Maybe premature to ask but @Birddog6424 and @D_TROS, any ideas on how much weight Burris thinks the illumination feature will add to the scope?
Maybe premature to ask but @Birddog6424 and @D_TROS, any ideas on how much weight Burris thinks the illumination feature will add to the scope?
Any news if burris will come out with a floating dot reticle? Seems like these things get high praiseI havent heard a weight figure. Based on the materials involved, I would be surprised to see much change. The XTRII illuminated versus non illuminated showed no weight change. So it wasn't worth listing.
Release date for this is this summer to early fall before hunting season. As this optic is made here in the US, it has to be worked into the existing production schedule.
I don't see why they would.Any news if burris will come out with a floating dot reticle? Seems like these things get high praise
If they did I'd be jumping ship to a manufacturer that didn't unless the cross was still an optionAny news if burris will come out with a floating dot reticle? Seems like these things get high praise
Looks like by the time the Illuminated version is out there will be new offerings from Vortex and Bushnell.Still waiting.
I agree for the 3.3-18x50, the SCR2 is so thin. I own the 5.5-30 and I actually like the SCR2 reticle in that design, makes me think the reticle was designed with the 5.5-30 in mind, and they adjusted it for the 3.3-18 but to me it is too thin for this mag range. Given the crossover nature and DMR style use of the 3.3-18 it could really use a thicker reticle and I know the SCR is available but again, for the use many would like for this scope, a tree would be nice so getting an SCR3 that is thicker and illuminated would be ideal. But this is all personal preference and like birddog mentioned, if the non-illuminated is selling so well and it would require taking down production of the existing model to make the illuminated model then I can see why Burris has made a decision to not do that right away.I think the big interest in the illuminated version is to get an scr2 reticle that is just a touch thicker...hopefully
I think the big interest in the illuminated version is to get an scr2 reticle that is just a touch thicker...hopefully
I agree for the 3.3-18x50, the SCR2 is so thin. I own the 5.5-30 and I actually like the SCR2 reticle in that design, makes me think the reticle was designed with the 5.5-30 in mind, and they adjusted it for the 3.3-18 but to me it is too thin for this mag range. Given the crossover nature and DMR style use of the 3.3-18 it could really use a thicker reticle and I know the SCR is available but again, for the use many would like for this scope, a tree would be nice so getting an SCR3 that is thicker and illuminated would be ideal. But this is all personal preference and like birddog mentioned, if the non-illuminated is selling so well and it would require taking down production of the existing model to make the illuminated model then I can see why Burris has made a decision to not do that right away.
Yes, it's possible Bushnell or Vortex (or ?) could come out with something that matches or exceeds the design of the 3.3-18x50, but until we actually see that, I'm not going to hold my breath for it. If birddog is right and the illuminated 3.3-18 makes it within 2021, I still think it will be the best under $2k budget short scope design with regard to glass and FOV.
What is sad (for me) is that the 3.3-18x50 would be the ideal scope for two of my rifles, but I will not get them with the non-illuminated SCR2 reticle for the above stated reasons, that could be two additional sales for Burris, and I'm sure I'm not alone as this thread attests, so while Burris has chosen not to release illumination due to popularity of non-illuminated in the 3.3-18, I also wonder how much they have "lost" with that decision. Just some thoughts that don't actually matter because Burris is going to do what Burris is going to do regardless of my decisions
My best guess is that's a Cyke-Pod Double Pull bipod on a JP Arca Rail.Anyone know what kind of bipod this is and what rail segment he is using to attach to it. ThanksView attachment 7617354
I too want the thicker reticle in the 3.3-18.I agree for the 3.3-18x50, the SCR2 is so thin. I own the 5.5-30 and I actually like the SCR2 reticle in that design, makes me think the reticle was designed with the 5.5-30 in mind, and they adjusted it for the 3.3-18 but to me it is too thin for this mag range. Given the crossover nature and DMR style use of the 3.3-18 it could really use a thicker reticle and I know the SCR is available but again, for the use many would like for this scope, a tree would be nice so getting an SCR3 that is thicker and illuminated would be ideal. But this is all personal preference and like birddog mentioned, if the non-illuminated is selling so well and it would require taking down production of the existing model to make the illuminated model then I can see why Burris has made a decision to not do that right away.
Yes, it's possible Bushnell or Vortex (or ?) could come out with something that matches or exceeds the design of the 3.3-18x50, but until we actually see that, I'm not going to hold my breath for it. If birddog is right and the illuminated 3.3-18 makes it within 2021, I still think it will be the best under $2k budget short scope design with regard to glass and FOV.
What is sad (for me) is that the 3.3-18x50 would be the ideal scope for two of my rifles, but I will not get them with the non-illuminated SCR2 reticle for the above stated reasons, that could be two additional sales for Burris, and I'm sure I'm not alone as this thread attests, so while Burris has chosen not to release illumination due to popularity of non-illuminated in the 3.3-18, I also wonder how much they have "lost" with that decision. Just some thoughts that don't actually matter because Burris is going to do what Burris is going to do regardless of my decisions
I'm that way, I use my scopes for everything which means hunting in the last minutes of legal hours in some hardwood bottom, I use the illumination all the time.’ve been waiting a long time for illuminated XTR IIIs and they have lost out on multiple scope sales with me. I don’t know who you people are that don’t use illumination but I use it all the time.
I guess you haven't heard yet... The Burris rep said we don't need illumination.Getting tired of waiting for illumination. A Gen 2 Razor is looking more likely. Bummer. Really wanted to rock this scope this season.
Love the UPR, pretty much the hunting/cross over set up im going for.Using the 3-18 on my Hunting rifle and NRL Hunter Series Tikka. Ive got several hundred rounds as well as a couple matches shooting this scope. I dont mind the retc one bit but I love thinnerr stuff generally.
View attachment 7617943
Last NRL hunter match we shot in 3 separate snow storms and low light and nv once did I feel I wanted or would have used illum.
ymmv!
I was unfortunately unable to make weight with the Ckye-pod double pull (12 lb limit for production class) so used the single pull. It worked very well.
GL!
DT
If any of them have one they want to get rid of cheap do to no illumination y'all can just let me know.Where exactly did anyone say that...
That sums it up very nicely.
The illuminated version with a slightly thicker reticle will make this optic more versatile. More well-rounded for a variety of applications.
Point to the post where someone said that.I guess you haven't heard yet... The Burris rep said we don't need illumination.
So are the 3x18s impossible to get for now?
Yes, that's the FOV on the 3.3-18.Question regarding the FOV. The 40ft FOV that everyone is raving about is with the 3-18x50 model....not the 5.5-30x56 correct?
my new varmint rifle is due any day, a Seekins SP10 in 6.5CM. Wide FOV is important to me. And I’m stuck between the XTR3 and Razor lines. Primarily with what magnification range to get.
so correct me if I’m wrong...if I want that wide FOV I need to be looking at the lower magnification options of these two scopes?
Remember the FOV specs are for a set magnification, you'll need to extrapolate the data to compare against scopes or other magnification ranges.So if I’m looking at the larger mag Razor and XTR3 then FOV is almost identical. Hard to decide which one to go with. At that point it’s basicallly based on reticle it appears.
So if I’m looking at the larger mag Razor and XTR3 then FOV is almost identical.
Old eyes suck my 67 year old eyes also have trouble with thin reticles.I probably focus too much on things that are really personal preference. When I was younger the thinner reticles didn’t bother me so much, but now my eyes have greater difficulty picking up center with busy backgrounds. Again, personal preference
Dam. Now rumor has it Burris has no idea when an illuminated version may be produced.
Where did you hear that?
I think 2 years of "it's coming soon" is enough to say no one knows.I want to support a scope made in USA. When is the illuminated model going to be available?
I know.I think 2 years of "it's coming soon" is enough to say no one knows.
In all fairness, you were the one 2 years ago saying it was coming soon so...I know.
In all fairness, you were the one 2 years ago saying it was coming soon so...
I bought a non illuminated option and I like it as a target scope. A 3.3-18 illuminated would make a good crossover. Basically a cheaper mk5 with a better reticle.