KR never ever look through a 5-20HD. The 3-15 is a great scope mechanically..... well, just never look through an HD.

You’re actually dead on correct if you want to actually spend time shooting down range. The only questions in the SWFA line of scopes seems to be magnification requirements and glass quality. They are heavy, they are not fashionable, they lack a zero stop, did I mention heavy?

THEY WIN MATCHES.

People who use them as a utility and not a conversation piece know their value.

Privately he has thanked me for the sharing of information. Publicly this is what is said. Whatever, it does nothing one way or another for my ego.






XTR II does have zero stop. I had one on loan from them, for only a year, and it was a 3-15X mounted on my LR-308. It absorbed the day to day I put them through. It too got handled, and dinged up. It never lost zero, it tracked great, and the glass is very good. Is it even with SS HD glass? It is so close, I would need them side by side on the same day, in the same lighting to give an honest assessment. When we are talking about "smart money" with these types of scopes, Burris XTR II is at the top of the list. I have seen them at one of the most difficult PRS matches in the country, plenty have been to my range for lessons, as well as the matches I host, and I always ask this "how is that Burris doing for you?" I do not recall a single negative report.

I have been wanting an original NF NXS F-1 3-15X for several years. They're just cool, with a great magnification range. But I too am cost conscious, therefore I will be buying an XTR II 3-15X as I can get it for 1/3 of the NF 3-15X

Big difference in clarity between the 3-15X and the 5-20X HD. That HD is legit! Skylar knows, and has told the engineers to produce the 3-15X with HD glass, but it still has not happened. The 5-20X has a 10 Mil elevation turret, the 3-15 has a 5 Mil elevation turret.

Bigfitz had an SS 3-15X out to my place. I did get to look through my 5-20 and his 3-15 side by side, at 500-800 yards. I was considering getting an SS 3-15 before looking through Tim's. It took about one minute, of side by side comparison to decide against the 3-15. I am spoiled to clarity, and the 3-15 just doesn't have it like others do.

That is good info to have. I know we have had our differences in the past and im sure they will come up again at some point, but I do respect your opinion and thank you.

I think I have wittled my list down to the burris, the 5-20 swfa, or spending a bunch. Wife told me to buy what I want lol but just I myself am not sure if I think it is worth it to me to drop the money on the ATACR. I saw a demo a few days ago for $2500, if I can find a deal like that it might influence my choice when I am ready to buy.

If it was to the price of the SS vs the ATACR I would take the SS hookers and cocaine for the difference. Of course for a few dollars more I might take the Kahles 5-25, a nice girl, and some Red Bull.

But remember. With matching bases on all of your rifles (and future ones) and a certain type of rings, you can step into the ability to move a scope around to multiple rifles. That is partially how I justified the cost of the ATACR. I have zeroing notes for it for 3 rifles. One scope price, divided by 3. Pretty close to the same price as three middle of the road scopes.

But that is not to say an SS or a Burris will not do the same, because they will. I have moved those scopes around as well. The key to them is the bases/rings, and that they track exactly how they should, all the time.

Just something to consider if you're thinking you really do what to invest in an ATACR. I doubt you would have the desire to upgrade in at least a decade of use. I get to use my ATACR every week, and I love using it every single time.

Excellent point, almost everything I have has an EGW base so one size fits all. The only exception is Talley LWs. That’s a dedicated rig. For that matter my test scope is set up for the original picatinny. I just put it on a lever, it’s easy easy.

The stoking ego comment was a joke at using Fireman as a credible source, in this case scope information, without complimenting him directly. Not sure why, but just feels a little dirty saying nice things about him.

Should have been clear that based on my experience so far the high end NF is out because of price (unfair and unproductive in comparing to others). Which among the rest I'd narrow down because I've experienced some success with both SWFA SS and the xtr ii line. Of these 2...
IF it came down to WITHOUT the gift cards, then SWFA 5-20. (once again because my 3-15 had worked great AND Fireman's review of his 5-20).
IF you want to spend the gift cards on a scope, then the xtr ii would be my choice.
Maybe it's just because i'm an old school guy but the heft of the SWFA makes me trust its robustness vs the xtr as the final deal breaker for me. Also, my first scope was a fullfield ii and I absolutely hated it and ended up breaking the reticle. It was on a 300wm.

In that magnification range, I would rat hole those points a while longer for something else and go with something like this or the LRHSi's JGRaider mentioned on 24HCF.

XTR II

I'll be honest - I have taken a look through probably 80%-90% of the well-known scopes in the $1k-$3k price range.

Personally, unless you really shoot a ton, I don't see a major need to go past the $1800 price point. The Vortex Razor Gen 2 has gotten so cheap that its value proposition just outshines a lot of other options.

If I was going to get any scope under the sun, it would be a Tangent Theta now that the Gen3XR is out. Before the Gen3XR, I would have just got an ATACR 5-25 or 7-35.
Any scope under $3k - NF ATACR 5-25
Any scope under $2k - Razor Gen 2 or Delta Stryker
Any scope under $1500 - Athlon Cronus or SWFA HD
Any scope under $1000 - you have to start making so many compromises here that it becomes much more personal about what's important to you, but the XTR II is probably the best overall package, with the LRHS being a tie-ish...

One comment on the XTR II - there seems to be a good bit of sample variation on glass quality. The ones I've looked through couldn't hold a candle to my SWFA HD 5-20 that I used to run from an optical clarity standpoint, but there are many, many users on snipers hide who have used both who agree with Jason's comment above that they're pretty close. So just know if you go that route that it can be luck of the draw. But they are feature-rich, well-built, and have a good reticle, so it might be worth a shot.

I've got an XTR-II and I drew the short straw on the glass quality. Mine loses sharpness at full power, especially around the edges. No comparison to my SHV, NXS, ATACR or Gen II Razor. Love everything else about the scope.

Which one do you have? What is full power?

Brad has told me the 25X is the common one that he has learned of complaints at full power, and that the 20X does not have those complaints. The 15X I had looked great at 15X. It is looking like Burris didn't quite get the polish good enough to use 25X. I remember the Gen I Viper PST was the same. At 24X clarity degraded, so I would turn it down to 22X or 20X.

My gripe about the Burris XTR II, other than I bought it from KRoyal, is that the eye box is extremely sensitive at 20x and above. And I also feel like my Vortex PST had better glass. There are other things I like about the XTR. Given the chance I will switch back to a 2nd gen PST.

I own both the 15 and the 20 XTR II. They both have really good clarity at highest power. I considered the 25 power but had heard it was not the same as the 20. I really haven't missed the extra power but I'm not trying to shoot past 800 yards.

The XTR is beloved over on snipers hide. The 25x models I've looked at definitely lost clarity at high mag - but they were fine at 18x-20x. The 4-20 and 3-15 models did not have this issue, although I still believe all of the ones I've seen were a step behind the SWFA HD in optical quality.

I think the PST2 is between the 2. My 5-25 PST2 was good optically all the way to 25x, but the eyebox got pretty tight past 22x or so.

I loved my SWFA HD, but it's a bit harsh to complain about optical problems on the XTRII and PST2 that only exist above 20x when the SWFA HD doesn't even go that high at all. So I'm mostly nit-picking on these. I just wanted to mention the widely varying opinions on the XTRII, and my belief that it may be sample variation more than anything, although I think the 4-20 XTRII and 3-15 PST2 are the sweet spots of each of those lineups.

Also, the XTRII was used by many of the shooters in the "King of 2 mile" match last year. It's not like the optical clarity is really holding folks back. It's just a difference worth noting within the price range.

Vortex is going to have to make a stride in the trustworthiness of their internals before I will ever own one of their rifle scopes again. They just aren't very tough.

I will say looking through the vortex gen II it compared favorably to everything I have compared it to including the Nightforce SHV, It was brighter, sharp, and the turrets on the vortex had a more definite click/notch than the nightforce SHV.

I do not beat on it, but my current scope is a viper 4-16 gen I. Ive never had a problem with it loosing zero and it tracks and returns to zero fine. Low light isn't great, my 25 year old leupold vxII beats it at low light and I wont hardly use it above 12x as it begins to loose a lot of clarity after that.

I did notice that on the vortex again I had to line up absolutely perfectly to get a good sight picture and almost any movement at all and it went to pot. The nightforce was much better in that regard and it was pretty noticeable.

To me, eyebox is really important and it was one of the reasons I didn't keep my PST Gen 2.

And Jason is right that anything below the Razor lineup is a step down in build quality/reliability from all the other scopes being discussed.

In my defense of swfa love has mostly to do with familiarity and my personal history with its ruggedness. I'll claim I don't know that much about the other scopes but I have accidentally abused my 3-15. From what I understood, my model has some key features that are not as high end as the hd model. And yet, it's held up well and I do not notice any shifts or issues. So if my lower model is doing so well, the hd version must live up to the reputation for ruggedness that I think most people (primarily FJG for me).

At best, seems like the jury is still deliberating for the harshest of skeptics for the xtr, if nothing else by virtue of xtr release date vs swfa hd's.
As for Vortex, I've heard alot of personal and online about pst failures. Ever wonder why so many people have so many stories about Vortex custom service? Because there are alot of stories of people legitimately having to use the warranty.

I am surprised that companies still bring scopes to market that are not up to par. If your 4-20 is great why have a 5-25 with poor clarity on the high end. For people who actually use their scopes this puts a bad taste in their mouth for the brand. I guess there’s enough hunters, which is the vast majority of the market, who want the best/biggest whiz bang said company makes with no regard to losing clarity as well as probably never noticing.

There still is not a high percentage of the population that gets to look through these, beyond 500 yards, in various lighting conditions, throughout the year. On the clearest days, is where the good, and bad will show as far as clarity. The mirage does tell the tale.

Exactly.

The Gen I PST I had was sent in. It was sold to a THF member that also sent it in for another reason. Then sold to a third THF member that sent it in again.

My Gen I Razor spotter has been sent in to remove dust from inside the optic. So, I am 2 for 2 with Vortex optics. Not a big glaring example, except in the same years, I've had an SS 5-20X with more use (some abuse) and a NF ATACR that have not been sent in. They soak up life like a reliable pair of leather boots.

Still not seriously considering another vortex, but was it the same scope back every time or was it replaced?

Same serial number scope.