Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
XTR-3iThese are the 2 scopes I'm currently looking into for my hunting rifle, any word on either of them?
I'd go Credo. The non-illuminated XTR3 is useless below about 8X.
Burris is Philippines built with Japanese ED glass.Something to consider:
Credo=Japan
Burris=Philippines
This..Burris is Philippines built with Japanese ED glass.
Burris CS is going to be just fine.
I mean unless you actually need customer service to fix a problem, I suppose?
I'd get involved before the shit show the entire company obviously knew about concluded the way it did with a refund instead of new, flaw free, product.If Burris was your business, and you discovered a flaw in the way your customer service was functioning, what would you do about it?
Doesn't mean it's good ED glass.Burris is Philippines built with Japanese ED glass.
True, but for all the issues with them as a company it DOES have good glass they're nice to look through.Doesn't mean it's good ED glass.
Arkens have Japanese glass.
Burris is Philippines built with Japanese ED glass.
Certain members have told me the xtr ii 4-20 have pretty good glass.True, but for all the issues with them as a company it DOES have good glass they're nice to look through.
Yeah, the XTR-II isn’t even in the same ballpark as the XTR-III, glass-wise. So your comparison is not really fair to express given he asked about the XTR-III. I have several XTR-II 5-25x50’s and they’re solid scopes. But the glass isn’t even close to my XTR-III 5.5-30x56.Certain members have told me the xtr ii 4-20 have pretty good glass.
I own one. The glass is shit and the reticle is meh.
I've only had it for a couple of years, so it's not an old one.
I definitely regret buying it.
You miss the point, you tell me that the xtr ii 4-20 has decent glass (and you have on other threads), my experience is diametrically opposite, so how can I believe that the xtr iii is excellent?Yeah, the XTR-II isn’t even in the same ballpark as the XTR-III, glass-wise. So your comparison is not really fair to express given he asked about the XTR-III. I have several XTR-II 5-25x50’s and they’re solid scopes. But the glass isn’t even close to my XTR-III 5.5-30x56.
Also, everyone’s eyes and experiences are different. If someone was still shooting a BSA or Tasco, and had never even looked through anything better, of course they’re going to think a modern $500 scope is a Swarovski or Zeiss.
Same reason people still think Leupold is high-quality…They’ve never owned or looked through anything better, or simply won’t admit it. That, and the whole refusal to relinquish the toxic Fudd mindset and nostalgia of “My daddy and grandad used Leupold to kill hundreds of deer!”, and leave history back where it belongs…In the past. Back when I was a kid, I was taught that same Fuddlore bullshit by my dad and uncles. I just didn’t realize it was because we were all Poors who didn’t know any better, until I got to play with top tier stuff at the gun store…Then I learned the difference.![]()
The ii had glass that was pretty bad. It was also all over the place, Ive seen a lot of them and some looked fine and others were hammered dog shit. The XTR iii units i have seen i thought were actually pretty dang nice. They didnt even have dandruff in them roflCertain members have told me the xtr ii 4-20 have pretty good glass.
I own one. The glass is shit and the reticle is meh.
I've only had it for a couple of years, so it's not an old one.
I definitely regret buying it.
Actually, I have never told you the 4-20 has good glass, as I don’t own one, I HAVE said my XTR-II 5-25 scopes have pretty decent glass (which us true), so I assumed the 4-20 might be the same, based on the fact it’s from the same series of scopes.You miss the point, you tell me that the xtr ii 4-20 has decent glass (and you have on other threads), my experience is diametrically opposite, so how can I believe that the xtr iii is excellent?
I would hope it is improved, but I'm not willing to chance it.
Especially since there is no recourse if it is crappy glass.
I have experience with an older, but still 10 mils per turn xtr ii 3-15, I found that scope to be a very good performer, glass is far superior to my 4-20, but still not as good as my trijicon.
Possibly, I'm not going to hunt down the posts, but I certainly recall you extolling the virtues of the XTR II glass wise.Actually, I have never told you the 4-20 has good glass, as I don’t own one, I HAVE said my XTR-II 5-25 scopes have pretty decent glass (which us true), so I assumed the 4-20 might be the same, based on the fact it’s from the same series of scopes.
Possibly, I'm not going to hunt down the posts, but I certainly recall you extolling the virtues of the XTR II glass wise.
Yes, it was an awakening experience in many ways. We weren’t all born rich pricks like you…Some of us have had to figure our entire lives out for ourselves. Some of us have bought junk because it was all we could afford at the time, and sometimes that junk might actually be better than some people want to admit based on personal bias and stereotypes.Got to play with top tier stuff at the gun store but until like a year ago was pimping Arken as just as good as everything else.
His point is that people talk about the XTR2 glass being good and I’ve even seen you post that, when in reality it is shit. I’ve owned an XTR2 and it is indeed terrible glass.
Yes, it was an awakening experience in many ways. We weren’t all born rich pricks like you…Some of us have had to figure our entire lives out for ourselves. Some of us have bought junk because it was all we could afford at the time, and sometimes that junk might actually be better than some people want to admit based on personal bias and stereotypes.
Also, sometimes, companies put out great products at a great price, then they start getting big, and stop caring, and let things slip. When that happens, it’s not the end-user’s fault for previously recommending something that was decent at the time, that has now turned to shit. I don’t control their production. But when something good goes to shit, people stop recommending them…Which is why I stopped.
Yes, all 3 of my XTR-II scopes have decent glass. They were all sealed units off the shelf, bought at different times, and were not cherry-picked by anyone. It does seem to appear that it is hit or miss, but they really weren’t discussed much on here until recently…After I had bought mine.
I also was swayed a couple years ago by the Burris fanboys / sales team at the hide to get a XTR II 4 20 , worst scope i own, can't stand looking through it.Certain members have told me the xtr ii 4-20 have pretty good glass.
I own one. The glass is shit and the reticle is meh.
I've only had it for a couple of years, so it's not an old one.
I definitely regret buying it.
I'd get involved before the shit show the entire company obviously knew about concluded the way it did with a refund instead of new, flaw free, product.
Odd that you're willing to wander around acting like everyone is retarded for viewing Burris CS as dodgy currently, yet you disappeared like a fart in the wind from the thread in question while that entire drama played out for the entire community to see.
Its not a vendetta against anyone to let OP know that if some random idiot at Burris shakes his dandruff down the scope tube he will have to ship it back and forth 5 or 6 times before he's finally (sort of) taken care of. Its just a fact, given the evidence at hand. One screw up is human nature, that disaster smacks of a systemic problem with a company that any buyer should beware of.