Burris XTR Pro 🇺🇸
- Thread starter D_TROS
- Start date
HAD a great time down in Logan NM for Steel Safari again. 5th top 5 in 5 years.
GL
DT
GL
DT
Impressive performance, especially with that light rifle. Your method with that race turret obviously works.
Scotch tape and a perm sharpie. (matt finish (purple package) style which is easier to write on)
If you skip the tape and use a perm marker on the turret, use an alcohol base hand sanitizer to remove. Little dab on a cloth and you're gtg.
I only have the tremor after a night of heavy drinking, otherwise it’s pretty much okay…
But seriously, if you practice with a Tremor, or any other tree style reticle, your brain can see things pretty well. On the other hand, I really like the 1/4 mil reticle too.
I covered the whiteboard part with Scotch tape and experimented with a permanent marker and a rag dipped in alcohol. That seemed to provide the clearest delineation and wiped off really clean. I just have to remember to pack that shit with me when I shoot matches. I figured the Scotch tape was cheap insurance anyways since the chance of me using a permanent marker on the turret without it are nearly 100%
Thanks, tracking that. I know they cleaned up the reticle a little in the 5 but I am partial to the 3. Still a great reticle IMO.
The T5 has the same functionality as the T3 just missing the quick ranging things above the main stadia.
I'd imagine you could use both reticles interchangeably if you don't use that ranging feature.
Yep that’s exactly why I prefer the 3. It’s all good though. Excited to try out the XTR Pro.
I’m glad they have made the 1/4 mil reticle. I like it so much that I have a second Pro inbound.
Got mine in yesterday.
Initial fondling of it has me smiling. I can now turn the magnification ring (comparing to my US made XTR III) without having to grab ahold of sharp corners and using so much force that it is uncomfortable. The throw lever is a must on my old XTR III, it was provided on the Pro, but not necessary.
I like the multiple elevation turrets, and the feel is a step up too. Probably won't use the race dial much for my shooting, but maybe if I tried hunting with it.
The glass is a hair better to my eye, but I was a big fan of the glass on the XTR III. Even at 15x in low light, I can see into shadows better than my naked eye can, but you'll need the illumination to make out the crosshairs (not that many guys will be using this for hunting). The center crosshair on the Pro is definitely smaller, so I'm going to like that better for load development and paper shooting...I don't think it'll matter on steel.
Initial fondling of it has me smiling. I can now turn the magnification ring (comparing to my US made XTR III) without having to grab ahold of sharp corners and using so much force that it is uncomfortable. The throw lever is a must on my old XTR III, it was provided on the Pro, but not necessary.
I like the multiple elevation turrets, and the feel is a step up too. Probably won't use the race dial much for my shooting, but maybe if I tried hunting with it.
The glass is a hair better to my eye, but I was a big fan of the glass on the XTR III. Even at 15x in low light, I can see into shadows better than my naked eye can, but you'll need the illumination to make out the crosshairs (not that many guys will be using this for hunting). The center crosshair on the Pro is definitely smaller, so I'm going to like that better for load development and paper shooting...I don't think it'll matter on steel.
If UPS doesn't fumble at the goal line, my XTR Pro and ARC rings should be here on Thursday, in time for my Friday range trip! Pretty stoked.
Seems like a decent price. Cosmetic blems.
www.midwayusa.com
Burris XTR Pro Rifle Scope 34mm Tube 5.5-30x 56mm Illuminated SCR 2
Been looking for a new scope? MidwayUSA has just received a shipment of scopes from Burris to be sold to our customers at colossal savings. These scopes...
www.midwayusa.com
I remember when the illuminated reticles came out, they were thicker than the previous non illum ones on the XTR line. I remember buying a non-illum XTR and sent it back because reticle was too thin.
Both current XTRIII and PRO in the 5.5x30 illuminated SCR2 appear to have the same reticle specs according to Burris website diagrams. The 3.3-18 XTRIII shows a thicker reticle. Someone more knowledgeable correct me if I'm wrong.
A little info for newer shooters:
For me, when using the lower power settings on FFP scopes, its mostly for scanning to find the targets. For example, I 'could' engage a target at low power, but I'm not going to use holdovers at 6X. Once target is acquired, time permitting, I can zoom up to my 12x to 18x sweet spot, to be able to use the reticle features. The higher power settings I'm only commonly using to spot for someone or look at holes in paper. I also use higher power settings more frequently on rimfires.
Not really. I would venture to say that the crosshairs (especially the center) are a touch thinner on my Pro Than my old XTR III (non-illuminated, US made). However, I think the current SCR2 is equal now in both models with the Pro giving you the option of .2 or .25 mil hashmarks.
Both of mine are 5.5 - 30, but I don't own a current production XTR III to give a modern comparison with.
No FFP is overly useful for anything but a duplex reticle aiming point at lower powers but the Pro and Illuminated XTRIII reticle is a little thicker than the older non illuminated versions. Been written about here many times. If you need the reticle at that low power just turn on the illumination and it will help but for the most part you don;t buy a 5-30x scope to use the 5x area.
Oh yes, 15-20X I was thinking as lower mag. I used my XTR III for ELR at 25-30X. Now I am back shooting more practical distances to 300-1000. Eyes getting old and 12-20x is a strain to keep the reticle sharp. Contrast to the HDMR when I once thought the reticle too thick, but now I'm appreciating it!No FFP is overly useful for anything but a duplex reticle aiming point at lower powers but the Pro and Illuminated XTRIII reticle is a little thicker than the older non illuminated versions. Been written about here many times. If you need the reticle at that low power just turn on the illumination and it will help but for the most part you don;t buy a 5-30x scope to use the 5x area.
I got rid of a XTR III illuminated because of the thin reticle. I’m about to do the same with a few Gen 3 Razors. I don’t like these .02 - .03mil thick reticles at all. Now I’m certain of it. I think NF tends to be on the thicker side of at least .04 mil with many of their scopes. I may go this direction. I would live a XTR III Pro with the 1/4 mil reticle but at least a .04 mil thick.
This is the info I have after calling and talking to NF about the MIL-R and MIL-XT:
Mil-R
.036 mil ATACR 7-35
Mil-XT
| Main line thickness | |
| 4-16 ATACR | 0.043 mil |
| 2.5-20 NX8 | 0.041 mil |
| 4-20 ATACR | 0.040 mil |
| 4-32 NX8 | 0.036 mil |
| 5-25 ATACR | 0.033 mil |
| 7-35 ATACR | 0.033 mi |
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.
That’s more of a mount issue than the scope as I can see it fine with my MDT mounts.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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?
Last edited:
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
-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
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.
Last edited:
.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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Last edited:
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.
Phone book method fixed a couple, the others had to go back for disassembly and cleaning.
Similar threads
