Rifle Scopes Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50 mini review and comparison to Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50

[Glassaholic]

Backstory

The Burris XTR II has been the top of the line offering from the Greeley, CO sport optics company for many years now. Initial manufacture of these scopes had some issues optically, but Burris was able to rectify those over time and the latest XTR II is a pretty well refined scope for the $1,000 class. Everyone expected that when Burris comes out with an XTR III it would be a replacement of the aging XTR II line, but instead Burris came out with a completely new scope design and a brand-new optical formula, but to the surprise of many, it also came with a price tag almost double of what the XTR II came in at. They also changed their magnification range and instead of offering a 2-10x42, 3-15x50, a 4-20x50 and a 5-25x50 the XTR III line currently only offers two models: a 3.3-18x50 and a 5.5-30x56. I’m sure Burris felt the 3.3-18x50 killed two birds with one stone as the range almost covers the 3-15 and 4-20 put together, and the 5.5-30x56 also gets a boost in objective size with 56mm vs 50mm which will be a welcome addition for 5-25x50 XTR II owners who complained the image darkened quite a bit in the upper magnification range. The new magnification is up from 5x to 5.46x but with a full 7x erector, there has been some rumors as to why Burris chose to downsize the magnification but nothing concrete, but one nice addition to the new design is the extremely wide FOV these new scopes offer, in fact, they exhibit some of the widest FOV I’ve seen out of scopes available today. Even with the upgrade in optics and a new optical formula the question most will ask is whether or not the XTR III justifies the increased price that it commands at release. One other thing Burris must battle is competition, specifically from the recently released Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 and 4-32x50 scopes. I recently purchased and reviewed the NX8 2.5-20x50 and will attempt to compare the XTR III 3.3-18x50 as price points and design are pretty close. Even though price difference is extreme I will also make comparisons to the Kahles K318i which I used for over a year and reigned as my favorite ultra short scope until the ZCO ZC420 was released. If money is of no consequence for you, the ZCO ZC420, Schmidt & Bender Ultra Short’s and Kahles K318i still reign supreme as the best Ultra Short scopes available today.

Here is the link to the Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 review: https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/nightforce-nx8-2-5-20x50-initial-thoughts.6958517/

One final comment, the first XTR III 3.3-18x50 I purchased suffered from low IQ above 12x, so much so that I decided to send the XTR III back to Burris to be inspected. To the credit of Burris’ warranty department, they sent me a pre-paid shipping label and sent me back a brand new scope in less than a week; however, I live in the same state and their website did say 4-5 weeks is average turn around time so I would say I was far short of the average. The new scope performs much better but there are a few other differences between the two scopes that I will point out below.

Build Quality and Ergo

The build quality of the main tube is superb, it appears to be a nice and solid design with rounded angles anywhere there is a transition in size. The length of the design of the 3.3-18 is not “ultra” short like the Kahles or the Nightforce NX8 but is still a short design making it ideal for covert style rifles as well as AR platforms. Of course, there is nothing wrong with putting an ultra short scope on a long bolt action rifle, in fact, I tend to prefer shorter scopes just from an aesthetics point of view. Another important aspect to point out is the fact that while the parts are made elsewhere, everything is assembled in the USA. Whereas the Vortex AMG is the only 100% sourced and made in the USA (except for the reticle) scope, it is nice to know that Burris is using American workers to assemble this new scope line. Not only that but warranty service is also performed in the USA. If I were to have one criticism with the build of the scope it would be the turrets which are very tight to turn (not much chance of getting bumped out of settings accidentally) but also have some play, but the clicks are distinct so for those who prefer feel they will welcome this new design. The turret anodization also needs a little better quality control (QC) as the first scope I had was pretty black but the second scope has a purplish hue to it, this is not that big of a deal, but it may bother some.

Compared to the Nightforce NX8 and Kahles K318 I would say the K318i easily has the best overall build and ergo and between the NX8 and XTR III I’d have to give a slight edge to the NX8 in lieu of the aforementioned turret situation. I should mention that the NX8 is based off a 30mm tube and the XTR III has a 34mm tube but even with a longer body and thicker tube the XTR III is only 1.5 oz heavier than the NX8 and just slips in under 30 oz total at 29.8oz. A couple areas where the XTR III does have the upper hand over the NX8 is with regard to the turret housing location, the NX8 is moved far forward and limits mount position, likewise the NX8 does not use a fast focus diopter whereas the XTR III does which means less turning to get the diopter set properly. Both have locking diopters which is a nice touch and both offer caps in the box but Nightforce includes Tenebraex caps that lay slightly flatter than the Burris made caps.

Magnification

The very first thing that drew me toward the XTR II 4-20x50 was its magnification range, for me personally, this is ideal as it offers adequate FOV at the bottom end but also sufficient magnification at the top end. I’m not sure why Burris ultimately chose to go with 5.46x magnification out of a 7x erector or why they chose 3.3-18, but I would have preferred they chose something along the lines of 3.6-20 instead as a lot of my shooting tends to be in the 12-20x range; however, a well-executed 18x with superb image quality (IQ) can more than make up for the final 2x at the top end, such was the case with the Kahles K318i as IQ at 18x was superb and even slightly out-resolved the Schmidt Ultra Short 3-20.

Nightforce chose to go with an 8x erector and therefore offers less magnification at the bottom (2.5x vs 3.3x) and more magnification at the top end (20x vs. 18x) but if you read my review of the NX8 2.5-20 you’ll find that using 8x in their optical design came with drawbacks, specifically with distortion, edge sharpness, DOF/Parallax. FOV is pretty comparable at like for like magnification settings between the NX8 and XTR III which means both offer some of the best FOV for their respective magnification ranges; however, due to the distortion exhibited in the NX8 the actual usable FOV is lowered which puts the XTR III on top in this category. The XTR III absolutely crushes the Kahles in FOV which is the weak point of the K318i.

Turrets

Others have mentioned the stiffness of the turrets on the XTR III and mine is no exception, the first copy I had was very stiff while the second copy is less so but still hard. In my review of the XTR II years ago I referred to the knurling on the turrets as cheese graters, if you were to scrape your hand across them I’m sure they would take off skin, with the XTR III the knurling is not quite as bad but I’d still consider it a dull cheese grater. Probably perfect for grip with gloves on but the tightness of the turret along with the knurling does cause it to dig in somewhat when turning. It’s nothing that is going to cause injury but I would prefer the turrets to be a tad lighter with the force required to turn it. One other thing to mention is that there is some play back and forth, so turret purists will find fault there; however, the clicks are distinct and there is no question when you’ve clicked .1 mil. If you spin the turrets faster the tension seems to lighten up and the sound of the click is more distinct in the CCW direction than it is in the CW direction. The turrets on the XTR III are translatable which means they turret house rises or falls when you spin, my preference is for non-translatable which hold the same location because the more the turret rises the harder it is to identify which click you’re on compared to the index marker. The windage is capped but in the box is an exposed windage knob you can replace the cap with if you so desire – this is a great feature to offer as the user gets to choose which they prefer. I should also mention that Burris is offering a competition elevation turret they call a “race dial”; however, at this time this item is not yet available for purchase.

The turrets between the NX8 and the XTR III couldn’t be more different, where the XTR III are tight with distinct clicks the NX8 are mushy with little report of each click, but where the XTR III has a bit of play the NX8 turrets had less. I envision that some will hate a particular turret while others will love it which is why turrets are very much personal preference, the question I ask for any new scope is more about repeatability and accuracy than it is for feel, that being said, when you feel a good turret it is noticeable. Compared to the Kahles, both the XTR III and NX8 are inferior, Kahles has excellent feel and tension.

 

[Glassaholic]

Reticle and Illumination

Soon after Kahles came out with the SKMR series reticles that offered .2 mil hash gradations, Steiner came out with the T5Xi scope and SCR reticle which was soon adopted by sister company Burris in their XTR II series. What I found with the SCR reticle was that it was very thin and would get “lost” when I was aiming at something in low light or a very contrasty area; however, for competition use and paper punching many will prefer the thin reticle. The SCR2 is no exception, in fact, according to Burris the SCR2 is actually thinner at .03 for the main reticle than the SCR, but they are using a new laser technology for more precise engraving in the reticle class which shows with the reticle showing very fine detail. Instead of a center dot like so many of the competition reticles today, Burris opted for a tiny center cross which at lower magnifications looks like a center dot. The Christmas tree section is also very unassuming with small ticks and crosses to avoid having solid lines like the Kahles SKMR3, my personal preference is for dots but the marks which Burris uses is very similar to dots and therefore preferred over the solid horizontal lines of Christmas tree which some manufacturer’s have chosen. IMO the Nightforce Mil-XT reticle is very well thought out and is thicker than the SCR2 so for my purposes I would say the Nightforce has the advantage.

Both my Kahles and the Nightforce had illumination and both have adequate daylight bright illumination; keep in mind we’re not talking about red dot bright, but definitely usable for a long range scope. Unfortunately, Burris opted to release the non-illuminated scopes first and I am told it’s going to be a while before illuminated models are available so the Nightforce has the clear advantage here. Due to the thickness of the reticle, I personally think this particular model would definitely benefit from illumination.

The images below were taken through the scope against a blue sky, any distortion of the reticle was caused by my inability to keep the camera perfectly parallel with the reticle plane as well as any field curvature due to the lenses inside the scope. Please understand that to my eye, the reticle was perfectly sharp edge to edge.

Image Quality (IQ)

I’m going to break down IQ into four categories – Contrast, Resolution, Color and CA

Contrast​

​

The XTR III shows excellent contrast from edge to edge until about 15x. From 15-18x there is slight falloff in contrast but still very good.​

​

Resolution​

​

Without spending extended time with my resolution charts it would be difficult to discern just how well the XTR III performs compared to the NX8; however, initial impressions are very high and I would say very close to the NX8, where the NX8 struggled was in edge distortion and this is where the XTR III excels having excellent sharpness into the edge of the sight picture. Similar to Contrast there is slight falloff in perceived resolution from 15-18x.​

​

Color​

​

Color fidelity seems to be managed very well, colors looked true to life. There was not an overly warm or overly cool cast to the image. I prefer an image that is neutral to warm and the XTR III seems to deliver for what my eyes like to see. Compared to my Minox ZP5 5-25x56 which serves as my baseline for IQ, color of the XTR III was slightly washed but still very good.​

​

CA​

​

The XTR II 4-20 showed quite a bit of CA which was acceptable for a $1k scope and I was hoping the new XTR III would be even better; however, there is still noticeable CA in transition between dark and light areas. Some people don’t see CA but for those who are bothered by it this will be an area of contention. I would say the XTR III handles CA better than the XTR II but not as good as the NX8.​

​

Glass​

​

Outside of the slight falloff between 15-18x (and again, it is slight and some may not even notice) the glass is superb. The edge to edge clarity and sharpness is very impressive for a scope at this price point.​

​

The NX8 might have slightly better center resolution and CA control; however, the center is very small due to the edge distortion. Due to the excellent edge clarity of the XTR III and the overall great IQ, I would say the XTR III has the advantage here.
EDIT 03/30/2022: I recently obtained another NX8 2.5-20x50 Nightforce scope and this "new" version does not exhibit any of the edge distortion that was prevalent in my original copy, in fact, the differences are so great I almost feel like NF changed their optical formula, it felt like two different scopes. This was either a QC issue that my early model had, or this is representative of some pretty significant sample variance. This would also explain why some NX8 2.5-20 users have declared their scopes to be similar to my original copy (significant edge distortion) while others have not had this issue.

The images below were taken through the scope in a high contrast (snow to dark or shadow areas) situation to represent the CA which can be seen by the shooter. Many situations are highly dependent on eye placement for CA, there are times where it might shift color or disappear altogether.

I decided to remove the below images as I could not get a clear enough through the scope image with my DSLR and didn't want to confuse the subject. Just realize that the NX8 exhibits edge distortion outside of maybe 60-70% of the sweet spot center, I could find no edge distortion with the XTR III.

 

[Glassaholic]

Eyebox

I found the eyebox to be very forgiving up to about 12x with 15-18x being slightly more finicky. Due to the wide angle eyepiece, there is some distortion of the image (not resolution but image bending similar to a funhouse mirror) if you move your eye around a bit. Compared to the NX8, the XTR III is a pleasure to look through and offers a much more forgiving eyebox which will be an advantage for those who find themselves not being able to get perfectly centered behind the scope due to positional compromises. Compared to the Kahles I would say the K318i has a more forgiving overall eyebox, especially at the upper end of the magnification range.

Depth/DOF

The XTR III offers very good depth within the sight picture. Without comparing it side by side with similar scopes it would be hard to tell how DOF compares to others, but during my testing I could see the scope was far more forgiving than the NX8 which had a very narrow DOF. From initial testing I would put the depth of the XTR III close to other alpha class scopes.

Parallax

Similar to DOF, parallax seems to follow the same protocol. I found the XTR III to be easy to set parallax and pretty forgiving beyond 300 yards. I will note that initially I had quite a few problems with parallax and could not get any setting to work adequately, so I went back to the drawing board with the diopter and found I had to do some fine tuning in order to get the parallax to settle down, but once I found the sweet spot of the diopter I was quite impressed. The NX8 was much more finicky with parallax and has to be set just right with minute adjustments to get the reticle to be parallax free with the image. The XTR III can focus to 25 yds while the NX8 can focus to 11 yds giving the close focus advantage but the XTR III is much more forgiving when setting the parallax at different ranges. Similar to the NX8 due to their very wide FOV, if you move your eye around a bit you’ll see the “reticle dance” at the bottom of the sight picture, but I’ve even seen this in the ZCO and believe it is one of the effects of scopes that have such a wide FOV. Compared to the Kahles it’d be hard to say there was a clear winner without having them side by side.

 

[Glassaholic]

Warranty

Forever Lifetime – serviced in Greeley, CO. For warranty service see the following:

Please visit https://burris.supportsync.com/ and select “Submit a Request” to begin the RMA process. The support portal is not an instant messaging service, so please allow 24-48 Business hours for a response. Please include a complete description of your optic along with the serial number. A serial number is required in order to process an RMA.

If you are outside of the USA or Canada, please visit http://www.burrisoptics.com/international-burris-dealers and contact your local dealer for warranty assistance.

Current Turnaround times for US customers is: 4-5 weeks

Current Turnaround for Canada is 6-8 weeks (due to international shipping)

Nightforce also has a lifetime warranty on their scopes; however, it is limited to only 3 years for electronics whereas I do not think Burris has any such limitation. In hindsight, part of me wishes I would have sent my NX8 in to Nightforce to have had them look at the scope and tell me if it fell within spec, I have also heard that the NX8 4-32 does not exhibit some of the extreme distortion of the 2.5-20 so maybe that scope will be something I look at in the near future.
EDIT 03/30/2022: I recently obtained another NX8 2.5-20x50 Nightforce scope and this "new" version does not exhibit any of the edge distortion that was prevalent in my original copy, in fact, the differences are so great I almost feel like NF changed their optical formula, it felt like two different scopes. This was either a QC issue that my early model had, or this is representative of some pretty significant sample variance. This would also explain why some NX8 2.5-20 users have declared their scopes to be similar to my original copy (significant edge distortion) while others have not had this issue. In hindsight, I wish I would have sent the NX8 back to NF to see how they would have responded.

Conclusion

Burris set out to create a competition scope that could keep up with the big boys and in many areas, I think they’ve succeeded. Areas of improvement would be in the turrets with the tension and the play as well as better QC for scopes leaving the plant, but their warranty is fantastic and if you find you get a scope that you don’t feel is performing like you think it should, I’d highly recommend sending it back (of course, none of us want to have to ship a scope back especially if new). I think it was wise of Burris to keep the magnification range in check in order to improve on IQ and especially DOF/Parallax which is very important to competition shooters. I would say the XTR III has exceeded my expectations for a scope in the $1500 - $2000 range but has room for improvement. If you’re purely into magnification bragging rights and want to say your scope offers 8x mag then you might be impressed with the Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50; however, if you want a scope that exhibits excellent IQ with great DOF/Parallax/Eyebox and a wide FOV with excellent edge to edge clarity then the XTR III would better fit you. I wish Burris would have made the SCR2 reticle a bit thicker, but again that comes down to personal preference, it is still an excellent .2 mil hash Christmas tree reticle that many may even prefer over some of the thicker options.

Other $2k class scopes I have used would be the Leupold Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44 which had better turrets and similar DOF/Parallax; however, my copy did not do that great in overall IQ and the sweet spot of the NF NX8 and Burris XTR III was quite a bit better than the Leupold. I've had the Steiner T5Xi's and their CA was so bad they were immediately returned. The Bushnell LRTS 4.5-18x44 and Tract Toric 4-20x50 are lower priced and suffer from heavier CA; however, they do have impressive IQ for the price. It is my personal opinion that the Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50 is the best overall scope in its class ($1500 - $2000) and offers a great value for its price. I have used the Bushnell ET 2.5-21x50 DMR II and was quite impressed, but optically it would not stand against the XTR III, Bushnell also has their new DMR II Pro which may compare IQ wise but suffers in FOV and is 5 oz heavier and has no illumination offering.
EDIT 03/30/2022: Burris has now moved manufacturing of the XTR III to the Philippines and in so doing has added the LONG awaited illumination as well as a significant price drop to the scope. Not sure what this means for future sales of the "Assembled in USA" non-illuminated versions as it may cause their value to increase after the transition and existing stock is exhausted.

I realize there are some who will not “see” the same issues that I see and will claim their version has no CA or that they prefer the turrets or reticle, etc., I am simply pointing out issues that I see based on my experience with competing optics. There are compromises with most every optic and we all have personal preferences when it comes to some of these features. I think for many, the Burris XTR III will be the scope they’ve been looking for, offering some features previously only found in much more expensive models. For me personally, I would wait for the illuminated model and if their illumination is as good as the NX8 and Kahles, the XTR III will be a very well rounded scope that will be highly sought after.

 

[Glassaholic]

Also, big shout out to the Hide's own @Tyler Kemp from MK Machining who made the very nice XTR III specific throw lever which forms a perfectly tight fit with the XTR III knurling with absolutely no wiggle.. I love Tyler's gear and prices and highly recommend you visit his site for throw levers, bubble levels and turret magnifiers (and more). In fact, the original XTR III scope I purchased was from Tyler who has some of the best prices for the XTR III scopes, so give him a PM or call. His website is at: https://mkmachining.com/

 

[Faronth]

Thank you for taking the time for yet another excellent review. I took a hard look a the Burris XTR II before ultimately purchasing a Leopold Mark 5. Might not have done that if the XTR III was available. While I am not in the market for a scope right now I will be looking at Burris when I am in the market again.
I did however just order a turret magnifier from MK Machining. It solves a problem for me, (old eyes).

 

[Birddog6424]

I'm pleased to see that it has met my expectations with a fair and unbiased source. It's not perfect, and at its price point I didn't expect it to be. But I do believe Burris has rolled out an excellent optic in the sub 2k price point. I think most folks will appreciate the quality of it and enjoy the glass. I think your thoughts very closely match my 18x version as well.

Thank you for an excellent review Bill. As always, you are an excellent source of a fair and objective review. We are lucky to have you here on the Hide!

 

[beetroot]

Ignoring the elephant in the room, how would the XTR3 compare with the Razor Gen 2?

Seems for $1500-$2000 there is stiff competition between XTR3, RZR G2, MK5hd, NX8 and a few others, with all options being very very different.
Makes choosing one to rule them all rather difficult.

 

[Moose]

Thank you for taking the time for a well done honest review.

 

[Dendro]

Always enjoy your reviews man

 

[Glassaholic]

Ignoring the elephant in the room, how would the XTR3 compare with the Razor Gen 2?

Seems for $1500-$2000 there is stiff competition between XTR3, RZR G2, MK5hd, NX8 and a few others, with all options being very very different.
Makes choosing one to rule them all rather difficult.

Assuming the elephant in the room is the weight difference, the Razor Gen II is a tried and true design that has proven to be repeatable and reliable. I have no experience with the Razor Gen II as I have no desire for a 3 lb scope on my rifles, but I'm also not a competition shooter so weight matters more to me than others as my rifles typically serve dual purpose - long range and hunting and as such I tend to look for something more manageable in the field. I used to have a weight limit of nothing over 30oz but that seriously limited the options in the FFP world, so I decided another 5 oz could be managed in the field and upped my limit to 35oz which opened the door for a lot more scopes but still rules out the heavy weight Razor Gen II LR scopes. I've had the Vortex AMG and was extremely impressed with that scope.

 

[Glassaholic]

Really appreciate all the kind comments everyone, it is not easy to purchase these scopes with my own money (mfr's do not send them to me) and then take the time to put them through their paces, document, take all the photos and then write it all up. I do this to hopefully benefit the community and for my own personal knowledge. I try my best to be "un-biased" but the reality is we all have our bias' in some form or another, what I try to do is be fair and if I like something I make note of it but if I don't like something I also make note of it. As with anything on the internet, take my opinions with a grain of salt, they are my opinions based on my experience and I'm not always right, so if you do see something that does not sound quite right, please send me a note so I can adjust accordingly.

 

[Jack's Dad]

Awesome thanks!

 

[Birddog6424]

Ignoring the elephant in the room, how would the XTR3 compare with the Razor Gen 2?

Seems for $1500-$2000 there is stiff competition between XTR3, RZR G2, MK5hd, NX8 and a few others, with all options being very very different.
Makes choosing one to rule them all rather difficult.

I've compared my 30x XTR3 to a handful of Razors now. Enough of them that I dont do it anymore.

The general consensus amongst all viewers has been very consistent. The Glass is SUPER close. I think the Razor handles color just a hair better, but the Burris is brighter. Even a couple of the Razor owners agreed with that. Both handle CA about the same. Eyebox, parallax, diopter are all great with both of these scopes. Depth of field, it's all right there pretty close. The Burris kills it in field of view and weight. FOV is just fantastic in the XTR3.

I think they are so close that the only thing that will be the deciding factor as to which one you like best is whether you are a Vortex fan or Burris fan.

 

[beetroot]

Assuming the elephant in the room is the weight difference, the Razor Gen II is a tried and true design that has proven to be repeatable and reliable. I have no experience with the Razor Gen II as I have no desire for a 3 lb scope on my rifles, but I'm also not a competition shooter so weight matters more to me than others as my rifles typically serve dual purpose - long range and hunting and as such I tend to look for something more manageable in the field. I used to have a weight limit of nothing over 30oz but that seriously limited the options in the FFP world, so I decided another 5 oz could be managed in the field and upped my limit to 35oz which opened the door for a lot more scopes but still rules out the heavy weight Razor Gen II LR scopes. I've had the Vortex AMG and was extremely impressed with that scope.

How do you think the SCR2 will go in a dual purpose role? I too am trying to find the best dual purpose scope, but yet to discover it so far.

You said that the reticle is very thin at low power, does the thicker portions of the reticle make up for this enough that you don't find yourself wanting illumination?

 

[Birddog6424]

In my opinion I agree with Bill that it's very thin. I dont find it unusable, I think the thick portions of the reticle will be sufficient to give you a crosshair. Based on my experiences, if I'm on a low magnification it's because I have a very close shot. Inside 200 or 300 yards you wont be using the fine details of the reticle. And Bill is correct that it's too fine to use the finer details at 4x or 5x. And in low light situations the reticle may be difficult to pick up. At 6x I can make it out, so the quality of your eyesight comes in to play here

If I were to buy one for dual purpose, I would grab the illuminated version when they come to market. I think that will solve the fine reticle issue for anyone who feels they may run into it.

Were I buying this for hunting only, I would run the SCR, not the SCR2. Holdovers to 500 yards are a breeze, anything longer that that I would dial.

 

[BytorJr]

Thank you. Awesome report.

I’ve been looking n at the Burris vs ATACR 4-16x42. Good to know I can now potentially remove the NX8.

 

[Glassaholic]

How do you think the SCR2 will go in a dual purpose role? I too am trying to find the best dual purpose scope, but yet to discover it so far.

You said that the reticle is very thin at low power, does the thicker portions of the reticle make up for this enough that you don't find yourself wanting illumination?

Some may find the reticle too thin and others will love it for being so thin. I would agree with birddog's response. The thicker portion does help, but like birddog said, if you're using 5x or below it is most likely going to be something very close you are shooting at and the holds aren't going to make a difference anyway, our eyes have an uncanny ability to center things within a circle so I've never found it difficult to find reticle center on most scopes even at lower magnifications, it's more for peace of mind that we'd like "proof" we are at reticle center especially if the game is moving fast. The best reticle design I've seen happens to come in the Bushnell LRHS with G2H reticle, I absolutely love the "circle of death" and incorporated that into my own reticle design for long range scopes, I wish more manufacturer's would incorporate such a feature for FFP scopes.

For me personally, if I'm choosing this scope and know I'll be in high contrast and/or low light situations I'm definitely picking the illuminated model, it can only help in those situations, but that is my preference and all my scopes these days have illumination, it's rare that I need it, but when I do it's nice to know I have it. Also, the SCR reticle is thicker but it's also not a Christmas tree so there is some give and take there.

 

[Glassaholic]

Thank you. Awesome report.

I’ve been looking n at the Burris vs ATACR 4-16x42. Good to know I can now potentially remove the NX8.

Thank you. I honestly think this comparison is more on par optically, while the NX8 is a nice scope if you feel you need 8x magnification there are just too many compromises optically speaking. My buddy has the ATACR 4-16x50 and it might be nice to get the two out together, I was going to sell the scope (and wait for the illuminated models) but maybe it's worth waiting to compare with the NF ATACR F1 4-16x50

 

[BytorJr]

That’d be awesome too. Aren’t their some differences in the turrets between the 42 and 50? That I’m not as much worried about as the optical characteristics.

Your reticle pictures were worth 10000 words not 1000 !!

Of course the old mantra of buy both is an option. Lol. But the non illuminated is my one holdup on the “3”. I suspect we will see that at SHOT 2020. Well somebody will, not me ?.

 

[Birddog6424]

Some may find the reticle too thin and others will love it for being so thin. I would agree with birddog's response. The thicker portion does help, but like birddog said, if you're using 5x or below it is most likely going to be something very close you are shooting at and the holds aren't going to make a difference anyway, our eyes have an uncanny ability to center things within a circle so I've never found it difficult to find reticle center on most scopes even at lower magnifications

Reticles are always such a personal preference.

I've gotten to spend a LOT of time behind the SCR2 in the last 12 weeks. I've shot multiple local PRS matches, a two day national match, a one day regional championship PRS match, and the PRS Finale in Tennessee. From the perspective of a competitive use reticle, I think the SCR2 hits on all cylinders.

The thinner reticle is less obtrusive than a lot of reticles. The likelihood of it blocking a small bullet splash is very minimal. Which is something that would occur when I was running the H59. Yet even though its thin, the etching detail is excellent, and it's easy to pick it up for holdovers.

I haven't gotten to spend a lot of time behind my 18x XTR3. It's been a bit of a flurry of activity closing out the PRS season with 4 matches in 5 weekends. But its finally behind me and I can get this out and play with it. I'm curious how the turrets will feel after some break in time. My 30x was ridiculously stiff out of the box, but broke in with use and feel fantastic now. My 18x is less stiff out of the box, they more closely resemble the XTR2 than my 30x did. They seem to be in the middle between my 30x and my XTR2s. Perhaps that is in response to reports of stiffness on the first releases. But that's speculation.

At any rate, I'm going to get some play time going forward. I'm going to drop it on a 20" 6.5 Grendel that I own and head out in a couple weeks to chase lions and wolves on a buddies ranch up in Riggins Idaho. So I'll keep you all posted on how the turrets feel with some usage and how the reticle looks in the wild.

 

[Glassaholic]

That’d be awesome too. Aren’t their some differences in the turrets between the 42 and 50? That I’m not as much worried about as the optical characteristics.

Yes, there are differences in the turrets between the 42 and 50, the 42 has the low profile with lock button while the 50 has a turret that more closely resembles the 5-25 and 7-35 IIRC.

 

[Jjviperzar1]

Great review and thanks for sharing your experiences with these two optics.

 

[D_TROS]

I will say one thing that was stressed to me about making not only the retc thinner, but the tree less obtrusive is how much more light is allowed to pass through.

One thing you will notice is the brightness. Noticably brighter than both my March, M7xi and TT. Obviously doesn't have the reseolution but that brightness/FOV is amazing.




Regards,
DT

 

[Kickin45]

Thanks wjm308, great write up

 

[koshkin]

I will say one thing that was stressed to me about making not only the retc thinner, but the tree less obtrusive is how much more light is allowed to pass through.

One thing you will notice is the brightness. Noticably brighter than both my March, M7xi and TT. Obviously doesn't have the reseolution but that brightness/FOV is amazing.




Regards,
DT

I don't think the reticle had much to do with perceived brightness.

ILya

 

[Cascade Hemi]

Thank you for the write up, I'm impressed with your work.

 

[hunter8793]

Awesome write up. Do you still have the Mark 5? Can you do a write up on that one?

 

[Birddog6424]

Awesome right up. Do you still have the Mark 5? Can you do a write up on that one?

Lots out there on the MK5. It's been on the market for a while now.

 

[Barelstroker]

Yes, thank you wjm308, I very much enjoyed your review & thoughts.
I'm in the market for a top tier scope &, have considered the Burris xtrIII. After your review though, I think I might well do a recap based on some new info.

 

[Glassaholic]

Awesome write up. Do you still have the Mark 5? Can you do a write up on that one?

I did do a writeup of the Mark 5, you can find that here - http://opticsthoughts.com/?p=2296
The XTR III (replacement) I have has much better glass than the Leupold Mark 5, the only thing I liked more on the Mark 5 was the turrets, my Mark 5 glass did not impress for the price, but I have it on good authority that mine was an anomaly, I'd love to try another but won't do that until they come out with a better reticle and stop charging $600 for illumination.

 

[jaywhite97]

thanks for time to review the scope and get pictures up and suggesting and making recommendations.

 

[beetroot]

I did do a writeup of the Mark 5, you can find that here - http://opticsthoughts.com/?p=2296
The XTR III (replacement) I have has much better glass than the Leupold Mark 5, the only thing I liked more on the Mark 5 was the turrets, my Mark 5 glass did not impress for the price, but I have it on good authority that mine was an anomaly, I'd love to try another but won't do that until they come out with a better reticle and stop charging $600 for illumination.

If the illumination wasn't so ridiculously expensive and there was a less hours tree option, the Mark 5 would be a far more attractive option.

 

[Birddog6424]

Bumping for the reticles @beetroot

 

[beetroot]

Bumping for the reticles @beetroot

Thanks.
Am waiting for the local store to get the XTR3 in so I can look in person, but those reticle pictures do look good.

 

[LAW-DOG]

I did do a writeup of the Mark 5, you can find that here - http://opticsthoughts.com/?p=2296
The XTR III (replacement) I have has much better glass than the Leupold Mark 5, the only thing I liked more on the Mark 5 was the turrets, my Mark 5 glass did not impress for the price, but I have it on good authority that mine was an anomaly, I'd love to try another but won't do that until they come out with a better reticle and stop charging $600 for illumination.

The 56mm Mk5hd is a quite a bit better than its 44mm little brother. A comparison review of the xtr3, razor, trijicon, mk5hd, Cronus btr all in 56mm would be interesting. There must be some variation in qc on the 44mm Mk5hd because I’ve seen 2, one good & the other seemed to have more ca issues. The 56mm mk5hd is bright with a neutral color look which might make some think it might be washed out but not to me because I think most scopes are slightly warm. The optical quality, brightness, & turrets are good on the mk5hd, only thing that I don’t like is the fov & parallax. I got my non illuminated on sale from liberty for a good price. I would like to compare it to the xtr3 but no one at my range has one that I’ve seen. I have compared it with my pmii & a razor & im impressed for the $$$

 

[Glassaholic]

The 56mm Mk5hd is a quite a bit better than its 44mm little brother. A comparison review of the xtr3, razor, trijicon, mk5hd, Cronus btr all in 56mm would be interesting. There must be some variation in qc on the 44mm Mk5hd because I’ve seen 2, one good & the other seemed to have more ca issues. The 56mm mk5hd is bright with a neutral color look which might make some think it might be washed out but not to me because I think most scopes are slightly warm. The optical quality, brightness, & turrets are good on the mk5hd, only thing that I don’t like is the fov & parallax. I got my non illuminated on sale from liberty for a good price. I would like to compare it to the xtr3 but no one at my range has one that I’ve seen. I have compared it with my pmii & a razor & im impressed for the $$$

That seems to be the consensus with the Mark 5 5-25, great scope for the price if you don’t mind non-illuminating and the reticle choices. Heard at shot Leupy was supposed to come out with their own tree reticle but thought it’s be out by now.

 

[LAW-DOG]

That seems to be the consensus with the Mark 5 5-25, great scope for the price if you don’t mind non-illuminating and the reticle choices. Heard at shot Leupy was supposed to come out with their own tree reticle but thought it’s be out by now.

It would be nice with more reticle options. I use the cch which is like the h59 but with .25 mil & have got used to it,. Reticles to me aren’t a big deal to me. I use a variety of reticles from my pmii msr, DMR pro g3, mk5 cch, us optics er25 h59, & ebr2c. If leupold comes out with a really nice one I could send my mk5hd in & have it changed. I shoot well with all of those reticles

 

[Birddog6424]

The 56mm Mk5hd is a quite a bit better than its 44mm little brother. A comparison review of the xtr3, razor, trijicon, mk5hd, Cronus btr all in 56mm would be interesting. There must be some variation in qc on the 44mm Mk5hd because I’ve seen 2, one good & the other seemed to have more ca issues. The 56mm mk5hd is bright with a neutral color look which might make some think it might be washed out but not to me because I think most scopes are slightly warm. The optical quality, brightness, & turrets are good on the mk5hd, only thing that I don’t like is the fov & parallax. I got my non illuminated on sale from liberty for a good price. I would like to compare it to the xtr3 but no one at my range has one that I’ve seen. I have compared it with my pmii & a razor & im impressed for the $$$

I've compared against several 25x and one 35x MK5. I think I have found the same variance in the 56mm scope as well.

The first MK5 I compared to really lacked pop. There seemed to be almost a yellowish color coming through. In comparison to the 30x XTR3, 27x Razor, and 35x ATACR we had lined up for comparison, the MK5 was universally agreed upon by the 6 or 7 guys playing with them to be behind the others in glass quality.

I've compared to several others since that were better. But it did look like the Burris looked a little sharper on 30x than the MK5 on the one version of the 35x I have played with.

I think most of these comparisons are pretty close though. I think both the Burris and the Leupold give up a little color, but are very bright scopes. They are brighter in comparison to the ATACR, and the Razor always and consistently shows a little more color, but is a little less bright. I've compared to the Gen II Razor so many times I've pretty much seen all there is to see. So I think they are pretty close in glass.

What's most noticeable for me though is the eyepiece seems so much more user friendly in the Burris. The scope ring is very thick and black in the MK5. And once you get used to looking through the XTR3, which has a very large edge to edge glass appearance with only a thin black ring bordering the sight picture, looking through the MK5 almost looks like tunneling. So it's interesting how that sight picture looks through the Burris.

 

[LAW-DOG]

Birddog. I’ve only seen 2 other 25x & they looked just as good as mine. I haven’t heard much variation in the 25/35x. If there was the guys in the mk5 thread would have brought it up but rarely have I heard anything bad about the 56mm optically. My uncles shop has sold some too & have heard nothing about variations in quality. It’s definitely a small fov vs my pmii but my 35x vs a friends NF 35x looks about the same in fov & definitely no tunneling. The neutral color tone is what I think most people notice & why it’s less saturated vs other high end scopes that are slightly warmer in tone. When you have the mk5 next to a pmii it lacks the color saturation that I’m used to with the pmii. I do like the mk5 turrets, that’s another good quality they have & better than most in its price range. How was parallax & turrets on the xtr3 vs the mk5? On the pmii it’s great & seems much nicer & easier to focus. What’s the color tone on the xtr3? I’ve been thinking about getting the xtr3 but I wanted to wait & see how it compares to others in its price range. So far it seems like the razor, mk5 56mm, & the xtr3 are the best performance for the $$. The only other scope that might be better for the money is the DMR pro & xrs2 when on sale because I got the DMR pro & xrs2 for $2000 & my mk5 35x was $1900. So 2 bushnell scopes for the price of 1 mk5hd. If you are patient you can get bushnells on sale or rebate. I may have to get an xtr3, I’ve found some good prices on them.

 

[Birddog6424]

I've looked through quite a few MK5s. I'm friends with a couple fellas that shoot for Leupold. And I do think it's a great scope. But I definitely think there is a little variance in glass. Which I personally believe occurs in most all scopes. The higher you go up in value and cost, the less often it occurs.

In this very thread Bill states in the Conclusion section of his XTR3 review, "my copy did not do that well in overall IQ", in reference to his MK5. Clearly acknowledging that he was referring to his singular example, leaving the door open to the fact that there may be variance. Others may look better.

The very first MK5 I compared my XTR3 to was a 25x that belonged to a Leupy team shooter. That's the one that had the weaker glass. And by that I dont mean it was bad. It was still a perfectly useable optic. It was just not as bright and clear as the other scopes. All of which looked very good. To a guy who shot PRS for 5 years with an XTRII (that would be me) the Leupy still looked great.

As far as turrets, I think that's preference. Get 5 guys to twist a turret, you'll get 6 responses. I like my turrets tactile with audible clicks. If I can make precise adjustments without looking at it. I like it. So I'm good with the XTR3 turrets. And quite honestly, most turrets for that matter. I just dont like mushy and soft.

Parallax and DOV between the MK5, XTR3, Razor, ATACR, etc, is all right there. Very functional, easy to use. Serviceable depth of field. Excellent eyebox and sight picture on the Burris.

 

[D_TROS]

...

And quite honestly, most turrets for that matter. I just dont like mushy and soft.

...

I love mushy. So there!! Honestly I don't care. like at all.

Only on TyPeRsHiDe do people pretend to care about non matters like turret feel and other noise.

Does it track??
Does it have a retc I like??
Does it have FOV??

let pew pew.

Ha
DT

 

[Birddog6424]

Havent seen any mushy XTR3 turrets yet.

You could always steal a page from the Athlon Cronus playbook and slap some more grease on it.

 

[Birddog6424]

I've got an xtr3 with mushy elevation turret. It was a replacement for a failed xtr3. Maybe the replacement needs be replaced as well. My experience with the Burris mechanically has been quite poor. The glass is pretty good tho. Scr2 mil reticle is very small until you get mag up for it to be usable.

Ah, that's right. I remember you mentioning you're turret felt mushy.

Maybe Dorgan will buy it from you..

Kidding of course. I feel bad that you've had poor luck with the scope. New design, new facility. Everyone expected a few bugs. But as few as possible is the goal.

 

[Hesperidins]

When do we get the XTR III with an illuminated SCR 2 Mil???

 

[supercorndogs]

I did do a writeup of the Mark 5, you can find that here - http://opticsthoughts.com/?p=2296
The XTR III (replacement) I have has much better glass than the Leupold Mark 5, the only thing I liked more on the Mark 5 was the turrets, my Mark 5 glass did not impress for the price, but I have it on good authority that mine was an anomaly, I'd love to try another but won't do that until they come out with a better reticle and stop charging $600 for illumination.

My initial impression is that the glass on my 3.whatever-18 MK5 is noticeably better than the my LRHS's and LRTS. I was going to run out with those scopes today and a 3-18 Tango 6, but I had to do something else this morning. Its getting windy now, but shooting in 15-20mph is the norm around here anyway.

 

[Birddog6424]

When do we get the XTR III with an illuminated SCR 2 Mil???

This is just my opinion. But I honestly think it won't be until SHOT.

I could be wrong, for all I know they could announce its ready to start production tomorrow. But a manager I spoke to was of the opinion that he didn't think it would roll out till next year.

 

[Totoro]

That's such a bummer BUT the optic better be STELLAR with illum ret, if it comes out.

 

[Birddog6424]

That's such a bummer BUT the optic better be STELLAR with illum ret, if it comes out.

I think it will be what folks will like. Hopefully the redesign is worth the wait with a solid illumination.

I know the thicker reticle will be well-received.

 

[D_TROS]

RO'd a match this weekend. Fellas scope went down (turret boke/came off some how)

Loaned him my XTR3 and had him shoot a rock at 600 to zero it to his data. After 4 straight 0's on a stage he came back later to tell me his next four stages he got 5's and 6's on them and was immensely impressed with the quality of the scope

real life review. Love this American made product


Regards
DT