Rifle Scopes So I bought a “Just As Good”, Burris XTR3

"The build quality actually went up when they left the U.S." Can you support that statement with something. How do you know the build quality didn't go down and thats why the price has gone down? That is of course ignoring that every scope comes out at a higher price than it ends up. The new shiney costs extra. Lets also remember it came competing against the DMR2 and Cronus BTR. You can grab a DMR2 for 750 dollars. I would take the Burris over either. I don't see why I wouldn't take it over the DMR3 also. All they did was put better glass in the same old design again. Same small AFOV, same everything else.
 
"The build quality actually went up when they left the U.S." Can you support that statement with something. How do you know the build quality didn't go down and thats why the price has gone down? That is of course ignoring that every scope comes out at a higher price than it ends up. The new shiney costs extra. Lets also remember it came competing against the DMR2 and Cronus BTR. You can grab a DMR2 for 750 dollars. I would take the Burris over either. I don't see why I wouldn't take it over the DMR3 also. All they did was put better glass in the same old design again. Same small AFOV, same everything else.

There are a lot of posts on here and a lot in the main XTR3 thread supporting it. Even the most hardcore fanboys and the team fluffer have stated that the Phillipines versions have better glass, smoother controls, better machining on the turrets (not just aggressiveness of the knurling), and not even any purple turrets. Plus dandruff dan is at the Colorado facility.

I've never seen another scope line fall in price like these have short of being discontinued and blown out. The XTR3's and Pros just dropped $200-$300 in recent months. The new black pros that just released at SHOT are even $300 less than they were initially so it's not because the new model came out either.

If the DMR3's had better reticles I would 100% buy them over the XTR3, they are absolutely worth the $400ish more one would cost me than these have. I just don't like the reticles. The EQL just has too much shit in it and the G4P doesn't have .2 mil hashes. The DMR2 G3reticle doesn't have enough wind brackets on the tree for a 10mph full value with a lot of cartridges, it's not even close to having enough with a 223 running 77gr which is the most common DMR combo. If the G3 reticle didn't suck so bad I'd absolutely buy second hand $700 DMR2's instead over $800 XTR3's.

Bushnell did a lot more on the different generations than just upgrading the glass, but it started with a very good and reliable optic from the beginning. The DMR2 got rid of the stupid pull up turrets locking turrets and added a zero stop and 10 mil turrets. The DMR3 has better turret markings, lower minimum parallax, a throw lever, and a reticle update with enough horizontals to hold wind. The DMR's are damn good optics and even the original DMR/HDMR has better resolution than the XTR3. Saying all Bushnell did was upgrade the glass would be like saying all Burris did from the XTR2's to the 3's to the Pro's was upgrade the glass.
 
Well Ilya stated he really likes the XTRIII and Pro recently. He has more knowledge of optics than most on this site. Period.
That doesn’t make his opinion the end all but it sure as hell bests a lot of the bullshit several people on hear spew on the regular.
 
Well Ilya stated he really likes the XTRIII and Pro recently. He has more knowledge of optics than most on this site. Period.
That doesn’t make his opinion the end all but it sure as hell bests a lot of the bullshit several people on hear spew on the regular.

What's your point? I've stated I like these too and that I even bought two more. That's a far cry from claiming they best $2K optics like many on here do. So read into the context of why he likes them, I highly doubt that he thinks they compete with $2K optics especially considering that a lot of his evaluation is from an optical/glass quality point of view which is where these fall short the most because of the resolution and CA.
 
I highly doubt that he thinks they compete with $2K optics especially considering that a lot of his evaluation is from an optical/glass quality point of view which is where these fall short the most because of the resolution and CA.
Are you still basing this opinion on what the consensus has deemed the optically inferior model? Have you checked out a 5.5-30 yet, or are you not interested in it?
 
Are you still basing this opinion on what the consensus has deemed the optically inferior model? Have you checked out a 5.5-30 yet, or are you not interested in it?

I have them on my notification list and plan to order one to compare when they come back in stock at the $900 price. I doubt I'll order multiple samples though because I don't have many applications that they would be at home for compared to a 3.3-18. If you've got one that you'd loan for a couple weeks I'd gladly pay shipping both ways.

@redneckbmxer24 do you have any experience with the Steiner T6xi line? Curious how these stack up to those. Wanting to go Steiner but considering the XTR3 instead.

My experience with the T6's is limited to about 15 minutes with a 3-18 at a local store. I was turned off when I spun the elevation turret and the numbers were jumping in the windows, that seemed janky to me and in another thread someone else mentioned theirs did the same. Other than that it didn't appear to be bad and I did take it outside but I didn't spend enough time with it to give it any sort of an evaluation beyond feeling like I wouldn't buy one even at the discounted EV price I can get them for. I also had to send T5's and an M7 back for failures so that's a consideration to me against giving them another chance.

@TheBigCountry has one though and likes it and I think at some point a local group of us are supposed to get together to shoot, compare some glass, and measure wieners.

Nice to see you eating crow, should've listened to us long ago.

It's not a bad optic and has it's pros like the DOF possibly being the best of any scopes I've ever used, but it's just not worth the original pricing or even current MAP and isn't comparable to the optics that the fanboys like to compare it to and even claim its better than unless you're only comparing a select few aspects and ignoring the rest. It's a sub $1K optic and it performs well in that price range and I'm obviously not the only person with that opinion.

I just sold my Zeiss S3 and bought two more of these, does that mean it's as good as a Zeiss S3? Hell no, it's not even close. The Zeiss blows it out of the water in pretty much every regard except for maybe FOV although they are very close, and weight. But for my application that Zeiss was too heavy and I didn't have another rifle it would be at home on, and the Burris has enough of a weight difference that it made the rifle balance right and for what I use it for the optical performance is plenty acceptable and the reliability is also a non issue since a failure just means a shorter day at the range or shooting something else for the rest of the day. So a higher quality scope got swapped for a lesser one because it fits my needs better, but that doesn't mean it's a better optic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBigCountry
There are a number of contributing factors to the price drop of the XTR III. One could argue it should have never been as high as it was when it was first introduced in 2018 IRRC, many thought it to be a replacement of the XTR II but Burris claimed this was a much higher quality scope than the XTR II. Having had some experience with the 4-20 XTR II's (first one a dud and second one decent for the price) I felt the XTR III was an improvement, but my first XTR III copy (3.3-18) performed poorly optically and Burris agreed and replaced the scope in record time with the second one performing much better optically, the 5.5-30 I had also performed very well optically, but both scopes struggled ergonomically in that either the parallax ring or mag ring resistance was overly tight and combined with the aggressive knurling this didn't make for the best combo. I decided to send my 5.5-30 into Burris to request they lighten up the magnification ring as it was significantly hard to turn; they promptly sent it back saying they did nothing because they found it to be within spec, they did not call me or send me any note beforehand, just shipped back basically telling me that I'm wrong. While Burris CS is generally responsive they could still use some improvement and at least communicate with the customer before shipping especially if they decide to do nothing. I have no issue with Philippine mfr scopes and don't think that they are necessarily being manufactured "better" over their vs. the USA versions, I think Burris learned from the feedback with the USA version and requested the Philippine mfr to address but certainly seems they could still use an overhaul on the aggressive knurling. I still think the XTR III and IIIi punch above their class at the current pricing (when you consider FOV and edge to edge sharpness) and they even did so at their older pricing as it wasn't until recently that other manufacturers jumped into the $1500-$2000 class with upgraded optics. When compared to Mark 5HD and NF NX8 back in 2018 the Burris offered better optical performance than both of those, but it seems Leupold and Nightforce have also tweaked their optical formulas after criticism came in on those early scopes and now those scopes perform much better than the early models as well (I know this to be the case with NX8 and have heard from reputable sources the same is true with Leupold). To your point redneck, the aggressive price adjustments on these scopes is an interesting move and leads one to think they are struggling in the marketplace at their price point. Those are my thoughts on the matter...
 
I have them on my notification list and plan to order one to compare when they come back in stock at the $900 price. I doubt I'll order multiple samples though because I don't have many applications that they would be at home for compared to a 3.3-18. If you've got one that you'd loan for a couple weeks I'd gladly pay shipping both ways.
I do not, as I only need one scope in that category and settled on a Gen 3.

I’m just saying I think one must be specific about model here. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone claim the 3.3-18 punches way above its price point.

This seems much like if one shooter only used an ATACR 5-25, and another only a 7-35, their opinions on the ATACR line might vary quite a bit.

Hopefully you can get your hands on one at a price you find reasonable to compare them for yourself.
 
There are a lot of posts on here and a lot in the main XTR3 thread supporting it. Even the most hardcore fanboys and the team fluffer have stated that the Phillipines versions have better glass, smoother controls, better machining on the turrets (not just aggressiveness of the knurling), and not even any purple turrets. Plus dandruff dan is at the Colorado facility.

I've never seen another scope line fall in price like these have short of being discontinued and blown out. The XTR3's and Pros just dropped $200-$300 in recent months. The new black pros that just released at SHOT are even $300 less than they were initially so it's not because the new model came out either.

If the DMR3's had better reticles I would 100% buy them over the XTR3, they are absolutely worth the $400ish more one would cost me than these have. I just don't like the reticles. The EQL just has too much shit in it and the G4P doesn't have .2 mil hashes. The DMR2 G3reticle doesn't have enough wind brackets on the tree for a 10mph full value with a lot of cartridges, it's not even close to having enough with a 223 running 77gr which is the most common DMR combo. If the G3 reticle didn't suck so bad I'd absolutely buy second hand $700 DMR2's instead over $800 XTR3's.

Bushnell did a lot more on the different generations than just upgrading the glass, but it started with a very good and reliable optic from the beginning. The DMR2 got rid of the stupid pull up turrets locking turrets and added a zero stop and 10 mil turrets. The DMR3 has better turret markings, lower minimum parallax, a throw lever, and a reticle update with enough horizontals to hold wind. The DMR's are damn good optics and even the original DMR/HDMR has better resolution than the XTR3. Saying all Bushnell did was upgrade the glass would be like saying all Burris did from the XTR2's to the 3's to the Pro's was upgrade the glass.
Well I mean if we are just going by what peopel post about it, then it must be just as guud too.
 
Lemme make sure I just read that right, the S3 is a better scope but you sold it and bought 2 more XTRs?

Yes it absolutely is. If I had sold a TT and bought 5 XTR3's instead would that mean that a TT is not a better optic than a XTR3? That's some dumb fucking logic.

There are a number of contributing factors to the price drop of the XTR III. One could argue it should have never been as high as it was when it was first introduced in 2018 IRRC, many thought it to be a replacement of the XTR II but Burris claimed this was a much higher quality scope than the XTR II. Having had some experience with the 4-20 XTR II's (first one a dud and second one decent for the price) I felt the XTR III was an improvement, but my first XTR III copy (3.3-18) performed poorly optically and Burris agreed and replaced the scope in record time with the second one performing much better optically, the 5.5-30 I had also performed very well optically, but both scopes struggled ergonomically in that either the parallax ring or mag ring resistance was overly tight and combined with the aggressive knurling this didn't make for the best combo. I decided to send my 5.5-30 into Burris to request they lighten up the magnification ring as it was significantly hard to turn; they promptly sent it back saying they did nothing because they found it to be within spec, they did not call me or send me any note beforehand, just shipped back basically telling me that I'm wrong. While Burris CS is generally responsive they could still use some improvement and at least communicate with the customer before shipping especially if they decide to do nothing. I have no issue with Philippine mfr scopes and don't think that they are necessarily being manufactured "better" over their vs. the USA versions, I think Burris learned from the feedback with the USA version and requested the Philippine mfr to address but certainly seems they could still use an overhaul on the aggressive knurling. I still think the XTR III and IIIi punch above their class at the current pricing (when you consider FOV and edge to edge sharpness) and they even did so at their older pricing as it wasn't until recently that other manufacturers jumped into the $1500-$2000 class with upgraded optics. When compared to Mark 5HD and NF NX8 back in 2018 the Burris offered better optical performance than both of those, but it seems Leupold and Nightforce have also tweaked their optical formulas after criticism came in on those early scopes and now those scopes perform much better than the early models as well (I know this to be the case with NX8 and have heard from reputable sources the same is true with Leupold). To your point redneck, the aggressive price adjustments on these scopes is an interesting move and leads one to think they are struggling in the marketplace at their price point. Those are my thoughts on the matter...

I was an early adopter of the MK5 and ordered a few as soon as they were announced and I've owned several more since and have friends who have bought them too and I haven't seen a single sample that didn't have significantly better optical quality than the XTR3 I currently own or the one I shot with previously. The resolution on the MK5's is very good and the edge to edge clarity and colors are at least as good as the XTR3. I was using my MK5's with NV clip ons which I think is the ultimate test of an optics resolution as it tends to show more flaws and they gave up nothing to my S&B's in that regard. I know there was talk of early NX8's having issues and maybe being revised but I haven't heard of that with the MK5's. I have limited experience with the NX8's and ordered one a couple weeks back and sold it the day after I got it because the DOF was complete ass.

The reality is that if these XTR3's were truly on the same performance level as others costing significantly more that they get compared to then they would sell for that and they wouldn't keep dropping the price, that's not how it works when stuff sells well and people buy things when they feel they are worth the price tag. Leupold and NF haven't dropped their prices and those optics sell because people obviously feel they are worth the price.

I do not, as I only need one scope in that category and settled on a Gen 3.

I’m just saying I think one must be specific about model here. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone claim the 3.3-18 punches way above its price point.

This seems much like if one shooter only used an ATACR 5-25, and another only a 7-35, their opinions on the ATACR line might vary quite a bit.

Hopefully you can get your hands on one at a price you find reasonable to compare them for yourself.

People say stuff like X model having better glass than the other mag version all the time, but that has not been my experience. People say inaccurate crap all the time. They only difference in optical quality I've noticed between two scopes in the same line comes from overall design characteristics leading towards better optical quality than glass. The 3.3-18 is one of those designs that should theoretically suffer some because of it and one aspect being DOF but in that regard and eyebox it's excellent so I just don't see how the 5.5-30 could be much better optically.

As far as people claiming the 3.3-18 is better than it's price point it has been posted hundreds of times on this website.
 
There are a number of contributing factors to the price drop of the XTR III. One could argue it should have never been as high as it was when it was first introduced in 2018 IRRC, many thought it to be a replacement of the XTR II but Burris claimed this was a much higher quality scope than the XTR II. Having had some experience with the 4-20 XTR II's (first one a dud and second one decent for the price) I felt the XTR III was an improvement, but my first XTR III copy (3.3-18) performed poorly optically and Burris agreed and replaced the scope in record time with the second one performing much better optically, the 5.5-30 I had also performed very well optically, but both scopes struggled ergonomically in that either the parallax ring or mag ring resistance was overly tight and combined with the aggressive knurling this didn't make for the best combo. I decided to send my 5.5-30 into Burris to request they lighten up the magnification ring as it was significantly hard to turn; they promptly sent it back saying they did nothing because they found it to be within spec, they did not call me or send me any note beforehand, just shipped back basically telling me that I'm wrong. While Burris CS is generally responsive they could still use some improvement and at least communicate with the customer before shipping especially if they decide to do nothing. I have no issue with Philippine mfr scopes and don't think that they are necessarily being manufactured "better" over their vs. the USA versions, I think Burris learned from the feedback with the USA version and requested the Philippine mfr to address but certainly seems they could still use an overhaul on the aggressive knurling. I still think the XTR III and IIIi punch above their class at the current pricing (when you consider FOV and edge to edge sharpness) and they even did so at their older pricing as it wasn't until recently that other manufacturers jumped into the $1500-$2000 class with upgraded optics. When compared to Mark 5HD and NF NX8 back in 2018 the Burris offered better optical performance than both of those, but it seems Leupold and Nightforce have also tweaked their optical formulas after criticism came in on those early scopes and now those scopes perform much better than the early models as well (I know this to be the case with NX8 and have heard from reputable sources the same is true with Leupold). To your point redneck, the aggressive price adjustments on these scopes is an interesting move and leads one to think they are struggling in the marketplace at their price point. Those are my thoughts on the matter...
In fairness the market price of every scope rapidly changes and has for the last 10 years with this sort of arms race scope manufactures are engaged in. Where did the mk5 start about 2200 correct? As a guy who sold dozens of scopes over the years before the PX was pay to play. That was the game.
Get them cheap early then sell them when the next new thing is announced before the bottom falls out on the price. That's been the problem with taking a
long time to drop something new. It could end up dated before it drops.

I thought whoever said the xtr3 would replace the xtr2 at its price point was crazy. It's pretty crazy that's what you get at 800 dollars now.

If the xtr3 is 800. I would have a tough time paying more than 800 for any new iteration of the DMR. And I think the DMR2 is great scope that fixed the shortcomings of the DMR and ERS. Besides the small AFOV which I don't think is a big deal but if we are nit picking at stuff.

I haven't seen anything I would rank in between the mk5 and the xtr3.

I would never expect Burris CS to do something about feel after sending them my px4i. I though the thing was locked up at first. I bet the guy who tested the tracking had to get some janitors to come help him hold the fixture while he turned the dial.🤣🤣🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glassaholic
MK5 pricing absolutely has not dropped, it has only increased now to the point where I think the price exceeds the performance if you want illumination. When they first came out you could get them new for as little as $1400 or so for non illuminated TMR 3.6-18 models. Friends and I were paying sub $2K for illuminated T3's models new from dealers with typical discounts. Now base bare bones models are $1800 discounted or "open box" and illuminated T3's are $2500+ with discount depending on model. MAP is currently $2000-$3300 right now. So I'm not sure what pricing you're looking at but as someone who has personally bought almost a dozen total from the time of their release to as recently as last fall I can tell you for a fact that they have only gotten more expensive.
 
MK5 pricing absolutely has not dropped, it has only increased now to the point where I think the price exceeds the performance if you want illumination. When they first came out you could get them new for as little as $1400 or so for non illuminated TMR 3.6-18 models. Friends and I were paying sub $2K for illuminated T3's models new from dealers with typical discounts. Now base bare bones models are $1800 discounted or "open box" and illuminated T3's are $2500+ with discount depending on model. MAP is currently $2000-$3300 right now. So I'm not sure what pricing you're looking at but as someone who has personally bought almost a dozen total from the time of their release to as recently as last fall I can tell you for a fact that they have only gotten more expensive.
I looked MSRP was 2399 when the 3.6-18 dropped. I wasnt looking at anything. Hence the question mark. I know you could get them really cheap for while. Especially after bass pro or whoever dumped a bunch of them. I don't remember what the deal was with their tracking turret problems early on. That had slow them down a bit too. They can price them how they want. To me the current pricing is well above where it should be. Pretty typical for Leupold though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FuhQ
I looked MSRP was 2399 when the 3.6-18 dropped. I wasnt looking at anything. Hence the question mark. I know you could get them really cheap for while. Especially after bass pro or whoever dumped a bunch of them. I don't remember what the deal was with their tracking turret problems early on. That had slow them down a bit too. They can price them how they want. To me the current pricing is well above where it should be. Pretty typical for Leupold though.

That’s not an accurate way to compare pricing since Leupold changed their pricing system. They use MRP now instead of MSRP and MAP. The price you see on their website is the same as dealers list them at. If they stuck to the old system then the MSRP would be higher now. The price has gone up.
 
Way too continuously pimp yourself….


We pay for that privilege, but we also are part of this community, provide plenty of information and help improve products many here are enjoying. If you would like to discuss anything here is my direct number.

- Richard 916-628-3490
 
Richard is cool. The man has a family to feed and is actually a shooter unlike some vendors who’s only on here to turn a profit.

Thank you! We are here to provide a service, in turn we pay @Lowlight so he can keep the lights on here and maintain the best forum on the internet.

Breaking news for some, Snipershide is a business and not just for fun.
 
That’s not an accurate way to compare pricing since Leupold changed their pricing system. They use MRP now instead of MSRP and MAP. The price you see on their website is the same as dealers list them at. If they stuck to the old system then the MSRP would be higher now. The price has gone up.
I see the asking price went up. Hence the second half of the comment.

Xtr3 nice scope, better value per dollar

Mk5 nicer scope, worse value per dollar
 
  • Like
Reactions: farmer brown
It just confirmed you are a retard, carry on...

Retarded is your logic that just because something works for an application it’s as good as the best. By that ideology if the use case determines that a Barska fits the bill then it must be as good as the best. So is a Barska and a Burris and a ZCO on the same level in whatever world your mind lives in?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 346ci
@redneckbmxer24 do you have any experience with the Steiner T6xi line? Curious how these stack up to those. Wanting to go Steiner but considering the XTR3 instead.
He may.

I have both scopes here (not stealing your thunder @redneckbmxer24)

I’ll do a side by side of the Steiner vs the USA made XTR3, both in 3-18 with the SCR2
 
I got my other two XTR3i 3.3-18’s delivered this morning and have been messing with them.

I would say build quality is pretty consistent across all 3 samples. Effort to turn the controls is spot on except ones elevation turret I would say isn’t quite as positive out of the box as the others but that may change with use so I’m not going to fault it on that. One of the ones I received today has a touch better glass quality than the other two as far as resolution. It’s just a hair more crisp looking at the resolution chart in my back yard.

Another thing to note is that all 3 of my samples have come with the capped windage turret installed and a non capped in the box. I decided to call Burris and ask and they said they’re now all shipping with both again because people were wanting them. I also had them check one of the serial numbers and he confirmed they were fresh production and they weren’t some older dealer stock sitting on the shelves that they were blowing out. They’ve also all had new style packaging which is a smaller box.
 
I got my other two XTR3i 3.3-18’s delivered this morning and have been messing with them.

I would say build quality is pretty consistent across all 3 samples. Effort to turn the controls is spot on except ones elevation turret I would say isn’t quite as positive out of the box as the others but that may change with use so I’m not going to fault it on that. One of the ones I received today has a touch better glass quality than the other two as far as resolution. It’s just a hair more crisp looking at the resolution chart in my back yard.

Another thing to note is that all 3 of my samples have come with the capped windage turret installed and a non capped in the box. I decided to call Burris and ask and they said they’re now all shipping with both again because people were wanting them. I also had them check one of the serial numbers and he confirmed they were fresh production and they weren’t some older dealer stock sitting on the shelves that they were blowing out. They’ve also all had new style packaging which is a smaller box.
Out of curiosity, was the IQ of the one scope immediately obvious or you didn't notice until you looked at your resolution chart?
 
Out of curiosity, was the IQ of the one scope immediately obvious or you didn't notice until you looked at your resolution chart?

I wouldn’t say so. I was looking at some grain detail in wood first and noticed it appeared a little better so I set the resolution chart out to look at and confirmed it. If I didn’t have the scopes side by side comparing them I likely would have never noticed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glassaholic
I wouldn’t say so. I was looking at some grain detail in wood first and noticed it appeared a little better so I set the resolution chart out to look at and confirmed it. If I didn’t have the scopes side by side comparing them I likely would have never noticed it.
That's what I was hoping was the case but thought I should ask. Good to hear QC is pretty decent through sample of 3...
 
That's what I was hoping was the case but thought I should ask. Good to hear QC is pretty decent through sample of 3...

Yeah I would say it’s pretty consistent. They all have the same half click (.05mil) worth of slop too. I’ll also note that the one that has the elevation that doesn’t feel the best also has a rougher feeling mag ring and can tell it’s coming from the erector assembly moving back and forth and it’s in the same spot in both directions. If it doesn’t smooth out it’s bad enough that I’ll probably send it in to Burris.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glassaholic
I looked MSRP was 2399 when the 3.6-18 dropped. I wasnt looking at anything. Hence the question mark. I know you could get them really cheap for while. Especially after bass pro or whoever dumped a bunch of them. I don't remember what the deal was with their tracking turret problems early on. That had slow them down a bit too. They can price them how they want. To me the current pricing is well above where it should be. Pretty typical for Leupold though.

The older Mark 6 and 8 had issues with the "squeeze to unlock" B series turrets.

The C series "lock at zero only" haven't had any widespread issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glassaholic
Got one of these last week, for the $900 range it's seems okay, range time will tell though. I tend to run PST 2's on my budget range guns, mostly because if it breaks I'm not in a comp etc. and I brought 5 other guns to shoot (to be fair I have several and have never had one go down, in fact I've had more Razor Gen 2's 4.5-27's fail than PST 2's), and the fact you can get PST 2 5-25's under $700 now so they are a good bang for the buck. However I figured if the XTR 3 lives up to the hype for only $200 more why not, might be a good time to update a few PST 2's. I know folks love to hate the PST 2, and it has it's issues, but I've tried a lot of other hype scopes in the price range and at $700 it's hard to beat for just a range beater.

No comments on optical yet, obviously commenting on durability on a week old scope is silly. I never would anyway I don't beat on my stuff. It was easy to get the reticle focused, and FOV and eyebox seem pretty nice at the price point. Including decent flip covers was appreciated as opposed to a lot of scopes that just give you junk elastic covers.

The saw teeth is funny, it's uncomfortable and super non-functional at the same time. The reason it's painful is it doesn't provide much grip so you have to clamp down on it to the point it hurts. It's probably a cost decision but a tight checkering/knurling or even stippling on something like rotary surfaces is MUCH more effective at providing grip than giant teeth ever will be, even when wet or with sweaty hands, plus it doesn't hurt. The only time the coarse teeth are probably better is if you bathe your scope in mud. For those that hate it an old trick for things like this is to go buy a road bike inner tube, and cut out a small circle and stretch it over the area.

Obviously the reticle is pretty thin at 5x, but so are most of the others, I'd say the PST 2 is a bit better to see at 5x, but most of us are never using these scopes at 5x. Illumination was not great, PST 2 has probably 1-2 brighter levels, and the PST 2 illuminates the whole reticle not just the center cross.

Probably my biggest disappointment is the knob feel. The elevation is audibly loud, and the clicks feel solid when you hit them, but it's very mushy/stiff between clicks and there's slop between the clicks. I'd say between 0.25 and 0.5 mil on mine you can wiggle the knob back and forth easily when you hit a click. Lighter grease helped a bit with the mushy feel, but not the slop. The windage feels completely different and even worse, clicks are light and knob is heavy/mushy, so it's easy to go past clicks, but no slop like the elevation has so that's good. The windage/elevation almost feel like two totally different scopes. The worst PST 2 sample I have is significantly better in knob feel IMO. The PST 2 knobs I feel are too easy to move, but the clicks are good and there's zero slop when you settle on a click. Sometimes knobs "break in" but these are pretty rough, so I don't think they are going to magically turn into nice ones.

I don't really care much, but I do like being able to dial a few clicks below zero.

Most of us probably don't need one, but I thought the manual was pretty poor. There's very little actual detail in it compared to other scopes I've had.

Be interesting to see how it goes after a few range visits and optically etc. but at least at this point I'm not going to run out and buy a bunch to replace all those PST 2's based on just my initial impressions. Might be blown away by it optically so who knows.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: -H-
I grabbed one. The glass is very good, especially for the price. I’d say it is on par with the MK5 and MK6s, maybe slightly better in low light.

Mechanically turrets are very positive, better than my MK6 for sure. I don’t know why folks are crying about the texture on the turrets, maybe spend a day outside your cubicle or harden the fuck up, idk.

I’d say the reticle is optimal between 8-18x. Maybe I’m getting old, but I found the reticle most usable through those power ranges.

I’m pretty impressed by it at the sub $1000 price range. Might look at an XTR Pro for my next boltgun build.
 
Since I was mentioned earlier in the thread, I thought I'd add a little background.
I have XTR3i 3.3-18x50 and XTR Pro 5.5-30x56. I have only tested one sample of each, so I do not have any opinions on how consistent they are mechanicaly. I have a seen a few and they appeared fairly consistent optically. Both are very good. XTR Pro optical system is clearly upgraded compared to the original XTR III. I have had a chance to look at the same magnification version of the two side-by-side and the Pro is a step up. Both of these ended up on my list of recommendations because I think they are very good for the money.

They did not tempt me to sell my Tangent Thetas. However, they do compete very well in their price range. As far as the image quality goes, I think they are among the best for the money.

The knurling does not bother me as much as it seems to bother a few people here, but it does not ideal either. It works well enough, but I have seen better solutions.

Both scopes track. Both have stayed zeroed since I got them. The controls do smooth out noticeably with use.

ILya
 
It is interesting, while we always tend to see a variety of opinions on how good/bad optics are, one thing I've noticed about the XTR III's is that people seem to report very different results in things that would normally be quite consistent, for example how solid the knob clicks are or if they have slop/lash to them, or hard/easy the adjustments work yet optically most all reports are quite positive. Usually the one place we see more disagreement than anywhere on low/mid range scopes is optically.

Perhaps that suggests that for whatever reason the XTR III has more sample to sample mechanical build variation than most and more in the mechanical areas than optical. Perhaps not a surprise, I'd imagine at these price points, you pretty much have to pick where you put your quality, you can't give top mechanical and optical quality at a sub $1000 street price. If the optics are very very good at this price point as most reports suggest, perhaps more $ was saved in the mechanical areas. Perhaps it's also that there are the first gen USA versions and the overseas versions floating around as well contributing to different experiences.

Knurling, I don't care that it's not comfy *IF* it was highly functional. I care that it's a piss poor solution to providing grip AND on top of that it's uncomfortable, just bad engineering. If something is going to be uncomfortable to use, it better be more functional than a dozen other more comfortable options that already exist for kurling/checkering/etc. on knobs. It's like they just did it to make the scope look more hardcore operator tacti-cool.
 
Got one of these last week, for the $900 range it's seems okay, range time will tell though. I tend to run PST 2's on my budget range guns, mostly because if it breaks I'm not in a comp etc. and I brought 5 other guns to shoot (to be fair I have several and have never had one go down, in fact I've had more Razor Gen 2's 4.5-27's fail than PST 2's), and the fact you can get PST 2 5-25's under $700 now so they are a good bang for the buck. However I figured if the XTR 3 lives up to the hype for only $200 more why not, might be a good time to update a few PST 2's. I know folks love to hate the PST 2, and it has it's issues, but I've tried a lot of other hype scopes in the price range and at $700 it's hard to beat for just a range beater.

No comments on optical yet, obviously commenting on durability on a week old scope is silly. I never would anyway I don't beat on my stuff. It was easy to get the reticle focused, and FOV and eyebox seem pretty nice at the price point. Including decent flip covers was appreciated as opposed to a lot of scopes that just give you junk elastic covers.

The saw teeth is funny, it's uncomfortable and super non-functional at the same time. The reason it's painful is it doesn't provide much grip so you have to clamp down on it to the point it hurts. It's probably a cost decision but a tight checkering/knurling or even stippling on something like rotary surfaces is MUCH more effective at providing grip than giant teeth ever will be, even when wet or with sweaty hands, plus it doesn't hurt. The only time the coarse teeth are probably better is if you bathe your scope in mud. For those that hate it an old trick for things like this is to go buy a road bike inner tube, and cut out a small circle and stretch it over the area.

Obviously the reticle is pretty thin at 5x, but so are most of the others, I'd say the PST 2 is a bit better to see at 5x, but most of us are never using these scopes at 5x. Illumination was not great, PST 2 has probably 1-2 brighter levels, and the PST 2 illuminates the whole reticle not just the center cross.

Probably my biggest disappointment is the knob feel. The elevation is audibly loud, and the clicks feel solid when you hit them, but it's very mushy/stiff between clicks and there's slop between the clicks. I'd say between 0.25 and 0.5 mil on mine you can wiggle the knob back and forth easily when you hit a click. Lighter grease helped a bit with the mushy feel, but not the slop. The windage feels completely different and even worse, clicks are light and knob is heavy/mushy, so it's easy to go past clicks, but no slop like the elevation has so that's good. The windage/elevation almost feel like two totally different scopes. The worst PST 2 sample I have is significantly better in knob feel IMO. The PST 2 knobs I feel are too easy to move, but the clicks are good and there's zero slop when you settle on a click. Sometimes knobs "break in" but these are pretty rough, so I don't think they are going to magically turn into nice ones.

I don't really care much, but I do like being able to dial a few clicks below zero.

Most of us probably don't need one, but I thought the manual was pretty poor. There's very little actual detail in it compared to other scopes I've had.

Be interesting to see how it goes after a few range visits and optically etc. but at least at this point I'm not going to run out and buy a bunch to replace all those PST 2's based on just my initial impressions. Might be blown away by it optically so who knows.
I've got a 3-15 PST Gen II, honestly I wouldn't directly compare the XTR3 with it.

The glass and mechanical feel in the turrets put the XTR3 in a whole different class in my opinion. Plus 30mm tube vs 34mm.

I do agree the Vortex reticle is more usable at lower power and the illumination has more settings.

I think the XTR3 squares up against the Leupold MK5 and MK6 more evenly.
 
Knurling, I don't care that it's not comfy *IF* it was highly functional. I care that it's a piss poor solution to providing grip AND on top of that it's uncomfortable, just bad engineering. If something is going to be uncomfortable to use, it better be more functional than a dozen other more comfortable options that already exist for kurling/checkering/etc. on knobs. It's like they just did it to make the scope look more hardcore operator tacti-cool.

I've often wondered about the people who don't like the knurling.

The people who don't mind the knurling are probably hard core shooters.
Maybe they are blue collar workers with calluses on their hands.
Maybe they are just manly men.



For those that think they are too sharp, they could be office workers with really soft hands...😁
 
I've got a 3-15 PST Gen II, honestly I wouldn't directly compare the XTR3 with it.

The glass and mechanical feel in the turrets put the XTR3 in a whole different class in my opinion. Plus 30mm tube vs 34mm.

I do agree the Vortex reticle is more usable at lower power and the illumination has more settings.

I think the XTR3 squares up against the Leupold MK5 and MK6 more evenly.
Which is kind of my point, the copy of the XTR 3 I have, I'd say turret feel is noticeable below any of my PST 2's and it's not like I think the pST 2 is great in this area in the first place. The XTR 3 clicks are solid feeling and loud, but it's very mushy between clicks and you can feel the lash in the elevation knob as others have reported in that I can easily "wiggle" the knob that 0.25-0.5 click back and forth before the knob gets stiff and hops to the next click. In addition the windage knob on mine the clicks feel like a completely different scope than the elevation knob, it's much more quiet, and less solid feeling, but with no slop/lash.

While the PST 2's I have don't have nearly as loud/solid of a click and the knobs overall have less tension, there's zero slop/lash when you are on a click and the windage and elevation feel similar. So to me while the clicks are louder and a bit easier to feel on the XTR 3, I feel like it would be much easier for me to dial/count repeat adjustments on the PST 2.

So did those of us that are reporting disappointment in the knob feel/slop just get really bad examples? It seems that way since many report completely different experiences.
 
I've often wondered about the people who don't like the knurling.

The people who don't mind the knurling are probably hard core shooters.
Maybe they are blue collar workers with calluses on their hands.
Maybe they are just manly men.



For those that think they are too sharp, they could be office workers with really soft hands...😁


Here's another thought, the variations have changed over the years. Our early samples of XTR3's were so bad overall we cancelled our orders. Optically they were poor and the knurling was excessively sharp, and we are no bitches over here. I asked our Rep if there was something wrong with our samples and he said they were not, I gave him the ability to double check at the time. Why would I want my wife or kids to wear gloves unnecessarily for ridiculously sharp turrets?

I assume they have gotten better since then, I haven't had many samples to check out.

-Richard
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBigCountry
Which is kind of my point, the copy of the XTR 3 I have, I'd say turret feel is noticeable below any of my PST 2's and it's not like I think the pST 2 is great in this area in the first place. The XTR 3 clicks are solid feeling and loud, but it's very mushy between clicks and you can feel the lash in the elevation knob as others have reported in that I can easily "wiggle" the knob that 0.25-0.5 click back and forth before the knob gets stiff and hops to the next click. In addition the windage knob on mine the clicks feel like a completely different scope than the elevation knob, it's much more quiet, and less solid feeling, but with no slop/lash.

While the PST 2's I have don't have nearly as loud/solid of a click and the knobs overall have less tension, there's zero slop/lash when you are on a click and the windage and elevation feel similar. So to me while the clicks are louder and a bit easier to feel on the XTR 3, I feel like it would be much easier for me to dial/count repeat adjustments on the PST 2.

So did those of us that are reporting disappointment in the knob feel/slop just get really bad examples? It seems that way since many report completely different experiences.
I gotcha.

Mine is very solid mechanically, far better than my MK6, on par, maybe crisper than my MK5, no slop at all. My PST 2 isn’t even comparable, but that scope is great for a $650 scope.

The one I got was made in the Philippines, maybe that is the difference.
 
Yeah mine is a newer production as well from the Philippines, seems like there may just be a lot of sample to sample variation. I'll have to see if I stumble across any locally in stock to play with and compare.
 
My XTRIIIi 3-18 that’s about a year old, has a crisp elevation turret without play. The windage is capped and turret is mushy but I don’t dial wind so could care less. The knurling is aggressive but if you need gloves for it, you’re a pussy. It’s not that sharp, jeez. The parallax is very stiff but I use an MKM wheel on it and it’s very smooth and easy to move. Marks are spot on seemingly. I may ring is fairly stiff but with a throw is very smooth and also easy to move. The illumination is very stiff also and fine for lower light. The glass is very good and FOV is great IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 346ci, FuhQ and -H-
Eurooptic has them on sale, thinking about picking up a pro model.
100% unfounded speculation but I wonder if Burris is dumping the SCR 2 in the Pro to just have the SCR 1/4. That's about the 4th place I've seen that has the SCR 2 model hundreds cheaper than the SCR 2 1/4 version in the same scope this week in stores that were holding them all in the $1900 range a week ago. They sold out silly FAST, but Dvor had the black version of the SCR 2 for $1479 the other day. Which is what tons of places were selling them for a couple months ago.