New Burris XTR PS

[taseal]

It's comparable to the XTR3 but not up there with the Pro. Better than the non razor vortex, the Bushnell gen 2 and 3, and all these Chinese optics like the Arken by a long shot.

My XTR Pro is at least equal to the Nightforce ATACR I'm borrowing. Glass wise the Pro is a little better in mirage and low light. Turrets are better on the atacr. ZCO and Tangent have an obvious advantage in heavy mirage to both of the above.

The E6 is cool but most hunters don't need that, especially in Ohio. Deer usually 100 and in, Coyotes 300 and in for the most part.

That is pretty amazing if it's better than the non razor vortex and Bushnell Gen 3s...

I won't be hunting. I want to bring it to matches to just lase and get my points without having to adjust anything. lase it, hit it. no turret turning or hold overs.

I have a Gen 1 DMR (getting back into this after 10 years) so I'm sure anything I get will be ligthyears ahead. but I'm trying to decide if I want to spend the money towards ~1000 glass with a ~800 LRF, or just get an Eliminator 6 and have it both.

for my price range it will be a Viper HD or a Bushnell DMR 3 (800-1000 bucks) with some Sig Kilo LRF vs the Burris Eliminator 6.

I really want an AIO solution. It has been my dream setup since eliminator series came out.

from my previous shooting and SWAT Sniper experience, I understand mils, holdovers, so it's not like I'm skipping the learning steps either. Just want a different solution.

Hell I'm also heavily considering the DNT Thermnight 335R just because it's an AIO

 

[ARShooter91]

I will say I have limited time with the Gen 3 DMR with the g4p reticle I think it was and haven't messed with the viper HD.

Had a gen 1 Bushy ERS that served me well on a 300win mag, upgraded to a gen 2 dmr, and then to a Burris xtr3. The Burris does well in the top end where in my experience the Bushnell dims and image quality suffers. I'm sure the 56mm objective helps the Burris. Also the Bushnell image degrades a lot when getting near max elevation(within 4mil). Burris image is good up to even a mil away from max.

The fov is much better on these 56mm Burris scopes than the old Bushnells to.

 

[ToddM]

XTR III glass is pretty good and more than useable. We were never going to get Pro or better glass in an optic that has a street price basically the same as the Pro.

That's an order of magnitude better than the glass Sig puts in their BDX Sierra6/Easy6 ballistic scopes, granted the PS is twice the price. However I'd consider XTR 3 glass more than useable and the Sierra 6/Easy 6 glass is abysmal. It basically compares with a above average $300 optic. The Sig's both fall well short of PST Gen 2 glass, which it still easily useable but hardly great glass even at a sub $1000 price point limit.

That said I love to see more companies pushing the envelope on these types of optics. I'd imagine for a lot of the market the big limiter that keeps companies from making them is the high number of states that ban such things for hunting purposes. This also might by why Sig avoided a built in rangefinder as some states make a distinction between a scope that gets say holdover information like the Sig and a scope that can range and do ballistics in the same package. For example in CO it used to be illegal to have a scope that had any ballistics calculator contained within it. In such a case it was deemed a "Smart rifle" no idea if it's still that way. So in that case something like the Sig BDX would be okay because it gets info from an external source for ballistics/holdovers. However in the case of the eliminator it has everything internal. Utah used to basically restrict any electronic feature in a scope outside of an illuminate reticle as being against regulations. It's kind of silly, but I'd imagine the manufacturers are looking at hunting regs to evaluate a product's viability. If a lot of states have regulations that restrict these sorts of optics for hunting use that's a huge loss of potential customer base. It was probably originally intended to restrict NV use, but it's hard to argue that having a rangefinder and ballistics calc inside the scope itself useable on demand would not increase the percentage of ethical kills.

 

[koshkin]

I have both version of the XTR PS and that HUD is really growing on me. The ballistic data was very close to AB. The app does give you the option to true it. After truing, I have complete agreement between Burris Connect, AB Quantum and Geoballistics.

Optically, with the two I have, 5.5-30x is a little better than the 3.3-18x, but that is likely sample variation. It is pretty much XTR3i optical system, so it is a step behind Pro, but still very good.

The big advantage for me is to not need to look at the turret when dialing. Also, when I dial in yards, it is easier for me to estimate wind. If I dial in mrad, I need to remember exactly which distance that corresponds to in order to translate from my gun's MPH number to the wind hold.

Same goes for the level and the time. The less I have to look at stuff outside the scope the better.

ILya

 

[taseal]

XTR III glass is pretty good and more than useable. We were never going to get Pro or better glass in an optic that has a street price basically the same as the Pro.

That's an order of magnitude better than the glass Sig puts in their BDX Sierra6/Easy6 ballistic scopes, granted the PS is twice the price. However I'd consider XTR 3 glass more than useable and the Sierra 6/Easy 6 glass is abysmal. It basically compares with a above average $300 optic. The Sig's both fall well short of PST Gen 2 glass, which it still easily useable but hardly great glass even at a sub $1000 price point limit.

That said I love to see more companies pushing the envelope on these types of optics. I'd imagine for a lot of the market the big limiter that keeps companies from making them is the high number of states that ban such things for hunting purposes. This also might by why Sig avoided a built in rangefinder as some states make a distinction between a scope that gets say holdover information like the Sig and a scope that can range and do ballistics in the same package. For example in CO it used to be illegal to have a scope that had any ballistics calculator contained within it. In such a case it was deemed a "Smart rifle" no idea if it's still that way. So in that case something like the Sig BDX would be okay because it gets info from an external source for ballistics/holdovers. However in the case of the eliminator it has everything internal. Utah used to basically restrict any electronic feature in a scope outside of an illuminate reticle as being against regulations. It's kind of silly, but I'd imagine the manufacturers are looking at hunting regs to evaluate a product's viability. If a lot of states have regulations that restrict these sorts of optics for hunting use that's a huge loss of potential customer base. It was probably originally intended to restrict NV use, but it's hard to argue that having a rangefinder and ballistics calc inside the scope itself useable on demand would not increase the percentage of ethical kills.

Yeah I've noticed many states no longer allow these. I read one state (a post here, can't remember state) can't have a ballistic calculator on the rifle (so that includes any WMLRF). I get that it is trying to "fair" up the "game", but come on... These aid in an ethical kill. I'm sure there are reasons for it, that's beyond me.

 

[taseal]

I have both version of the XTR PS and that HUD is really growing on me. The ballistic data was very close to AB. The app does give you the option to true it. After truing, I have complete agreement between Burris Connect, AB Quantum and Geoballistics.

Optically, with the two I have, 5.5-30x is a little better than the 3.3-18x, but that is likely sample variation. It is pretty much XTR3i optical system, so it is a step behind Pro, but still very good.

The big advantage for me is to not need to look at the turret when dialing. Also, when I dial in yards, it is easier for me to estimate wind. If I dial in mrad, I need to remember exactly which distance that corresponds to in order to translate from my gun's MPH number to the wind hold.

Same goes for the level and the time. The less I have to look at stuff outside the scope the better.

ILya

This is the true benefit for these things. The only thing I would prefer is never having to look outside the scope. I really hope they eventually come out with a built in LRF version too. Don't even need the holdover dot like the E6. Just tell me the range and I can either hold, or dial it. How awesome would that be?

Now that they got the E6 and the XTR-PS, I do believe they will marry them up and we will end up with a new XTR-PSR version at SHOT 2026. I am def going to make the suggestion when I go next year if I don't see it.

 

[koshkin]

This is the true benefit for these things. The only thing I would prefer is never having to look outside the scope. I really hope they eventually come out with a built in LRF version too. Don't even need the holdover dot like the E6. Just tell me the range and I can either hold, or dial it. How awesome would that be?

Now that they got the E6 and the XTR-PS, I do believe they will marry them up and we will end up with a new XTR-PSR version at SHOT 2026. I am def going to make the suggestion when I go next year if I don't see it.

For the moment, built in LRD introduces optical compromises. Eliminator 6 is better optically than the earlier ones, but still not as good as XTR PS. There is also an issue with doing a projected aiming point with FFP reticle. There is a way to do it, but it is expensive. That's why they are doing it in SFP.

Ideally, I would like to see them introduce a WMLRF that talks to the XTR PS wirelessly. I do not mind dialing for my shots if the information is all in front of me.

ILya

 

[taseal]

For the moment, built in LRD introduces optical compromises. Eliminator 6 is better optically than the earlier ones, but still not as good as XTR PS. There is also an issue with doing a projected aiming point with FFP reticle. There is a way to do it, but it is expensive. That's why they are doing it in SFP.

Ideally, I would like to see them introduce a WMLRF that talks to the XTR PS wirelessly. I do not mind dialing for my shots if the information is all in front of me.

ILya

Yeah, I wouldn't even care for the hold over dots. I just want the range on the HUD so I can dial it myself. FFP can stay. Just give me the range where the wind call is on the right. Then I'll turn the turret to match it.

Yeah the E6 has a SFP/FFP hybrid. the reticle stays the same, but as you zoom in/out, the hold over dot will change places. That's why the wind dots are not mils, but just "units of dots".

I understand what you mean for the glass. I assume the LRF laser has to pass the glass and come back etc, so same coatings can't be used along with that fiber optic light for the hold over dot. How much worse is it? Have you looked through to compare? I realllllllyyyyy want one, but how much is the LRF worth (at what cost of losing quality?) Cost wise, both are the same so...

The WMLRF would be fine, but I don't see them making one. Wish for the futre?

 

[ARShooter91]

Should be easy enough to make it possible to link to the PS since it has Bluetooth already. I'm going to put a Tango fire 4k on top of my PS. Once you get that set up it'd be nice if they could communicate and you'd have the number in the HUD to hold or dial to.

 

[taseal]

Should be easy enough to make it possible to link to the PS since it has Bluetooth already. I'm going to put a Tango fire 4k on top of my PS. Once you get that set up it'd be nice if they could communicate and you'd have the number in the HUD to hold or dial to.

Just sucks to pay all that money for a LRF since you don’t need the ballistic calculation. You just need the range. I don’t see Burris communicating with third party devices. Burris likes to keep things in house. I was looking at some cheap non ballistic wmlrf as an option. Optics planet has a cheap one called WULF arrowhead or something that was an option.

 

[Agracer]

Yeah I've noticed many states no longer allow these. I read one state (a post here, can't remember state) can't have a ballistic calculator on the rifle (so that includes any WMLRF). I get that it is trying to "fair" up the "game", but come on... These aid in an ethical kill. I'm sure there are reasons for it, that's beyond me.

Some folks may decide to take that long shot they have no business taking because suddenly they can’t miss with all that information in the scope.

I mean “I’m already behind the gun with my finger on the trigger “ is a lot easier than finding the animal in binoculars, then range it, then set up your rifles, get stable, etc. at some point in the second process, hopefully, most hunters will say “that’s to far” and try to get closer?

I don’t know, maybe not.

 

[DAVID A BUREAU]

Well should I buy a Evo 6 ? Xtr ps? Or wait for maybe a gen 2 that will have features of both?

 

[Kickin45]

@koshkin
How does this compare to the Revic of yesteryear?
I really wanted a PMR, but they were only MOA, which I realize doesn’t really matter in this instance. But when they brought out the Mil version, the reticle was so I was completely turned off.
Any idea how the glass and features compare between Burris & the old Revic?
Thanks

 

[koshkin]

Optically, it is pretty close to the first gen PMR. Maybe a little better away from center. Definitely a better mil reticle than the PMR. I tested the Revic, but do not have them side by side to compare. Gen2 Revic promises to be very good and a notable improvement, but it is not here yet, I think. In terms of features and the way it does things, Revic is competing with the Steienr IFS, rather than Burris XTR PS.

Revic has a build in ballistic solver. XTR PS does not. The app does the solving and then uploads a very large data table into the scope. Then, the scope pulls out the right number based on your DA and elevation turret setting.

I like the level and the timer. Burris app works quite well. I like the SCR2 mil reticle, but I think they should offer a simpler reticle option (without the tree) for this scope as well. It is really at its best for people who dial, so you do not need an extensive tree. It is still better than the mrad reticle in 1st Gen Revic. That one was a little odd. In the Gen2 Revic, the MOA reticles are very good. Let's hope they do something similar with mrad reticles.

ILya