Rifle Scopes Short Bushnell XRS II Review

[BallisticPrimate]

Before I get into my thoughts re the XRS II I'd really appreciate it if someone could direct me to the correct Tenebraex cap sizes for this scope.

I originally posted this in the XRS II thread but thought I'd put it up separately for those considering one. Having now spent more time with these scopes and got a few hundred rounds under both my .243 and 6.5x47 I'm more comfortable evaluating these optics. I purchased the H59 model and the G3 illuminated version.

Pros and cons as follows.

Pros

- Tracking is spot on with both scopes (tested to 900m and completed a tall target)​

- Glass is excellent - I'm not qualified nor inclined to get into weeds regarding "glass", but I will say the image quality impressed me. The XRS II bettered my 4-16 ATACR in low light conditions (granted this is a 50mm objective vs 42mm but the difference was more pronounced than I was expecting)​

​

- Excellent turrets. With 10 mil/Revolution the spacing is absolutely perfect and the half mil hashes on on the turret are a good addition. I'd like the clicks to be a touch more audible, but that is nitpicking. 34 Mils total elevation. With a 20 moa base/100m zero I have 21 mils of useable elevation - enough to take my .243/105 Hybrid load to a mile at my elevation.​

- Zero stop works perfectly and is extremely simple to setup (much easier than my NF ATACR) - those familiar with the LRHS will recognise the zero stop design.​

​

- Parallax is flexible and very easy to dial in.​

- illumination (with the G3 reticle) is the best I've used (including compared to S&B, Premier, USO, March and Nightforce), the lowest intensity setting isn't too bright in low light and at the highest intensity the illumination is completely visible in broad daylight. The 'off' indents between intensity setting is my favourite design for illumination and it's very well executed in this scope.​

​

- The scope is compact, probably the shortest scope (Along with the Vortex G2 Razor) in this magnification range (there is an included sunshade)​

- The included (and removable) throw lever is a nice addition and does assist magnification changes​

​

- The locking windage works perfectly, and has good turret feel for those who prefer to dial wind.​

- The eyebox is very good (but see 'con' notes on eye relief below), I tested the scope extensively at 30x and eyebox was never an issue in prone position - from seated / kneeling I backed down to 15x-18x where I do most of my shooting.​

​

- I appreciate both the H59 and G3 reticles for different reasons. The H59 would be my choice for a competition rifle and the G3 for a crossover hunting and comp gun. The G3 is a flexible design in that the reticle really is usable across the entire magnification range. For those partial to Horus (I tend not to be) the details on the H59 are great for wind/range holds and I'm a convert to the centre dot style of reticle. I'd love to see something of a hybrid of these designs from Bushnell i.e. A G3 with .2mil wind holds and a centre dot - that would be about perfect.​

​

- A general comment on build quality and controls. They appear absolutely top tier, the 'built like a tank' cliche applies in spades.​

Cons

- Glass isn't quite at the S&B or Premier level. This really is splitting hairs and if forced to assign a number I'd guess the Bushnell glass is 90-95% as good. I'm not sure I can perceive any real difference between the XRS II and NF ATACR glass.​

- the magnification ring is a little stiff, nothing that bothers me but something to note, perhaps it will loosen a little over time. My 3-12 LRHS has the opposite problem and I much prefer extra stiffness to the 'sloppiness' in the LRHS​

- Comes with cheap bikini scope covers (also includes a neoprene cover)​

​

- Eye relief/Mounting length is my biggest gripe with this scope. I couldn't use my SPUHR mount on my Surgeon action and still be able to mount my scope far enough forward. I switched to ARC rings and head position was still an issue. I was starting to think I might have to add an additional butt-spacer to increase LOP but I tried NF ultralight rings (which are among the thinnest available) and the issue is now resolved.​

​

- Illumination is not offered with the H59 reticle​

- There is a very minimal tunnelling effect at the lowest mag range (roughly from 4.5x - 5x), far less tunnelling than my 5-25 S&B exhibited. Interestingly the tunnelling is only observable in my scope with the G3 reticle, I can't induce it with the H59 scope. Regardless it's so slight as to be almost imperceptible but I've listed it here since I do observe it.​

- FOV appears to be slightly less than the competition​

All said I'm extremely impressed with the XRS II, especially at the price point currently offered through deals here in Australia.

 

[fdkay]

Is the minimum parallax still 75 yards?

 

[lte82]

- Excellent turrets. With 10 mil/Revolution the spacing is absolutely perfect and the half mil hashes on on the turret are a good addition. I'd like the clicks to be a touch more audible, but that is nitpicking. 34 Mils total elevation. With a 20 moa base/100m zero I have 21 mils of useable elevation - enough to take my .243/105 Hybrid load to a mile at my elevation.​

- The locking windage works perfectly, and has good turret feel for those who prefer to dial wind.​

- The eyebox is very good​

Cons

- Glass isn't quite at the S&B or Premier level. This really is splitting hairs and if forced to assign a number I'd guess the Bushnell glass is 90-95% as good. I'm not sure I can perceive any real difference between the XRS II and NF ATACR glass.​

- FOV appears to be slightly less than the competition​

Turrets on mine felt exactly like the HDMR 2, which are good, but nothing like a March, Razor 2, TT, S&B, etc. When dialing the windage right the hash marks were at least halfway in between the indicator, lots of play there. The elevation was better, but if it breaks in like my HDMR2 did, it will also get sloppier.

Eyebox is ok, but not anything to write home about. Probably better than most March's I've looked through, but not nearly as nice as some in the same price range.

Glass is good, but darker than I expected. Maybe the coatings, I don't know.

Viewable area on the Razor 2 for instance is about 20-25% greater at the same mag range compared to the XRS2. I calculated it...

 

[BallisticPrimate]

Is the minimum parallax still 75 yards?

Correct

 

[BallisticPrimate]

Turrets on mine felt exactly like the HDMR 2, which are good, but nothing like a March, Razor 2, TT, S&B, etc. When dialing the windage right the hash marks were at least halfway in between the indicator, lots of play there. The elevation was better, but if it breaks in like my HDMR2 did, it will also get sloppier.

Eyebox is ok, but not anything to write home about. Probably better than most March's I've looked through, but not nearly as nice as some in the same price range.

Glass is good, but darker than I expected. Maybe the coatings, I don't know.

Viewable area on the Razor 2 for instance is about 20-25% greater at the same mag range compared to the XRS2. I calculated it...

How did you calculate the field of view difference? 20-25% is a massive difference. From the listed specs: FOV feet/100 yards
Bushnell: [email protected]/3.6@30x
Vortex: [email protected]/4.4@27x

 

[fdkay]

Correct

I think I'm gonna call that a disqualifier.
I don't like the 50 yard minimum, no way I'll settle for 75.
Just a personal thing.

 

[Just Macca]

I think I'm gonna call that a disqualifier.
I don't like the 50 yard minimum, no way I'll settle for 75.
Just a personal thing.

That's fair enough. But how many roles do you want a mid priced optic to fill?

 

[lte82]

How did you calculate the field of view difference? 20-25% is a massive difference. From the listed specs: FOV feet/100 yards
Bushnell: [email protected]/3.6@30x
Vortex: [email protected]/4.4@27x

At the same magnification, when the xrs 2 shows 20 mil edge to edge the razor 2 shows 22 mil. 10^2 = 100. 11^2 = 121. Therefore a razor 2 has approx 21% more viewable area *at that specific magnification*. I think the objective lens has something to do with it. 56 mm vs 50 mm.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

At the same magnification, when the xrs 2 shows 20 mil edge to edge the razor 2 shows 22 mil. 10^2 = 100. 11^2 = 121. Therefore a razor 2 has approx 21% more viewable area *at that specific magnification*. I think the objective lens has something to do with it. 56 mm vs 50 mm.

Thanks for the info - that's a greater difference than I would have assumed. I've never owned a Gen 2 Razor (I do have a lot of miles behind S&B, Premier, NF etc) but I've seen a few different opinions re how the XRS II stacks up to the Razor. From those who've owned both I've seen two for the Razor and two for the Bushy, which in itself suggests it's not cut and dried.

The long range scope market seems to have reached a point where customers are able to benefit from the price–performance ratio like never before. I almost can't wrap my head around how much value is packed into The XRS II for the price (In Australia I paid the equivalent of 1,452.65 US Dollars) - is it a TT, Minox or S&B? It is not. But it's pretty darn close - and certainly close enough to net you every point or trophy those optics could help you get.

As these start landing in more hands I'm interested to hear how they are received. It seems the rebate issue soured some on the product, which is a pity given what it is.

 

[fdkay]

I think I'm gonna call that a disqualifier.
I don't like the 50 yard minimum, no way I'll settle for 75.
Just a personal thing.

Well, it was marketed as a "tactical" scope.
I would expect it to operated within a tactical envelope. 25 yards would suffice, though 10 is better.
If you are just shooting at the range or in PRS type matches, it will work just fine.
I'm looking hard at the new Sightron, as it supposedly focuses down to 13 yards. It does, however, lack a ZS, which the Bushnell has.

 

[flatland1]

From what I've heard from owners of the newest 34mm Bushys, everyone seems to believe Bushnell stepped-up the optical quality. That and using the elevation turret/zero stop from the LRHS would address the two biggest issues I had with my 3.5-21x50 ERS. I also have a 4.5-18x44 LRHS (not the newest illuminated version), so am familiar with the elevation turret/zero stop, and am quite satisfied with that design. Am looking forward to the opportunity to get behind one of these scopes - would like to compare it to the Athlon Cronus & Kahles scopes currently on my rifles.

 

[Glassaholic]

Thank you for taking time to do this review BP, these always help especially when trying to figure out what new scope to get when in the market but without access to shops that carry them. Obviously the XRS II isn't the perfect scope for everyone, but clearly checks off another box for a viable option for new shooters. When I look at getting a new scope I try to think of what are the limitations, understand what those limitations are and then decided whether or not I can get by even with the limitations. Almost sounds like Bushnell's new Prime ED glass, like other Japanese HD glass recently have really raised the bar.

 

[5RWill]

Excellent review. Glad it panned out. I'm going to sound like a broken record but man that makes me excited for the DMR II pro. If the price is right there wont be a better optic for the money, least giving $2000+ quality/performance for $1600.

I do wish the clicks were more audible as well, for the money though especially if that rebate is honored it's a hell of a buy.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

Thank you for taking time to do this review BP, these always help especially when trying to figure out what new scope to get when in the market but without access to shops that carry them. Obviously the XRS II isn't the perfect scope for everyone, but clearly checks off another box for a viable option for new shooters. When I look at getting a new scope I try to think of what are the limitations, understand what those limitations are and then decided whether or not I can get by even with the limitations. Almost sounds like Bushnell's new Prime ED glass, like other Japanese HD glass recently have really raised the bar.

Thanks Bill, I've owned most of the recent Elite Tactical scopes, the LRHS, The DMR and ERS (but not the DMR II) and the XRS II is a big step up. Good time to be in the market.

 

[musha556]

Thanks for the review! Been searching for ages mate. Been thinking hard wether i get one or not. Thanks heaps!

 

[marzo2]

Is there really 34 mils of elevation in this new generation?

 

[lawofsavage]

I bought an XRS 2 and I’m a huge fan of it. With that said, in the last few months, I’ve had a Gen 2 Razor, Sig Tango 6 4-24x50 and currently also have a Leupold Mark 5 5-25x56. I actually prefer all of those over the XRS 2. Imo, they all have better feeling turrets and glass that is more visually pleasing to my eye.

To me, the glass in the XRS 2 is sort of like the glass in the old sfp Nf nxs’s in that when you actually do a side by side comparison with other scopes, it does well, but it doesn’t “pop” when you first look through it. It’s for sure an improvement from the original Xrs though, especially the glass, easier zero stop, and that the elevation turret isn’t so damn tall haha. Tracking has been good as far as I can tell with all.

The XRS 2 is such a good value imo if you call around and get 15% off from a retailer and were able to take advantage of the 30% rebate from vista in March. I would never pay $2350 for one though when you can get a s&b pm2 5-25 for that price or less new these days.

 

[Glassaholic]

Thanks Bill, I've owned most of the recent Elite Tactical scopes, the LRHS, The DMR and ERS (but not the DMR II) and the XRS II is a big step up. Good time to be in the market.

Indeed it is a good time to be in the market, and with the barrage of new scopes that launched this year as well, someone just coming into the sport will never know that it wasn't like this in the recent past. The original DMR is basically the scope that got me into this game, though I had been shooting for years prior I never really considered spending more than $500 on a scope, but then I bought a new rig thanks to the Hide and had to put something on it and decided to take the plunge into the next level and the rest is history My first higher end scope was a Bausch & Lomb Elite 4000 4-16x50 that I purchased in the 90's, when Bushnell took over the line I wasn't as interested anymore as I always associated Bushnell with "cheap" and 6+ years ago, I don't think anyone would have considered adding Bushnell's name to the list of "good" scopes, nor would anyone have dreamed of paying $1k + for a "Bushnell", but the DMR changed all that, I wonder how much George Gardner had a hand in that, was it Bushnell who approached George or vice versa? I think Bushnell really drives the price/performance category and has been pushing those limits for a while, it's nice to see the XRS II continues in that category and soon the DMR II Pro, good times indeed.

 

[jasont]

I bought an XRS 2 and I’m a huge fan of it. With that said, in the last few months, I’ve had a Gen 2 Razor, Sig Tango 6 4-24x50 and currently also have a Leupold Mark 5 5-25x56. I actually prefer all of those over the XRS 2. Imo, they all have better feeling turrets and glass that is more visually pleasing to my eye.

To me, the glass in the XRS 2 is sort of like the glass in the old sfp Nf nxs’s in that when you actually do a side by side comparison with other scopes, it does well, but it doesn’t “pop” when you first look through it. It’s for sure an improvement from the original Xrs though, especially the glass, easier zero stop, and that the elevation turret isn’t so damn tall haha. Tracking has been good as far as I can tell with all.

The XRS 2 is such a good value imo if you call around and get 15% off from a retailer and were able to take advantage of the 30% rebate from vista in March. I would never pay $2350 for one though when you can get a s&b pm2 5-25 for that price or less new these days.

What are your thoughts regarding the sig tango 6. I'm torn between that or the razor 2 that's my short list. but the eye box looks huge on the sig. I'm worried about bolt handle clearance

 

[Dthomas3523]

What are your thoughts regarding the sig tango 6. I'm torn between that or the razor 2 that's my short list. but the eye box looks huge on the sig. I'm worried about bolt handle clearance

I believe gen ii has quite a bit more elevation (if you need that). Sig also only has a 5 year warranty on electronics.

Also, at least as far as the 5-30 sig vs the 4.5-27 gen ii, you’ll probably get a better price on the razor and have better resale if you ever decide to get rid of it.

Obviously there are the other things like reticle preference that is far more important. Floating dot vs open center, etc.

 

[Aaron47pb]

I believe gen ii has quite a bit more elevation (if you need that). Sig also only has a 5 year warranty on electronics.

Sig optics have a lifetime warranty.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Sig optics have a lifetime warranty.

Nope, only on non electric parts.

 

[elmerdeer]

tag

 

[nickwalker20]

Have you had time to compare the XRS II with the Athlon Cronus? I have 2 Cronus' and I love them but then I see the Bushnell XRS II and wondered how it compares.

 

[generalzip]

I’ve owned the XRS2 and have 2 razor gen 2’s. The razor is a much better scope in pretty much every category. Field of view, turret feel and spacing, glass, eyebox etc. only place it beats the razor is easy of zero stop and weight. The glass in the XRS is cooler and darker. The vortex is warmer and has way more brightness and pop.

If you use the rebate it’s a pretty darn good value though, but I’d buy a used razor before I bought another xrs2.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

I’ve owned the XRS2 and have 2 razor gen 2’s. The razor is a much better scope in pretty much every category. Field of view, turret feel and spacing, glass, eyebox etc. only place it beats the razor is easy of zero stop and weight. The glass in the XRS is cooler and darker. The vortex is warmer and has way more brightness and pop.

If you use the rebate it’s a pretty darn good value though, but I’d buy a used razor before I bought another xrs2.

To be fair you did go on a long rant (multiple posts on different threads) encouraging people never to touch any Bushnell product - this was while the rebate issue was being worked out so your opinion seems extremely biased to me.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

Have you had time to compare the XRS II with the Athlon Cronus? I have 2 Cronus' and I love them but then I see the Bushnell XRS II and wondered how it compares.

I've never seen a Cronus - perhaps someone else can chime in.

 

[generalzip]

To be fair you did go on a long rant (multiple posts on different threads) encouraging people never to touch any Bushnell product - this was while the rebate issue was being worked out so your opinion seems extremely biased to me.

Fair, but I still own 3 bushnell scopes. I love my DMR2s and LHRSi. For the money I think they are very hard to beat. In the price range of 2k however my honest opinion is the XRS2 does not compare favorably. Even before the rebate fiasco of which I was finally approved, me and my friend that bought them compared them to various other scopes and to the razor in particular.

Nothing wrong with the XRS2, but the razor 2 is a better scope in every sense FOR PRS type shooting and I can say that without any bias.

 

[Aaron47pb]

Fair, but I still own 3 bushnell scopes. I love my DMR2s and LHRSi. For the money I think they are very hard to beat. In the price range of 2k however my honest opinion is the XRS2 does not compare favorably. Even before the rebate fiasco of which I was finally approved, me and my friend that bought them compared them to various other scopes and to the razor in particular.

Nothing wrong with the XRS2, but the razor 2 is a better scope in every sense FOR PRS type shooting and I can say that without any bias.

Aside from field of view, how is the Razor “better in every sense”?

 

[generalzip]

Aside from field of view, how is the Razor “better in every sense”?

As explained, but I’ll go in more detail

1. The glass in the vortex pops more. It is much much brighter on overcast days. Vortex also has less CA. Resolution they are nearly the same. The razor has a bigger objective and different coatings so that may be why.

2. Turrets. The vortex probably has the best turrets in the game. Wide enough spacing to quickly see where you are and very tactile clicks. The XRS isn’t bad but it has a lot more slop when you wiggle them back and forth

3. Eyebox. The razor is arguably better than any other scope I’ve looked through in this category. The XRS isn’t bad but the razor beats the field in this category. A main reason it’s a PRS favorite. The XRS gets pretty tight on the highest end but in fairness it’s a 30 power scope.

4. Reticle. The ebr2c to me is nearly perfect. This is purely subjective and personal preference. Just my personal preference.

Like I said the XRS has a better zero stop in my opinion, but you can’t get a “true” zero like you can with the razor which is important to many in PRS and competition shooting. The XRS has 3 more on the top end as well. The XRS isn’t a bad scope and the razor doesn’t blow it away in any category except maybe FOV and eyebox, but all the little differences added up make a big difference, IMO

 

[BallisticPrimate]

Reviews are starting to filter through for the XRS II: