SidecarFlip
Well-Known Member
an elaboration on your comment...
It is a very competitive market with quite a few players. Only time (and sales will tell).
It is a very competitive market with quite a few players. Only time (and sales will tell).
FINALLY!! Burris has listened!
- Thread starter dodgefreak8
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
dodgefreak8
Well-Known Member
Agreed. This thing might be a total turd, it's just nice to see another option available.
Browninglover1
Well-Known Member
According to their website the reticle is only .17 MOA thick. How small do you want it?
http://www.burrisoptics.com/g2bmildot.html
SidecarFlip
Well-Known Member
I would hope not. Candidly, I own a Japanese made Burris (with LOE Glass) and it's a long eye relief pistol scope mounted on a really heavy recoiling 44 magnum Smith and it performs flawlessly and has for years. Clear and without abberations and it was cheap too.
Not to hijack the thread but I'm very impressed with the Weaver Kaspa Series (stupid name). Every review I read says good things about them and they are Weaver cheap. They may not be perfect at shooting the box but the side parallelax is real cose to spot on and they are repeatable and I would imagine of Chinese orign and I would surmise that these Burris scopes are as well.
That also applies to the cheaper Vortex line (Chinese). Nothing in the Vortex line is made here anyway. The best you'll get is the Razor/Viper PST and it's assembled in the Phillipenes from components sourced from who knows where.
Speaking from what I can ascertain only, IMO, the only domestic assembled optics are the higher end Leupold and Strevens VX3's and above and the Trigicon. Trigicon is just north of me off Wixom road and Leupolds are assembled and have intrinsic machining done in Beaverton. Oregon, both expensive and probably over rated as well. I have no idea where Huskemaw is sourced from but I suspect it's offshore as well, components wise.
World Class manufacturing is interesting to say the least.
It actually suprises me today when I buy something and it says (on it) Made in America.
clamb4
Well-Known Member
Like dodgefreck8 I have had the Signature select scope 4 x 16 x 44, good glass, bad turret, even when adding their tactacal turret for $80.00. The Veracity sounds good to me. The 4 x 20 x 50 with FFP, zero stop, side focus parallax, 70 MOA of elevation adjustment, 1/4 MOA clicks, and weights 27.2 ounces. I like having the low end at 4 power. Just to many times 5 or 6 power is a problem close-in and still have 20 power and good turrets. Whats not to like? If it proves to be tough and reliable I'm in.
c_bass16
Well-Known Member
There are some pretty uninformed or uneducated comments here that are really confusing.
The 34mm tubes are what make more elevation possible, but the exterior of the tube isn't the end of the story, as I'll point out later. More elevation travel isn't required for most of you, so you can just move along, these optics aren't for you. I know for me personally, I normally wouldn't even consider an optic if I can't get 100 MOA minimum.
As soon as you rocket scientists can figure out how to make GLASS lighter weight, you'll be millionaires. Changing a scope's exterior materials isn't going to make more than a couple ounces difference, steel or aluminum to Ti or carbon fiber might only amount to a couple oz overall.
It's the glass that makes the weight.
The reason they went with a bigger tube, is so they could offer a more durable tube...with close to the same amount of elevation travel. This is just an example, but consider that they made the INTERNAL dimensions, the same as a 30mm optic would have, which would explain why the 5-25 model has 90 MOA of travel, (compared to the 5.5-22 NF) which has 100 MOA of travel. By doing this, they can beef up the tube's wall thickness 2mm for a total of 34mm diameter.
This gives them a stronger tube, with nearly the same mount of internal adjustment and is still LIGHTER than the NF ACTAR.
It's not out of line, not uncommon, and not gonna change. Glass isn't going to get any lighter. If you want a lighter scope, get fixed power.
Burris 5-25 XTR II is 32.1 oz
Nightforce 5-25 is 38 oz
Bushnell 4.5-30 XRS is 37 oz
Bushnell 6-24 ERS is 27 oz
Leupold 3.5-25 Mk 8 is 37 oz
Vortex Razor 5-20 is 35.2 oz
Premier 5-25 is 39 oz
S&B 5-25 is 38 oz
Hensoldt 6-24 is 30 oz
Bullet bumper
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,045
Where does it say 90 MOA adjustment ? I can only see 50 MOA in a 34 mm tube on their site . Maybe I am not looking in the right place . Ok disregard that I see it now .
bigngreen
Well-Known Member
I like the NP-R1 which is .062 I think.
Browninglover1
Well-Known Member
I was actually just looking at their site again and their Veracity scopes in the higher powers have reticle thickness of .11-.13. That's double the NF but thinner than a viper HS. I'm used to shooting a Sightron with a .25 MOA dot and I don't feel it ever obstructs my view but I don't have a gun that allows me to shoot ELR like you guys are
I'm really interested to see if their zero stop is a true stop like the NF or more like the Vortex system.
bigngreen
Well-Known Member
I get to play with the Nightforce but I shoot the Vortex HS LR and the Sightrons, the HS LR thickness kills me after a ways the Sightron interestingly enough does not, nor does the MOAR which is thicker but both are floating aim points which I think really helps and I don't find them nearly as hard to shoot as a solid thick aim point.
That's pretty out of line. People are just expressing a wish list, nothing more. If people didn't wish for something better and work to make it happen we'd still throwing rocks at mammoths.
You're also wrong about glass being responsible for the weight, that's part of it but by no means all or even most of it. If it were all due to glass then Swarovski couldn't make a 5-25 that weighs 17.5 oz. These tactical scopes obviously have heavier internals, erectors, etc. than a lightweight hunting scope like the Swarovski. Yea, I know they do more and are likely to be more durable, offer better elevation travel, etc., but the glass itself isn't that different between them so you can't make the argument that the glass is responsible for the weight or can't be designed into a lighter package. Not everybody wants a fixed power, nor does everyone want a heavy scope. When it comes time to buy a scope I look at everything on the market and make a decision as to what best fits my needs, that decision always involves compromises.
Your prediction that it's not gonna change is wrong. 110 years ago people made the prediction that man would never fly, 70 years ago they said we'd never break the sound barrier. Predicting that engineers can't get the same performance out of a scope while halving the weight is short sighted, they'll do it within 10 years I predict. Anybody can design an aircraft wing that'll withstand 9 g's, the art of engineering come in designing one that'll withstand 9 g's and still be light enough to fly. In 1910 a 500 lb. internal combustion engine would get you about 10 HP, today you can get 8000 HP out of a 500 lb. top fuel engine. It's called progress and it applies to scopes as well as anything else. The market is flooded with a bunch of nice scopes with the same feature set as these Burris's, someone is going to look for an edge and the first one that halves the weight while maintaining the performance is going to sell a lot of scopes to hunters that don't want a 32 oz. scope on a rifle they have to pack. The manufacturers of these scopes are fully aware that 95% of their scopes are sold to guys that will never pack them farther than from their truck to the bench at their local shooting range so they're not too concerned with weight right now. The first one that gets the weight under control while maintaining the features the long range hunter wants will sell a bunch of them and there'll be a bunch of used scopes being sold on ebay.
c_bass16
Well-Known Member
WOAH WOAH WOAH, simmer down now. No offense intended. Everyone likes to hope and wish and I'm just like everyone else, but I'm also a realist.
I just pointed out to a fellow, that he wasn't going to get 257 Weatherby Mag ballistic performance out of his AR15 platform. Did I really need to admit that it's not going to happen YET, at least not until some insane gun powder is invented that makes it possible? I'd hope not. I would assume that's understandable.
I understand that glass is not THE ONLY variable in the equation that equals weight...but it's the one that (for now) is a constant. Glass is heavy.
The "rocket scientist" jab may have sounded harsh, but it wasn't meant to be...it's going to take GLASS ENGINEERS to produce something different, NOT SCOPE MANUFACTURERS.
These Burris XTR II (and the others I listed) are tactical scopes. If you want a light weight hunting optic, shop in the light weight hunting optic section. LOTS of places offer a hunting optic that's NOT 30 oz.
If you want a light weight hunting rifle, you're not going to by a 16lb tactical rifle and complain about it being heavy.
If I want 40mpg I'm not going to buy a Humvee either.
Now, when the day comes that you can build a 5-25x56mm Tactical scope with the features it currently has, (and maybe some more) and have it come in at 15 oz....You guys looking for light weight hunting scopes STILL won't buy one cause the models designed for hunting optics will only weigh 7-8 oz.
I just pointed out to a fellow, that he wasn't going to get 257 Weatherby Mag ballistic performance out of his AR15 platform. Did I really need to admit that it's not going to happen YET, at least not until some insane gun powder is invented that makes it possible? I'd hope not. I would assume that's understandable.
This is a 1" tube, which means all the glass inside the tube is roughly 1/3 smaller in diameter than a lot of the optics I listed, which are all of comparable statistics...so that's not even CLOSE to an apples to apples comparison.
I understand that glass is not THE ONLY variable in the equation that equals weight...but it's the one that (for now) is a constant. Glass is heavy.
The "rocket scientist" jab may have sounded harsh, but it wasn't meant to be...it's going to take GLASS ENGINEERS to produce something different, NOT SCOPE MANUFACTURERS.
These Burris XTR II (and the others I listed) are tactical scopes. If you want a light weight hunting optic, shop in the light weight hunting optic section. LOTS of places offer a hunting optic that's NOT 30 oz.
If you want a light weight hunting rifle, you're not going to by a 16lb tactical rifle and complain about it being heavy.
If I want 40mpg I'm not going to buy a Humvee either.
Now, when the day comes that you can build a 5-25x56mm Tactical scope with the features it currently has, (and maybe some more) and have it come in at 15 oz....You guys looking for light weight hunting scopes STILL won't buy one cause the models designed for hunting optics will only weigh 7-8 oz.
Gus McCrae
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why you singled out my post, but if you think it's all glass and not tube construction, external, or internal materials, then maybe you should do some research.
Outlaw6.0
Well-Known Member
I hope these new Burris scopes are not off shore but I have a feeling you're spot on. Too bad, I guess they won't be added to the collection. Don't forget US Optics as a states based optics company
Huskemaw is definitely off shore production, Japan IIRC. I'd still like to get my mits on a Trijicon....Well said brother, nail-on-the-head about the durability comment (IMHO). Want it stronger? Then it's gotta be bigger.
I'm not sure I'd ever balk at 30oz optics... Then again, I don't mount optics on my slingshot either. If the scope performs the duty I expect it to, weight is of little to absolutely no consequence. Pretty much all of the top tier ring/base manufacturers make 34mm components, they are not hard to get if you know where to look. The above lineup paints a great perspective of the situation.
t
