The pictures still appear for me.
Rifle Scopes Burris 5.5-30X56 XTR III Review
- Thread starter Trigger Monkey
- Start date
The pictures still appear for me.
Yeh, that's at 30x Beetroot. Mine is dead nuts at 7 mils.
Does anyone have pictures of the reticle at various mag ranges like 15x 20x and 25x? I want to buy one but I hear the reticle is thin, I don't have any dealer by me where I can look at one first hand so I'd have to buy online and hope I like it.
That's pretty impressive, my Delta Stryker is about 6.1 at 30x, 7mils is about 15% more......
I havent found anything that has the FOV of the XTR3. My buddies 35x ATACR is at 6.2 at 30x. The NX8 is the only thing that comes close, but the Burris is so much nicer than that scope in other areas.
Since the equation {pi times the radius squared} determines the area of a circle, it would seem that the Burris actually has a nearly 32% greater field of view at 30x.
Maybe the new March wide-field scopes? But those are what... at least twice the cost? Not implying the XTRIII is in the same league as a March, but they provide an impressive amount of performance at their price point.Birddog6424 said:
Yeh, I think the March scopes are very impressive and probably lead the entire market in FOV. But definitely in a different price point.
I should have added the caveat of its price point.. I havent seen anything under 3k yet thats close.
FOV is a angular measurement, area of a circle doesn't come into the FOV specs.
Although 32% more image sounds even more impressive.
Last edited:
Could you explain how the FOV is angular measurement? This confuses me. Thanks!
Love my XTR III, BTW.
It's an angular measurement just like degrees, Mils or MOA.
Just like 1 Mil is a different linear value depending on the distance it is being measured at.
Thats why FOV is always given as X feet/m at a set distance, as if you double the distance you double the width of the image you see.
Outside of rifle scopes you see FOV given as a value in degrees, March scopes give some of their values in degrees also.
It's just that saying 40ft at 100yards is easier to visualise than saying 7.6 degrees.
If FOV wasn't Angular then FOV at 100y and 1000y would be the same expressed linearly.
Wouldn't the FOV expressed as an angular or linear measurement based on distance be 32% different too?
Wouldn't the FOV expressed as an angular or linear measurement based on distance be 32% different too?
Last edited:
Yes they would be the same.
The poster above made comment about the area being 32% bigger, whilst true isn't really relevant in the normal FOV context.
But it does show just how much difference a seemingly small increase in FOV can actually make.
Yes, but in the specific context above it is incorrect to say the FOV was 32% bigger when actually referring to the area.
One doesn't need to mention the area of the image as it is implied this will increase/decease with the FOV.
I guess there could be merit in comparing the area you see but as its the angular specs that manufacturers give thats is what is easiest to compare.
That obscene CA make me throw up a bit in my mouth.
I was willing to put up with it on the XTR II because of the price point, but not for what these are going for.
I was willing to put up with it on the XTR II because of the price point, but not for what these are going for.
If your XTRIII has obscene CA, I would guess you have a bad one.
I'm referring the the pictures posted on page 1
I am referring to the two that I own. They are not in the same price point as the XTRII for a reason.
Understood, but the representation in this thread (picture of the one way sign and the target) reveals an unacceptable level of CA for the price point.
The area you are looking at is the FOV. He was 100% correct. You are fishing for a reason for it to be wrong. Why I have no idea.
Well, since the photo's reveal a shit picture, yeah.And we always go to through the scope reticle pictures to judge image quality.....
You are the one who is digging up a 12month old post.
If FOV was an area measurement the units would be given as feet/m squared.
Those pictures are not indicative of the sight picture you see while looking through an XTR3.
I'm not sure what's causing that, camera lens combined with the scopes optical array, but its not even close.
The XTR3 is one of the brightest and user friendly sight pictures you'll see in a sub $2k optic. Take a look through one if you see someone running it. Theres getting to be quite a few of them out there.
The CA is exaggerated in that photo and is noted as such. Through the scope pictures are tricky because they never accurately represent what it looks like looking through the scope. Lighting, camera lens quality, zoom setting, ocular alignment, and target distance an influence the quality of the picture and magnify optical anomalies.
In reality, the image looking through that XTRIII is much clearer and as I've noted in other threads, it's right on the heels of my ATACR 5-25 optically.
In reality, the image looking through that XTRIII is much clearer and as I've noted in other threads, it's right on the heels of my ATACR 5-25 optically.
Similar threads
