- Thread starter bill_van
- Start date
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 Attachments
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
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 So perhaps that spec is outdated or perhaps the reticle is the same thickness as the first version of the scope.
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.
Agreed. I'm a Horus man (maybe shouldn't have said that in public. . .), and I like the .05mil of that.
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.
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.
How is the XTRIII with mirage? I need a new scope and think I will go with 5.5x30 XTRIII. I have the low price arken 4x24, and it is not very clear at 400 yards - that is my max at my range.
Thanks. If the reticle is .035, that makes a difference. I mostly use holdovers with the gun this would go on, and the heavier stadia works better for me for that.
I cant find my reticle photos. I'll try to put something together tonight for you fellas to look at and compare.
Thanks a lot.
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.
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.
@cake5150 @beetroot Sounds like y'all have been having the same dilemma as I.
I've had four 3-15x PSTs. I think for what they offer, there really isn't anything else on the market for their price. I just got my 3.3-18 XTR3i in last week. Its a nice scope. Optically it beats the PST... however the reticle is still too thin for anything below 8-10x in my opinion. Its useable, but compared side-by-side, I much prefer the PST's reticle thickness. FOV is about a wash between the two. I do find the XTR3i to be a more forgiving eyebox and easier to get behind. My XTR3i magnification adjustment is butter smooth and doesn't even require a lever. PSTs are stiff. Overall, I am very happy with the scope, but I won't be replacing the rest of my PSTs with them as I had planned.
I've had four 3-15x PSTs. I think for what they offer, there really isn't anything else on the market for their price. I just got my 3.3-18 XTR3i in last week. Its a nice scope. Optically it beats the PST... however the reticle is still too thin for anything below 8-10x in my opinion. Its useable, but compared side-by-side, I much prefer the PST's reticle thickness. FOV is about a wash between the two. I do find the XTR3i to be a more forgiving eyebox and easier to get behind. My XTR3i magnification adjustment is butter smooth and doesn't even require a lever. PSTs are stiff. Overall, I am very happy with the scope, but I won't be replacing the rest of my PSTs with them as I had planned.
I wonder if the scr moa reticle would be better for hunting, it looks to be thicker than the mil reticle.
This post with all the pics, is the kind of post that sells scopes!
Thanks!
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.
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 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.
In 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 ?
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
Thank you.
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
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
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
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?
Last edited:
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Thank you, appreciate the reply.
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 III
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.
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.
My magnification ring is also buttery smooth on my new illuminated model. Easier and smoother than any XTR II or III that I have owned.
For anyone that has time behind both XTRIII magnification offerings, is there any truth to the claims that the 30x is optically superior to the 18x? I don't see myself using 30x and like ~3x for use with clip-ons at closer distances. The additional weight penalty is undesirable as well. I'm still on the fence about the reticle thickness, but the scope checks basically all the other boxes that I care about. I'm realizing the likelihood that I will get to try one out before buying is fairly low with how new they are.
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.
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.
Knurling seems fine on mine and the mag ring is smooth, not stiff like the Arken it replaced
Thank you, this if very helpful.
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.
Could someone please post a picture of the latest production model turret knobs? Thanks.
I can post some pics and plan to asap. Prob be this weekend if not sooner.
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 don't see anything else on the market that can compete with them... great job Burris!
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.
Similar threads
