The fineness of the reticle is the one thing to at has kept me from buying it. I love Athlon and almost pulled the trigger the first day. The specs on that reticle being so much finer than other scopes, has kept me away.
Upvote 0
- The AGN App is ready! Search "Airgun Nation" in your App store. To compliment this new tech we've assigned the "Threads" Feed & "Dark" Mode. To revert back click HERE.
Athlon's two new 15-60x56's
- Thread starter steve123
- Start date
True but at higher magnifications its more of a perception thing because the image of the target is so much larger than at 15x.
Most noticeable is the center dot and even more so when the illumination is on when needed.
Hashes can be seen most of the time in normal lighting but tend to fade out in the shade.
I remember back when I used the old B&L 6-24X42 SFP scopes with a duplex reticle for FT. We got used to where to hold out in the wind based on distance and condition rather than using a moa or mil value in the reticle like I or we do with FFP scopes.
Or like my old Leupold 40x45 fixed power scope with a small dot.
I won 6 state matches with these scopes in Open and I think Bobby won the National with a old B&L or Bushnell 8-32×42.
You would likely know more than I how well one can do with a SFP scope and basic reticle in Open, or WFTF??
It's the ranging at 60x that would be good for WFTF or Open with this scope. Maybe not any better than other scopes of this mag range but I wouldn't know.
Upvote 0
My friend Martin looked through my ETR on the sight in range and made a few, wows, oohs, and ahhs then said "I hate you Steve", Lol!
Upvote 0
The most popular FT scope now is the Sightron SIII 10-50X60 FT. Let's see if this new Athlon takes hold.
Upvote 0
I just got the new heras one and it's good glass and at 15 power focuses great comparable to my sightron but the reticle is almost too fine and with it not being illuminated it would be difficult to see in dark lanes and black face plates. Like it was intended for a great BR scope. I will sell mine and try to the Ares one.
Jon
Jon
Upvote 0
This weekend I got to compare my ETR to a friends S3. The IQ/Image Quality/ was so similar I couldn't make a concise judgement but if I ventured out I'd say the S3 was a hair brighter with pretty much equal IQ but the ETR had a hair more contrast in focus, like when I was super careful adjusting the focus the ETR would tighten up a tiny bit more.
Actually when I was shooting the FT match I relearned that the ETR will sharpen up a seemingly nice image which I thought was already focused as good as can be into even more detail with a little more care.
Edit, Eek, those that have had riflescopes that seemingly never fully focus up crisply know what I mean.
This S3 had way better IQ than the 1st gen Sightron 10-50 I had more than a decade ago which I sent back after a week of owning it and also taking the hit on the restocking fee.
But there's no denying the reticle hashes were easier to see at 16x in the S3 vs the ETR. I don't really care for the reticle design in the S3 but it gets the job done.....
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I took this to mean "initial quality", but like you, I am not sure about that.
When I write, I try to use initials only after I have stated their meaning previously. It is easy to assume that everyone knows what you mean, but you have to take into account newbies and oldies with bad memories... like me. (smile)
Upvote 0
You may be correct, but it just illustrated my point. Using initials without first defining them leaves a LOT of room for confusion if you don't define them first. Assuming everyone knows what you mean without initial definition is folly.
Thanks for the input, but I will await the answer from the OP of "IQ" just to be sure and hope the OP learns to not use initials again without clarifying them by defining them before using any initials even though "we" are apparently supposed to know what they mean. (smile)
And just for giggles, IQ is generally taken to mean "intelligence quotient", so in this case a defining what is meant is necessary before using the initials.
Upvote 0
It is “image quality”. It is a very common term for scope reviews from knowledgeable reviewers. The OP is a big help around here when it comes to scopes and has a lot of replies. I’m not going to give him grief for not spelling it out every time he posts. His posts are much more informative than the posts that say the glass is good.
Upvote 0
I just trying to learn if "IQ" was some scope feature terminology. It all makes sense now. Thank you for clarifying.
Upvote 0
Have been shooting Hunter FT for some time and now WFTF. I am very meticulous about scopes, including IQ, quality of materials, repeatability, stability, and predictability.
So far the best scopes that I have personally used for HFT and WFTF are:
Athlon Helos BRT GEN2 6-24x56 - illuminated
Good glass for its price point. No CA noticeable at high or low magnifications. I use it on my squirrel gun RTI Prophet Perf. Do not even use a wheel to range. the tick marks on the scope are good enough to range for squirrel heads. Even from 10 yards to 20. The ballistic chart tells me where I need to be. It is a precision instrument. - Focus down to 10 yards
Delta Stryker 5-50x56 Athlon - illuminated
Impeccable scope with 1/5 Mill clicks. Clear bright Glass up to 45 X then it darkens up a little, but still usable to 50X. I made a coma wheel for it and from 50 to 55 yards I get for every yard 1/8" separation on the wheel. I can range for every yard from 50 to 55. There is some temperature shift from 40 F to 60 F and up to 72 F. Past that it is the same up to 105 F that I have tested it. So if you know how to compensate for temperature you can measure in 1 yard resolution even past 50 yards. I use this scope on my current WFTF rig. - Focus down to 10 yards
Bushnell Match Pro 6-24x50 - illuminated
I am blown away with the clarity of this scope for $399. I bought one for my daughter for her FT rig and I was surprised on its clarity, lack of flare up (unlike some other scope... let's say Riton 3 series & Element Helix....) I like this scope so much that I bought another one for my center fire. - Focus down to 10 yards
So far the best scopes that I have personally used for HFT and WFTF are:
Athlon Helos BRT GEN2 6-24x56 - illuminated
Good glass for its price point. No CA noticeable at high or low magnifications. I use it on my squirrel gun RTI Prophet Perf. Do not even use a wheel to range. the tick marks on the scope are good enough to range for squirrel heads. Even from 10 yards to 20. The ballistic chart tells me where I need to be. It is a precision instrument. - Focus down to 10 yards
Delta Stryker 5-50x56 Athlon - illuminated
Impeccable scope with 1/5 Mill clicks. Clear bright Glass up to 45 X then it darkens up a little, but still usable to 50X. I made a coma wheel for it and from 50 to 55 yards I get for every yard 1/8" separation on the wheel. I can range for every yard from 50 to 55. There is some temperature shift from 40 F to 60 F and up to 72 F. Past that it is the same up to 105 F that I have tested it. So if you know how to compensate for temperature you can measure in 1 yard resolution even past 50 yards. I use this scope on my current WFTF rig. - Focus down to 10 yards
Bushnell Match Pro 6-24x50 - illuminated
I am blown away with the clarity of this scope for $399. I bought one for my daughter for her FT rig and I was surprised on its clarity, lack of flare up (unlike some other scope... let's say Riton 3 series & Element Helix....) I like this scope so much that I bought another one for my center fire. - Focus down to 10 yards
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Gezzerwood, did you get the scopes? Both are SFP, how much target does the reticle cover at Max power? How did the glass compare? Would you consider these both BR scopes? Is the Ares twice as good?
Upvote 0
Just checked out the Hera.
The reticle is definitely too fine for Field Target. You might be able to get away with it around 60X. But at 50-40X you are straining at times to focus.
I didn't test it out on a dark target face or a dark lane...but I suspect at 60-30X that reticle is just going to melt into the background. (too bad they are charging almost $500 more for an illuminated reticle, and jus the center dot lit up only...be nice if the entire reticle was lit up).
Others have also commented on the image quality/chromatic aberrations..etc. Yup..at 40-60X you get a nice ring of blue haze around the rim. For FT shooting, I think it's no big deal because 85% of the field of view is nice and clear and I could still see the edges of the kill zones. But that haze may bother some people.
Ranging and clicks seems repeatable on a springer.
At around $600-700...it is a good entry scope for FT.
For me, I guess the search goes on. Not ready to spend $1500 on a new to market product like Ares yet. Bottom fishing for now.
The reticle is definitely too fine for Field Target. You might be able to get away with it around 60X. But at 50-40X you are straining at times to focus.
I didn't test it out on a dark target face or a dark lane...but I suspect at 60-30X that reticle is just going to melt into the background. (too bad they are charging almost $500 more for an illuminated reticle, and jus the center dot lit up only...be nice if the entire reticle was lit up).
Others have also commented on the image quality/chromatic aberrations..etc. Yup..at 40-60X you get a nice ring of blue haze around the rim. For FT shooting, I think it's no big deal because 85% of the field of view is nice and clear and I could still see the edges of the kill zones. But that haze may bother some people.
Ranging and clicks seems repeatable on a springer.
At around $600-700...it is a good entry scope for FT.
For me, I guess the search goes on. Not ready to spend $1500 on a new to market product like Ares yet. Bottom fishing for now.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
