Rifle Scopes Burris XTR II

I own a 5-25 xtr2, razor gen 2 and a s&b pm2... out to 1000 yards I can hit what I'm aiming at with any of them. Is the glass better on the $2500+ scopes? Duh.. but the xtr 2 dials perfectly and returns to zero EVER TIME! That scope has taken multiple critters out to 1000 yards in every condition imaginable.
 
Just curious, what didn't you like about the LRHS?

I liked the 3-12 overall, but needed more magnification. The 4.5-18 had a more fussy eyebox. I'm 60 years old and at this point brighter is more important than a lot of other traits. 30MM vs 34MM tubes, 44MM vs 50MM objectives and non-illiminated vs illuminated made the difference for me. Plus the eyebox/eye relief are more forgiving and I got more mils of elevation adjustment, especially over the 4.5-14. And lastly, I like the SCR reticle better than the Bushnell. At this stage, my eyes couldn't really tell much, if any, difference in the glass quality. I like the clicks on the Burris. The Bushnell felt more rounded over and easier to overshoot my adjustments. The LRHS's are really nice scopes, just not what I need for my type of shooting.
 
I myself have been considering the XTR II for my RPR in 308. While I'm still kind of new to the long range shooting community, I have a Gen 1 Razor on my 700 and have been very happy with it. For you guys that have experience with the XTR II and Gen 1 Razor how do they compare with one another?
 
I myself have been considering the XTR II for my RPR in 308. While I'm still kind of new to the long range shooting community, I have a Gen 1 Razor on my 700 and have been very happy with it. For you guys that have experience with the XTR II and Gen 1 Razor how do they compare with one another?

I liked my Razor a little better, compared to what you can get now for 1300, I don't know about buying a Razor, but if I still had mine, I wouldn't hesitate to run it. The only real disadvantage I see to it is, it has a somewhat tight eye box for the price range. Both have kind of a tight eye box, probably tighter on the Razor. Glass is a little better in the Razor. If it were a 5 mil, I would probably go for the Burris. I wouldn't sell either one to get the other.
 
Last edited:
I liked the 3-12 overall, but needed more magnification. The 4.5-18 had a more fussy eyebox. I'm 60 years old and at this point brighter is more important than a lot of other traits. 30MM vs 34MM tubes, 44MM vs 50MM objectives and non-illiminated vs illuminated made the difference for me. Plus the eyebox/eye relief are more forgiving and I got more mils of elevation adjustment, especially over the 4.5-14. And lastly, I like the SCR reticle better than the Bushnell. At this stage, my eyes couldn't really tell much, if any, difference in the glass quality. I like the clicks on the Burris. The Bushnell felt more rounded over and easier to overshoot my adjustments. The LRHS's are really nice scopes, just not what I need for my type of shooting.

Alright good to know, thanks
 
The Burris gets a bad rap for glass here on the Hide. 99% of the time the scope it's being compared to costs $500 or more then the Burris. I use these scopes for everything and glass has never been a limiting factor. You certainly won't miss a shot or a bullet splash because of it. Having dropped them alongside numerous scopes over the last couple years I'm quite certain that most scopes under $1600 don't enjoy any measurable advantage if any. I've seen it compared side by side to Gen I Razors and every Bushnell under the sun. Some folks see a difference, some don't. It's subjective. I've stopped bothering with it because I've found the Burris is more than capable of everything I have asked of it and getting dragged in to these glass debates is fruitless. I hunt with them, shoot to a mile+ with one on a 300 Norma mag, and compete with them. I've taken a 1st place and 4th place finish in my last two matches in the Rocky Mountain PRS league matches (Idaho, Utah, Wyoming) against 50 some odd shooters. If a hack like me can manage that, imagine what a good shooter could do.

Every one of these matches I attend these days has 10 or 12 shooters out of 50 or 60 running an XTR II. Even the national points race matches has a ton of guys running them. And they all love their scopes. I know they love them because I ask everyone I see using one. It's durable as hell, tracks like a tank, and is 100% reliable day in and out. It's a fantastic price point loaded with the features that shooters are looking for. And the new non-illuminated versions are INCREDIBLY well priced! Those are great qualities to consider when thinking about buying a new scope.

We certainly appreciate you guys giving Burris a shot (no pun intended) when you are considering a new optic.

A couple stages from my match this Sunday. I took 4th out of 51.

https://youtu.be/sz-P-yadiOc
 
Last edited:
My Burris XTR II 4-20 glass was shit, but this is compared to an ATACR F1 and a gen 2 Razor... Not really a fair comparison... I might try one of the Athlon Cronus BTR's real soon...

+1 my burris xtr ii glass is shit compared to my gen 1 and gen 2 razor.
I too would like to look through the cronus.
 
The Burris gets a bad rap for glass here on the Hide. 99% of the time the scope it's being compared to costs $500 or more then the Burris.

That is a very true, and the glass is pretty much all the $500 gets you over the Burris. Congrats on the good match!

Much appreciated SD...

I've looked through the Cronus Jstuck, and I personally think they did a very good job with the glass on that scope. I've heard folks say it's Gen II Razor quality, but to my eye it's not quite there. But it's less money than the Razor, so it's relative. There were things I didn't care for on the Cronus, but I won't nitpick the scope. I think it's a good offering from Athlon.

I think the guys that are looking for "great" glass in an optic are well served by saving up for the Gen II Razor/Kahles/ATACR price point scope. I see differences in glass quality in sub 2k scopes, but to my eye, nothing pops so well that I would pay extra for it. If the XTR II werent an option, I would put my money on a T5Xi, or one of the new offerings from Bushnell in the sub 2k price point. Bushnell always produces a scope with solid tracking. And the T5Xi is an excellent scope in this price range.

Just my two bits.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Birddog, think I'll give it a try based off your experience and what seems like many others not just in this thread. If I'm not satisfied with it they seem to sale quick in the for sale section.
 
We appreciate your business. I think you'll like it. It's been a very popular scope since it's release 3 years ago. It wasn't until just recently that Burris was able to get caught up on the backorders.

In spite of ever increasing production, sales have far outpaced manufacturing capabilities. According to Sky Leighton, the Burris brand manager, they exceeded the entire years sales projections by the end of January in 2016. There are a LOT more of these out in the market than people realize.

And even though the demand has been nuts on these, every single scope is still hand inspected for quality control before it leaves Greeley.

This will be a good optic for you.. Feel free to chat me up if you ever have any questions ;)
 
Last edited:
I ordered a 4-20x50 XTR II today! I am looking forward to getting it in and running it on a 6.5x47L

You wont be disappointed with the 4-20X50 XTR II. I own that as well as the 5-25X50 XTR II. I have no complaints with either of them. I own 7 Nightforce scopes 6 NXS's and 1 ATACR and 7 Bushnell Tactical Elites. 4 DMR's and 3 ERS's all 3.5-21x50. Is the XTR II's overall quality as god as either the Nightforce or Bushnell scopes, no but they are not far behind. At least to my eyes.
 
You wont be disappointed with the 4-20X50 XTR II. I own that as well as the 5-25X50 XTR II. I have no complaints with either of them. I own 7 Nightforce scopes 6 NXS's and 1 ATACR and 7 Bushnell Tactical Elites. 4 DMR's and 3 ERS's all 3.5-21x50. Is the XTR II's overall quality as god as either the Nightforce or Bushnell scopes, no but they are not far behind. At least to my eyes.

Good to hear. They seem to get excellent reviews as far as features and tracking.