Rifle Scopes Burris XTRII 1.5-8 vs 1-8

z7.jled

z7.jled

Sergeant of the Hide
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 22, 2014
346
199
Tampa, FL
#1
Burris has two variable power XTR II scopes that are very close, 1-8 and a 1.5-8 and I am curios to see what your opinions of one vs the other are. I have not seen an XTRII in person but they get decent reviews.

through the LE/MIL program i could get the 1-8 for price A. I can get the 1.5-8 for price B (lower) or I can get the 1.5-8 with a PEPR mount, Fastfire III mounted on the scope for price A. would there be any reason to not get the 1.5-8, with a fee mount and fastfire? I want to use it for multigun and general range usage. I am not going to be a professional 3 gun/multigun shooter, around 6-9 local matches per year. I want to be a better shooter in all disciplines so that is the goal. I understand it is not a true 1x scope, but is is close enough that it can be used in a similar manner
 
#2
Strongly recommend the 1-8. You will be shooting cqb with both eyes open, and 1.5 will mess with your mind. If you piggyback a red dot on top, that automatically throws you in the open class. For more 3 gun info, check out the forums over at brianenos.com. 3g is down near the bottom of the forums.
 
#3
I have both of these scopes, with tons of rounds down range while using them.

The 1.5-8 is a great scope. I like the BDC and illumination and you get a 28mm objective versus a 24mm.. I don't have issues with the 1.5x with both eyes open, but I recognize that some folks do. I'm one of those guys that can shoot with both eyes open on any magnification. I beat the hell out of this scope in 3 gun without a hiccup.

The 1-8 is made by LOW in Japan, it's excellent quality that will hold it's own against many more expensive optics in this magnification range. It's a hair shorter then the 1.5x and for me, the ability to cap the turrets is a huge feature for 3 gun on this scope. I like the reticle a little better on the 1x and the FFP versus the DFP of the 1.5x.

The package deal is fantastic, but as mentioned, you can only use the red dot in Open class. I bought the package and used the red dot on another firearm, simply because it's such a good deal.

Either one of them will treat you great, so some of this just boils down to personal preference.
 
#5
Definitely a fan of the 1-8, and we have it on sale... http://bit.ly/2pfPqtk


25593917_1838240326218472_7214025400457549483_n.jpg

 
#6
thanks for the comments,

for those who have compared them head to head, is there a $100-$200 difference (cost of a mount and FFIII)? is the 1-8 better at anything besides a different reticle and a true 1x? I understand the function and ease of use of the true 1x, but I don't think I would mind a 1.5 too much. is the glass the same? I see the issue with the exposed/capped turrets, could be a big deal in a serious competition (not sure if I would consider this a serious competition)



 
#7
To me, the 1-8x24 is worth the price difference, but true 1x is a big driver in that decision. The glass is not the same since the two scopes are made in different places, but both are quite good. I would have prefered a mrad-based reticle in the 1-8x, but what I have works well.

If your primary use is at 6-8x, you will not see much of a difference. If your use involves a lot of time at lower magnifications, go for the 1-8x24.

ILya
 
#10
The reticle marks will certainly be somewhere in the trajectory of the MK262. This is always the BDC issue. That said, the 1-8 has a 10 mil single turn knob for better accuracy.

Up here at altitude its nowhere close usually.
 
#11
The King said:
The reticle marks will certainly be somewhere in the trajectory of the MK262. This is always the BDC issue. That said, the 1-8 has a 10 mil single turn knob for better accuracy.

Up here at altitude its nowhere close usually.
Click to expand...

Perfect drop correlation of 100 yard increments for your ammo type is a misconception that needs to die a long, prolonged death.

The reticle subtensions on a BDC do NOT need to correspond with your ammo at 100, 200, 300 yards etc. They DO already correlate with a distance just like a mil reticle. One mil equals 270 yards, two mils equals 340 yards, three mils equals 410 yards, etc, etc.

The BDC is a perfect reticle for these magnification types. But thanks to the military trying to align their acogs or various optics at perfect increments of 100 yards per line, that's what everyone thinks needs to happen. But it doesn't. Just take out your rifle and dope it just like you would any other rifle. True it up so you know your drops as far out as you are going to shoot. Then just find out what each subtension represents on your reticle and look in your ballistic app for the corresponding yardage. It's a piece of cake.

With my Burris BDC the subtensions roughly equate off the top of my head to 320, 420, 510, and 640. Something like that. Knowing what they are is the same as knowing they equate to 100, 200, 300, etc.

The BDC is designed for quick target transition through multiple ranges without time wasted turning turrets. It's perfect for it, I would much rather have the BDC over a Mil reticle that has the same information but with more clutter I don't need.. As mentioned, if you want something more precise at a known distance at your leisure, turn the turret..
 
Last edited:
#12
Birddog6424 said:
Perfect drop correlation of 100 yard increments for your ammo type is a misconception that needs to die a long, prolonged death.

The reticle subtensions on a BDC do NOT need to correspond with your ammo at 100, 200, 300 yards etc. They DO already correlate with a distance just like a mil reticle. One mil equals 270 yards, two mils equals 340 yards, three mils equals 410 yards, etc, etc.

The BDC is a perfect reticle for these magnification types. But thanks to the military trying to align their acogs or various optics at perfect increments of 100 yards per line, that's what everyone thinks needs to happen. But it doesn't. Just take out your rifle and dope it just like you would any other rifle. True it up so you know your drops as far out as you are going to shoot. Then just find out what each subtension represents on your reticle and look in your ballistic app for the corresponding yardage. It's a piece of cake.

With my Burris BDC the subtensions roughly equate off the top of my head to 320, 420, 510, and 640. Something like that. Knowing what they are is the same as knowing they equate to 100, 200, 300, etc.

The BDC is designed for quick target transition through multiple ranges without time wasted turning turrets. It's perfect for it, I would much rather have the BDC over a Mil reticle that has the same information but with more clutter I don't need.. As mentioned, if you want something more precise at a known distance at your leisure, turn the turret..
Click to expand...

I disagree and here is why. In principle, it does not matter what the subtensions are. As long as we know what they are we can figure out what distances they correspond to. Those distances do not need to correspond to 100 yard increments since those only happen at the shooting range. Here is the rub though: every manufacturer uses different subtensions with their BDC reticles, so if I use scopes from different manufacturers, I have to map all of them out and remember which is which. If everyone used a reticle based on mrad subtensions, I can easily transition from one to another without giving it a moment's thought. With every cartridge I shoot, I can figure out where the impact is in 1 or 0.5 mrad increments at different altitudes/conditions and i can use any mrad-based reticle with minimal transition issues. Now, I have a BDC reticle from Vortex, BDC reticle from Burris, BDC reticle from Elcan, etc. They are all a little different. Burris scopes are consistent with each other, so between my RT-6 and XTR-II, there are no transitions issues. Both are good scopes and I recommend both to people. Transitioning from one to another is easy, but I am unlikely to switch to Burris scope only (or Vortex only, or to any other single brand), so I would really prefer some standardization.

One of the better reticles in this regard that I have seen lately is the reticle in Hawke Frontier 1-6x24. It looks like a BDC reticle, but at 6x it is mrad delineated. BDC reticle in my Leica Magnus 1.8-12x50 does the same thing at 12x. All the SWFA SS scopes I use are mrad-based. Ans so on and so forth. They all may look a little different in terms of wind holds, but since they are all fundamentally based on mrad, transitioning from one to another is fairly straightforward. Equally importantly, if I need to call a shot correction with a BDC reticle, good luck remembering what the subtensions of that particular design are. With mrad-based reticle, I always know what I am looking for.

If I only owned one or two scopes, it would not be an issue. I've got somewhere between 30 and 40 scopes on hand right now. Most I own, some I received on loan for testing, so for me the whole BDC thing is a major pain in the ass.

ILya
 
#13
I agree with you Ilya. For a guy in your shoes that is a drawback to BDC reticles. The mil reticle definitely brings some standardization for the guy with a crap ton of optics. I have 3 different scopes with BDC's, but two of them see limited use. My primary scope on my 3 gun rifle gets 90% of the trigger time and I like the BDC over Mil for that usage.

I do have subtensions and yardages written down on dopecards in my rifle bags and in the Notes section of my phone for all 3 of my BDC reticles. So I haven't had too much difficulty bouncing around, but your point is taken. If there is a takeaway from my post above I hope that it would be that people don't need their ammo and reticles to line up on the perfect 100 yard incremements. BDC's work for everything. I have used my 8x scopes on a 5.56, 6.5 Creedmoor and 308 SASS by look at what yardage correlates with the subtension.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Black max
#14
That is a perfectly valid point. As I said, exact 100 yard increment only happens at the range and even there, it is often not that precise.

The two BDC reticles I deal with the most are Burris and Vortex.

Burris subtensions from zero in Ballistic Plex reticles: 0.4, 1.26, 2.09, 3.07, 4.12 mrad
Burris subtensions from zero in AR reticles are: 0.32, 0.96, 1.77, 2.76 and 3.96 mrad
Vortex uses these subtensions in the G4 reticle: 0.58, 1.16, 2.18, 3.2 mrad
Vortex uses these subtensions in the JM-1 and AR-BDC2 reticles: 0.7, 1.63, 2.76, 4.25 mrad

Everyone works off of the same ballistic calcualtors, but makes different assumptions about ammo, so the numbers are close, but not quite the same. For trajectory compensation, I can mitigate some of that with careful sight in.

For comparison, here is what the new Hawke reticle looks like:
i-62HfdcJ-M.jpg
And here are the subtensions:
i-wjVrbjB-M.png

Nothing there for me to memorize. I have give Hawke all sorts of flak about their reticles over the years, but I really like this one. If I know mrad holds for my ammo, I can use this reticle with nearly zero adjustment period. I don't really need 10 mrad of holds for an AR, but all of that is fairly unobtrusive, so I do not mind. I have all the holds I regularly use in this reticle all mrad based.

ILya
 
Last edited:
#15
The BDC that got closest to me liking was NF's Velocity reticles. I used the LV 2.5-10x24 on a AR carbine. Being SFP I could tune the mag and sightin distance to get the dope lined up very close to my load. It still wasn't ideal because it was tuned for one load and one location or DA.

I like Athlons reticles in their 1-6's! My favorite is the Midas and would rather just put a SFP on 6x and use mils on low power for scopes like this.
 
#16
That's definitely a great reticle design from Hawke!

I haven't seen any of the stuff from Athlon yet Steve, I'll keep an eye out for a chance to check them out..

I also have the JM-1 reticle in my Razor 1-6. I started out with the BDC in the Gen I, then got the mil reticle in the Gen II when it came out. But I didn't care for it, so I traded it straight across with a guy who wanted the mil and went back to the JM-1.
 
#17
I have not tested the Midas 1-6x24, so I can not say much about the reticle. Is the illumination bright enough for day use? It looks a little thin, so it needs good brightness. For some reason the mrad reticle does not have the circle segments which I like in reticles of this type (MOA version does have them).

I have a suspicion that the MIdas BTR and Hawke Frontier are made by the same OEM. If that is the case, Midas 1-6x24 should be a very nice scope. The Hawke is easily the best Chinese low range variable I have seen to date and not by a small margin.

I did test Athlon Cronus 1-6-24 FFP with mrad reticle and really liked that scope a lot. My only knock on it is that I prefer covered turrets in scopes of this type, and that is a personal preference. I would also like the circle segments to be a little thicker, so the reticle looks a little brighter at 1x. However, aside from these very minor complaints, it is a very solid design.

Unfortunately, I had a little while back, so I have not had a chance to compare it to the XTR II 1-8x24. Overall, the XTR II 1-8x24 is my favourite low range variable design for around $1k, for people who can live with the BDC.

With the SFP 1-6x24 designs, the Frontier and, likely, the Midas make it a difficult value proposition for more expensive scopes, until you get to the price range of the Razor Gen 2.

Disclaimer: I have not tested PST Gen 2 1-6x24 and I have very mixed feeling about the reticles Leupold put in to the VX-5HD and VX-6HD low range variables and Sig put into Tango6 1-6x24.

ILya
 
Last edited:
#18
koshkin said:
I have not tested the Midas 1-6x24, so I can not say much about the reticle. Is the illumination bright enough for day use? It looks a little thin, so it needs good brightness. For some reason the mrad reticle does not have the circle segments which I like in reticles of this type (MOA version does have them).

I have a suspicion that the MIdas BTR and Hawke Frontier are made by the same OEM. If that is the case, Midas 1-6x24 should be a very nice scope. The Hawke is easily the best Chinese low range variable I have seen to date and not by a small margin.

I did test Athlon Cronus 1-6-24 FFP with mrad reticle and really liked that scope a lot. My only knock on it is that I prefer covered turrets in scopes of this type, and that is a personal preference. I would also like the circle segments to be a little thicker, so the reticle looks a little brighter at 1x. However, aside from these very minor complaints, it is a very solid design.

Unfortunately, I had a little while back, so I have not had a chance to compare it to the XTR II 1-8x24. Overall, the XTR II 1-8x24 is my favourite low range variable design for around $1k, for people who can live with the BDC.

With the SFP 1-6x24 designs, the Frontier and, likely, the Midas make it a difficult value proposition for more expensive scopes, until you get to the price range of the Razor Gen 2.

Disclaimer: I have not tested PST Gen 2 1-6x24 and I have very mixed feeling about the reticles Leupold put in to the VX-5HD and VX-6HD low range variables and Sig put into Tango6 1-6x24.

ILya
Click to expand...

It was the MOA version of the Midas 1-6x24 I tested, with the circle reticle. The only way I could fault it was it didn't have true daylight bright illume, almost but not quite, an hour before sunset the reticle was bright enough that I didn't want it on the highest setting. But the reticle was perfect for that scope otherwise and there wasn't really a need for a daylight bright reticle using it. The right size to see well on 1x being SFP and it did really well holding over and off to 675Y on 6x. Up close doing transitions on IPSC targets, I wasn't hindered compared to using a RD.

I agree, I just want capped but finger adjustable turrets on these kind of scopes. Most of the time I won't be dialing anyway so I don't need to concerned with the turrets getting turned accidentally.

The glass was excellent, above it's price point for sure.

Well there's the higher quality scopes in this mag range, but for me personally, I don't want to spend my money on a expensive 1-?, I can't justify the small % difference in quality or robustness for my needs.
 
#19
steve123 said:
It was the MOA version of the Midas 1-6x24 I tested, with the circle reticle. The only way I could fault it was it didn't have true daylight bright illume, almost but not quite, an hour before sunset the reticle was bright enough that I didn't want it on the highest setting. But the reticle was perfect for that scope otherwise and there wasn't really a need for a daylight bright reticle using it. The right size to see well on 1x being SFP and it did really well holding over and off to 675Y on 6x. Up close doing transitions on IPSC targets, I wasn't hindered compared to using a RD.

I agree, I just want capped but finger adjustable turrets on these kind of scopes. Most of the time I won't be dialing anyway so I don't need to concerned with the turrets getting turned accidentally.

The glass was excellent, above it's price point for sure.

Well there's the higher quality scopes in this mag range, but for me personally, I don't want to spend my money on a expensive 1-?, I can't justify the small % difference in quality or robustness for my needs.
Click to expand...

I try to avoid MOA scopes given a choice, which is the only reason I have not tested the Midas yet. It sounds like it is the same scope as the Hawke Frontier. Its illumination is about as bright as you describe: clearly visible on anything but the brightest day. I took the Frontier 1-6x24 to 600 yards on plates and it really worked well. The turrets are of the pop-up variety, so I kept them in the locked position majority of the time.

ILya
 
#21
koshkin said:
To me, the 1-8x24 is worth the price difference, but true 1x is a big driver in that decision. The glass is not the same since the two scopes are made in different places, but both are quite good. I would have prefered a mrad-based reticle in the 1-8x, but what I have works well.

If your primary use is at 6-8x, you will not see much of a difference. If your use involves a lot of time at lower magnifications, go for the 1-8x24.

ILya
Click to expand...

I didn't know the XTR-ii scopes weren't all the same. That's a bit deceptive when trying to decide which one to buy. I simply figured the extra cost of the 1-8x was in making it a true 1x at low power. It never occurred to me it may be because they used cheaper glass on the 1.5-8x model. Damn, now I'm back to square one. I had all but decided on the 1.5-8x model.
 
#25
I saw the write-up, and pics, thanks for doing it. Those are exactly the pics I'd like to see on the 1.5-8x model for comparison.
I was hoping to see what the reticle looks like on the 1.5-8x model at the 1.5x and 8x settings. I don't fully understand the dual focal plan concept and want to see if the SFP illuminated portion obscurs the view when used at 8x. Also, I'm curious how bright the illumination is at 1.5x in bright sun.
 
#27
Definitely a very good read.

Your review takes a different tact than reading through the plethora of gun mag articles where I think many writers gush over every product. Criticism is carefully phrased in the gun mags in generalities like "cycling was a little finicky", which means the gun ran like crap. Or "it takes a little effort to get the adjustments correct" which means the gun felt like crap. So it was refreshing to see the unadulterated pros and cons.
 
#28
Birddog6424 said:
Definitely a very good read.

Your review takes a different tact than reading through the plethora of gun mag articles where I think many writers gush over every product. Criticism is carefully phrased in the gun mags in generalities like "cycling was a little finicky", which means the gun ran like crap. Or "it takes a little effort to get the adjustments correct" which means the gun felt like crap. So it was refreshing to see the unadulterated pros and cons.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Usually, with every review, I make more enemies than friends, but this one may be an exception. I really liked the XTR II and I would like it even more with a mrad-based reticle.

10mrad circle was a particularly good choice. You can do gross range estimation really quickly with it because of how simple the math is. That is good for center-of-mass hits pretty far out. I am probably going to put the XTR II on my Grendel next and take it out to $1k. That should be interesting. I've shot out to 1k with 6x in the past with good results, so 8x should be a bit easier yet. I will try to set it up later in the day, so I can start in good light that keep at it as the sun sets. That will give me a real measure of how the performance changes with lighting conditions.

ILya
 
#29
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the 8x at range.

I've had both the 1.5-8 and the 1-8 on a 6.5 Creedmoor. I felt they were effective at those distances, although I shot to 900 yards, not 1000. I didn't have any trouble swatting my plate.

I remember talking to Sky Leighton at Burris about a year ago, and I was pretty sure he mentioned a mil reticle was in the works for the 1.5-8. The intent was to market that version of the 8x as the DMR type optic. But I haven't heard of it or seen it as yet. I suspect if it doesn't show up at SHOT this year they probably shelved that idea for something else.
 
#30
They list a mil based reticle on the website as Ballistic CQ Mil and available for the 1.5-8x28. I am pretty sure I saw it at one of the SHOT shows recently. It is a nice reticle and if I were buying the 1.5-8x28, I would go with that one. We'll see if they are doing anything new for the 1-8x24. By the way, are you going to be at SHOT?

ILya
 
#34
I own a pair of https://www.natchezss.com/burris-xt...-5-8x-28mm-illum-ballistic-5-56-gen3-dfp.html sets, got em for $649 ea in a spring. terrific optic. if I could buy more for my newly purchased FN15 Competition, I certainly would. it is heavy, all things considered. you will have to remove turrets to get yourself close to 0 (vertical) as both were maxed out out of the box and still shooting too high (20moa mounts on the 556 scope seems silly). I do NOT know how to take a picture with my iphone of the reticle - it seems just as pictured above. red dot/horseshoe stays the same size, meanhwile black gradations increase with power... what else, you will pay hell trying to set offset fastfire dot - I literally had to put in the rifle vise to get it accurate at 25m. once all set - holds 0 and compensation drops/gradations are dead on with 62gr ball out to 400m
6E282E69-C8A6-490C-B3BF-39202E3352CC.jpeg
F4780221-4639-4976-804D-E0C125056555.jpeg
EC4B0F69-6E00-40B8-B138-443858E73BC9.jpeg
75256A54-7159-45E2-8F15-83789C10E85B.jpeg
D3736541-8A0F-4731-B3C2-14AC817DC8D5.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pmalec85
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Nx8 1-8 vs Vudu 1-10 ?
Replies
6
Views
261
mrtoyz
mrtoyz
JMetzinger
SOLD Burris XTR II 1.5-8x28 Optic w/Fastfire III Piggyback Mounted
Replies
2
Views
206
BlackLabKatie
B
B
SOLD Nightforce ATACR 1-8 S-VPS Contract Kit
Replies
6
Views
549
Bchico14
B
S
Optics Nightforce ATACR 1-8
Replies
9
Views
538
sheffn
S
F
Rifle Scopes Burris XTR Pro 5.5-30x56 SCR 2 Illuminated Reticle
Replies
0
Views
138
Fox One
F
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts