Looking for scope for 110 BA 300 Win Mag. Burris XTR II 8-40x50?

[NuttyP]

Looking for a scope to shoot long distance with 110 BA in 300 WM. Saw a video on the Burris XTR II 8-40x50. Have not seen one, and I can't find one to look at. I've wondered if that should tell me something? I've also looked at Vortex, Nightforce, Sightron, & Leupold. I read pros & cons everywhere. And I'd like to keep it under $1500. Any advise would be appreciated.

[LongRange]

If your spending 1500 bucks spend the extra and go night force...8-32x56 with the NP-R1 reticle.

[darkker]

---

Are you looking at that scope because of: Name, Features, Price, bad eyesight? There are tons of options and opinions, none is the "right" answer; just as with your load question. One fellow I shoot to 1,760 with has some eye troubles, he needs significantly better glass than I do. I shoot my PA 4-14 out there and can follow the traces and impacts with ease. He is beginning to struggle with his Weaver (#800363) which is optically superior.

So what are you really wanting?
I haven't specifically looked through that scope, but after they started shipping the initial reports were that it was typical Burris quality. So not worth it's price point, but a good piece of equipment.

[NuttyP]

---

Are you looking at that scope because of: Name, Features, Price, bad eyesight? There are tons of options and opinions, none is the "right" answer; just as with your load question. One fellow I shoot to 1,760 with has some eye troubles, he needs significantly better glass than I do. I shoot my PA 4-14 out there and can follow the traces and impacts with ease. He is beginning to struggle with his Weaver (#800363) which is optically superior.

So what are you really wanting?
I haven't specifically looked through that scope, but after they started shipping the initial reports were that it was typical Burris quality. So not worth it's price point, but a good piece of equipment.

Many things come to my mind in what I desire in a scope for this rifle. First I want to be completely honest and admit I truly have never shot long distance except taking long distance shots at game as a hunter and just using "Kentucky windage" and knowng the ballistics of the round I was shooting. I was always pretty good with that. I do not hunt now but mainly shoot targets and steel. The range I have access to goes out to 2000 yds. I liked the Burris because 1) Good success with other Burris optics 2) wanting something in MOA 3) 34 mm main tube (plenty of room to make adjustments once I learn that method) 4) I never have shot passed 600 yds and was thinking the 8-40 would help at extended distance 5) the scope is FFP (I have always shot with SFP scopes, but thought it would be something to learn also.) 6) and the scope has a grid reticle which I thought would help. As I have said, I'm just trying to learn. I usually try to look what works for great shooters and loads for similar rifles that others use and then brainstorm from there. That's the reason why I was asking opinions to have more of a broad area to narrow down from. It just seems I see names Nightforce, Sightron, Leupold, & Vortex come up a lot in my price range. If there are others I need to consider I'd love to look at anything. I do hear that I need to look at a scope with at least a 30mm tube for adjustments. So I look in that direction too. Any advice would help. Also do you know any good teaching materials (DVDs, books, etc.) that is good on long distance shooting? Oh and my eye sight is pretty good. Thank you.

[NuttyP]

If your spending 1500 bucks spend the extra and go night force...8-32x56 with the NP-R1 reticle.

Thank you sir. Went and looked at one today. Very, very nice. Any real advantage to this FFP stuff over SFP?

[barrel-nut]

Only if you range with your reticle. It's useful for real snipers, and those who shoot tactical-rifle matches at unknown distances. Personally, I prefer SFP because it fits better with the kind of shooting that I do. I like really fine reticles, and with SFP scopes, the reticle effectively gets finer at higher magnification, which helps with trying to shoot tiny groups. (it actually stays the same size, while the image is zoomed in and gets larger, therefore covering less of the target)
With FFP the reticle stays the same size in relation to the target, regardless of magnification, and therefore usually covers more of the target at high magnification than a comparable SFP reticle.

[NuttyP]

Only if you range with your reticle. It's useful for real snipers, and those who shoot tactical-rifle matches at unknown distances. Personally, I prefer SFP because it fits better with the kind of shooting that I do. I like really fine reticles, and with SFP scopes, the reticle effectively gets finer at higher magnification, which helps with trying to shoot tiny groups. (it actually stays the same size, while the image is zoomed in and gets larger, therefore covering less of the target)
With FFP the reticle stays the same size in relation to the target, regardless of magnification, and therefore usually covers more of the target at high magnification than a comparable SFP reticle.

Barrel-nut, great information! You just sold me on SFP and saved me some money too. I noticed the FFP is considerably more.

[barrel-nut]

I'd encourage you to maybe wait for more responses before making your decision, as I am certainly no expert on FFP shooting. I gave you what I know of it but I'm sure someone else will chime in with more and maybe better info.

[NuttyP]

I'd encourage you to maybe wait for more responses before making your decision, as I am certainly no expert on FFP shooting. I gave you what I know of it but I'm sure someone else will chime in with more and maybe better info.

I like what you said about the reticle staying fine on the SFP. I don't like the idea of the reticle thickness growing thicker on the FFP obscuring the target at long distance.

[darkker]

OK, now I have a path.

Let's start with the tube diameter problem. A larger tube gives more room for mechanical adjustment. Having more room, and having adjustment are NOT the same, read the specs carefully. Not all, but some $$$ Leupy & Night force have very very little adjustment.
My favorite long range scope right now is my Primary Arms 4-14x, that scope has 36 Mils of adjustment (verified, not tech sheet) for both windage and elevation. On my Creedmoor I got zeroed close to optical center, so I ran out of adjustment around subsonic, or 1400 yards. Read the scope specs and be prepared to buy a canted base.
For steel to 1200 you don't need any more than that 14x-ish for mag, paper, 14 is good to 1000.

I have nothing against MOA, assuming it's MATCHING reticle and turrets. I would offer that since you are wanting to start shooting distance, don't be afraid of mils(can get them more readily). Matching turrets/reticle means the distance one represents is suddenly irrelevant in absolute terms. So how far you missed by, is relative to the reticle marks, not an absolute like, an inch. I think you would do well to consider these.

SWFA 5-20x - high dollar, GOOD glass, better that several Nightforce.
Weaver tactical (#800363) 3-15x - $800 scope with $1200 scope glass. Lockable turrets.
Primary Arms 4-14x this one is a real paradox. It's a $230 scope, that frankly embarrassed the $750 SWFA 3-15x for glass quality. I did a post with pictures on this forum.

As for other tips, honestly start shooting, a LOT. Most people struggle along with a crappy trigger as long as it's light. Throw a creepy/crappy/inconsistent trigger in the ocean and get a real trigger. Then practice trigger control. And try and find a good spotter. Like a caddy, can give you correction help.

[Cat 64]

I bought the aforementioned scope to only return it the same day it came in. The following is a personal opinion as I am not speaking for all the shooters out there. Many of the features this scope offers are great. The knobs are very reliable and easy to maneuver, it is a robust build, very aesthetic, fairly clear glass. Cannot comment as to its repeatability and other functions dependent upon firing the weapon because I never got that far. I compared it side by side with my NF Competition (perhaps a handicapped comparison from the beginning) and realized the picture is of lower quality. If magnification is increased to x40 the reticle covers most of the objective and thus tracking your own shots is rather complicated. Past X30 the objective becomes visibly darker and less clear. All of these factors determined me to send in back. I saved a bit more money and bought another NF Competition. Again, these are personal reflections which I am sure others might or might not agree.

[Jamie]

Thank you sir. Went and looked at one today. Very, very nice. Any real advantage to this FFP stuff over SFP?

I used to not care, until I purchased a FFP scope with MOA reticle marks, in fact, I have the XTR II 8-40 you are wondering about. At 40x it is quite dim so my use at that power has been limited. I usually run it around 30x and it is clear and bright, 25x is very bright and clear, similar to my 8.5 - 25 Leupold.. It tracks perfectly though. Fired 1st round and adjusted up/down 5 MOA, fired 2nd round adjusted up/down 10 MOA, fired 3rd round and ended up with a .085" group in my 6x47 Lapua. I do love the reticle in it.

With that said I think the SIII 8-32 is a better buy