Why is the XTRIII so popular?

[KevinWood44]

The last thread I started turned into a soap opera (albeit entertaining) I'd like to avoid that this time around

Before I bought the Cronus, while shopping around, I never gave the XTRIII any serious consideration. The XTRIII looks really nice, but the reticle seems very convoluted and hard to read (I perfer easy-to-read .2 markings) ,other scopes in this price range have better glass, and I've never heard anyone say "damn those Burris turrets are incredibleeee" so....

...if it doesn't have the best glass
...or turrets
...or reticle
...or FOV
...doesn't parallax down to 10 yards
...the elevation is 90 MOA vs. 110 MOA in comparitive scopes

I mean this very sisncerely (no drama allowed lol)....what am I missing??

-Kevin

 

[Basher]

1) Glass should be much lower on the list of priorities. It’s not bad by any means in the XTR3.
2) Turret feel is subjective, and again isn’t critical. If the scope tracks reliably, most can live with turrets that don’t feel “perfect.”
3) Reticle is very personal/subjective. I like the SCR2, as do many others. If you don’t like it, don’t buy one?
4) FOV isn’t actually that bad. It plays a role in optic selection, but unless it tunnels horribly it’s usually not a deal breaker for most, especially if it’s not a hunting optic.
5) Not needed unless it’s used on a .22 or airgun. For most folks, 25y would work well enough.
6) Again, unless it’s being used on a .22 then most folks only need about 10-12mrad (40MOA or so) to hit 1000y. 90MOA is plenty for most uses. Is having more better in case you need it? Sure. But not necessary unless you need it.

The early models were made in the US, which was a big bonus for most. I think current ones are made in the Philippines, which to many is better than made in China like other options in this price bracket.

 

[supercorndogs]

I say ban him. Mostly just for pussy footing around. Saying youre not doing what you obviously are doing is not fooling anyone. The XTRIII is so popular because the bang for the buck pretty damn good.

XTRIII>Cronus

Burris>Athlon

Glock sucks

40 is better than 9 and 45.

3o8 is a grampa gun

Catsup is better than ketchup

 

[Kiba]

I have some thoughts as I just bought an XTR Pro to test back to back with a Cronus BTR, and ended up selling the Cronus and keeping the XTR Pro. I ran the Cronus BTR for probably 4ish years so I was very familiar with it.

While I thought the reticle on the Cronus was a little simpler and easier to read at a quick glance (I preferred the simple dots in the tree on the Cronus to the alternating “up and down” T’s on the SCR2) the SCR2 is still pretty simple to read and is also a bit finer, which I like for small targets. Part of the preference for the Athlon reticle is because I’ve used the Cronus BTR for many years and know the reticle by heart at a quick glance, while I’m still getting used to the SCR2.

The Cronus BTR does have slightly more elevation travel than the XTR Pro (about 32 mils vs 28) but the Cronus BTR very obviously loses some image quality/resolution if you dial within about 6 mils of the elevation limits, while the XTR Pro doesn’t seem to have any noticeable image quality degradation even when dialed within about 2 mils of the elevation limits. The Cronus BTR image doesn’t get horrible in terms of quality when dialed within 6 mils or less of the elevation limits, but you do lose some resolution and for me it was causing eyestrain over longer shooting sessions, so I had to change my mount to something with less cant to leave it about 7.5 mils up from the bottom at my zero distance to keep my eyes happy, so in the end I had to give up usable elevation travel on the Cronus to keep my eyes happy.

Things I prefer/like on the XTR Pro in comparison to the Cronus BTR:

Glass on XTR Pro slightly better

Larger elevation turret has wider spaced hash marks and is easier to read, plus choice of 2 turrets.

Parallax 5y closer (20y vs 25y)

Much wider FOV at same magnification (24.06 degrees apparent FOV in XTR Pro, 21.2 degrees in the Cronus BTR) – very obvious when looking through them side by side.

Turrets feel more positive (keep in mind I had a Cronus BTR Gen 1, not Gen 2, and the Gen 2 has the stainless turrets with sharper detents.)

After using the XTR Pro for about a month now, if you can get both the Cronus BTR and XTR Pro on Expert Voice for the LE/Mil/First Responder price, I think the XTR Pro is worth the premium over the Cronus BTR simply for the better glass, wider FOV, and more readable elevation turret. However, given the value that either of them represent at that price range I would be very happy using either of them for the price paid. I was very happy with my Cronus BTR for several years, and I’m very happy with the XTR Pro.

I also have an XTR3i 3-18 on my 10/22, and like it as well… very decent glass, decent turrets, etc. My only real gripe is when the scope is dialed near the ends of the elevation travel range (which mine is at zero) it’s very sensitive to head position to maintain a fully in focus image. If you move your head just a little bit you start getting lots of edge distortion and weird image effects. The scope is much more forgiving about eye position when dialed closer to the center of its elevation range.

While none of them are perfect, I think both the XTR3 and Cronus BTR are all great scopes for the price and you get a lot of scope for the money, especially if you can purchase at the LE/Mil/First Responder price. This forum may trend differently in terms of spending habits which can skew your viewpoint but a lot more $1000-1500 scopes get sold than $2500-4500 scopes; if you don't want to spend $2500-3000+ on a scope and instead keep things around $1000-1500 the XTR3/Pro and Cronus BTR would be some of the best choices in that price range, which is probably why you see them being recommended so much.

 

[Gohring65]

Once you get past how turrets feel vs. how they preform you’ll open up yourself to some great scopes. The only scopes in my lineup right now is Burris, Athlon and a bushy match pro. And they are in that particular order of preference. I don’t have a Cronus but I wouldn’t hesitate to use one. I think the turrets on the xtr3 are actually designed that way for a reason.
Stiff, muffled turrets so you don’t over dial, and no one or anything can hear you dial it, it’s the same concept bushnell used in the elite tactical line as far as muffled is concerned. Between the Cronus and xtr3 it would just come down to reticle choice for me, I chose the xtr3 original first gen SCR reticle for my 338 lapua is because I can see splash better at a mile and beyond without all the tree grid in my field of view. Can’t go wrong with either scope in my opinion.

 

[Grubber]

I have an XTR III on my Ruger Precision in 6.5 CM. It is outstanding out to 1,000 1,200 yards. I can't reach the 1,500 yard target because it doesn't have enough elevation using the stock rail on the rifle.

Overall highly recommend. It is a lot of performance for the price.

 

[beetroot]

The XTR3 has one of the widest FOVs on the market.
Turrets and reticle are subjective.
The 3.3-18 has 35Mil of adjustment which is better than most scopes.

The only bad thing about the XTR3 is that Beretta is the distributor outside of the USA thus the price is absoutely ridiculous, and Burris won't US sellers export.

 

[KevinWood44]

The early models were made in the US, which was a big bonus for most. I think current ones are made in the Philippines, which to many is better than made in China like other options in this price bracket.

OK that is a very reasonable and a justifiable reason to get one. This is what I was looking for. No hate just wanted to know what was behind its popularity

 

[KevinWood44]

I say ban him. Mostly just for pussy footing around. Saying youre not doing what you obviously are doing is not fooling anyone. The XTRIII is so popular because the bang for the buck pretty damn good.

XTRIII>Cronus

Burris>Athlon

Glock sucks

40 is better than 9 and 45.

3o8 is a grampa gun

Catsup is better than ketchup

Ban me?? Get real.

And I haven't used the Burris so I cant say if it is better than the Cronus. I assume you have time behind both scopes...otherwise you'd just be talking out of your ***

I have some thoughts as I just bought an XTR Pro to test back to back with a Cronus BTR, and ended up selling the Cronus and keeping the XTR Pro. I ran the Cronus BTR for probably 4ish years so I was very familiar with it.

While I thought the reticle on the Cronus was a little simpler and easier to read at a quick glance (I preferred the simple dots in the tree on the Cronus to the alternating “up and down” T’s on the SCR2) the SCR2 is still pretty simple to read and is also a bit finer, which I like for small targets. Part of the preference for the Athlon reticle is because I’ve used the Cronus BTR for many years and know the reticle by heart at a quick glance, while I’m still getting used to the SCR2.

The Cronus BTR does have slightly more elevation travel than the XTR Pro (about 32 mils vs 28) but the Cronus BTR very obviously loses some image quality/resolution if you dial within about 6 mils of the elevation limits, while the XTR Pro doesn’t seem to have any noticeable image quality degradation even when dialed within about 2 mils of the elevation limits. The Cronus BTR image doesn’t get horrible in terms of quality when dialed within 6 mils or less of the elevation limits, but you do lose some resolution and for me it was causing eyestrain over longer shooting sessions, so I had to change my mount to something with less cant to leave it about 7.5 mils up from the bottom at my zero distance to keep my eyes happy, so in the end I had to give up usable elevation travel on the Cronus to keep my eyes happy.

Things I prefer/like on the XTR Pro in comparison to the Cronus BTR:

Glass on XTR Pro slightly better

Larger elevation turret has wider spaced hash marks and is easier to read, plus choice of 2 turrets.

Parallax 5y closer (20y vs 25y)

Much wider FOV at same magnification (24.06 degrees apparent FOV in XTR Pro, 21.2 degrees in the Cronus BTR) – very obvious when looking through them side by side.

Turrets feel more positive (keep in mind I had a Cronus BTR Gen 1, not Gen 2, and the Gen 2 has the stainless turrets with sharper detents.)

After using the XTR Pro for about a month now, if you can get both the Cronus BTR and XTR Pro on Expert Voice for the LE/Mil/First Responder price, I think the XTR Pro is worth the premium over the Cronus BTR simply for the better glass, wider FOV, and more readable elevation turret. However, given the value that either of them represent at that price range I would be very happy using either of them for the price paid. I was very happy with my Cronus BTR for several years, and I’m very happy with the XTR Pro.

I also have an XTR3i 3-18 on my 10/22, and like it as well… very decent glass, decent turrets, etc. My only real gripe is when the scope is dialed near the ends of the elevation travel range (which mine is at zero) it’s very sensitive to head position to maintain a fully in focus image. If you move your head just a little bit you start getting lots of edge distortion and weird image effects. The scope is much more forgiving about eye position when dialed closer to the center of its elevation range.

While none of them are perfect, I think both the XTR3 and Cronus BTR are all great scopes for the price and you get a lot of scope for the money, especially if you can purchase at the LE/Mil/First Responder price. This forum may trend differently in terms of spending habits which can skew your viewpoint but a lot more $1000-1500 scopes get sold than $2500-4500 scopes; if you don't want to spend $2500-3000+ on a scope and instead keep things around $1000-1500 the XTR3/Pro and Cronus BTR would be some of the best choices in that price range, which is probably why you see them being recommended so much.

This is an awesome reply thank you. I am glad someone has first hand experience on both and can shed some light for me.

I have Gen 2 Cronus and maybe the turrets werent as good on the Gen 1 but (while the clicks are lil close, which I dont mind) they are very positive on my scope.

I really never knew the Burris had as good or better glass than the Cronus, honestly I was told the Burris glass wasn't that great. But I recently heard the opposite from a few people. So my bad on that. Thanks for the input. Much appreciated

 

[KevinWood44]

The XTR3 has one of the widest FOVs on the market.

Really?? I looked at it vs a few others it that price range and it seemed to be on the lower end.

Cronus: 25-4ft
Tract: 25-3.7ft
Delta: 24-4ft
Maven: 23-4ft
NX8: 26-4ft
Zeiss S3: 28-5ft

Burris: 23 -4.2ft

 

[supercorndogs]

You are looking at scopes with diffrent magnification ranges. You can't compare them via linear FOV numbers.

 

[Kiba]

Remember the FOV widths you listed are a function of distance to target, magnification, and apparent field of view in degrees.

Apparent field of view (i.e. how wide the field of view is in degrees independent of distance to target or magnification) is a very nice number to know but few manufacturers list that, but you can back into it mathematically.

For example, A 1.5-10x scope with a 21 degree apparent fov will have a "narrower" view than a 5-30x scope with a 24 degree apparent field of view when both are at the same magnification level. Dial both of those scopes to 10x and you'll actually see more of the target through the 5-30x scope because the apparent field of view is 3 degrees larger. However, the 1.5-10x will have a larger absolute field of view when dialed down to the minimum of 1.5x than the 5-30x will have at 5x, simply because the base magnification is much lower.

For the Cronus BTR and XTR 3/pro 5.5-30, the Burris has a wider apparent FOV than the Cronus (24.06 degrees vs 21.2 degrees), so at identical magnification levels you see more of the target in the Burris.

 

[FuhQ]

I still don't understand this newfound obsession with a 10y parallax... Who fucking shoots things at 10 yards? Bro, you should be shooting with iron sights at 30 feet and hit what you're aiming at...Better yet, just throw your bullets at it at that short of a distance. Even my .22's are sighted in at 100 yards. Even my .22 pistols are sighted in at 50y...

 

[beetroot]

I still don't understand this newfound obsession with a 10y parallax... Who fucking shoots things at 10 yards? Bro, you should be shooting with iron sights at 30 feet and hit what you're aiming at...Better yet, just throw your bullets at it at that short of a distance. Even my .22's are sighted in at 100 yards. Even my .22 pistols are sighted in at 50y...

Indoor dryfire is the only reason I can think of, or air rifle.
10yards is quite a long way indoors though so you probably still need onjective reducer of some sort.

 

[beetroot]

Really?? I looked at it vs a few others it that price range and it seemed to be on the lower end.

Cronus: 25-4ft
Tract: 25-3.7ft
Delta: 24-4ft
Maven: 23-4ft
NX8: 26-4ft
Zeiss S3: 28-5ft

Burris: 23 -4.2ft

Those first four scopes on the list are all x-30 scopes like the XTR3 5.5-30, the high mag FOV spec is wider for the XTR3.
So yes the XTR3 does have a wider FOV than most scopes.

 

[Toolnup]

The XTR3 has one of the widest FOVs on the market.
Turrets and reticle are subjective.
The 3.3-18 has 35Mil of adjustment which is better than most scopes.

The only bad thing about the XTR3 is that Beretta is the distributor outside of the USA thus the price is absoutely ridiculous, and Burris won't US sellers export.

Yeah I'm trying really hard to like this scope too but around $2800 AUD for the 5.5-25 I'm not so sure.

 

[beetroot]

Yeah I'm trying really hard to like this scope too but around $2800 AUD for the 5.5-25 I'm not so sure.

The price in NZ is the equivalent of 2400USD, thats for the US made version. The illuminated models aren't even available.

I do know of one company that may export, but majority of them won't.

For the prices you can get them in the USA the XTR3 is great value.

 

[diggler1833]

When the US made XTR III was ~$1,500 (or even a touch more), they were extremely competitive in their market segment for all-around value for the dollar. Then, when the line went with illumination and manufacture in the Philippines - and the US made ones dropped to around $1K...they really became the best bang-for-the-buck option at the time.

The magnification knob does suck without a throw lever, and the glass certainly isn't alpha. However, they won't leave 95% of the shooters for wanting...unless pride of ownership and bragging rights are the name of the game.

I have zero experience with the current XTR III, but there are a few on here who compare them favorably with the ones that were made in the States.

 

[FuhQ]

Yeah I'm trying really hard to like this scope too but around $2800 AUD for the 5.5-25 I'm not so sure.

Do you have any friends that love in the US? If so, you could PayPal them the cash, have them buy it, and cover shipping from them to you. You could save tons of money.

 

[FuhQ]

When the US made XTR III was ~$1,500 (or even a touch more), they were extremely competitive in their market segment for all-around value for the dollar. Then, when the line went with illumination and manufacture in the Philippines - and the US made ones dropped to around $1K...they really became the best bang-for-the-buck option at the time.

The magnification knob does suck without a throw lever, and the glass certainly isn't alpha. However, they won't leave 95% of the shooters for wanting...unless pride of ownership and bragging rights are the name of the game.

I have zero experience with the current XTR III, but there are a few on here who compare them favorably with the ones that were made in the States.

I really like my Philippines made XTR-IIIi 5.5-30x56 SCR2 MIL. Great glass for its price range, and I really like the reticle. Fairly smooth controls and decent enough turrets. Repeatable tracking. Hard to beat in the $1,500 range.

 

[supercorndogs]

I haven't seen any of the Phillipino scopes yet. I was disappointed when they off shored them. For some reason I really liked the idea of them being built a couple hours from me.

 

[Kiba]

The Pro is still built in the US, but yes, the XTR3i had production moved to the Philippines.

I like both my XTR Pro and XTR 3i 3-18.

 

[Lightning8]

When the US made XTR III was ~$1,500 (or even a touch more), they were extremely competitive in their market segment for all-around value for the dollar. Then, when the line went with illumination and manufacture in the Philippines - and the US made ones dropped to around $1K...they really became the best bang-for-the-buck option at the time.

The magnification knob does suck without a throw lever, and the glass certainly isn't alpha. However, they won't leave 95% of the shooters for wanting...unless pride of ownership and bragging rights are the name of the game.

I have zero experience with the current XTR III, but there are a few on here who compare them favorably with the ones that were made in the States.

This. Lots of ability for the price. It is in a nice price point vs performance.

 

[FuhQ]

I haven't seen any of the Phillipino scopes yet. I was disappointed when they off shored them. For some reason I really liked the idea of them being built a couple hours from me.

Some folks said the glass Improved? I don’t know, as I can’t recall having looked through a U.S. made XTR-III.

 

[VandelayIndustries]

I had an XTR3i. The only thing I didn’t like was reticle, I wish it was more usable on the low end of the mag range. While it is doable it’s far from ideal. I’d prefer something like a milc with a circle in the center or something

 

[KevinWood44]

You are looking at scopes with diffrent magnification ranges. You can't compare them via linear FOV numbers.

Ahhh....gotcha. That makes sense. For a 30x scope would you say there is an avgerage or standard FOV? So I could tell which ones have better or worse FOV?

What exactly is the goal of a optics manufacturer in terms of FOV? To get get the widest possible FOV while still keep edge to clarity? Do most scopes with a larger FOV typically sacrifice some clarity? Thx

 

[beetroot]

Ahhh....gotcha. That makes sense. For a 30x scope would you say there is an avgerage or standard FOV? So I could tell which ones have better or worse FOV?

What exactly is the goal of a optics manufacturer in terms of FOV? To get get the widest possible FOV while still keep edge to clarity? Do most scopes with a larger FOV typically sacrifice some clarity? Thx

To work out the FOV for a different magnification than specified use this formula.

Max magnification FOV × Max magnification ÷ Magnification you want to know FOV for.

I always do my FOV comparisons at 3x (no idea why) 35ft seem to be about standard, anything about 38ft is better than average. Over 40ft is what I'd consider wide FOV.

In theory you want the widest FOV possible but you can't just do that without effecting the entire optical formula of the scope. I believe things like depth of field and parallax sensitivity are effected by FOV (wider FOV negatively effects these) so there is a lot going on behind the scenes.

Most manufacturers don't prioritize FOV, the few that seem to have made a conscious effort to do so are Burris (in the XTR3 atleast) and March.

Alot of people don't get too bothered by FOV, and to be fair the specs aren't the full story as the way the image actually appears to your eye isn't always reflected by the specs.
But a wide FOV is definitely a selling feature all else being equal.

 

[Kiba]

Too much FOV can induce weird barrel distortion and edge distortion in the image like a door peephole or fisheye lens on a camera.

Most scopes end up around 20-23 degrees apparent field of view, while some with wide angle eyepiece designs are 24-26+ degrees.

Widest apparent field of view of any scope on the market that I'm aware of is the NX8 4-32 at 27.5 degrees, and a lot of early purchasers said the image in that scope looked very distorted with almost a fisheye lens effect and lots of distortion outside of center. Apparently new production scopes are much better, not sure what they changed.

The other semi related issue is Swarovski holds a rather questionable patent for any scope design with a high erector ratio and an apparent field of view greater than 22 degrees. The patent was challenged by Leica in Europe and invalidated there, but the patent still stands in the US until 2030 unless it gets challenged and invalidated here, and some scopes in the US market are having their field of view artificially throttled to just under 22 degrees to avoid paying patent licensing fees or risking litigation. This is why the new s&b 6-36 has a much narrower FOV in the US than Europe (the European spec 6-36 has the second largest FOV of any scope I've run the numbers for, only behind the NX8 4-32) and patent compliance is probably the reason why the new tangent 7-35 has an apparent FOV that's just a hair under 22 degrees (the old 5-25 actually has a wider apparent field of view than the new 7-35.)

If you want to calculate apparent FOV of a scope, the formula is arctan(field of view at target / distance to target) * magnification

Field of view at target and distance to target numbers need to be in the same units.

So for a gen 3 razor that has the fov listed as 3.5 feet at 100 yards at 36x mag you get arctan(3.5/300) * 36 which is 24.06 degrees.

It's a good number to know so you can compare the apparent field of view of different scopes regardless of their magnification levels. Keep in mind some scopes may have a slightly smaller apparent FOV at the low end of their magnification range if they have a bit of tunneling.

 

[supercorndogs]

To work out the FOV for a different magnification than specified use this formula.

Max magnification FOV × Max magnification ÷ Magnification you want to know FOV for.

I always do my FOV comparisons at 3x (no idea why) 35ft seem to be about standard, anything about 38ft is better than average. Over 40ft is what I'd consider wide FOV.

In theory you want the widest FOV possible but you can't just do that without effecting the entire optical formula of the scope. I believe things like depth of field and parallax sensitivity are effected by FOV (wider FOV negatively effects these) so there is a lot going on behind the scenes.

Most manufacturers don't prioritize FOV, the few that seem to have made a conscious effort to do so are Burris (in the XTR3 atleast) and March.

Alot of people don't get too bothered by FOV, and to be fair the specs aren't the full story as the way the image actually appears to your eye isn't always reflected by the specs.
But a wide FOV is definitely a selling feature all else being equal.

I like the wide FOV but I think what people notice and attribute to the FOV is the apparent FOV. With the Xtriii and the tango 6 you have a pretty big eye piece. I always compare it to watching a bigger TV.

Another reason you see lots of the xtriii is because there were and are some stupid good deals on the co built one the cleared out. Just wear your leather gloves when you use them. In my best joey butafuco voice . Eh, Burris send me couple knobs here to protect my delicate fingers. Oh!

 

[FuhQ]

I like the wide FOV but I think what people notice and attribute to the FOV is the apparent FOV. With the Xtriii and the tango 6 you have a pretty big eye piece. I always compare it to watching a bigger TV.

Another reason you see lots of the xtriii is because there were and are some stupid good deals on the co built one the cleared out. Just wear your leather gloves when you use them. In my best joey butafuco voice . Eh, Burris send me couple knobs here to protect my delicate fingers. Oh!

EuroOptic has the US made XTR-III 3.3-18x50 SCR for $899 right now. Really hard to beat that.

 

[supercorndogs]

I would say can't but there was one for 825 or 800 in the px the other day.

 

[Kiba]

Just for fun since we're sort of on the topic of field of view, here’s some apparent FOV numbers in degrees for some of the popular scopes on this forum based off the manufacturer’s stated field of view at 100Y or 100M at maximum magnification, arranged from widest to narrowest:

1. NX8 4-32: 27.5 degrees
2. S&B 6-36 non-USA spec: 25.78
3. US optics FDN 5-25: 25.06
4. March 4.5-28 wide angle: 25.02
5. S&B 3-20: 24.06
6. Razor G3 6-36: 24.06
7. XTR 3/Pro 5.5-30: 24.06
8. Kahles K525 DLR: 23.39
9. XTR 3 3.3-18: 23.37
10. ZCO 5-27: 23.2
11. Tangent/Premier/Minox 5-25: 22.92
12. ATACR 5-25: 22.92
13. Zeiss S3 4-25: 22.92
14. Zeiss S3 6-36: 22.69
15. Razor G2 4.5-27: 22.68
16. Tract 4-25: 22.44
17. Leica PRS 5-30: 22.34 (funny that Leica was the one that got the Swarovski >22 degree AFOV patent invalided in Europe, then releases this scope with a not very spectacular AFOV, possibly because they didn't get the Swarovski patent invalidated in the US)
18. NF ATACR 7-35: 22.05
19. S&B 6-36 USA spec: 21.66
20. Tangent 7-35: 21.66
21. S&B 5-25: 21.48
22. Cronus BTR 4.5-29: 21.21
23. Tract 4.5-30: 21.2
24. Bushnell XRS3 6-36: 20.63
25. Bushnell LRHS2 4.5-18: 20.62
26. Bushnell DMR3 3.5-21: 20.45
27. Leupold MK5HD 5-25: 20.05

Keep in mind a few of these scopes tunnel at the low end of their magnification and will have a narrower apparent field of view at minimum magnification.

I was originally very disappointed to see the newest/latest/greatest S&B 6-36 (US model) and Tangent 7-35 down near the bottom of the list, but then the Swarovski >22 degree AFOV patent came to my attention and the numbers for those 2 “latest and greatest” scopes from two of the top of the heap manufacturers suddenly made sense.

Keep in mind apparent FOV is just part of the entire package and more of a “nice to have” thing than an absolute must. I’ll take a scope with solid mechanicals and good to great glass quality but has a narrower apparent FOV over another scope with an extremely wide apparent FOV but suffers from a distorted image or bad glass quality or questionable mechanicals.

Also keep in mind you can have a scope with a large apparent field of view but with a big “black ring” around the image from behind the scope if the ocular housing around the ocular lens is really thick, while a scope with a narrower apparent field of view but has a super thin ocular housing that “disappears” when you're behind the scope and doesn’t show a large black ring around the image may look more pleasing to your eye even if it's showing you a narrower field of view.

 

[Toolnup]

Do you have any friends that love in the US? If so, you could PayPal them the cash, have them buy it, and cover shipping from them to you. You could save tons of money.

No unfortunately. Would also have the problem if you needed to use the warranty I could imagine that would be a an absolute pita.

 

[theLBC]

yeah, 10yd parallax is indeed popular or even a requirement in the airgun world. people squirreling in their back yards.
then again, many of them seem to think $150 for a bug buster is kinda pricey for a scope.

 

[Birddog6424]

Really?? I looked at it vs a few others it that price range and it seemed to be on the lower end.

Cronus: 25-4ft
Tract: 25-3.7ft
Delta: 24-4ft
Maven: 23-4ft
NX8: 26-4ft
Zeiss S3: 28-5ft

Burris: 23 -4.2ft

As pointed out, those numbers are inaccurate. Side by side, the only thing that competes with the XTR3 in FOV is the NX8. It's close, but not quite.

After that you have to jump up to the $3500 March to beat the Burris in FOV.

Also, the reticle is in .2s. You mention your preference for that and that it's "convoluted". It's a simple .2 grid that's actually pretty clean as it doesn't use solid lines.

Turrets are fine, glass as is good or better than most scopes under $2k. Tracking and durability is excellent.

It sells well and is popular because it's a very good value. Good quality at a good price.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I'm actually surprised you don't see more of these than MK5. Its cheaper, better glass, better reticle and IMO more durable. I don't think there is a better optic in that 1-1.5K price range. $1800 Gen 3 Razors have just crushed the sub $2k market.

 

[Rebels010]

To me the 3.3-18x50 has filled the void left by the Bushnell LRTS as the crossover scope of choice. Great for range or hunting work and light “enough”.

 

[FredHammer]

Saw an XTR III in the classifieds. User loved it, but his old eyes can't use the thin reticle below 20X. I'd imagine a set of younger eyes could use it more effectively...just FYI.

 

[Birddog6424]

Saw an XTR III in the classifieds. User loved it, but his old eyes can't use the thin reticle below 20X. I'd imagine a set of younger eyes could use it more effectively...just FYI.

The newer illuminated model has a thicker reticle. Much more user friendly as a good crossover optic.

 

[kswaterfowl]

I'll take my dmr3 over my xtr III all day long. Thicker reticle and the dmr3 glass wins hands down in lowlight.

 

[R_A_W]

I'm actually surprised you don't see more of these than MK5. Its cheaper, better glass, better reticle and IMO more durable. I don't think there is a better optic in that 1-1.5K price range. $1800 Gen 3 Razors have just crushed the sub $2k market.

Came in to say this... except I'm holding off on making any claims re: durability.

I'll add that:

1. the Mk5 has better turrets (particularly the parallax, holy shit Burris)
2. Mk5 has edge on DOF (I've gone from 200 to 800 & forgotten to take out parallax, so arguably a negative?)
3. The PR2 is competes with Leica's L-PRB for worst "flagship" Xmas tree reticle on the market... so you have to pay up for a Tremor3 = worse value prop (honorable mention goes to Gunwerks for whatever this shit is). SCR2 is actually a decent reticle.
4. If you can't use the SCR2 at low mag, you won't be able to use the PR2 either
5. Mk5 tunnels, XTR3 doesn't

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

The PR2 is soo bad, I shot one next to an arken SH something on a side stage where you had to shoot 2 different rifles at the same target. The arken was clearer and had a better reticle. I know everyone has their own opinions but damn, I don't get it.

 

[AMwood]

EuroOptic has the US made XTR-III 3.3-18x50 SCR for $899 right now. Really hard to beat that.

Being serious, how do you know they’re the US made version? Lack of illumination? I’m genuinely looking for a mpvo and this or the Bushnell LRHS from GAP are what keep me up at night anymore.

 

[FuhQ]

The PR2 is soo bad, I shot one next to an arken SH something on a side stage where you had to shoot 2 different rifles at the same target. The arken was clearer and had a better reticle. I know everyone has their own opinions but damn, I don't get it.

Wait wait wait... Didn't you used to rip on me HEAVILY for stating that Arkens actually aren't optically bad scopes, they're just nowhere near remotely top-tier anything, other than their price range?

But seriously, I know we've argued a lot in the past, but I honestly want to know your opinion on the Arken... I mean we ALL know it's MIC, and it's not a TT or ZCO, or even remotely close to half of one of those. But I'm curious to know your honest thoughts about it, since you own the tippy-top tier of scopes, and you just stated the Arken was clearer and had a better reticle than a $1,500+ Leupold MK5.

 

[FuhQ]

Being serious, how do you know they’re the US made version? Lack of illumination? I’m genuinely looking for a mpvo and this or the Bushnell LRHS from GAP are what keep me up at night anymore.

Yes, the model number and the lack of illumination. It was confirmed by our local Burris dude @Birddog6424 and scope expert @koshkin .

I would opt for the Burris, but that's me. I've never been a fan of Bushnell anything.

 

[thehun]

I'll take my dmr3 over my xtr III all day long. Thicker reticle and the dmr3 glass wins hands down in lowlight.

DMR3 is a great piece of glass ... they did a great job updating the optics and reticles ... both reticles are improved over the previous gen ... but the glass is just great ...

 

[adubeau]

I have the Burris XTR IIIi 3-18x50 - SCRII/MIL - I have no issues with the glass and the eyebox is forgiving (one of the main reasons I bought it) it was the best option for me at my max price point for my NRL22 rifle. I definitely would buy another one.

 

[chevy_man]

The PR2 is soo bad, I shot one next to an arken SH something on a side stage where you had to shoot 2 different rifles at the same target. The arken was clearer and had a better reticle. I know everyone has their own opinions but damn, I don't get it.

Which mark 5?

There's a large difference between the short design 3.8-18 and the 5-25 and 7-35. You couldn't give me the 3-18, but I will never get rid of my others.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I think it was a 5-25.

Its a known issue with the MK5. Some look really good and some look like dogshit. The unit to unit variance is really bad. Thats what happens when you import all your shit and slap it together with retards and stoners in oregon.