Rifle Scopes Guesses on how the XTR 3 will stack up against the MK5

[KRATOCT]

Chances are I’ll have a Mark 5 in hand before the Burris XTR III is released and readily available to ship so this thread is more for curiousity and to learn more about Burris and their higher end scope line.

Those of you that have experience with the Leupold Mark 5HD line and know what to expect from Burris based on the talk going around about the new XTR III and previous scopes they’ve released, how do you expect the two to compare? Are these even in the same category to allow for a fair comparison?

Most interest is in the MK5 3.6-18x44 and the XTR III 3.3-18x50

Thanks

 

[hereinaz]

I have two MK 5 and played with the XTR III at shot. The III stepped it up, much better than the II. Glass is much better. Could not tell much more than that in the building. The form and function is also better on the III than II.

When it comes to features, I still like the MK 5 hands down though. And, given the price point, I believe the glass will be better as well, but we are talking very nice glass in either.

I would run an XTR III without any problem. The MK 5 gets my vote though.

 

[Glassaholic]

Obviously we need to wait and see what the production models of the XTR III will look like, but early reports are very promising. I had a Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44 and absolutely loved the turrets but the glass left me wanting, not bad but not as good as I'd hoped. I now have a Kahles K318i that has amazing glass (but it better be for 2x the price) and I'm hoping the XTR III we be "enough" to dethrone my Kahles. I reviewed the Mark 5 against a number of other scopes, while not in the review (because it is not an ultra short) I did have the XTR II 4-20 on hand and actually felt the 4-20 glass was better, that being said I know others have said their Mark 5 3.6-18 does very well optically, while others have said their turrets weren't that great (but mine were), so I think Leupold might have a QC issue. Regardless, I still think the Mark 5 is a great scope and if you can find one with great glass and turrets then you have something that few other scopes can compare.

I will say this, if you'd like a clean Christmas tree reticle then the XTR III with SCR2 will be much better than what Leupold offers. If you want illumination then the XTR III will be much cheaper. If you're looking for the shortest and lightest scope in the class the Leupold is the clear winner. Leupold also uses 35mm tubes which are more rare these days so if you're replacing an existing optic that is 34mm you won't need new rings/mounts with the Burris where you will with the Mark 5. I would say don't base your decision on how good the XTR III glass might be, base it on whether or not the Leupold fills your needs right now, if it does then talk to some of the Hide dealers and you might be surprised at how good of a deal you can find on the Mark 5's.

In case anyone is interested, here is a spec comparison between the scopes to give a side by side look. I will note that while the Burris XTR III 5.5-30x56 might be frowned upon for being 5.5x. instead of 5x, take a look at the FOV numbers, even at 5.5x the Burris shows more FOV than the Leupold (and many other 5-25 scopes) does at 5x, and I'll take FOV over magnification most of the time:

SCR2 Reticle

 

[patriot07]

To me, if the glass is even close, the SCR and SCR2 reticles would trump any minor glass differences. They're so far superior to anything offered by Leupold for my uses.

This also assumes the turrets on the XTR3 are as good or better than the XTR2. Turrets and reticles are two of the best reasons to buy the XTR2, so if they have improved the glass, I can't see why it wouldn't compete with the MK5.

 

[hereinaz]

To me, if the glass is even close, the SCR and SCR2 reticles would trump any minor glass differences. They're so far superior to anything offered by Leupold for my uses.

This also assumes the turrets on the XTR3 are as good or better than the XTR2. Turrets and reticles are two of the best reasons to buy the XTR2, so if they have improved the glass, I can't see why it wouldn't compete with the MK5.

You'll want to buy the XTR III, if production is like the SHOT model...

Everything, glass, form, construction, and features. looked and felt better on the XTR III than the XTR II. The turrets felt and operated better. Inside a building, glass is hard to compare, but at the edges and in depth the XTR III looked better.

I am going to assume that they didn't make a change to the internals of the turrets so that they are worse than the XTR II.

 

[patriot07]

You'll want to buy the XTR III, if production is like the SHOT model...

Everything, glass, form, construction, and features. looked and felt better on the XTR III than the XTR II. The turrets felt and operated better. Inside a building, glass is hard to compare, but at the edges and in depth the XTR III looked better.

I am going to assume that they didn't make a change to the internals of the turrets so that they are worse than the XTR II.

I fully agree - it was just a disclaimer since I've never felt/used the scope.

 

[beetroot]

I hope the low light performance and glass is up too the MK5HD/G2 Razor standard.

On paper the XTRIII appears to take the best of both scopes, lighter weight, wide FOV, good zoom range, nice reticles.
If the turrets and glass stack up, then I think they'll be on to a winner.

I'm really hoping that it meets expectations as neither the Razor or MK5hd is quite ticking all the boxes for me.

 

[Santa]

Has anyone had a chance to shoot with one? Curious to hear some reviews

 

[canezach]

Has anyone had a chance to shoot with one? Curious to hear some reviews

Shoot with what? The XTR3?? There are probably between five and ten threads on the XTR3 aside from this zombie thread