Maybe premature to ask but @Birddog6424 and @D_TROS, any ideas on how much weight Burris thinks the illumination feature will add to the scope?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Burris XTR3!!!
- Thread starter D_TROS
- Start date
I havent heard a weight figure. Based on the materials involved, I would be surprised to see much change. The XTRII illuminated versus non illuminated showed no weight change. So it wasn't worth listing.
Release date for this is this summer to early fall before hunting season. As this optic is made here in the US, it has to be worked into the existing production schedule.
I don't see why they would.
A dot and cross are close enough to the same thing, the advantage to a cross is it gives a very fine aiming point at high mag but is overal wider thus easier to see at lower magnification.
My Delta Stryker has crosses rather than dots in the tree and exhibit these advantages.
I certainly wouldn't let this be the only reason I didn't buy a scope.
If they did I'd be jumping ship to a manufacturer that didn't unless the cross was still an option
Looks like by the time the Illuminated version is out there will be new offerings from Vortex and Bushnell.
This winter (or summer for you lesser Northern hemisphere people) is shaping up to be an exciting one for optic releases.
Last I heard they are still shooting for late summer, early fall. We arent there yet.
Its a bit of a conundrum for them. Greeley isn't a huge facility, and they'll have to cease production of the Competition version to work in the illuminated version. But the comp version has gained a lot of traction and is selling really well right now. People are figuring it out that this is as solid as scope as any in its price point.
I would like to see the illuminated version hit the market as much as a lot of people, even though I dont really use it. But I'd like to see the people who want one, get one. But to Burris, or any other manufacturer, a scope sale is a scope sale. They have to make a priority decision.
Its a bit of a conundrum for them. Greeley isn't a huge facility, and they'll have to cease production of the Competition version to work in the illuminated version. But the comp version has gained a lot of traction and is selling really well right now. People are figuring it out that this is as solid as scope as any in its price point.
I would like to see the illuminated version hit the market as much as a lot of people, even though I dont really use it. But I'd like to see the people who want one, get one. But to Burris, or any other manufacturer, a scope sale is a scope sale. They have to make a priority decision.
Last edited:
I think the big interest in the illuminated version is to get an scr2 reticle that is just a touch thicker...hopefully
I agree for the 3.3-18x50, the SCR2 is so thin. I own the 5.5-30 and I actually like the SCR2 reticle in that design, makes me think the reticle was designed with the 5.5-30 in mind, and they adjusted it for the 3.3-18 but to me it is too thin for this mag range. Given the crossover nature and DMR style use of the 3.3-18 it could really use a thicker reticle and I know the SCR is available but again, for the use many would like for this scope, a tree would be nice so getting an SCR3 that is thicker and illuminated would be ideal. But this is all personal preference and like birddog mentioned, if the non-illuminated is selling so well and it would require taking down production of the existing model to make the illuminated model then I can see why Burris has made a decision to not do that right away.
Yes, it's possible Bushnell or Vortex (or ?) could come out with something that matches or exceeds the design of the 3.3-18x50, but until we actually see that, I'm not going to hold my breath for it. If birddog is right and the illuminated 3.3-18 makes it within 2021, I still think it will be the best under $2k budget short scope design with regard to glass and FOV.
What is sad (for me) is that the 3.3-18x50 would be the ideal scope for two of my rifles, but I will not get them with the non-illuminated SCR2 reticle for the above stated reasons, that could be two additional sales for Burris, and I'm sure I'm not alone as this thread attests, so while Burris has chosen not to release illumination due to popularity of non-illuminated in the 3.3-18, I also wonder how much they have "lost" with that decision. Just some thoughts that don't actually matter because Burris is going to do what Burris is going to do regardless of my decisions
I agree for the 3.3-18x50, the SCR2 is so thin. I own the 5.5-30 and I actually like the SCR2 reticle in that design, makes me think the reticle was designed with the 5.5-30 in mind, and they adjusted it for the 3.3-18 but to me it is too thin for this mag range. Given the crossover nature and DMR style use of the 3.3-18 it could really use a thicker reticle and I know the SCR is available but again, for the use many would like for this scope, a tree would be nice so getting an SCR3 that is thicker and illuminated would be ideal. But this is all personal preference and like birddog mentioned, if the non-illuminated is selling so well and it would require taking down production of the existing model to make the illuminated model then I can see why Burris has made a decision to not do that right away.
Yes, it's possible Bushnell or Vortex (or ?) could come out with something that matches or exceeds the design of the 3.3-18x50, but until we actually see that, I'm not going to hold my breath for it. If birddog is right and the illuminated 3.3-18 makes it within 2021, I still think it will be the best under $2k budget short scope design with regard to glass and FOV.
What is sad (for me) is that the 3.3-18x50 would be the ideal scope for two of my rifles, but I will not get them with the non-illuminated SCR2 reticle for the above stated reasons, that could be two additional sales for Burris, and I'm sure I'm not alone as this thread attests, so while Burris has chosen not to release illumination due to popularity of non-illuminated in the 3.3-18, I also wonder how much they have "lost" with that decision. Just some thoughts that don't actually matter because Burris is going to do what Burris is going to do regardless of my decisions
That sums it up very nicely.
The illuminated version with a slightly thicker reticle will make this optic more versatile. More well-rounded for a variety of applications.
Anyone know what kind of bipod this is and what rail segment he is using to attach to it. Thanks
My best guess is that's a Cyke-Pod Double Pull bipod on a JP Arca Rail.
Shop MDT Rifle Bipods for Hunting and Long Range Shooting.
The best rifle bipods in the industry are the CKYE-Pod linup of bipods. They're the most adjustable bipod availble for precision rifle shooters.
mdttac.com
JP Rifles
www.jprifles.com
I too want the thicker reticle in the 3.3-18.I agree for the 3.3-18x50, the SCR2 is so thin. I own the 5.5-30 and I actually like the SCR2 reticle in that design, makes me think the reticle was designed with the 5.5-30 in mind, and they adjusted it for the 3.3-18 but to me it is too thin for this mag range. Given the crossover nature and DMR style use of the 3.3-18 it could really use a thicker reticle and I know the SCR is available but again, for the use many would like for this scope, a tree would be nice so getting an SCR3 that is thicker and illuminated would be ideal. But this is all personal preference and like birddog mentioned, if the non-illuminated is selling so well and it would require taking down production of the existing model to make the illuminated model then I can see why Burris has made a decision to not do that right away.
Yes, it's possible Bushnell or Vortex (or ?) could come out with something that matches or exceeds the design of the 3.3-18x50, but until we actually see that, I'm not going to hold my breath for it. If birddog is right and the illuminated 3.3-18 makes it within 2021, I still think it will be the best under $2k budget short scope design with regard to glass and FOV.
What is sad (for me) is that the 3.3-18x50 would be the ideal scope for two of my rifles, but I will not get them with the non-illuminated SCR2 reticle for the above stated reasons, that could be two additional sales for Burris, and I'm sure I'm not alone as this thread attests, so while Burris has chosen not to release illumination due to popularity of non-illuminated in the 3.3-18, I also wonder how much they have "lost" with that decision. Just some thoughts that don't actually matter because Burris is going to do what Burris is going to do regardless of my decisions
If I lived in the US I would've bought a used one already to give it a go as is but I don't and don't want to get stuck with a scope I can't sell wishing I'd waited for the illuminated model.
I'm that way, I use my scopes for everything which means hunting in the last minutes of legal hours in some hardwood bottom, I use the illumination all the time.
Getting tired of waiting for illumination. A Gen 2 Razor is looking more likely. Bummer. Really wanted to rock this scope this season.
Using the 3-18 on my Hunting rifle and NRL Hunter Series Tikka. Ive got several hundred rounds as well as a couple matches shooting this scope. I dont mind the retc one bit but I love thinnerr stuff generally.
Last NRL hunter match we shot in 3 separate snow storms and low light and nv once did I feel I wanted or would have used illum.
ymmv!
I was unfortunately unable to make weight with the Ckye-pod double pull (12 lb limit for production class) so used the single pull. It worked very well.
GL!
DT
Last NRL hunter match we shot in 3 separate snow storms and low light and nv once did I feel I wanted or would have used illum.
ymmv!
I was unfortunately unable to make weight with the Ckye-pod double pull (12 lb limit for production class) so used the single pull. It worked very well.
GL!
DT
I guess you haven't heard yet... The Burris rep said we don't need illumination.
Love the UPR, pretty much the hunting/cross over set up im going for.
I love the 10shot CTR magazines.
Are those 1" high rings?
Surprised it weighs more than 12lbs though, the bipod and stock must be heavier than they look.
If any of them have one they want to get rid of cheap do to no illumination y'all can just let me know.
Point to the post where someone said that.
My exact last words on the subject above.
Loving my 3.3-18 and 5.5-30. In general I will pass on illumination. I don't need another failure point for something I never need. I think I have used illumination once or twice to make my reticle contrast better on a black target. Aside from turing it on to see if it works. On paper it would seem like the SCR would be pretty thin on 3.3 power, but when you put that big eye piece in front of your eye ball. It is kind if like looking at a big screen TV.
On paper it would seem like the SCR would be pretty thin on 3.3 power, but when you put that big eye piece in front of your eye ball. It is kind if like looking at a big screen TV.
I honestly don't know what availability is. It depends on if retailers have them in stock or not, and I havent shopped for one.
But I got it from Greeley that they have really gained momentum and are selling very well right now.
I think most folks knew that a $1700 Burris would be met with skepticism. But if it was a good scope, it would gain a following over time. And its definitely a good scope. So they are really starting to move now.
Last edited:
I'm waiting for an illuminated version for the thicker reticle. I rarely use illumination, but this will be a dual use scope for me so I need a thicker reticle at lower magnification for hunting. If I ever draw a damned tag in this state.
/David
/David
Question regarding the FOV. The 40ft FOV that everyone is raving about is with the 3-18x50 model....not the 5.5-30x56 correct?
my new varmint rifle is due any day, a Seekins SP10 in 6.5CM. Wide FOV is important to me. And I’m stuck between the XTR3 and Razor lines. Primarily with what magnification range to get.
so correct me if I’m wrong...if I want that wide FOV I need to be looking at the lower magnification options of these two scopes?
my new varmint rifle is due any day, a Seekins SP10 in 6.5CM. Wide FOV is important to me. And I’m stuck between the XTR3 and Razor lines. Primarily with what magnification range to get.
so correct me if I’m wrong...if I want that wide FOV I need to be looking at the lower magnification options of these two scopes?
Yes, that's the FOV on the 3.3-18.
I do like the Razor line up, I've compared side by side against the XTR3 many times.. The blue sky is a little more blue in the Razor. But the XTR3 is brighter than the Razor glass. You'll like it better in low light.
I've had it alongside a 25x ATACR at dusk all the way to dark as well. It actually handled low light much better than the NF.
Its a very good low light optic.
So if I’m looking at the larger mag Razor and XTR3 then FOV is almost identical. Hard to decide which one to go with. At that point it’s basicallly based on reticle it appears.
I think I like the XTR3 glass a little more than the Razor. With the Razor I notice issues with flare if looking towards the sun during morning or late afternoon. I have not noticed that with the XTR3.
If the XTR3 came with a thicker Christmas tree reticle with .5 mil holds (don’t need .2) it would be hands down the best optic for a speed oriented gas gun.
Im setting a rifle up for a few of those matches this year and trying to decide on optics. My LRHS has a better reticle for that purpose. The XTR3 is better in everything else.
If the XTR3 came with a thicker Christmas tree reticle with .5 mil holds (don’t need .2) it would be hands down the best optic for a speed oriented gas gun.
Im setting a rifle up for a few of those matches this year and trying to decide on optics. My LRHS has a better reticle for that purpose. The XTR3 is better in everything else.
Remember the FOV specs are for a set magnification, you'll need to extrapolate the data to compare against scopes or other magnification ranges.
The wide FOV on the XTR3 is the case at all magnification ranges, the 40ft at 3.3x is nice but you get the same benefits of a wide FOV for the magnification on the 5.5-30 model too.
I would have assumed a varmint rifle would warrant a higher magnification scope but if you are hunting predators too then the 3-18 would likely be preferable. Bearing in mind folk like @Glassaholic found the SCR2 too fine at 3.3 magnification but others have said it's not an issue.
At 100 yards, the FOV on the Razor is 4.4ft at 27x
At the same distance, the FOV on the XTR3 4.2ft. But thats on 30x. So there's more difference than you think.
Off the top of my head it seems like with both of them at 20x, the XTR3 showed another 1 or 1.2 mils of reticle per side.
Old eyes suck my 67 year old eyes also have trouble with thin reticles.
Hell I’m 36 with 8 year old eyes (lasik 20/12 vision) and I still have trouble with the reticle.
That's what customer service replied to me as well, not that it means anything. Hopefully gets released before I get sick of looking at my naked rifle. I moved my Trijicon 5-50 to a fancy BB gun
so I'm short one scope.
I think 2 years of "it's coming soon" is enough to say no one knows.
In all fairness, you were the one 2 years ago saying it was coming soon so...
I bought a non illuminated option and I like it as a target scope. A 3.3-18 illuminated would make a good crossover. Basically a cheaper mk5 with a better reticle.
Speaking of which, through some industry deals I am able to get good prices on either a mk5 3.6-18 with a PR1 reticle or a xtr iii 3.3-18 with the scr2 reticle. It’s a difference of $400 dollars between the two with the Leupold being more expensive. Is the price hike worth it in your guys opinion? For context, This optic will live on both my 6.5 CM AR10 rifle and my 6.5 CM hunting rifle. They’re both light weight and quality built.
I sold my MK5 and kept the Burris. Both are nice, and both have things i like about them, but for less money I think the Burris is the easy choice.
Similar threads
