Download XTR IIIi User guide it has the subtext details in it.Could you pull some strings and get us a subtension drawing?
Add me to the list of those concerned.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Download XTR IIIi User guide it has the subtext details in it.Could you pull some strings and get us a subtension drawing?
Add me to the list of those concerned.
Here's a page from Burris. Even though it says "in MOA" I believe it is mil for the dimensionsCould you pull some strings and get us a subtension drawing?
Add me to the list of those concerned.
The link I posted has the MIL details in it..Here's a page from Burris. Even though it says "in MOA" I believe it is mil for the dimensions
SCR 2™ | Burris Optics
www.burrisoptics.com
That is the same spec that was quoted when the non illuminated version was only one available. Supposedly the illuminated is thicker but I don’t think Burris has stated that officially. So perhaps that spec is outdated or perhaps the reticle is the same thickness as the first version of the scope.Wow! It's a .02mil stadia? That's really thin. Gen3XR is thin, and it's .025.
I wonder how thin the NON-illume version is!
Holy crap that is thin. Hopefully, that number just wasn't updated from the non-illuminated manual. Looking at my gen 2 PST 3-15 EBR-2D manual, the main crosshair looks to be 0.052 mrad. I don't know that i would want a reticle that is twice as fine.Wow! It's a .02mil stadia? That's really thin. Gen3XR is thin, and it's .025.
I wonder how thin the NON-illume version is!
Holy crap that is thin. Hopefully, that number just wasn't updated from the non-illuminated manual. Looking at my gen 2 PST 3-15 EBR-2D manual, the main crosshair looks to be 0.052 mrad. I don't know that i would want a reticle that is twice as fine.
I posted elsewhere some photo comparisons of the illuminated versus non-illuminated reticle. I think I even had dimensions. Off the top of my head I think the illuminated reticle was .035 thickness? Maybe .030, I can't remember exactly. But it was made thicker to better accommodate the illumination.
SCR stands for Special Competition Reticle. That's what it's made for, that's why it's so thin. They wanted visibility while remaining unobtrusive. That's why the they didn't use solid lines in their grids, they used floating Ts. Looking through this reticle, it's very open, and pulls off lots of subsections without mucking up visibility. If you've used one in PRS where you rarely to never go under 10x, you'll see this is a great reticle for what it's made to do.
I'll try to find those photos and dimensions. They may be over in the long running XTRIII thread.
That makes sense, thanks for the reply. I think I'm going to just have to try finding one to look through.I posted elsewhere some photo comparisons of the illuminated versus non-illuminated reticle. I think I even had dimensions. Off the top of my head I think the illuminated reticle was .035 thickness? Maybe .030, I can't remember exactly. But it was made thicker to better accommodate the illumination.
SCR stands for Special Competition Reticle. That's what it's made for, that's why it's so thin. They wanted visibility while remaining unobtrusive. That's why the they didn't use solid lines in their grids, they used floating Ts. Looking through this reticle, it's very open, and pulls off lots of subsections without mucking up visibility. If you've used one in PRS where you rarely to never go under 10x, you'll see this is a great reticle for what it's made to do.
I'll try to find those photos and dimensions. They may be over in the long running XTRIII thread.
I posted elsewhere some photo comparisons of the illuminated versus non-illuminated reticle. I think I even had dimensions. Off the top of my head I think the illuminated reticle was .035 thickness? Maybe .030, I can't remember exactly. But it was made thicker to better accommodate the illumination.
SCR stands for Special Competition Reticle. That's what it's made for, that's why it's so thin. They wanted visibility while remaining unobtrusive. That's why the they didn't use solid lines in their grids, they used floating Ts. Looking through this reticle, it's very open, and pulls off lots of subsections without mucking up visibility. If you've used one in PRS where you rarely to never go under 10x, you'll see this is a great reticle for what it's made to do.
I'll try to find those photos and dimensions. They may be over in the long running XTRIII thread.
Thanks a lot.I cant find my reticle photos. I'll try to put something together tonight for you fellas to look at and co
I don't care what the Athlon folks say about you; you're alright.Ok fellas, here we go...
My apologies for the crappy cell phone pics, it's all I have. With the naked eye the difference is pretty obvious, and these reticles are far more defined. At 5.5x the reticle in the Illuminated model is perfectly usable. Ideally it's more around 8x for the non-illuminated.
Ok fellas, here we go...
This is my very first XTRIII 5.5-30 that I got 3 years ago, and my XTRIII illuminated 5.5-30 that I got in April.
Non-illuminated at 5.5x
Illuminated at 5.5x
Non-illuminated at 16x
Illuminated at 16x
Non-illuminated at 30x
Illuminated at 30x
My apologies for the crappy cell phone pics, it's all I have. With the naked eye the difference is pretty obvious, and these reticles are far more defined. At 5.5x the reticle in the Illuminated model is perfectly usable. Ideally it's more around 8x for the non-illuminated.
Ok fellas, here we go...
This is my very first XTRIII 5.5-30 that I got 3 years ago, and my XTRIII illuminated 5.5-30 that I got in April.
Non-illuminated at 5.5x
Illuminated at 5.5x
Non-illuminated at 16x
Illuminated at 16x
Non-illuminated at 30x
Illuminated at 30x
My apologies for the crappy cell phone pics, it's all I have. With the naked eye the difference is pretty obvious, and these reticles are far more defined. At 5.5x the reticle in the Illuminated model is perfectly usable. Ideally it's more around 8x for the non-illuminated.
I really appreciate you taking the time to post those pictures. This scope is very tempting indeed since it has an enormous elevation range, capped windage, purportedly good glass, etc.Reticles are a very personal thing, I get that. I've been hunting in the west and northwest for over 40 years on everything that runs jumps or swims. I have no issues at all with this reticle. That scope is on my 300 Norma, which is my primary big game rifle. I have zero doubts it'll work just fine.
Compared to a PST Viper the Burris checks every box. Folks have to decide for themselves on reticle. But I think with the price disparity between these two optics it's not really an apples to apples comparison. It's more of a "is this one good enough? Or do I pay a little more for a nicer one?" Lord knows we ask ourselves that question all the time.![]()
I asked basically the same question. Start here, then read through to the next page of the thread: https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/burris-xtr3.6913504/page-45#post-10126332In the XTR user guide it stated the scope is set 20 moa below center so is this going to be difficult to site in at 50yd on 22LR with 30 MOA base? Little confused due to lack of knowledge .. Any advice for zeroing ?
Thank you.I asked basically the same question. Start here, then read through to the next page of the thread: https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/burris-xtr3.6913504/page-45#post-10126332
I run the 18x XTRIII on my competition rimfire rifle. There's no difficulty in getting a 50 yard zero. All Burris has done is set the reticle for a 20moa rail from factory instead of mechanical center. It will be "close'ish" when you set you zero if you have a 20moa rail.
I took mine a step further. My 18x has a monstrous travel of nearly 36 mils. I found my 50 yard zero, then dialed it all the way down to see how much room I had. I then used the Burris Signature rings and a little basic math to figure out how much cant I could still add to my scope. I added more shims and ended up with 31 mils of total travel. With a very safe 5.7mils from bottoming out.
I can shoot my rimfire to 500 yards (and yes, I've done it) without holdovers
There's more on the other side of the zero stop if you do. Just adjust accordingly. I have my 3-18 on my Bergara 22 with a 40 moa base and zeroed at 50.I already have a 30 MOA base - whole reason I didn't buy the Burris rings. ETA: My concern is bottoming out before I can get Zero'd - so if I am correct in my assumption - I have 10MOA or 2.9 Mills to account for when zeroing. based on what you stated I shouldn't have to worry about bottoming out?
I already have a 30 MOA base - whole reason I didn't buy the Burris rings. ETA: My concern is bottoming out before I can get Zero'd - so if I am correct in my assumption - I have 10MOA or 2.9 Mills to account for when zeroing. based on what you stated I shouldn't have to worry about bottoming out?
Thank you, appreciate the reply.Yes, that's approximately correct.
I have ran the 30x on a 40moa rail and 100 yd zero without bottoming out. It's 90moa total, so 45moa up or down from mechanical center. Burris has already put in 20moa, so there is approximately an additional 25moa available.
Ummmm... "I" run, jump and swim. Remind me not to go shooting with youReticles are a very personal thing, I get that. I've been hunting in the west and northwest for over 40 years on everything that runs jumps or swims.
I have been curious about the baseball bat length (but lightweight) Tenmile 3-18 so would be curious your thoughts in comparison to the XTR IIII prefer dots too if anyone with the ability to make line additions is reading.
They aren't exactly apples to apples as far as form factor and weight, but if this Trijicon Tenmile 3-18 I have incoming isn't what I want then the Burris looks like my next logical stop.
This right here brings a smile to my face as both my XTR III 3.3-18 and 5.5-30 models had incredibly stiff magnification rings, combined with the dragon scale knurling that wants to rip flesh off your bones it didn't make for the most pleasant experience. So this along with the previous comments that Burris tried to tame the dragon out of the knurling sounds very promising.My XTR3i magnification adjustment is butter smooth and doesn't even require a lever.
Ummmm... "I" run, jump and swim. Remind me not to go shooting with you![]()
This right here brings a smile to my face as both my XTR III 3.3-18 and 5.5-30 models had incredibly stiff magnification rings, combined with the dragon scale knurling that wants to rip flesh off your bones it didn't make for the most pleasant experience. So this along with the previous comments that Burris tried to tame the dragon out of the knurling sounds very promising.![]()
Thank you, this if very helpful.@adubeau you're welcome. Sorry the link I gave went back further (in that thread) than I intended.
When I set mine up, I used shim stock to maintain a small, even gap between the turret knob and the surface that it can bottom out on (when the zero stop pins touch).
When you get yours, you may have to crank it to zero, then loosen the knob set screws, raise the knob a bit, tighten the set screws, now you can dial past zero (point of impact down). Rinse and repeat until you get to where you want to be (zeroed at 50yds), then set the knob aligned at zero (with maybe a .005" shim between the knob and scope body), then lock down the knob, and remove the shims. Now you will have a gap (that might not grind, unless it gets full of debris), and pin interference/stop at your zero.
Because of the design, I scrapped my dialing of close range hold under preference/habit, and figured out the high point distance of my projectile's flight, and zeroed there. Everything else from there (near or far) is elevation (dial POI up).....but my use is not consistent with most people's on here.
I'd offer to video or take more pics for you.....but I sold mine.
The only reason I sold my XTR III 3.3-18 was because I am in the camp of "the SCR2 reticle is too thin at lower magnifications" and I chose the 5.5-30 specifically for rimfire trainer application and didn't mind the thinner reticle for that. The glass in both is outstanding for what you get, I never had both together so couldn't give you a comparison when both are at 15x for example, but I will say that I did not find the 3.3-18 lacking at higher magnifications. I would say this, if you plan to always use the scope at 18x then you'd be better off with the 5.5-30 but if you feel you'll drop down below that (which you likely will) and think you could benefit from the wider FOV then go for the 3.3-18, you won't be disappointed.They are slightly different scopes. 50mm objective versus 56, 13" in length versus 15.5". I have two of the 18x and a buddy has another. They look pretty good.
I know another poster on here believes you give up some glass quality with the 18x. All I can say is everyone sees things a little different. I know one of mine looked nicer than the one and only 18x Leupold I've seen and did a side by side with.
@Glassaholic has been posting in this thread. He did a very extensive write up on the 18x when they first released. And I do know he sold that one and went with a 30x. Maybe he'll chime in.
How does your xtr compare to the arken? My 6x24 arken not very sharp at 400.Knurling seems fine on mine and the mag ring is smooth, not stiff like the Arken it replaced
Thank you, this if very helpful.
That is good to know, especially in comparison to the USA XTR III, as the knurling in the pics still look pretty aggressive, but look and feel can be very different. I felt at $1700 for the original model these scopes were a good deal, but at $1k I just don't see anything else on the market that can compete with them... great job Burris!I personally like the knurling and don’t find it too sharp at all. Much better than the non-illuminated 5.5-30x I played with awhile back.
The XTRIII is far superior optically - depth of field, edge to edge, FOV and the eye box way better. I even had my son look through both, his exact words were - "wow the Arken really sucks and nowhere as clear as the Burris". The Arken is heavier at 36 oz compared to XTR @ 29 oz. I am going to the range tomorrow and will take the Arken with and compare the two, will stop by the 600yd range and check the sharpness, will let you know if I have the same issue.. Arken was on my CZ457 for NRL22 - during my first match a few weeks back is when I notice a lot of issues with eye box and why it's being replaced with the Burris - if the eye box didn't suck like hooker on a Billy Goat - I doubt I would have bought the Burris so soon and upgrade at a later date.How does your xtr compare to the arken? My 6x24 arken not very sharp at 400.
That is good to know, especially in comparison to the USA XTR III, as the knurling in the pics still look pretty aggressive, but look and feel can be very different. I felt at $1700 for the original model these scopes were a good deal, but at $1k I just dn't see anything else on the market that can compete with them... great job Burris!
Good info. Look forward to the follow-up.The XTRIII is far superior optically - depth of field, edge to edge, FOV and the eye box way better. I even had my son look through both, his exact words were - "wow the Arken really sucks and nowhere as clear as the Burris". The Arken is heavier at 36 oz compared to XTR @ 29 oz. I am going to the range tomorrow and will take the Arken with and compare the two, will stop by the 600yd range and check the sharpness, will let you know if I have the same issue.. Arken was on my CZ457 for NRL22 - during my first match a few weeks back is when I notice a lot of issues with eye box and why it's being replaced with the Burris - if the eye box didn't suck like hooker on a Billy Goat - I doubt I would have bought the Burris so soon and upgrade at a later date