Great Scopes for my price range...use various ones from 1000yds 6.5 Creed to my 22lr Ruger Precision Rimfire...crystal clear
Athlon?
- Thread starter Texanjohn
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
fattyboy70
New Member
I have 3 Athlon scopes (2 which are the Midas tac) and a pair of their binos. I've had to replace the binos twice due to horsing accidents and the customer service was top notch. I bought a leupold in the same price range as the athlon midas tac and I hate it. I've looked through the leupold vx5 and vx6 and they're amazing so I'm not against leupold or other brands but why spend triple when Athlon produces scopes that imo rival even the top tier products.
I have versions of both of those scopes. Not a ton of time on them but can comment on the main differences. I'd be happy to to discuss if you are interested. Shoot me a PM if you are.
Off hand Cronus (made in Japan) is shorter, "prettier" ie turret box is a nicer shape, is more refined, glass "might" be a fraction of a percent better, illumination is uneven an brighter across side/top to side/bottom. Eres ETR (made in China) is longer, slightly less well finished, illumination is more even. Functionality is very very close. Honestly other than the illumination and length I could easily be feeling better about the Cronus because of the made in Japan on the bottom.
I also have the Eres BTR gen 1, new Helos and quite a few others. Value for $ is very good on the Athlon.
I have had the Athlon side by side with comparable ATAR and Razor HD. I prefer the Cronus.
Last edited:
Well said. Myself I don't own one and don't have an opinion either way.
i had an argos 4-14x. had a ton of great features but i didnt care for the glass. the argos are the cheaper models though. i've heard good stuff about the higher end models.
it just seems like there's too many great choices for scopes in the $1,000 - $1,5000 range these days.
it just seems like there's too many great choices for scopes in the $1,000 - $1,5000 range these days.
Can't say. But maybe Scopes like Tract Toric and Delta Stryker have more options at better prices.
It Athlon Cronus BTR 4.5-29×56 had locking turrets I would have bought more.
I have 4 Athlon.scopes
Two Cronus BTR ,one Gen l and a Gen2
And two Midas TAC 34mm tube..
The have good glass but their most expensive scope does not have locking turrets.That cost them from me purchasing a 5th scope
Last edited:
Tex_Hunter
Well-Known Member
If your budget is constrained, then the more expensive offerings from some of these mid-tier companies (Athlon, Tract, Vortex etc) offer good value and reasonable reliability for what you are paying for them.
If all you do is bang on stationary targets on a flat range at more or less known distance under good conditions, they will serve you well and for the most part you wont notice much difference to a top tier optics.
I think the biggest thing I noticed when I stepped up to "Alpha" glass (first upgrade was a few years ago to a Vortex Razor AMG 6-24 and then most recently to a ZCO 5-27x56) was twofold:
First: resolving targets out past 400yds is less than perfect conditions (haze, overcast/low light, bad mirage etc) the difference is like literal night and day. I used an old Gen1 PST to kill several deer out past 300yds, but when distances got further than 500yds or so, the ability to determine anything beyond large bucks or does was difficult, especially the very important distinction between doe vs button buck or spike vs 4pt/small 6pt etc.
Second: poor image quality leads to overdependence on magnification as you try and compensate for lack of ability to clearly see the target. When I ran cheaper scopes, even good ones like my PST or VX5HD, I would find myself on maximum magnification pretty much at any distance past 200-300yds otherwise I just flat out couldn't clearly see the target. This shrinks your field of view (and a lot of cheap optics already dont have a great FOV to begin with) making it way harder to both quickly find a target and then to keep your sights on target through recoil to spot hits and misses, it magnifies your wobble zone when shooting unsupported, and it also compounds issues of visibility in low light/mirage/haze etc since you cant dial back as much to cut the mirage and still clearly see the target. When I first got my Razor AMG I was still leaning heavily on magnification as a crutch from when I had run cheaper scopes but had a complete lightbulb moment during a local PRS club match where I started backing magnification off as much as 10-12x on some closer stages. I realized I could still clearly see the targets, but I was able to get on target faster, spot more hits and follow up faster. I shot my personal best placing just inside the top ten at the match without even touching the top magnification on any stage except for one shooting prone off a bipod at 1100yds. With my ZCO, I have only run magnification above 15x once, shooting stationary at 1000yds, and that was just for the heck of it because I wanted to see what it looked like.
It's your money, spend it how you want to. A lot of the hate that mid tier optics get is absolutely snobbery, but there absolutely is a meaningful difference in nearly all conditions when you step up to the higher tier stuff. When I say meaningful I mean worth the nearly 2x (AMG, Nightforce etc) and 3-4X (ZCO/Tangent/Kahles etc) price vs some mid tier options, if you do a lot of the kind of shooting where those differences matter. (Long range hunting past 500yds, PRS/Tactical/Practical match shooting, etc)
If all you do is bang on stationary targets on a flat range at more or less known distance under good conditions, they will serve you well and for the most part you wont notice much difference to a top tier optics.
I think the biggest thing I noticed when I stepped up to "Alpha" glass (first upgrade was a few years ago to a Vortex Razor AMG 6-24 and then most recently to a ZCO 5-27x56) was twofold:
First: resolving targets out past 400yds is less than perfect conditions (haze, overcast/low light, bad mirage etc) the difference is like literal night and day. I used an old Gen1 PST to kill several deer out past 300yds, but when distances got further than 500yds or so, the ability to determine anything beyond large bucks or does was difficult, especially the very important distinction between doe vs button buck or spike vs 4pt/small 6pt etc.
Second: poor image quality leads to overdependence on magnification as you try and compensate for lack of ability to clearly see the target. When I ran cheaper scopes, even good ones like my PST or VX5HD, I would find myself on maximum magnification pretty much at any distance past 200-300yds otherwise I just flat out couldn't clearly see the target. This shrinks your field of view (and a lot of cheap optics already dont have a great FOV to begin with) making it way harder to both quickly find a target and then to keep your sights on target through recoil to spot hits and misses, it magnifies your wobble zone when shooting unsupported, and it also compounds issues of visibility in low light/mirage/haze etc since you cant dial back as much to cut the mirage and still clearly see the target. When I first got my Razor AMG I was still leaning heavily on magnification as a crutch from when I had run cheaper scopes but had a complete lightbulb moment during a local PRS club match where I started backing magnification off as much as 10-12x on some closer stages. I realized I could still clearly see the targets, but I was able to get on target faster, spot more hits and follow up faster. I shot my personal best placing just inside the top ten at the match without even touching the top magnification on any stage except for one shooting prone off a bipod at 1100yds. With my ZCO, I have only run magnification above 15x once, shooting stationary at 1000yds, and that was just for the heck of it because I wanted to see what it looked like.
It's your money, spend it how you want to. A lot of the hate that mid tier optics get is absolutely snobbery, but there absolutely is a meaningful difference in nearly all conditions when you step up to the higher tier stuff. When I say meaningful I mean worth the nearly 2x (AMG, Nightforce etc) and 3-4X (ZCO/Tangent/Kahles etc) price vs some mid tier options, if you do a lot of the kind of shooting where those differences matter. (Long range hunting past 500yds, PRS/Tactical/Practical match shooting, etc)
Starbuck
Well-Known Member
I don't own one. Used and looked through several. They seem to function as they should and are well received by those who own them.
As has been stated, I believe that all but their highest end line is Chi com, which I try to avoid when there's a choice. As for their Japan made offerings, I haven't found anything in their line up that I like better than other, more established brands.
One model from them that I'd really like to try but haven't due to COO is the Helos BTR Gen2 2-12. Like just about everything about this scope for all around big game hunting. Would be a great fit on an AR, too. Keep hoping that SWFA will offer a similar 2-12 HD.
I've seen and heard enough good of them that if they offered a set up that I liked that wasn't Chi-com, I'd not think twice about picking one up.
As has been stated, I believe that all but their highest end line is Chi com, which I try to avoid when there's a choice. As for their Japan made offerings, I haven't found anything in their line up that I like better than other, more established brands.
One model from them that I'd really like to try but haven't due to COO is the Helos BTR Gen2 2-12. Like just about everything about this scope for all around big game hunting. Would be a great fit on an AR, too. Keep hoping that SWFA will offer a similar 2-12 HD.
I've seen and heard enough good of them that if they offered a set up that I liked that wasn't Chi-com, I'd not think twice about picking one up.
beretzs
Well-Known Member
I have a 4-20 Helo's on a 223. I hate that it is made in China, but I really can't find anything to hate about the scope. It is tracking, glass is nice, adjustments are smooth, good illumination.
beretzs
Well-Known Member
I will try a 2-12 next. The 4-20 version has made me scratch my head.
Starbuck
Well-Known Member
Tex:
Good post. You are right on in your assessment of the interrelations of required X and image quality. For shots on big game, for myriad reasons, I prefer the lowest X possible; of course, the better the glass, the lower X you can be comfortable with.
If budget is at all a concern, I haven't come across better values than the SWFA offerings. Their HD series offers way better glass than the price range suggests, and they are known for top quality ruggedness. I can't help but feel that a lot of guys I see at the range with mid to lower tier, high X range scopes would be much better served by the SWFA 3-9, or even thier 6x. Use the money saved on ammo.
beretzs
Well-Known Member
If they'd illuminate their 3x9 I'd really like them even more.
