Rifle Scopes Burris XTRii vs $30 Tasco

[Mikhailovich]

Hi guys, got myself a burris xtr2 4-20 scr, mounted on a sako tr22. i took it out for the 3rd time today since ownership, and each time I have not been able to get a clear picture or focus no matter which dial settings I adjust (I followed the diopter sticky from the hide as well). Its been nothing but frustration and a struggle with each shooting session. I went out there with my brother today and the picture quality is so poor that I decided to not even waste my reload tests. I looked through my bros Cronus on his AI AT and its a night and day difference. To help illustrate my point, i took photos of the XTRii vs a 3-9 Tasco for comparisions sake and the Tasco outshines it at the almost the same mag (9x vs 10x). Has anyone else had this issue? Ive read that Burris doesnt have the best glass on the forums but this is just extreme.

 

[gpo1956]

A couple of questions. Did you follow the steps in the sticky above about focusing the eyepeice? Also, at what distance are you the pictures taken?

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Tasco parallax is pre-set.

 

[Fursniper]

If you have the diopter adjusted properly as you say then the only other thing it could be is the parallax adjustment. I realize that this would be obvious but you never mentioned it's adjustment. Otherwise, looks like it's time to give Burris a call for a return to the shop.

 

[Birddog6424]

Its not the glass.

Something is off in your,settings. Or your eyeball

 

[morganlamprecht]

ive looked thru 3 of these...a buddy has the 8-40x (or whatever the high power one is), another has the 5-25, and i (briefly) owned the 2-10x...the 40x and 25x, while not the greatest glass in the world, they were very usable, would have had no issues running them...the 2-10x i had was similar to yours, no matter the parallax or diopter setting i could never get a crisp image...at 100 yds on paper there was a ton of CA and it was kind of fuzzy always...at distance on steel, no real definition to the image, hard to make out details...i sold it for a BIG discount, and i think the guy was going to check it out himself and then send it in, if need be...i never followed up with him to see how it played out

 

[supercorndogs]

Even if the diopter is not set correctly you should still be able to get a "clear" picture. And by clear I mean as clear as the glass will allow. The diopter is to focus the reticle to your eye with the sight picture. If you think something is wrong send it to Burris. Its gonna be hard to diagnose your glass through a picture. Even the really cheap scopes have some decent glass in them anymore.

 

[Mikhailovich]

Diopter was set according to the hide instructions, parallax was set at the range at 100 yards and at 50 yards in the photo which is the distance it was taken at. Previous range outings I blamed the poor clarity on mirage, but yesterday with no shots fired and in the shade I couldn't even pull the trigger the image was unbearable. My bro looked through my scope played with the adjustments and gave up as well. I have a few other scopes, pst, hslr, Midas and never had this issue.

 

[blbennett1288]

If you know you have covered the basics it can't hurt to send it back and get it checked out; all it'll cost you is S&H one way and you'll have it back in 1-2 weeks

 

[steve123]

B"L"urris glass, not all that uncommon and this subject comes up more than is comfortable, coming from the "I might have considered buying one if it weren't for these particular posts". Admittedly as long as a scope tracks I'll pick nicer glass vs other aspects.

They have great turrets though.

 

[Mikhailovich]

Thank you guy for the responses, I appreciate it.
birddog, it was your steadfast defense and praise of the xtr2 that nudged me in its direction. I think my 30 year old eyes are not the ones with an issue.

 

[Rerun7]

The glass on my 5-25 is better than both of those images. No offense but I'm guessing there is some operator error in there. If not, I'd send it back for a new one.

Are you sure those bushes bushes aren't closer than the minimum parallax setting?

 

[Birddog6424]

Thank you guy for the responses, I appreciate it.
birddog, it was your steadfast defense and praise of the xtr2 that nudged me in its direction. I think my 30 year old eyes are not the ones with an issue.

Well I do hope you get it cleared up. I think it's a difficult troubleshoot. I've had this conversation with the brand manager a couple times and he said the majority of times folks send their scope in with this issue, they are unable to replicate it. It's a head scratcher for them..

But the warranty is bulletproof, they'll cover it. And in spite of what others might think, "Blurris" has sold many thousands of these. It's a far higher number than anyone on this board thinks. They've been churning them out as fast as they can make them for over three years now. And the returns they get back to Greeley are phenominally low.

Here on the Hide guys poke at it for so called pedestrian glass, but the rest of the world loves this scope. On this forum they see one guy talk about it's so-so glass, so when they speak of it they say the same thing. In conversations with folks in Greeley we've often laughed about how the Burris is treated here on the Hide. But away from our little microcosm people buy it, use it, and love it. Four guys out of ten had this scope in my PRS squad Saturday, and all of them loved it, and had no issues with the glass quality. I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that it is quite likely to be the second or third most used optic in the PRS at the Club level. I see tons of these at Northwest and Rocky Mountain Region PRS matches.

If you have followed all the steps Mikhailovich, and it still isn't resolving to your satisfaction, take advantage of that warranty. And let me know if you decide to send it and I'll tag Sky Leighton on this post and make sure you get well taken care of. I'm sure the folks at Burris want you to be happy with your scope, and Lord knows I do. So I'll do everything I can on my end to make sure you get taken care of.

 

[Mikhailovich]

Thanks for the thoughtful response birddog. Im going to follow the steps to a T again and hope for the best. I really dont want to waste my time or burris' sending the scope back and for them to tell me all is well. Im certainly not trying to bash burris or say their scopes suck. I just want to see through it, lol and use it.

 

[glock24]

Bring on the Tasco Tactical . . .

 

[Birddog6424]

Thanks for the thoughtful response birddog. Im going to follow the steps to a T again and hope for the best. I really dont want to waste my time or burris' sending the scope back and for them to tell me all is well. Im certainly not trying to bash burris or say their scopes suck. I just want to see through it, lol and use it.

I'm with you brother. We'll get it figured out.

Let me know of there is anything I can do to help.

 

[Tucker301]

I've got two of the Burris Veracity scopes and have found them both to be extremely sharp and bright. I can't imagine what's going on here.

 

[MarinePMI]

It is a puzzling issue, since it seems to happen more than just occasionally (but not frequently), and there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it. I (for one) would be curious if their was a ever a culprit found for this issue...

 

[Steel+Killer]

Honest question here and not trying bash Burris, but if it's not the glass and there's nonthing wrong with the scope why does it seem more people have trouble with setting up Burris scopes than say vs other brands are they just finicky? Good luck to the OP I hope you get it resolved!

 

[Birddog6424]

I do think it's just finicky, for whatever reason. I know they had some issues with folks who had an astigmatism. Which seemed to exacerbate the issue. And early on there were certainly a few with parallax issues. But from what I have gathered most of the scopes that have had this issue are mechanically sound and the issue isn't reapeatable at Greeley.

I will add I'm not super knowledgeable on the subject. It's just something we have briefly discussed on a couple of ocassions the phone. I havent had the opportunity to play with a scope having this issue. Just seen the discussions on this board of a handful or so of them over the last couple years. Including yours Marine PM.

 

[rookie7]

i have had multiple models of the XTR II in my hands to compare - 3-15, 4-20, 5-25, and 8-40. They feel very solid and reliable. I like the 10 mil turn turrets, zero stop,and reticle.

They have a great reputation for reliable and accurate tracking.

The glass in them is bright and clear, but resolution is horrible. The colors from one object to another bleeds out into the other visible shapes that you are viewing. This has been the case for all examples I have had.

My SWFA 10x has better glass and resolution than any XTR II. I have the $300 scope. However, I don't have an adjustable mag range, no zero stop, and 5 mil turn turrets.

This topic of Burris' glass has come up several times on the Hide over the years. Their glass can't touch VX3, Sightron SII or SIII, Bushnell 4200, Zeiss Conquest and so on.

It does have great PRS features though. Personally, I would rather pay more money and get better glass. That's me though.

I don't think many of their scopes have actual image problems - it is what it is - know that when you buy - it's just their formula for coatings on their glass or the glass they purchase.

My opinion? Burris? I hope you're listening - Put Sightron S3 glass in your XTR II line or come out with an XTR 3. You will OWN the $1200 and under market. OWN IT! Just don't go up stupid on your prices.

I wonder how much more bottom line cost it would be to put better glass or coatings in the scope. How much? $100 per scope? I have no idea.

I do feel this though - increase your glass quality to compete with the Sightron - they are known for that - if profit per piece is 30%, but it to 28% to keep from going up on price significantly and then turn around and increase sales by 30% with new and improved glass.

Just run the #'s and see what is possible. JMO.

 

[MarinePMI]

I do think it's just finicky, for whatever reason. I know they had some issues with folks who had an astigmatism. Which seemed to exacerbate the issue. And early on there were certainly a few with parallax issues. But from what I have gathered most of the scopes that have had this issue are mechanically sound and the issue isn't reapeatable at Greeley.

I will add I'm not super knowledgeable on the subject. It's just something we have briefly discussed on a couple of ocassions the phone. I havent had the opportunity to play with a scope having this issue. Just seen the discussions on this board of a handful or so of them over the last couple years. Including yours Marine PM.

BD,

I wonder if there is a correlation not just with astigmatism, but also people with LASIK (of which I had almost 20 years ago). It'd be an interesting data point to gather. I am not an ophthalmologist/optometrist so have no clue if that would have any effect on perceived clarity, but just tossing it out there. I used to have an astigmatism before LASIK BTW.

As a general statement, the XTR II is not a bad scope. In fact, I still recommend it to new shooters as a decent entry level scope that has all the bells and whistles and solid tracking. My experience was biased by also receiving a Razor Gen II shortly after getting the XTR II. Not really a fair comparison, but it definitely made me biased towards the weight that clarity carries when looking through a scope for 4-6 hours a day over the course of a week and a half. Again, the XTR II is still a hell of a lot of scope for the money.

 

[Birddog6424]

I agree Marine, it's a pleasure to look through some of the optics these days with that high tech glass. I linked, or attempted to link Sky Leighton to this thread. Apparently I'm not smart enough to operate my new Samsung 8. It simply refused to copy and paste into a text. Hopefully he figured out what I was trying to get him to see in spite of my technological shortcomings. I bet my 12 year old could have done it.

But perhaps he may have some further insight into this issue.

And I would love to see an XTR HD or XTR III just like you Rookie. I think a well priced scope with killer glass would be a hell of a great product from Burris. I have no idea if it's in the cards. When I saw Sky at the JC Steel match in Washington a few weeks ago it sounded more like they were enjoying finally getting caught up from 3 years of being constantly behind the curve, and were focusing on the rollout of the RT-6, and the new spotter and binocular line up. But I'm sure they are looking further ahead than that and just didn't have anything to share with me at the time. I'm not very good at keeping secrets.

 

[Mikhailovich]

Well I spent some time with a white wall, parallax at infinity and whispered sweet nothings to the diopter and got that baby as crisp as i could. Went outside and there was a little improvement but still no bueno. The longer you look, the worse the image got.(30sec-1min) its as if the scope will focus for second and then go blurry, focus and blurry, really strange. I pulled out my vortex hslr and nice clear image, couldnt be happier. Back to burris, fuzz fest. Im going to send it back to burris. Maybe this rare specimen is patient zero, it will help find a cure to this issue.

Birddog whats the magic number to get this baby to the lab asap lol!

 

[chiroz]

The two Burris XTR II scopes I own have been my most disappointing scope purchases. I have grown to hate them for the reasons others have noted. I can not seem to get a crisp image, like I can in every other scope that I own. I am by no stretch an optics snob, but the Burris XTR II offerings I own do not even reach the minimum optics standard I would expect from a scope costing 1/3 of the price I paid for them.

 

[SuperSneakySniper]

I can't wait to see what a friggin XTR 2 4-20 looks like lol! I'm still trying to get my money back from a store that lied about having them in stock so I can go ahead and buy one from another store lmao. I looked through one at a local place a while ago, looked just as clear and crisp as any, but as we all know, it's hard to really tell when indoors.

Honestly though, (and the scary part), is that I don't think my eyes can tell much of a difference between a Primary Arms 4-14, Athlon Argos, Viper PST, Bushnell (forget which one), or Athlon Cronus.... I've looked thru all of them in the field and to be honest, either my eyes are bad, or I've got some weird ass vision, I really can't see a big difference. They all looked great. Shooting to 600 yards, I liked em' all. I know it sounds like I've lost my mind but it's the truth. The only scope that had noticeably better glass to my eyes was a Razor HD Gen 2 my buddy had. So I figured I'd just get a reliable scope, and save up for one of those in the meantime. And XTRs have a track record for reliability.

EDIT: Ha, and whaddaya know, the return processed. Just ordered an XTR 2 4-20

 

[Birddog6424]

The two Burris XTR II scopes I own have been my most disappointing scope purchases. I have grown to hate them for the reasons others have noted. I can not seem to get a crisp image, like I can in every other scope that I own. I am by no stretch an optics snob, but the Burris XTR II offerings I own do not even reach the minimum optics standard I would expect from a scope costing 1/3 of the price I paid for them.

What are the odds that you got two scopes with some sort of mechanical issue that doesn't allow it to resolve the target. It makes me believe that there is some sort of reason you and the XTR just aren't coming together. But I'm no scope tech, I'm a shooter. I couldn't tell you if the scope is finicky and you aren't hitting the sweet spot, or it's an eyesight issue. I don't have the answer. I'm just trying to help out as best I can from a keyboard.

Like I said, it's a head scratcher as to why some people are able to resolve these just fine and some aren't. I've looked through more of these than I can count and haven't encountered this issue yet with anyone locally or at a match. This maybe the 4th or 5th time I have heard of a scope with these issues in the last couple years. So it's not common.

You guys should be getting in touch with Burris customer service. No one wants you to be unhappy with your purchase. The manufacturers in this industry that are offering to stand behind their product regardless of the issue are absolutely committed to good customer satisfaction. So give them the opportunity to make it right.

That warranty is there for a reason, because there's no such thing as a perfect product. Maybe the folks at Burris know what is occurring here, so hit them up. If anyone feels like they need a hand with this, let me know. Hopefully the folks at Burris have seen this thread and are following.

 

[supercorndogs]

Well I spent some time with a white wall, parallax at infinity and whispered sweet nothings to the diopter and got that baby as crisp as i could. Went outside and there was a little improvement but still no bueno. The longer you look, the worse the image got.(30sec-1min) its as if the scope will focus for second and then go blurry, focus and blurry, really strange. I pulled out my vortex hslr and nice clear image, couldnt be happier. Back to burris, fuzz fest. Im going to send it back to burris. Maybe this rare specimen is patient zero, it will help find a cure to this issue.

Birddog whats the magic number to get this baby to the lab asap lol!

That really does sound more like its the settings than the scope. One thing that surprised with both of my XTRII. I had the diopter turned almost all the way out before it was adjusted to my eyes, which are not bad or old, and this is not characteristic of other scopes I own or have owned.

 

[samnev]

I haven't had any problems getting a sharp image on my 4-20X50 XTR II. But haven't had a chance to take out my 5-25X50 XTR II. Hoping for the best

 

[WarbirdWeaponry]

I have a 4-20 Veracity with the same problems as the OP. Sent it in and it came back with a clean bill of health, a waste of time and money. The only way to make it even remotely clear is to move my head to the far right side of the eyebox, so much so that the image starts to fade away, then it starts to get sharp.

Needless to say I'm disappointed with Burris. It tracks good though...

 

[chiroz]

The best way I can describe my issue with my Burris XTR scopes is that they seem to have a limited depth of field. This was not apparent on several Bushnell Elite Tactical flavors and other scopes that I own. I am really not sure what I have is a serviceable item, I would bet they would measure within "factory specs" on a machine. I would feel guilty sending back the scopes just because it does not work for me.

 

[ICU22250]

This is a typical Buuris thread, people do your homework before you make a purchase. The Burris XTR II is a value optic for what it is, it has a nice reticle, tracks great, plenty of internal adjustment and good magnification range options. But it's major shortcomings is in its glass, it's good enough to see your target and get hits but it's not gonna resolve with more expensive high end glass. You just can't have everything with a budget optic. I will say this to the OP, you mentioned looking at those bushes at like 50 yards which is at the lowest of the parralax settings, have you tried just a little farther out to see if it's any better, say 100 yards? I was just thinking that it could be where at 50 yards you are at the end of the parralax spectrum and that might be part of the issue... JMO.

 

[Mikhailovich]

I have a 4-20 Veracity with the same problems as the OP. Sent it in and it came back with a clean bill of health, a waste of time and money. The only way to make it even remotely clear is to move my head to the far right side of the eyebox, so much so that the image starts to fade away, then it starts to get sharp.

Needless to say I'm disappointed with Burris. It tracks good though...

.

If I do that with my xtr2 but to the far left of the eye box the chromatic aberrations go away and the image does improve a little. My dad has a 3x9x50 1" tube Burris I see just fine through and I actually like that scope. I'd be happy to send you the xtr2 birddog.

 

[pell1203]

Had a 5-25x50 XTR II that initially went to Burris for repair of illumination and same image quality complaints described in many of the previous posts. Burris repaired illumination and inspected scope for remaining complaints. Scope was sent back with note stating scope had been tested and found to be within specs. I tried using it for another couple of months and could never get it to focus properly and be sharp from one side of the reticle to the other. Had many other shooters look through it to give me their impressions and all said I should send it back... that something was wrong!

I called Burris again and did just that and to their credit they replaced the scope with a brand new one. I don't know if they actually found there was a problem with it or simply replaced it to appease an unhappy customer as no additional explanation was provided. In any case, I sold the new unopened replacement scope as soon as I received it and replaced it with an Athlon 4.5-27x56 Cronus BTR. Problem solved!

Cronus reticle has been easy to focus and parallax adjustment works well. Reticle stays sharp edge to edge throughout full magnification range. Overall image sharpness, clarity, and color rendition are also significantly better on the Cronus. The one thing I would give advantage to the Burris is on the feel of the turrets even though the Cronus has tracked well and returned to zero every time.

In my case, spending the extra $300-400 on the Cronus BTR made a huge difference!

 

[Mikhailovich]

I noticed this issue at 100 yards originally, the 50 yard photo was taken in my backyard when I got home and decided to see if my $30 dollar Tasco was any better just for laughs. I read all the threads on the xtr2 and almost every thread in the rifle optics section back when the site was still on scout. The "scientific consensus" was, excellent tracking and reliability, the glass wasn't amazing but still better or as good as a viper pst. I was willing to live with that. As of right now, if my xtr2 had vortex viper glass in it, I'd have one on all my rifles. It would be the best value optic in the world. It would be worth its weight in gold. But instead there are a bunch of xtr2s in the sale section for prices that are a steal and probably the sellers don't want to ruin a sale by posting a compliant about their scope.

 

[supercorndogs]

Both of the XTR2's I had, had glass about like yours. That one guy here complaining about the glass, probably caused a phsyco-symatic response making everyone see bad glass, when its in fact good glass, thats why Burris is laughing at us.

 

[gpo1956]

Both of the XTR2's I had, had glass about like yours. That one guy here complaining about the glass, probably caused a phsyco-symatic response making everyone see bad glass, when its in fact good glass, thats why Burris is laughing at us.

You need to grow up.

 

[supercorndogs]

You need to grow up.

LOL.

 

[Mikhailovich]

Well the scope is in a box waiting for ups to show up. The illumination failed on the scope while I was playing with the scope one last time.

 

[supercorndogs]

Well the scope is in a box waiting for ups to show up. The illumination failed on the scope while I was playing with the scope one last time.

Sucks man, they all have problems. My experience with their CS is very good. I have an LRHS boxed up ready to go to Bushnell.

 

[Triple D]

That's about the same impression that I got when using an XTR II. Glass was a real let down. Granted I had just stepped away from my SIII and Razors, but I was amazed that a 700$ scope could blow it away optically.

As a poster above stated, if they could get SIII level glass in the next version, they'd have a solid scope that could be a market leader at the price point. On the flip side, Sightron could probably upgrade their turrets/features and undercut the current options that are out there.

 

[Birddog6424]

They are always working on improvements. The important thing is to know what areas they need to focus on, so we appreciate the feedback from you guys.

I also have my fingers crossed for something in HD glass from Burris. I have no idea if it's in the works.I just found out tonight they are very close on a new reticle. That will be nice to see. I'm going to kick a text off tomorrow to see if someone at Burris is following this thread.

 

[Steel+Killer]

Ok after reading this thread I believe there is more to this than people not knowing how to set there scope up. Wow so glad I waited on the PST2 because I was going to get a XTR2. I think everybody who bought a Burris wasn't expecting top tier glass, but obviously something better than what they got.

 

[Birddog6424]

No scope is trouble free Palmetto. Even the heavily anticipated Gen II PST has already experienced issues. It happens. Manufacturers stand behind their product and try to make it right.

Currently on this same page is a thread complaining about the finicky eyebox of the S&B PMII. Two out of the first three posters have issues with it. Brilliant scope obviously. It just goes to show you everyone is different, and everyone can experiences different issues that may or may not necessarily be the scopes fault.

The big picture is that not many XTR II's get returned to Greeley with issues. This has been a very reliable scope. Frank said he has seen bunches of these in his classes and never seen one go down or fail to perform. He listed it as one of his top three favorite scopes under $1500. I've never met anyone in PRS circles who had one go down or fail to perform either. And I've never met anyone with this issue, I've only heard about it here. This is the second post I've seen where people have mentioned it in the 3.5 years it's been on the market.

I think it's very safe to say most people are very happy with this scope and are happy with the glass. If you compete in PRS, look around next time and see how many people are running these. Ask them what they think and you'll see for yourself....People like this scope. 3 years running now of selling them as fast as they can make them.

Thanks for considering the Burris. Good luck with your choice.

 

[SubOptimal]

It may be because the PRS guys are focusing on the target and getting the center, or edge, of the target lined up with their cross hairs and don't give a rat's ass about pretty pictures out there on the edge of the field of view. Sure, Ansel Adams might bitch but the scope is an aid to getting the bullet to go where you want.
Show me some pictures of an optical resolution target blown up to say 8x10" size and positioned at 100 yards. Of course, we would now be seeing problems in both the camera's resolution and the scope's, either of which might not be suited to this experiment.
Yes, the pictures in the OP's post do appear blurry but, unless you are killing flowers, I don't see an issue.
I have 75 year old eyes that were lasik corrected 20+ years ago. All sorts of problems with halo and lately, a black spot in the center of my vision in my shooting eye. The black spot is probably an artifact from arc welding flash from years ago.
The later statement by the OP that the longer he looks through the scope the worse the problem gets is an indicator of a vision problem he might have. It could be just fatigue, it could be astigmatism, it could be the tiny muscles that control eye focus are getting tired and he can't maintain distance vision over time. That is an issue for an ophthalmologist to determine.

 

[MakeSawdust]

I may have gotten lucky, but my xtr ii 4-20 resolves quite well. It is the old 8 mil turret model. The process I went through to set the diopter was to follow the sticky on here, and then set up at 100 yards. With the parallax knob set at 100 yards and the scope on 20x I turned the diopter to make the image as clear as possible. That's where I left it.

A buddy with both an xtr ii and a razor gen ii says my xtr is much better than his. I have shot his gun with the razor several times. There is a difference in image quality between the two acopes, but it is very slight. He actually sent is razor back to vortex to be checked out because they were so close. The vortex service department said it tested fine.

I have not shot his gun with the xtr ii. He swears there is a huge difference in the image quality between his and mine. Maybe they are just not consistent in lenses alignment or something. Another legitimate gripe is the very shallow depth of field. I had a hard time with it when I first bought the scope. Now that I have used it a lot it is a non issue. Hopefully Burris can get this figured out because mine has been great for what I paid for it.

 

[SubOptimal]

Depth of field is a function of magnification and the size of the apparent hole in the scope. I don't know the technical term for that. A pinhole camera has nearly unlimited depth of field, larger hole means less depth of field. Focal length of the lens can impact this as well. Unfortunately the "tube" of the apparent hole is not a straight wall but conic in section and you can only get perfect focus if your eye is centered on this tube. Minor misalignment within the eyebox, even if it is not blacking out the edges can cause focus issues. A point source of light in a dim room is the easy way to determine if the axis of your eye is in line with the scope's center. Put a pin hole in a dark card and place a flashlight close to the back of the card so there is no light spill. Even with bad focus (you should not have to adjust parallax) the dot of light needs to align with your cross hairs. Move your head till it does then adjust your cheek weld so that your eye is directly behind the scope.

 

[spife7980]

and the size of the apparent hole in the scope. I don't know the technical term for that.

Aperture

 

[SuperSneakySniper]

I think the XTR2 line doesnt have bad glass as a whole, rather... Its just inconsistant glass quality from scope to scope, and Burris has loose spec tolerances for what qualifies as acceptable.
Ive heard on multiple forums from multiple users people either praise or detest the glass, many who do in fact have experience behind high end optics.
Ive also heard people who, for example, love the glass in their 1-5 and hate the glass in their 3-15, AND vise versa, same goes for the 4-20 and 5-25, or 2-10 etc...
There are too many differing opinions to convince me that the glass is good or bad, instead it seems like its simply luck of the draw.
My 1-5 was outstanding, super clear and the contrast/field of view was amazing. Im crossing my fingers in hopes my 4-20 is just as good.

 

[Mikhailovich]

[QUOTE
The later statement by the OP that the longer he looks through the scope the worse the problem gets is an indicator of a vision problem he might have. It could be just fatigue, it could be astigmatism, it could be the tiny muscles that control eye focus are getting tired and he can't maintain distance vision over time. That is an issue for an ophthalmologist to determine.[/QUOTE]

thanks for contributing to the discussion suboptimal. Any guesses as to why I don't have these vision problems with my tasco, vortex, bushnell, athlon and Nikon scopes?
Two other people could not get a decent picture with my scope. I certainly hope 20/20 vision is good enough to look through a xtr2.

I hope I don't get the standard line that everything is fine with my scope, I sent a Nikon in for repair for failing to hold zero on a .223. They didn't even bother to mention if they found anything wrong with it. Let's just say it hasn't found its way back on a rifle.