Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics better glass VXR 2-7 or Burris 1.5-6x42 IR

Any body have both or want to chime in w/ an opinion? Can't make up my mind. powdr

What is the price diff? Not apples to apples but since no one else chimed in I will keepo you company.

Discounting reticle choices that might factor in..... I can tell you I have a VX3 and more recently bought a Burris Fullfield E1 illuminated and compared them side by side well into the evening. I kept expecting the VX3 to start outclassing the Burris which was less than half the cost (Yeah I got a deal) - never happened. Wasn't sure to be ecstatic or disappointed. I actually love both scopes. My non-optics loon friend preferred the Burris from full light past legal hunting time. Every bit the image and brightness of the Leupold and the adjustemnts were identical on both - a tad mushy but perfectly workable. The VX3 is obviously lighter being non illumed but I have grown to think scope weight is an overblown issue in most cases.

I love my FourX 1.5-6.If weight is a factor,just know it's quite beefy for it's size.But the trade off in performance is worth it to me...

I had a 4X on my 22 Magnum for this hunt and have since moved it to one of my centerfire coyote rifles. I like the scope.

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/924/1gYQvc.jpg

I have both, to me the VXR is a lot clearer than the burris. I like both but VXR would be my choice.

Thanks guys, keep 'em coming. powdr

The FOUR X in 1.5-6 is a great scope. I think it is sharper than my VX3 2.5-8s. Don't have the 2-7 to compare.

Thanks Dennis. That's the kind of real world comparison I was looking for. powdr

VX-R....no question

Request for comparison of glass between two different types of scopes are kind of pointless, especially when no stated purpose is given.

Furthermore, the responses are meaningless and at the very least, highly subjective. I love it when people categorically state that one is better than the other, with no backup information.

Comparing optics is a process that the vast majority of people simply are not qualified to attempt, and before you ask, yes, that includes me also. But at least, I recognize that limitation and then I attempt to compensate for it by comparing things that can be compared and thus try to get some type of guidance as to what would be more suitable the stated purpose. (Yes, I still remember that the OP did not state a purpose for the optics.)

The OP started the thread by (mis)naming two different riflescopes, to wit a VXR 2-7 and a Burris 1.5-6X42 IR.

We are now supposed to do his work for him and figure out what exact scopes he's talking about and compare the specs.

The VXR 2-7 turns out to be a Leupold VX-R 2-7X33, you would have thought the OP could have used the proper name for it. So this is a scope with a 33mm objective lens, a 30mm tube, SFP, a 3X zoom ration and it weighs about 12 ounces and is 1 foot long. MSRP: $650.

The Burris 1.5-6X42 IR seems to be a Burris MTAC 1.5-6X42 with a 30mm tube, SFP, a 4X zoom ration and it weight 16 ounces and is also a foot long. MSRP: $430.

Neither scope seems to have side focus or AO, and they both have some form of illuminated reticle.

Now, I say they are different because one has a zoom ratio of 3X whereas the other one has a 4X zoom, but more importantly, one has a 33mm objective where the other one has a 42mm objective. That is one HUGE difference. The Burris has an objective that is 1,385sqmm compared to the small 855sqmm of the Leupold. At full magnification on both riflescopes, you will have an exit pupil of 7 for the Burris compared to 4 on the Leupold. At any magnification, if will always be easier to get behind the Burris compared to the Leupold. The Burris will be brighter than the Leupold in darker situations, if that is important for the OP.

On the other hand, the Leupold is 50% more expensive than the Burris, so one could be thinking that the glass of the Leupold has to be more expensive (ie, better) than the glass in the Burris. The problem is that at that level, people can't really tell the difference unless they know exactly what to look for and how to recognize it. This is when you break out the instruments and the optical charts and perform test repeatedly. Remembering the much bigger objective lens of the Burris compared to the one in the Leupold, the comparisons get very tricky.

Then we get into the difference between people's eyes and what they are accustomed to and that makes it even more confusing. And fun to argue about.

In the end, it's all about how YOU see through a scope and how YOU make use of the image that it transmits to you eye. Without being able to compare them side by side, at the same time and magnification and even on the same rifle, you are left to look at specifications and trying to match your needs (purposes) to the specs. Asking for "impressions," is useless.

He asked for opinions ,not meaningless rants.

I stand by my statements. When I sight a rifle in and have another handy, it is pretty easy to see which one will focus finer- better resolution at the target and which one seems brighter when you first glance through it. Is that scientific, no but that is the whole point.

I figured he was referring to the FOUR-X model, you seem to think it was the MTAC. Is that a different scope or the same one? I am looking at my scope box. mine is item# 200427 with a German3P reticle. I think it is a fine scope for the sub $1500 range.

The FOUR X is a European distribution model of the MTAC series

Between these two, Burris is a touch better.

ILya

Overall, the Burris FourX -- like ILya noted -- is slightly ahead in most comparable qualities. For my eyes and applications, I'd take the Burris FourX over the VX-R.

As to Doug's comment about the Four-X being the Euro distribution of the MTAC: they are indeed basically the same internally & externally with the exception of the illumination system. The MTAC is geared towards daylight usage. The FourX has a significantly dimmer illumination curve. None of Burris' USA-intended scopes go as dim as the FourX models.

Either will likely get you to 30min past sunset, in the worst light.

Sometimes things are highly subjective, but I’ve got a particular 3-9x40 VX-R that appears brighter/better at last light than our Conquest 3-9x40s it was tested against.....both my old corrected eyes and my son’s 18yr old 20/15 eyes.

Shouldn’t be.....according to many, but is to us. The motion activated illum on the VX-R is nice, but I use illum Burris stuff in bad light, too.....I don’t wish for one when using the other....and the Burris is a better deal, most times.

Have MTAC. Have had VX-R 2-7x. VX-R was better in low light and about the same in good light. Neither is as good as VX-3.