With properly adjusted parallax, the image focus and reticle focus are coincident. That's what the "FP" in SFP/FFP means.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Gen 3 Razor vs XTR Pro (Regular Joe, Non biased review).....No Sponsors here.
- Thread starter screaminweasil
- Start date
They're shipping these out of Greeley on a regular basis gang, I promise. They are sold before they are hitting the shelves.
The positive buzz over this optic is amazing. I had several people approach me to talk about the Pro at the PRS Pro Series match last weekend. I met two people who are in line for one. The folks at Burris are well aware that this scope is in demand, they are doing their best to get them to market.
The positive buzz over this optic is amazing. I had several people approach me to talk about the Pro at the PRS Pro Series match last weekend. I met two people who are in line for one. The folks at Burris are well aware that this scope is in demand, they are doing their best to get them to market.
Why are you avoiding the question? The Razor is fairly easy to find. The Burris has been a unicorn from the beginning. So the lower MAP isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
That all depends on if you need the scope now or not. I’m waiting for my pro as patiently as possible and am confident it will be worth the wait. I have looked through 2 pros now and they were both excellent. The first one I looked through we were comparing it to my kahles gen 3 and all 3 of us came away with the pro being better glass. I went home and sold my kahles and ordered the pro.
I also bought a xtr3 5-30 and 3-18 to hold me over until the pro shows up. I’m very impressed with both the xtr3’s. The 5-30 has better glass than the 3-18 but not a huge difference and the turrets are a little easier to turn on the 5-30. I bought both used so not sure if one is older than the other but very happy with both and will slowly be replacing a few more scopes with xtr3’s moving forward and money allows
I also bought a xtr3 5-30 and 3-18 to hold me over until the pro shows up. I’m very impressed with both the xtr3’s. The 5-30 has better glass than the 3-18 but not a huge difference and the turrets are a little easier to turn on the 5-30. I bought both used so not sure if one is older than the other but very happy with both and will slowly be replacing a few more scopes with xtr3’s moving forward and money allows
The throw lever WILL be included in the PRO's moving forward on new shipments. Also, if you didnt get one, call customer service and they will ship you one free of charge.
(the throw lever wont work on any other scopes fyi)
Regard
DT
So you would say it’s even thinner than the APRS6?
Im looking heavily at a XTR Pro or XTR3 5.5-30 to compare to my mk5 7-35, but the turnoff is the reticle. Seems very thin and I’m not a big fan of floating cross compared to floating dot. I like the APRS6, but that’s the thinnest I’d go for my uses.
Can’t help you on the thickness comparison. Maybe the thickness specs are listed on their website.
I did want to comment on the center cross. I was apprehensive about that as well since I like dots and not crosses but the cross in the scr2 is very small and for me is almost a dot. Now that I have been using it more I actually prefer the cross over the dot.
I did want to comment on the center cross. I was apprehensive about that as well since I like dots and not crosses but the cross in the scr2 is very small and for me is almost a dot. Now that I have been using it more I actually prefer the cross over the dot.
The length of the cross on the XTR3i SCR2 is only half the size of the cross on the non-illuminated XTR3 SCR.
The cross on the illuminated SCR2 version is so small it almost just looks like a dot and not even a cross.
I can tell you the height and width (tip to tip) of the cross on a the illuminated SCR2 version only covers 1” at 300 yards. The non-illuminated SCR version covers 2” at 300 yards tip to tip.
I was comparing the scopes while looking at a 1” orange sticker on a white painted target at 300 yards.
The cross on the illuminated SCR2 version is so small it almost just looks like a dot and not even a cross.
I can tell you the height and width (tip to tip) of the cross on a the illuminated SCR2 version only covers 1” at 300 yards. The non-illuminated SCR version covers 2” at 300 yards tip to tip.
I was comparing the scopes while looking at a 1” orange sticker on a white painted target at 300 yards.
Last edited:
Oh definitely thinner than the APRS6, the glass is great. To be honest not enough time behind it to give a absolute definitive worth switching over my Cronus Gen2. The thinner reticle was very evident to me however. I'd have to run it higher magnification to make it work for me.
The entire reticle is thicker in the Pro and illuminated XTRIII. They made it so to better accommodate the illumination.
Going on 4 years of running XTRIIIs and Pros, pretty much year round between PRS and hunting. I've yet to run into a scenario where the reticle was too thin to be effective. I think we armchair quarterback too much sometimes and "what if" ourselves into believing something that never occurs. Reality doesnt concur with expectation.
I'm running an illuminated 5.5-30 XTRIII on my 300 Norma this fall for elk and mule deer, and I've been shooting it a bunch. I have zero fears about reticle thickness.
Going on 4 years of running XTRIIIs and Pros, pretty much year round between PRS and hunting. I've yet to run into a scenario where the reticle was too thin to be effective. I think we armchair quarterback too much sometimes and "what if" ourselves into believing something that never occurs. Reality doesnt concur with expectation.
I'm running an illuminated 5.5-30 XTRIII on my 300 Norma this fall for elk and mule deer, and I've been shooting it a bunch. I have zero fears about reticle thickness.
XTRIII Illuminated/XTR Pro @ 30x
XTRIII Non-Illuminated @ 30x
XTRIII Non-Illuminated @ 30x
Birddogs pics above reminded me that I was comparing a non/illuminated SCR reticle against an illuminated SCR2 reticle. I’ve since revised my previous post regarding the center cross. Apparently the SCR center cross is larger than the SCR2 center cross. I mistakenly assumed they would be the same size in both reticles.
For me the pros big benefits are the tooless zero, and bigger turrets with easier to read numbers and the pro is available in the 1/4 mil and tremor 5 if either of those matter to you. I personally like the 1/4 but have stuck with the scr2 since I have 2 xtr3’s that are only available in scr2 and wanted to keep everything the same.
The glass is better but I have yet to have a situation where that would have made a real difference. Looking through my pro it’s a nicer view for sure but not in a way that I feel gives me an advantage in scores or performance.
If money is not an issue the pro is worth it. If money is tighter I don’t think you gain performance that will show in scores with the pro.
The glass is better but I have yet to have a situation where that would have made a real difference. Looking through my pro it’s a nicer view for sure but not in a way that I feel gives me an advantage in scores or performance.
If money is not an issue the pro is worth it. If money is tighter I don’t think you gain performance that will show in scores with the pro.
That's a tough one to answer. I think everyone has to make their own value decisions there.
Like Baron and RFutch said, there's a big difference in features, not just glass. From a PRS perspective there is a ton of value to me in removing the turret and writing on the Race Dial. I've absolutely loved that feature. I see Leupold has a write on turret in the works now. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.
I think the Pro is similar to the Razor GenIII in that it's a great option for folks who want a great scope without spending $3k or more.
Thanks. Sounds like the Pro might be worth a little more over the XTRIII. Will have to see if I can find someone with one and take a look. I can see one in my future.
I have the XTR3 5.5-30 which replaced my XRS 4.5-30, but like the writable turrets of the Pro. Not a fan of the red either. A little color isn’t a bad idea but the red is just a little too bright for my tastes. Maybe they could offer a few color options in the future. Black, Navy blue, dark green…
Would love to see a comparison of the XTR3 or Pro to the Zeiss S3.
A comparison with the new Zeiss scopes would be interesting as that's another that has my eye.
They are using cerakote now as anodizing was too difficult to receive in a timely manner.
So a fella could air dry cerakote any color.
So you’re saying the latest XTR Pro scopes coming from Greeley aren’t anodized red, but Cerakoted red now? Cerakote does not bond well to already cured Cerakote as I understand it. And air dried Cerakote also doesn’t do as well.
You do have to prep it. And yes it's true, the air dried isn't as durable as the oven cured version.
But if someone really doesn't like it, it is an option.
They just didn't see it coming that anodizers, especially providers they had used for years, would become overwhelmed and unable to deliver product in a timely manner.
Rats, I just shot the Northwest Regional PRS Rimfire Finale today. My travel partner has one that is painted. But I didn't get any pics.
I'll try to get pics up when we get back to Idaho here in an hour or so.
If you guys want some more pics close up let me know. I can take some tomorrow.
I think I like that better than the anodized color - not a fan of anodized colors, they always look a little funky. I think I’d paint the rest of the scope white and blue, I think Dorgan has a rifle that would match that pretty well
That doesn’t look bad at all. Actually like it a little better than the anodizing.
I ended up getting the race dial for the XTR3 5.5-30. So you can have the same feature the Pro does for $100. https://www.burrisoptics.com/accessories/race-dial
Similar threads
