Rifle Scopes Very happy with the Bushnell XRS II

[Aaron47pb]

There were a lot of quick judgements and uninformed opinions of the XRS II on this forum early on in its release. I’ve had two XRS IIs for about 4 months and I think they're awesome scopes. But don't take my word for it. Robert Brantley of the MCS team just won the King of 2 Miles comp with a Bushnell XRS II. In his words from the thread in the ELR section:

The new line-up from Bushnell is pretty impressive. They are willing to make scopes to compete at all levels and now that includes the top end. I ran NF on all my rifles for years and while they are great scopes most all my rifles wear Bushnells on them now. I've used them and I don't baby them and I've never had one issue with any of them. The glass quality in the XRS2 and the DMR2 PRO is worth looking into. With the std ELITE TAC line-up their mechanical tracking was always respected but the glass quality wasn't there. Now, it's "there".

I also think the glass quality on the XRS II is "there". Here is my experience comparing them to the gen 2 Razor. I shot a g2 Razor for the past 4 years and did quite a bit side-by-side between the XRS II and the g2 Razor.

The XRS II was a challenge to get set up properly compared to other high end scopes I’ve owned. The eye relief is quite long and I had to add a spacer to extend my LoP to get it right. Then I could go through 3/4 of the diopter range without the reticle losing focus. The image initially wasn’t clear, because I didn’t have the right diopter setting. And my hypothesis is this is actually the source of most people’s initial criticism of he XRS II glass. I’m guessing they don’t have it set up correctly. Especially the people who just looked through someone else’s or a demo.

I say this because after getting the diopter set up correctly, which I was finally able to do looking at the moon and adjusting it until the image resolved, the clarity exploded. At the same magnification, I don’t think it gives anything up to the g2 Razor.

What it does lose to the Razor on is the eye box. It’s just not as forgiving as the Razor. Probably has to do with the smaller objective (50mm vs 56mm).

Other than that, it’s just the feature sets, where everyone will have a different preference. I prefer the Bushnell zero mechanism and zero stop over the Razor. I also prefer the non-locking elevation turret. Oh and it was nice to shave 10 oz off!

And a quick video I did for another member wanting to comparing the clicks/slop in turrets. Not much difference:



Anyways, just another data point for everyone.

 

[3rd shooter]

Appriciate the information. I'm in the process of deciding on a new scope and am looking at the Razor, XRS II and the new Leupold Mark 5. I was hoping Vortex would have a Razor Gen 3 out by now but have not heard anthing on that front. Still have not made a decision.

 

[silentheart]

Imho, Bushnell xr2 is prob one of the best performance for $$$$. On the market right now. Yes, there are scopes with better glass. You will pay extra $500+ for a little more clarity and pop on the picture. Another $250+ for better click and easier to set 0. At the end, the most important thing is the guy behind the scope.

 

[just browsing]

Appriciate the information. I'm in the process of deciding on a new scope and am looking at the Razor, XRS II and the new Leupold Mark 5. I was hoping Vortex would have a Razor Gen 3 out by now but have not heard anthing on that front. Still have not made a decision.

AMG is your answer.

I liked the XRS2 that I looked through “well enough” after I spent some time getting it set up to my eyes. The glass is much better than the original DMR2/XRS line but it still didn’t control CA very well. Resolution and clarity were much improved over the originals but still not what I was expecting for a $17-1800 optic.

The turrets and tracking are the main selling points for the Bushnell lineup and the improved glass certainly helps. But in my humble opinion they still fall short of some of the other “mid-high tier optics” and will be a much more suitable sub $1500 option once available.

 

[Aaron47pb]

AMG is your answer.

I liked the XRS2 that I looked through “well enough” after I spent some time getting it set up to my eyes. The glass is much better than the original DMR2/XRS line but it still didn’t control CA very well. Resolution and clarity were much improved over the originals but still not what I was expecting for a $17-1800 optic.

The turrets and tracking are the main selling points for the Bushnell lineup and the improved glass certainly helps. But in my humble opinion they still fall short of some of the other “mid-high tier optics” and will be a much more suitable sub $1500 option once available.

Thankfully we have more choices in the market today than ever before to satisfy our preferences/eyeballs!

 

[Aaron47pb]

Just occurred to me that I left out an important point in the OP... I've actually shot these scopes over the past 4 months and have a 500-600 rounds behind them. And regarding the tracking/repeatability, I've shot both my XRS II's out to 950 and back in on multiple occasions and elevation and return to zero has always been spot on.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

I've been nothing but impressed by the XRS II. Liked the first one I bought so much I purchased a second a few weeks later. Track dead nuts on and glass is excellent.

Also a compact scope given the mag range. Here on my Surgeon 6.5x47