[Martens]

I am looking to get a scope for my XCR and figured I would solicit input from others. I will be buying a Burris Fullfield with the plex reticle. I am stuck on this for two reasons. First I have one on my precision rig and it has performed very well for me. Second, I am getting pretty good with the plex reticle and figure I am best served by keeping with what I know.

In fact, I have gotten pretty darn good with the reticle that I don't really see the need for target knobs for the XCR. Within the expected distances and capabilities of the .223 I really can't justify the extra cost. If I need that level of precision I'll go with the .308.

The scope will be a secondary optic for the XCR. I'll use it for mission specific situations such as woodland search, observer details, perimeter duty, etc. For these missions, I'll have time to switch optics. I also want to use to really test the abilities of the XCR--more or less a range toy. I have thought about getting a 18.5 heavy barrel in .223 at some point or a 6.5/6.8 and figure a scope will be better for these setups over a red dot w/wo a magnifier.

I am bouncing back and forth between 2-7 x 35 and 3-9 x 40. The price, length, and weight of the two are very similar and not really an issue. The 2-7 seems perfect for the XCR but if I ever swap calibers or going to a longer barrel, I may want to reach out farther and the 9X top end seems better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. On the low end, I don't know that there will be much difference between 2 or 3X.

The second feature I am trying to decide between is illuminated reticle or not. Knowing how many missions or time spent working is after dark, it seems like I should spend the extra money, but it is almost double the price versus non illuminated and only available in the 3-9 or larger models. In training scenarios, there were times the illumination would have been nice. If the scope is on and I have to go in, the illumination will be nice as well and make quick acquisition much easier.

Let me know what you have to say. I hope to make a pruchase by the end of the week as I am teaching a patrol rifle class in 2 weeks and would like to be able to have it by then. I don't get much chance to shoot during class, but when I do it would be nice to see how it does with a scope. I've been using a red dot for as long as I've had the gun and know how that setup peforms.

 

[Guest]

go as low a power as you can. the XCR doesnt really need more than 7X anyway. the logic behind this choice is that if you have a lower mag then you can aquire targets up close much faster. Ideally it would be a 1X mag with a lit reticle.

the 2-7x short mag is an awesome scope as it also allows more eye relief and thus faster sight aquisition.

 

[aziator]

I have the fullfield 2 tactical in 2-7 on mine and love it. I really don't think you can beat this glass for the price.

 

[gunner69]

Agree with Aziator & Jack, go with the 2-7 (illum if possible) it is the better of choices. Leave it on two.... crank if the situation calls for it. :2cents:

 

[magikbullet]

I would initially say the 2-7 is the best match for the xcr, but in your line of work illumination is pretty important which would shift the recommendation to the 3-9.

Have you looked at the ior 1-4, leupy 1.5-5, or nightforce nxs 1-4 or 2.5-10's? They all have illumination and multiple reticle choices, and are great optics.

 

[Martens]

If I wasn't so invested in the Burris Plex reticle, I would look at other scopes, but I have too much time in with this reticle to learn another. Second, I just checked my drop charts for the .308 and the .223 and out to 200 yards they are for all practical purposes the same. I can use the same hold overs for either gun when running a scope. I can't really pass up this level consistency as I really only need to learn "one" dope chart. As it stands now I have my drop chart for my .308 memorized and it applies for my XCR if I scope it.

I really wish the 2-7 was available in an illuminated reticle.

 

[Martens]

I went with the 3 - 9 as I felt illumination was a necessity. The scope came today and I got it mounted and hope to head to the range after work. I am hoping for some respectable groups.

 

[Martens]

It was a mixed day at the range. I mounted the scope using Burris 3/4 high rings and this was perfect for the gun. The eye relief was pretty generous and put the scope farther forward than I had hoped for.

The scope and rings were dead on for windage out of the box and 2 inches low. I figured I was going to have a great day. I never got the consistent results I was hoping to achieve. I am using a Fobus bipod mount and it has gotten pretty loose. There was a lot of play in the bipod which lead to quite a bit of canting. The bipod and mount were a little too tall as well.

I had always liked the trigger up until today. At 9X it was definitely a limiting factor. The match trigger is definitely a must have when it is released.

When I really focused, the gun would really shoot. I put four into 3/4 inch at 100 yards once with the fifth really opening things up.

I ran through our basic qual course and did not do well at all with the scope setup. Other than at 100 yards, I ran at 3X and figured the results would have mimiced running the course with my red dot with magnifier. They did not. With the scope, I was slow and if I sped up, the target looked like I shot a shotgun.

I was a little miffed as both set ups used the same cheek weld and scope height. The red dot with magnifer just "pops" into view for me and the scope reticle was hard to acquire.

The good news is that the burris ring/red dot set up returned to zero every time I switched back and forth so this was great news. I had no trouble getting very good groups with the dot and magnifier at 50 yards.

When I got home, I had to figure out why the scope was not lively as the scope and rings weighed the same as the dot/magnifier and rings. When I looked at things I found that even though the weight was the same, the placement of the weight was not. The scope was farther forward by a fair margin and made the gun muzzle heavy and I was not used to it. I'll probably revisit the scope again on another day as it doesn't hurt anything to swap optics. But for now, the dot with and without magnifier has proven pretty tough to beat.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the report!!
yeah, 2x is about the max you can use effectively at close range. the 3x is fine for 200 to 500 but is limiting for CQB and under 100.

the question you have to ask your self is "is this a carbine or a sniper rifle?" Carbines get 1-4 scopes and snipers get 3-22x scopes. I wouldnt get to hung up on the lit reticle that you ignore the underlying purpose for the rifle. there is another option tho. you could add a burris fastfire on a scope ring for up close stuff or call it a wash money wise, return the scope and get the leupold 1.5-5 illuminated or the 2-7 burris non ill. Burris has a combat scope too, but I couldnt vouch for it personally, but it looks like exactly what you need.
http://www.burrisoptics.com/xtrtactical1.html

let me know price if you look into it more, I got something it could go on.

 

[magikbullet]

I didn't realize burris had a 1-4. It's at an attractive price point, maybe I'll have to look into it...

 

[Martens]

First and foremost it is a patrol rifle/entry carbine. I figured that as good as the 3X magnifier is for me, even up close, I figured 3X on the scope would have been better than it was. I thought about checking SWFA's return policy, but it really isn't their fault. The scope is very nice but just not what I was hoping to get out of the setup. I'll probably try to sell it or trade it at some point.

I don't think the 2 - 7 will work really any better as it weighs only 1 ounce less and its length is about a wash. It will still make the gun awkward for me.

I've played with the Millet 1 - 4 and it is pretty nice, but I didn't like it as well as a red dot with magnifier. One of the guys at work is running it on his XCR and he is quite pleased with it.

 

[Guest]

I gotta say brother, The one thing I've learned in this shitty world is that you dont scrimp when it comes to glass. the $200 you'll save aint worth it in the long or even short run. the one exception to this optics rule for me has been Burris. I am consistently impressed with them and trust them. Longevity and durability are not things to overlook in a scope, burris has it in spades and millet just doesnt. If you buy a cheap scope you get a cheap scope. if you plan on using your rifle for anything that is not playing on the range then you owe it to yourself to put decent glass on the thing. People keep using reputable brands for a reason..... BECAUSE THEY ARE REPUTABLE. I might have a 3 scopes laying around that I cant use on anything because they are garbage and I cant get my money back. I ended up spending for the good glass anyway and it cost me more.

heres the bottom line: Don't ever comprimise when it comes to your weapon and glass. get exactly what you need regardless of cost. these expenses are "one time" costs and dont matter in the long run. The quality you paid for however lasts forever.

 

[Martens]

I'm with you. I love my Burris scopes, especially for the price. During night fires, the Burris scopes we have outperformed the Leupolds that we have by a fair margin.

I don't want to bash Millett but my experiences with them have not been the greatest. For PD optics, we test them for several months before we buy. I am actually amazed that some companies don't do T and E samples. With limited budget dollars, we have to try before we buy to make sure the products meet our needs.

I knew the Burris would be a good scope but it just didn't work well for my application. I knew up front it was going to be a range optic first and foremost or a very limited application optic for work. I more or less wanted to try a magnified optic on a patrol rifle. As the lead instructor for work I like to try things out before the guys want to try them. If nothing else, it gives me an excuse for range time and I always learn something--sometimes good and sometimes not.