Pst gen 2 3-15 vs xtr3 3-18i

[mi223]

I think I have it narrowed down to these 2 scopes. I had my heart set on the xrt3i for what seemed like forever waiting for the release. Then I kinda lost interest when manufacturing moved to the Philippines.

This will be for a hunting/target hybrid. (Think NRL hunter class)

So far my thoughts are as follows.

PST gen 2
-A few onces lighter.
-Few hundred dollars cheaper.
-The whole vortex warranty thing.

XTR3 I
-Higher magnification
-The xtr2 had a track record of durability(not sure if this applies here)

I have also been dreaming of an nx8 4-32 but struggle to spend that much money for something I really don't use that much.

The vortex lht 4.5-22 looks perfect on paper but I am not spending that much on a scope with turrets that belong on a Walmart scope.

Appreciate any thoughts

 

[samnev]

I've had 2 2nd PST 5-25X50 Gen Vortex Vipers that had to be returned because of problems. I own 2 gen 1's PST VV's that I've had for many years and never had any problems with, One of the 2nd Gen's was returned because the illumination batteries kept dying after a few weeks and a second which from the get go had severe tracking issues. Vortex was very nice in replacing the 2 scopes but the failures left me with a reluctance to buy another Vortex scope made in the Philippines.

 

[wade2big]

The burris has a .02 mil thick reticle. That may be enough to dissuade you from considering it for a hunting scope. It is not good under 15x. It’s a shame Burris didn’t at least double the thickness of this reticle for the 3-18 model. I couldn’t think of a worse choice for a ffp hunting scope.

 

[jbuck88]

The PST gen 2 at midway for $599 is pretty good. It has a slightly different reticle but have one and will pick up another for budget scopes with great warranty. I haven't played with that particular burris yet so I can't comment.

 

[kswaterfowl]

I have both and each one has pros and cons. But I would say the xtr iii is definitely a step up from the pst gen ii. The only thing I prefer is the reticle on the pst for hunting. Both have really good fov, but the xtr iii fov is phenomenal.

 

[holy cow]

The burris has a .02 mil thick reticle. That may be enough to dissuade you from considering it for a hunting scope. It is not good under 15x. It’s a shame Burris didn’t at least double the thickness of this reticle for the 3-18 model. I couldn’t think of a worse choice for a ffp hunting scope.

I second this as I had 1 and sold it for the same reason.

 

[Rob01]

The burris has a .02 mil thick reticle. That may be enough to dissuade you from considering it for a hunting scope. It is not good under 15x. It’s a shame Burris didn’t at least double the thickness of this reticle for the 3-18 model. I couldn’t think of a worse choice for a ffp hunting scope.

I don’t think that’s true about .02 reticle in the illuminated versions. I have the Pro and it is not a .02 mil reticle. Looks about the same as the 7C reticle. Was said the non illuminated had thinner reticles but pretty sure that was taken care of in the illuminated version.

 

[wade2big]

I don’t think that’s true about .02 reticle in the illuminated versions. I have the Pro and it is not a .02 mil reticle. Looks about the same as the 7C reticle. Was said the non illuminated had thinner reticles but pretty sure that was taken care of in the illuminated version.

I had a 5.5-30x56 illuminated. Tiniest reticle I’ve ever seen. The illuminated ones are .02 mil as well. The gen 2 razor 4.5-27 is much thicker to my eye. I have a couple. The 3-18x50 razor is thicker yet at .04 mil. This is the reason I won’t try a Pro although I really like that 1/4 mil reticle. That would be perfect for me. If the PRO happens to be thicker that would be fantastic but according to Burris it isn’t.

You are looking at the PRO in person though and specs can be incorrect just like Vortex’s that shows the 3-18 razor as the same as the 4.5-27. It’s not at least in the older reticles they offered.

 

[Rob01]

I had a 5.5-30x56 illuminated. Tiniest reticle I’ve ever seen. The illuminated ones are .02 mil as well. The gen 2 razor 4.5-27 is much thicker to my eye. I have a couple. The 3-18x50 razor is thicker yet at .04 mil. This is the reason I won’t try a Pro although I really like that 1/4 mil reticle. That would be perfect for me. If the PRO happens to be thicker that would be fantastic but according to Burris it isn’t.

You are looking at the PRO in person though and specs can be incorrect just like Vortex’s that shows the 3-18 razor as the same as the 4.5-27. It’s not at least in the older reticles they offered.

They need to clarify as the picture shows them at .14 moa which is .04 mils but the mil drawing shows .02 mils. Also doesn’t specify the illuminated but shows illuminated picture. The Pro SCR2 is the same as what is in the 5.5-30 XTR 3i from what I understand and I do not find it overly thin at all.

SCR 2™ | Burris Optics

www.burrisoptics.com

 

[Rocketmandb]

I can't comment on the Burris, as I don't have one, but I can on the Vortex. I think it's probably one of the best value scopes out there - as long as you're keeping ranges within roughly 1200-1500 yards depending on conditions. While capable of shooting farther (I've gone out to a mile with it), I found that my eyes don't appreciate it afterward. Mine is now atop a friend's hunting rifle.

 

[spife7980]

If you spend 1099 on a damn pst “street price” you’re retarded.
Get the xtr2 at 999 over the pst g2 at 600

 

[mi223]

I am looking at sub 600 for a pst. Xtr3 is nearly double. Is it that much better? With a few Oz weight penalty?

If you spend 1099 on a damn pst “street price” you’re retarded.
Get the xtr2 at 999 over the pst g2 at 600

 

[NewsShooter]

The burris has a .02 mil thick reticle. That may be enough to dissuade you from considering it for a hunting scope. It is not good under 15x. It’s a shame Burris didn’t at least double the thickness of this reticle for the 3-18 model. I couldn’t think of a worse choice for a ffp hunting scope.

You must be talking about the 5.5-30 scr 2 reticle. I have the 3.3-18 with the SCR reticle and it only gets difficult to see below 5X. For a hunting scope the SCR is a good compromise. It's a much better scope than the vortex IMO.

 

[supercorndogs]

I can't understand why everyone is buying these for "hunting scopes." Mean while great hunting scopes like the LH2-10 razor get axed. But I mean really vortex, MOA and ballistic reticles, you couldn't put a mildot in some of them.

To me the burris is easily worth the 30% increase in cost. IF you want to spend less, you might look at the XTRII, and the Bushenll LRTS/LRHS, and DMRII show up pretty often in that price area.

 

[346ci]

I use the older XTR3/SCR2 for hunting, the reticle at the lower mag ranges isn't very usable but gives you a "cross" reference in the center if needed.

I haven't looked through an XTR3i but my XTR3 is dam close to a Razor gen2 if not better. You will love the FOV.

 

[wade2big]

You must be talking about the 5.5-30 scr 2 reticle. I have the 3.3-18 with the SCR reticle and it only gets difficult to see below 5X. For a hunting scope the SCR is a good compromise. It's a much better scope than the vortex IMO.

I looked at Burris’ website the 3.3-18 SCR reticle is slightly thicker at .03mil. That is still thin for my tastes for a 3-18 but definitely better for sure. That negates some of what I have been saying.

 

[wade2big]

I use the older XTR3/SCR2 for hunting, the reticle at the lower mag ranges isn't very usable but gives you a "cross" reference in the center if needed.

I haven't looked through an XTR3i but my XTR3 is dam close to a Razor gen2 if not better. You will love the FOV.

The field of view in an almost heads up display is what I like about the Razors, PST gen 2 and the Burris.

 

[mi223]

The Gen II PST will be like a Razor light. It will have more resemblance to the higher line than the original namesake. Also at the $1099 street price for the 5-25 it will be a good deal. I would wait if you can. If you need a scope now then the Burris will serve you well and you can always sell it later and buy a Gen II PST.

I am not following you. Are you referring to a future pst gen 3? The gen 2 pst is way old news nothing to wait for.

Please clarify

 

[Birddog6424]

The illuminated XTRIII SCR2 is a thicker reticle. Significantly so..

SCR2 non-illuminated at 30x


SCR2 illuminated at 30x

 

[Toolnup]

The illuminated XTRIII SCR2 is a thicker reticle. Significantly so..

SCR2 non-illuminated at 30x


SCR2 illuminated at 30x

Nice.

Any chance of more photo's but at different magnifications?

 

[RKBArmory]

@mi223 , we have a few of the PSTs in stock. This could be a good chance for you to save some money.
PST 3-15 (MOA)
PST 3-15 FFP (MRAD)

 

[Birddog6424]

Nice.

Any chance of more photo's but at different magnifications?

I do..

This is at 5.5x illuminated and non illuminated.



This is 18x or 20x. I can't remember which.



To chime in on the comparison, the XTRIII is clearly the nicer optic. You just have to decide if its worth the extra shekels to you. Durability and quality are excellent. They took the opportunity of the facility switch to fix a couple issues that existed in the American made non-illuminated model. The new version has smoother magnification rings, parallax and turrets. And the knurling has been toned down.

I hunted for nearly 3 months with my illuminated 30x on my 300 Norma mag. The retical functions perfectly in hunting scenarios, and its a tough optic. I dropped mine on rocks because I'm a klutz, busting the hell out of illumination battery cover. I had to re-zero .3 mils left, Burris had me a replacement cap in the mail the day I called, the scope has been fine even under the heavy recoil of my Norma with 92.6grs of RE33 under a 230gr Hybrid.