mounting it on a rifle. Way too thin for a 3-18. Seems these high power FFP scopes are killing the smaller mag range scopes as well. Manufacturers are foolishly putting these thin reticles in their low power scopes now.

Edit to add:
That .06 mil reticle covers just 2 1/8” at 1000 yards on any magnification power and is easier for the eye to pick up at any power. Unless a man is shooting grid paper in fclass, I don’t see how that is covering too much of the target. Others disagree.

I really like the March .075 center dot - I haven't encountered the "it covers too much target issue." I am decidedly NOT in the smaller/finer is better crowd. I also have yet to encounter a use for 10 mrad of wind holds, probably because I don't shoot in hurricanes or tornados. That's about as useful as 15+ mrad of elevation holds... ;-)

 

[rothgyr]

I had a Bushnell (inexpensive version) and a Leupold MK8 CQBSS that had debris on the inside that got on the lens. I ignored it on the Busnell, Leupy took care of it on the MK8.

They all go to great lengths with full clean room assembly on optics, but I think it occasionally happens to everyone.

Even Schmidt went through a period of having internal grease spattering on their glass.

I've heard of another time or two that the throw lever has been unthreaded. Those come from a second party provider. At the rate they grab them and stuff them in a box, they probably don't look at them very close.

One of my upper level stats professors worked a stint with Harley Davidson back in the day, and they did an analysis on production by day of the week. One of the results was that items manufactured on a Monday were somewhere between 100-150% higher risk of having defects than on other days. Another Stats professor loved to start each class with anecdotes about customers to his firm asking to help them achieve 100% quality in every bottle of milk produced, and he told them he'd have to take every bottle they produced apart and ruin it in order to achieve that.

Acceptable error based on sample size is a thing, or nothing would make it to consumers' hands. QC is generally carried out by humans. Humans have Mondays. We should all learn to move on.

 

[Zolar]

Sturdy looking scope for a great price

 

[UpSideDown]

Does anyone know what the original non-illum SCR reticle thickness is? It appears thicker, I'm considering the US made scope with an SCR reticle for a hunting rig over a SCR2 illum model. A Pro model may go onto my precision rifle build.

 

[Hickswr]

Does anyone know what the original non-illum SCR reticle thickness is? It appears thicker, I'm considering the US made scope with an SCR reticle for a hunting rig over a SCR2 illum model. A Pro model may go onto my precision rifle build.

I’ve had both, the version and the illuminated version. I sold the version in favor of illumination so I could use it for PRS and hunting. I don’t think the version reticle was any thicker than the illuminated version.

 

[UpSideDown]

I’ve had both, the version and the illuminated version. I sold the version in favor of illumination so I could use it for PRS and hunting. I don’t think the version reticle was any thicker than the illuminated version.

That lines up with their spec sheet, it looks like the US SCR reticle is .04mil, the illum SCR2 is .035, so pretty close. I'm trying to find some way to put one to use. They're so dang affordable right now and US made.

 

[Birddog6424]

That lines up with their spec sheet, it looks like the US SCR reticle is .04mil, the illum SCR2 is .035, so pretty close. I'm trying to find some way to put one to use. They're so dang affordable right now and US made.

I think that's pretty close. I would put the SCR at a hair thicker than the illuminated SCR2.

I really like the SCR for hunting.

 

[mynamejeff]

Has anyone seen any blems available lately? I got a great deal on an XTR Pro blem from Midway, looking to buy another and hoping to get the same price. Love this scope! I would just get the XTR iii but I'd really like to have the same reticle (1/4mil).

 

[Rob01]

Has anyone seen any blems available lately? I got a great deal on an XTR Pro blem from Midway, looking to buy another and hoping to get the same price. Love this scope! I would just get the XTR iii but I'd really like to have the same reticle (1/4mil).

What was the blem price?

 

[mynamejeff]

What was the blem price?

1599 and couldn't really find anything wrong with it, maybe uneven coating towards the front bell?

 

[srt-4_uk]

Maybe it has internal dust and was returned?

 

[ICU22250]

Or maybe the turrets just fucking suck like the ones did on the XTR III I bought a couple of months ago.. Mushy as fuck... Now the Pro may be different.

 

[Tikkaguy]

I dont know I had a run in with stiener blems a few years back. Bought a m7xi in brown. For like 1800. Thought it was a good buy. Still the worse optical sample I’ve seen in a m7xi. So bad I have to return it and they replaced it after a lot of hassle. Worse off cs rep ran my serial number and it already had a rma history on it. I think they call them “blems” but really they are just defective units they don’t wanna fix…I like Steiner and Burris but sometimes they get some iffy employees in there that don’t care.

 

[mynamejeff]

No dust, but i haven't looked for it. The scope is clear as day and the best one I've ever looked through, so that's all I care about. The turrets are slightly on the mushy side, especially compared to my Cronus. I have zero issue dialing to the setting I need in a hurry though. Feel like turret feel is preference. Should I expect firmer turrets though? Anyone elses really notchy/clicky? Mine feel good honestly, not bad, but they're not as stiff as some other scopes I have.