I can't decide between the Burris XTR 4-20x50 or the Leupold 6.5-20x50.  Which one should I get?

I will be using this mostly for a general hunting rifle, but I want to be able to stretch it out on the range as well.

Thanks!

Hunting?  I think you'll appreciate the lower magnification of the Burris.  The XTRs I've looked through have all been excellent.

Yes, I plan to hunt with this rifle a good bit.  But I also want long range capabilities.  I guess optically, which one is better or are they about the same?

Which Leupold are you looking at?

Any reason it has to be these two scopes?  Something with a 5x or 6x magnification range might work better.  Do you want a FFP reticle or is SFP ok?  How long is long range?

For perspective, at my first 600 yard match last week, there were guys there with 18x magnification scopes, all the way up to 45x magnification, and everything in between.

This is the one I'm looking at.  I think I prefer FFP.  Right now--for me--long range would be 500-600 yards.  But I like the idea that when my skills improve I will have the equipment to go longer.

http://www.cabelas.com/product/LEUPOLD-VX-I-LRP-RIFLESCOPES/2494690.uts?productVariantId=5119810&WT.tsrc=PPC&WT.mc_id=BingPLA&WT.z_mc_id1=04764959&rid=20&gclid=CNHpoYXi99YCFYKtZQoddJIKMQ&gclsrc=ds

And no, I'm not locked in to those two scopes.  In fact, I'm also considering saving some money and going with the Vortex Viper 6.5x20 PA.

http://www.cabelas.com/product/Vortex-reg-Viper-reg-mm-Riflescope/1394446.uts?productVariantId=3176742&WT.tsrc=PPC&WT.mc_id=BingPLA&WT.z_mc_id1=03463012&rid=20&gclid=CNGtsafl99YCFVmYxQIdl0sLDw&gclsrc=ds

I went Burris, the 4-20 XTR II with the Horus reticle.

I don't feel like I give up anything to scopes competing at the same price point, $1000-1100. I do have a Mark 4 MRT 2.5-8x32 and it has very clear glass, but the real test comes when comparing scopes at the same high magnification. Besides glass, you can compare a lot about the scopes on paper specs.

The Burris has great elevation range, more than the Leupold. It's a 34mm maintube so it's thicker, and it's pretty heavy, but it tracks very solidly. Leupold is 30mm, which mainly pertains to its range of elevation travel. Burris has a no questions asked warranty as well, and I think Leupold does too?

Leupold is a known, solid product, but the question comes down to whether you'll be getting a better value out of one or the other.

Of note, a few things you can shoot very well without are the Horus reticle I mentioned earlier, and also the ultra high magnification. For practical shooting, I don't personally magnify beyond about 12x, even shooting at 1000 yards because the scope is less sensitive for me to get sight picture on, as the exit pupil is bigger. Also, a lit reticle is a nice to have, but I haven't used mine yet. I think I will, but you may not.

YMMV, but I feel like I've learned these lessons by spending money and making mistakes.

I have a couple of Burris XTR II's, a Bushnell ERS and some of the Sig Tango 4's. When it comes to my hunting/ all around rifle ( Suppressed Rem 700 16.5" ) I went with the Sig Tango 4 3-12 and I do not regret it one bit.

If you are thinking of getting into long range, tracking and FFP should be of very high importance to you. Snipershide has a lot of adverse opinions about the lower level Vortex below the Razors, and I'm not sure how well that particular Leupold tracks. I thought you were referring to the Mark 4. I personally think the Burris will be a better option over the scopes you linked to in this post.

The Vortex PST Gen II seems to have good glass and is priced similar to some of the Burris's, but I read where the guts are the same as the Gen I's, which some people hate and others have no issue with.

500-600 yards isn't that far to shoot really, but if you intend to grow with it, get the scope that you can grow into longer distance with, which tracks the way you need it to.

Some choices I evaluated when I was in your position:

SWFA SS 3-15x

Burris 3-15x XTR II

Burris XTR II 4-20x

The SWFA is $700 and the XTR's are $750/$873. You don't have to spend a grand if you can live without a lit reticle or Christmas tree reticle.

I think you're crazy to go with that much magnification on the low end for a hunting scope.  Only hunting I've ever done is prairie dogs, but I've heard too many stories from guys who saw the buck of a lifetime and when they raised their rifle, their scope was dialed up to 7x or 9x and they couldn't find it and the buck ran off.  I have enough frustration finding a stationary target stand if I have to much magnification dialed in.

Be honest with yourself about what this scope is going to do.  For many shooters, that means maybe 90% paper at 100 yards, 8% hunting, and 2% long range.  If that's you, buy something that will excel for 98% of your shooting and don't get hung up on the 2%.  As your skills grow or your wants change and you want to regularly shoot 500+ yards, buy a scope and rifle that will do it well.  Otherwise you will be compromising somewhere along the line and end up with a scope that will let you down.

A poster above mentioned the Sig Tango series.  That's what I have, in 3-18x FFP flavor, and it works well.  Glass is good and it tracks consistently, at least over the 100 or so rounds I've put through it so far.  The Tango4 4 4-16x line is a bit closer to your budget at $900.

With the original scopes you mentioned, I'd go with the Burris because of the turrets and repeatability.  I don't trust the VX-3 in that regard.

burris

Burris XTR-II glass quality is like a cheap made in China optic. Mechanically fine. Owning two, I don't recommend them. PST Gen 2 all day before an XTR-II.

Agree, wasnt impressed...