He is part of the Burris VIP club, you have to have a $100,000 Amex card to be a member
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Burris XTR3!!!
- Thread starter D_TROS
- Start date
Are they going to make an illuminated center for mil version on the 3.3-18?
They are making an illuminated SCR2 reticle but my guess is the whole thing will light up, not just the center.
I really wish I had a finger on the pulse of when that is going to hit. I am tempted to buy two of these guys but hear the SCR 2 reticle is pretty think and may benefit from lume. (maybe from your review?)
I have 2 XTRIIs and have been suffering badly from resolution envy.
Spotting bullets holes and reading mirage has been a challenge and I just hate the reticle clutter that has become so common place in modern scopes. We pay thousands of dollars for what we hope to be good glass and then watch the target through what amounts to a screen door complete with fly crap.
I really hope the XTRIII has nailed it, because the XTRII lacks sharpness.
$900 scopes from 30 years ago had better glass than a lot of scopes today in the XTRII price range
Never noticed an issue with tracking with the XTRII, so that's good.
Doing a side by side comparison with other scopes using some sort of eye chart is the best way to start evaluating any optic.
https://archivehistory.jeksite.org/chapters/imgs/c_1_usaf1951.jpg
You guys might like printing your own turret labels like this.
http://i1065.photobucket.com/albums...ical Burris XTR II EDlevation Label Blank.png
Spotting bullets holes and reading mirage has been a challenge and I just hate the reticle clutter that has become so common place in modern scopes. We pay thousands of dollars for what we hope to be good glass and then watch the target through what amounts to a screen door complete with fly crap.
I really hope the XTRIII has nailed it, because the XTRII lacks sharpness.
$900 scopes from 30 years ago had better glass than a lot of scopes today in the XTRII price range
Never noticed an issue with tracking with the XTRII, so that's good.
Doing a side by side comparison with other scopes using some sort of eye chart is the best way to start evaluating any optic.
https://archivehistory.jeksite.org/chapters/imgs/c_1_usaf1951.jpg
You guys might like printing your own turret labels like this.
http://i1065.photobucket.com/albums...ical Burris XTR II EDlevation Label Blank.png
Last edited:
That is my personal thought so take it with a grain of salt as I'm very finicky about reticles and their thickness. I think the SKMR series are too thin but the H2CMR is way too thick, I like illumination because I hunt with a lot of my rifles and find it helps in low light situations but in legal hunting hours for big game it may or may not be a necessity.
I know illum is in the Q. I also know until they catch up on 3 orders it is not a priority. I also know the redic new CO laws that shut down their local anodizer (and subsequent finding a new one and getting that up to spec) cost them several months in every production aspect.
Again, if people are missin it, Burris is a small shop in northern CO. They are literally working non-stop to release this new scope and their exciting new budget line with the SCR2 in it. Pretty exciting.
NOW as to the thinness and usability of the SCR2 in the 3-18, I have used it in 2 matches and absolutely love it. My partner and I will both be running 3-18's for the Bushnell Elite Sniper Challenge next week. Very excited. I wanted thinner but this is what the man decided on. SCR2 IS a competition retc. Not a hunting one.
Having said that I would have 0 prob using it for hunting. At low magnification, the tapered sidebards are all you need for close shots and at high power you can see the .1 wide cross easily.
If you want something thicker, get the std SCR as it is very usable as a hunting retc in my 3-15 steiner and ive used that in low light elk hunting. and the steiner 3-15 is noticeably a step down from my 3-18.
Last in 10 yrs ive used illum 3 times...all at night matchs lol. The next thing also is all us clowns will be gripping its not "daylight bright" enough. Funny how we want all these features then cry when companies upcharge for it.
Do like WGM and I, get a 3-18 - enjoy it - easily sell it and get illum (which we will nvr use) and be even happier! ha
Gl
DT
I feel like your whole post has been addressed but I will rehash. I would LOVE to see anything touch an XTR2 from 30 yrs ago.
By the look of those turrets you have one of the first runs of XTR2's. I assure you they tightened up the xtr2's quality control since then concerning the only weakness the 2 had - glass. I have 2 of the newer ish 2's myself and they are legit. I am the only person to EVER shoot a top 5 in a PRS match (4th - LR stage ate my lunch)) with a 308...and I was using a XTR2. Pretty sure if it was "screen door complete with fly crap" a top 50 wouldn't even be feasible let alone possible. and that was with factory ammo lol.
As to the XTR3 compare to the 2, it is a very noticeable step up and more and more people are purchasing them after seeing mine and others that have em. This winter during my down time I sent my xtr3 up to a friend in MT to check out. He has a Steiner 5-25, Kahles, ZCO, Bushnell, and my 5-30 to compare. I screen shot his text to me below. Then his friend messaged me and let me know he is getting a couple for his daughters that are getting into shooting. And I get these messages almost weekly about this scope.
And no I don't work for Burris. I started shooting for them when I was told they were designing a new scope and they wanted me on board to help bring what the shooters want.. Im an admitted scope snob and own or owned literally every scope (sans the ZCO) I only agreed on one condition, they actually listen to my opinion when coming up with the XTR3 and they listened to ea and every thing I had to say. This XTR3 is more than just solid tracking and a glass upgrade. It is a whole package of features FOR competition FOR us shooters.
This scope is going to be a very nice addition to our/us shooters addiction haha. Im having a hard time holding onto my other scopes when I keep reaching for my XTR3 every time I go out. Believe it or not if your not on SNypers Hide glass isn't the most important thing. Some of us realize you cant get TT glass for Athlon prices...
TT - March - XTR3 - M7
GL
DT
Regrads,
DT
DT speaks the truth. I may have even looked through his at one point, peeked through somebody’s at the Ben Lomond NRL 22 match. I’ve now had the opportunity to look through a couple of them and compared to the XTR 2 to the glass is way better.
Well maybe DT got a proverbial "good one", at least I hope so.
As for doing well in a match, that's great, but it does not discount the poor resolution point I've made.
I don't make the point without grounds. I have viewed optical resolution charts comparing the XTRII to a 24X Leupold VXIII from the 80s and a 6.5-20 Leupold VXIII from the 90s, and just for fun to a new Khales.
Obviously the Khales was the front runner, but unfortunately for optical resolution, the XTRII came in dead last in this test.
That makes it tough to read mirage and bullet trace where subtle details are needed.
Could simply be the result of inflation over the years, that these old scopes (expensive at the time) I mentioned could simply have glass that is on par with scopes that are more expensive than the XTRII today.
Sorry to be the wet blanket, but as long as guys praise mediocre product like this, the manufacturers will have no motivation to improve.
It's nice that Burris has produced the XTRIII and I hope the glass in those is more along the line of what I would like to see.
As for doing well in a match, that's great, but it does not discount the poor resolution point I've made.
I don't make the point without grounds. I have viewed optical resolution charts comparing the XTRII to a 24X Leupold VXIII from the 80s and a 6.5-20 Leupold VXIII from the 90s, and just for fun to a new Khales.
Obviously the Khales was the front runner, but unfortunately for optical resolution, the XTRII came in dead last in this test.
That makes it tough to read mirage and bullet trace where subtle details are needed.
Could simply be the result of inflation over the years, that these old scopes (expensive at the time) I mentioned could simply have glass that is on par with scopes that are more expensive than the XTRII today.
Sorry to be the wet blanket, but as long as guys praise mediocre product like this, the manufacturers will have no motivation to improve.
It's nice that Burris has produced the XTRIII and I hope the glass in those is more along the line of what I would like to see.
Last edited:
I've used the XTRIIs for years now in PRS and 3 Gun. I've never had a target I couldnt find and hit. And there have been a LOT of tough to spot target placements over the years.
I'll never argue the XTRII is great glass, but it's always been good enough for the job. And better than anything from 20 or 30 years ago. I have a Leupy gold ring VXIII out in my safe that my dad hunted with for years. It doesnt hold a candle to any of my XTR2s..
Maybe Dorgan didnt get a proverbial good one, maybe something is wrong with yours? If you have one of the very early runs, they definitely had some clarity issues. By year two they were on their way to cleaning it up, and the past couple years has seen some pretty decent glass on them. Especially in the 10x, 15x, and 20x.
I've never broke an XTR2 and you will be hard put to find one with a tracking issue. They are still good value.
I'll never argue the XTRII is great glass, but it's always been good enough for the job. And better than anything from 20 or 30 years ago. I have a Leupy gold ring VXIII out in my safe that my dad hunted with for years. It doesnt hold a candle to any of my XTR2s..
Maybe Dorgan didnt get a proverbial good one, maybe something is wrong with yours? If you have one of the very early runs, they definitely had some clarity issues. By year two they were on their way to cleaning it up, and the past couple years has seen some pretty decent glass on them. Especially in the 10x, 15x, and 20x.
I've never broke an XTR2 and you will be hard put to find one with a tracking issue. They are still good value.
It seems like quite a robust scope, which is why I have 2. I wonder if there's any chance sending it in for warranty could perhaps result in an improvement in optics.
I'd talk to Burris if I were you. Recent production 4-20x are quite good. 2-10x were quite good all along, I think. 1-8x24 is excellent. 3-15x and 5-25x I am not a big fan of.
ILya
If its anywhere near as bad as you say, I would send it in yesterday.
GL keep us updated.
DT
Burris. He said earlier in this thread (I think) that they are shipping to distributors now. (It may have been another thread as well, I can't recall exactly)
I'm curious how one could substantiate such a broad claim.... Better than anything from 30 years ago??? Not a chance.
Good glass is not exactly new technology. Heck Unertl used great glass long before 30 years ago, not to mention any number of other scope makers.
I have a pair of Lieca binoculars from that era which are still among the best and unquestionably exceed that of any Burris of today.
Perhaps to a young man, 30 years ago seems ancient, (and it is if we are talking about televisions) but good optical quality has been around for a very long time.
The trend I have seen in recent years among scope manufacturers is a deliberate down grading of optical quality of the low to mid priced optics (XTRII being mid priced) in order to justify the much higher price of the more expensive optic. Which coincidentally aligns with the release of the XTRIII.
Leupold has done the same thing if you look back to the Mark 4s and even earlier.
This is all simply market manipulation to extract more corporate profits.
What I'm talking about is the good old days when scopes were made before the manufacturers realized how to pull off such a scam.
^^^ Are you comparing apples to apples? The Burris XTR II is a FFP scope, to which FFP scope are you comparing from 20-30 years ago?
I'm not comparing FFP to anything. The focal plane is not relevant to the point.
Birddog stated that the XTRII has better glass (resolution) than any scope from 30 years ago, and that is quite simply untrue. There is nothing remarkable about the glass used in the XTRII which is why they introduced the XTRIII.
First off if you want to go off topic, please start your own thread. This is not an XTR2 thread OR a 30 yrs ago thread. I don't know what your angle is...other than coming on here to push a product which is borderline annoying but it does nothing the new target turrets don't already do and kind of shows how the target turret can be used so is a good fit.
But it is fun talking about scopes so we can digress for a moment as its obviously escalated. Ha.
To cut to the chase, I will put my XTR2 against any scope you can bring to the table from 30 yrs ago. SCOPE. not binocs. Not something your grandpa said is the best ever. Actual rifle scope. I will be willing to bet a cold beer and dinner you can not come up anything that with will even be in the same category as my XTR2.
Please don't bring up a Mark 4 or any leupold. I owned and sold (other than military scopes which I still own) everything of quality Luppy made and its not close.
And I own more Unertls/Winchesters/S&B's/Lymons/Winchester scopes from 30 yrs ago than most people have looked through. They suck. Its fact. Athlon can make a $200 scope that smokes anything from 30 yrs ago (lets not get started on their quality lol).
All this being said I wont argue your conspiracy theory and marketing strategy. There is for sure more of that going on than we even realize. That being said, Burris INCREASED the glass quality of the XTR2 before the release of the XTR3...soooooo....
Fun convo, looking forward to what scope you can come up with/have that will compete. I shoot matches all over the country. Let me know when and where to meet. Will be a ton of fun. And I may even start a thread about this very subject!
Regards,
Dorgan
PS have you mailed off your XTR2 yet? I highly recommend it.
I wont get all bunjed up over this and argue semantics. I'm 53, I was around 20 and 30 years ago.
The VX3 Leupold was still the scope every hunter wanted to own back in the 90's. It was top of the line and ridiculously (for the time) expensive. I still have that scope, it's not as nice as any of my XTRIIs.
Most scopes back then were skinny little 1" tubes with the very large for the time 40mm objective. Then came 44's and the monstrous 50's. So no, most scopes from that era dont really stack against any of the modern 1k scopes.
But I'll add this caveat and say it's not nicer than "all" scopes from 20 30 years ago. Just the ones I own and remember looking through. You may not think so, but glass has come a long ways, aided by modern scope design.
Pick on the XTRII if you want, but it's been a solid optic for Burris. It's extremely popular with John Public not on Sniper's Hide and Burris has done extremely well with it.
There are quite a few statements here that could use some analysis, but that would take a little while. I'll address a few points.
Overall, the optical quality of low-to-midrange scopes have gone up tremendously in the last 30 years. The statement that manufacturers are lowering optical quality is absolutely preposterous.
The specific call out of Leupold as lowering the optical quality of their product lines is simply not true. Leupold is guilty of not improving the optical quality of their scopes as fast as the rest of the market did. Most of their legacy designs have now been congregated into their Freedom product line and they are essentially the same designs from optomechanical standpoint as the Leupolds of 30 years ago, except the coatings are a little improved. There are some manufacturing differences since machinery changes, but largely that's it. Leupold's modern design are very competitive, but since they are a little late to the market it is an uphill battle. Ultimately, the product is what matters and they will keep on doing well with Mark 5 and a couple of other product lines.
On comparing modern and 30 year old designs: that is very tricky because of how different modern erector systems are. High erector ratio scopes really did not exist back then.
That having been said Zeiss Diavari, Swarovski Habicht and Kahles Helia scopes (and a few others) were better optically than quite a few mid-range scopes of today, like XTR 2. They were top of the line, hand built scopes of their day and they were optically excellent. They did not go as high in magnification as modern scopes do and the magnification ratios were lower, but they were exceedingly good scopes.
For the record, most Unertls were really not great optically. Euro scopes of the time were definitely a step above optically.
High end scopes of 30 years ago had comparatively simple optical formulas, but these designs have been around for a while, so they have been well optimized for a long time.
ILya
Overall, the optical quality of low-to-midrange scopes have gone up tremendously in the last 30 years. The statement that manufacturers are lowering optical quality is absolutely preposterous.
The specific call out of Leupold as lowering the optical quality of their product lines is simply not true. Leupold is guilty of not improving the optical quality of their scopes as fast as the rest of the market did. Most of their legacy designs have now been congregated into their Freedom product line and they are essentially the same designs from optomechanical standpoint as the Leupolds of 30 years ago, except the coatings are a little improved. There are some manufacturing differences since machinery changes, but largely that's it. Leupold's modern design are very competitive, but since they are a little late to the market it is an uphill battle. Ultimately, the product is what matters and they will keep on doing well with Mark 5 and a couple of other product lines.
On comparing modern and 30 year old designs: that is very tricky because of how different modern erector systems are. High erector ratio scopes really did not exist back then.
That having been said Zeiss Diavari, Swarovski Habicht and Kahles Helia scopes (and a few others) were better optically than quite a few mid-range scopes of today, like XTR 2. They were top of the line, hand built scopes of their day and they were optically excellent. They did not go as high in magnification as modern scopes do and the magnification ratios were lower, but they were exceedingly good scopes.
For the record, most Unertls were really not great optically. Euro scopes of the time were definitely a step above optically.
High end scopes of 30 years ago had comparatively simple optical formulas, but these designs have been around for a while, so they have been well optimized for a long time.
ILya
Well perhaps comparing my Leupolds I just happen to be comparing "good ones" that may not be typical of production scopes. I used two 6.5-20 x 50 MM with 30 MM tubes until only recently, essentially the same as what they later called the Mark 4. At the time I ordered them, they were only available as a special order direct from Premier Reticles back when they were the warranty center for Leupold. BTW that we pre-internet.
I don't know if Premier Reticles gave them some special voodoo or if they were typical of what Leupold was producing at the time.
I will say that some years later I was viewing a similar Leupold MK4 scope in Cabella's one day and the glass was terrible compared to mine.
I would say the resolution on mine was very close to what a Leupold 5-25x56 Mark 5HD is today. Which BTW I was using last Saturday.
As for guys claiming the resolution is great on the XTRII, if it is, why would Burris introduce the XTRIII with improved resolution?
I don't know if Premier Reticles gave them some special voodoo or if they were typical of what Leupold was producing at the time.
I will say that some years later I was viewing a similar Leupold MK4 scope in Cabella's one day and the glass was terrible compared to mine.
I would say the resolution on mine was very close to what a Leupold 5-25x56 Mark 5HD is today. Which BTW I was using last Saturday.
As for guys claiming the resolution is great on the XTRII, if it is, why would Burris introduce the XTRIII with improved resolution?
Cripes dude, just stop already. Burris is obviously targeting a different market/price point with the XTRIII. You realize you're arguing with people who stare through different optics of different price points everyday. Your responses are becoming cringeworthy and you're crapping in a thread with non-constructive insight. Start your own thread comparing your Leupold to the Burris XTRII if you want. I've owned countless Leupold's and at least 3 XTRII's. The XTRII offers far more bang for the buck than the MK4 ever did, and I've owned 2 MK4's in the past. I've also owned 2 MK5's and they are a fantastic optic. Plan on ordering an XTRIII very soon. Glass quality be damned, the scope needs to track, and that's what the XTRII has a history of. I don't care if you can see the hairs on a spider's ass at 1,000 yards with an optic, if it won't track repeatedly, its worthless except as a spotting scope.
XTR3 is a better and more expensive scope than XTR2. Most manufacturers have different product lines that vary in price and performance.
For the record, there is a lot more to it than resolution. The resolution on XTR2 is actually quite decent, although XTR3 is better. In other parameters XTR3 is a lot better.
With the Leupold scopes you saw, it could be as simple as sample variation. Also, I would not go off of looking at a scope in a store.
ILya
The XTRIII is the best scope I've looked through, played with, that is under the $2k street price. My eyes, my rifle, my opinion. That's not saying the razor, mk5, and the others aren't good options. But all around, the scr2 reticle is probably the best reticle I've used, other than the mil-xt in the NF. Not to cluttered and usable. The resolution is top notch for the price, turrets are tracking and feel nice, and I've yet to hear of a broken turret like some others. I had a tango 6 for a few years. Loved it even though most on hear said stay away. Turrets were mushy, although a simple fix made them much better, resolution was decent. The XTRIII has made me a believer in Burris. Before i out my hands on one you couldn't have paid me to put a burris on my rifle. Just my humble opinion.
Got a care package from Burris on the weekend.
I shot a PRS match yesterday with my 223 trainer with the 18x XTR3 on top.
I have to say I really enjoy the glass on this scope. I keep comparing it to everything I see, and it stacks up well. Especially at sub $2k.
I'm really taking a shine to the 18x.
I have to say I really enjoy the glass on this scope. I keep comparing it to everything I see, and it stacks up well. Especially at sub $2k.
I'm really taking a shine to the 18x.
Is the reticle the same thickness between the 18x and 30x?
Burris website is pretty vague and Ive sent them an email with no response yet.
The 18x is definitely optimized for that magnification in the SCR2. The reticle is thicker in the 18x.
Thats very good to hear!
I think Ill be seeing a 3.3-18 SCR2 in my gun safe in the near future.
Any chance of some reticle pics?
Im guessing the reticle is still very fine at 3.3x with it becoming readily visible around 5 or 6x?
@wjm308 has some great pics of the reticle at multiple magnifications in his review thread of the XTR3.
I like my XTR2, it's the best scope that I own. Had a cert so I just ordered an XTR3.
This late thread debate inspired me to print out one of those eye tests and post it to a pole 100yd down the street. Comparing The XTR2 to an Athlon Argos ($275) and a Vortex Viper($400) the glass is about the same as the Argos and not as clear as the Viper all at 20x
Clear as in ability to read the smallest text.
Argos and XTR2 I could make out most of 9 and Viper I could read all of 10.
Do you think I should send in my XTR2?
This late thread debate inspired me to print out one of those eye tests and post it to a pole 100yd down the street. Comparing The XTR2 to an Athlon Argos ($275) and a Vortex Viper($400) the glass is about the same as the Argos and not as clear as the Viper all at 20x
Clear as in ability to read the smallest text.
Argos and XTR2 I could make out most of 9 and Viper I could read all of 10.
Do you think I should send in my XTR2?
Doesn't suprise me at all. But the Argos and the viper will break and the xtr2 wont
If you notice any discoloration or fuzzyness I would atleast have them check it out. They might give you a newer production xtr2.
The 3-18 should work, but the 5-25 has a 56mm objective and none of the xtr2s do. Ocular side is the same size, so that cap should work.
Bushnell Sniper Adventure Challenge go time boys
58 lbs. was hoping for under 55 but i cant complain. last year was over 60.
MDT LSSXL
Kelblys Atlas
Burris XTR3
Will give AAR monday morning!!
Regards
DT
58 lbs. was hoping for under 55 but i cant complain. last year was over 60.
MDT LSSXL
Kelblys Atlas
Burris XTR3
Will give AAR monday morning!!
Regards
DT
Last edited:
Nice D_T! Who makes those claw feet for your tripod? I have a PVA COMP-40 and have been looking for something like that.
