I decided to put my notes together on these two scopes. Please know that I know this is not a professional review! It is me having fun and trying to work my way through the myriad of qualities and features that the plethora of scopes on the market today offer. The 'review,' if it can generously be called that, is not professional and uneven in treatment.
Here are some preliminary comments. I have had the Ares ETR 3-18x50 for about one year. It has never been mounted. I have the ATACR 4-20 with the MOAR reticle for about two weeks. I probably will not keep the scope, but really do like it. The fit and finish on the ATACR is superb, at least next to what I presently have. Some of you know that I have been after the ultimate in IQ, a big reason I keep trying new mid- to high-end scopes as able.
So, I put the ATACR next to my Ares ETR 3-18 multiple times to try to 'see' the differences. (Yes, I know that the ATACR is three times the money. But the Ares is surprisingly good for the price, and it is among the best I currently have, so that is that.) Viewing repeatedly from 30 out to 100 yards, I eventually started to see some things. Also, both scopes were held in hand on the backrest of a nice leather couch (!), and I was peering through a specially cleaned double-pane picture window. I know, that's not the way to go, but both scopes had to deal with whatever, so I guess it was fair, if not professional--and I am not a professional!
(1) The Ares is as easy or easier to get behind than the ATACR, but the ATACR is not bad.
(2) The ATACR has a thick outer periphery while the Ares has a (pleasingly) thin one. This, I think, relates to point number one.
(3) Next to the ATACR, the Ares has slightly yellowish glass. In my overly simple approach, I was only initially thinking about resolution, so I did not notice this the first several days. I also asked two people who do not know anything about scopes to tell me which glass appeared yellowish. Both said the Ares, which confirmed what I thought my eyes saw. I would never have know the Ares glass had a slight yellow tinge to it unless the ATACR was right there to compare it to. The yellowing has a mildly muting or dulling effect on the entire image, but again, and to me, this was only apparent when I went back and forth with the ATACR; otherwise, the image looked crisp and bright.
(4) The color on the ATACR seems a bit better. It is hard to tell right now because nearly everything around me in NH is grey and somewhat colorless. A robin showed up and the orange on its chest seemed to come in deeper/truer with the ATACR. But I need more colors and a different season to really be convinced of this point, and I know some scopes choose to render color differently.
(5) Most of my comparing was done on a grey clapboard house with white trim and a black roof, and at about 100 yards. The ATACR typically showed less fringing or CA; additionally, the ATACR seemed to better resolve the line/transition between white trim and black roof and the white trim against the grey boards. Sometimes the ATACR had no CA at all, and other times it was minimal, but visible. The Ares was not bad here, but did not consistently (time of day, different magnification, etc.) stack up to the ATACR.
(6) To my eye, with and without mild prescription glasses, I could not say for sure that the ATACR out-resolved the Ares at any distance from 30 to 500 yards. When colors met, as in the house, things were different.
(7) Today I took both scopes for a ride to an open area of town that had a nice lane of about four or five hundred yards to look down. This was great because I was previously limited to 100 yards with all my viewings of all my scopes. I was not so comfortably situated, being in my car, though, but I did get to look through a clean windshield and through an open window fairly well. Both scopes were really good, and again, I was not comfortable enough to make honest calls. Cars were whizzing by, I was twisting and trying to get a stable position, and so on. The Ares performed admirably enough to make the comparison difficult. I did all magnifications from 3 and 4 to 18 and 20, respectively, but positioning the scopes in the car made the higher magnifications difficult to manage. I did accomplish lots of looking from about 6 to 12 magnification. Most people would be pleased with either scope at these magnifications at these distances, I think. Having never looked through any scope at these distances, I was very surprised at how well even lower magnifications worked. Now I know why shooters say their 1-6, 1-8, or 1-10 LPVOs get them to 800 and 1000 yards without trouble. I get it.
Some concluding remarks.
Thanks for reading this tome. S7
Here are some preliminary comments. I have had the Ares ETR 3-18x50 for about one year. It has never been mounted. I have the ATACR 4-20 with the MOAR reticle for about two weeks. I probably will not keep the scope, but really do like it. The fit and finish on the ATACR is superb, at least next to what I presently have. Some of you know that I have been after the ultimate in IQ, a big reason I keep trying new mid- to high-end scopes as able.
So, I put the ATACR next to my Ares ETR 3-18 multiple times to try to 'see' the differences. (Yes, I know that the ATACR is three times the money. But the Ares is surprisingly good for the price, and it is among the best I currently have, so that is that.) Viewing repeatedly from 30 out to 100 yards, I eventually started to see some things. Also, both scopes were held in hand on the backrest of a nice leather couch (!), and I was peering through a specially cleaned double-pane picture window. I know, that's not the way to go, but both scopes had to deal with whatever, so I guess it was fair, if not professional--and I am not a professional!
(1) The Ares is as easy or easier to get behind than the ATACR, but the ATACR is not bad.
(2) The ATACR has a thick outer periphery while the Ares has a (pleasingly) thin one. This, I think, relates to point number one.
(3) Next to the ATACR, the Ares has slightly yellowish glass. In my overly simple approach, I was only initially thinking about resolution, so I did not notice this the first several days. I also asked two people who do not know anything about scopes to tell me which glass appeared yellowish. Both said the Ares, which confirmed what I thought my eyes saw. I would never have know the Ares glass had a slight yellow tinge to it unless the ATACR was right there to compare it to. The yellowing has a mildly muting or dulling effect on the entire image, but again, and to me, this was only apparent when I went back and forth with the ATACR; otherwise, the image looked crisp and bright.
(4) The color on the ATACR seems a bit better. It is hard to tell right now because nearly everything around me in NH is grey and somewhat colorless. A robin showed up and the orange on its chest seemed to come in deeper/truer with the ATACR. But I need more colors and a different season to really be convinced of this point, and I know some scopes choose to render color differently.
(5) Most of my comparing was done on a grey clapboard house with white trim and a black roof, and at about 100 yards. The ATACR typically showed less fringing or CA; additionally, the ATACR seemed to better resolve the line/transition between white trim and black roof and the white trim against the grey boards. Sometimes the ATACR had no CA at all, and other times it was minimal, but visible. The Ares was not bad here, but did not consistently (time of day, different magnification, etc.) stack up to the ATACR.
(6) To my eye, with and without mild prescription glasses, I could not say for sure that the ATACR out-resolved the Ares at any distance from 30 to 500 yards. When colors met, as in the house, things were different.
(7) Today I took both scopes for a ride to an open area of town that had a nice lane of about four or five hundred yards to look down. This was great because I was previously limited to 100 yards with all my viewings of all my scopes. I was not so comfortably situated, being in my car, though, but I did get to look through a clean windshield and through an open window fairly well. Both scopes were really good, and again, I was not comfortable enough to make honest calls. Cars were whizzing by, I was twisting and trying to get a stable position, and so on. The Ares performed admirably enough to make the comparison difficult. I did all magnifications from 3 and 4 to 18 and 20, respectively, but positioning the scopes in the car made the higher magnifications difficult to manage. I did accomplish lots of looking from about 6 to 12 magnification. Most people would be pleased with either scope at these magnifications at these distances, I think. Having never looked through any scope at these distances, I was very surprised at how well even lower magnifications worked. Now I know why shooters say their 1-6, 1-8, or 1-10 LPVOs get them to 800 and 1000 yards without trouble. I get it.
Some concluding remarks.
- Most of my remarks are tentative due to various reasons, such as doing much of the peering through a window (except for today), my very limited experience, and the somewhat haphazard methodology employed. The scopes were viewed through on the same days at the same times, however, so that helps.
- The Ares seems to be a lot of bang for the buck. It is hard to fault. I wanted the ATACR to be instantly and obviously better than the Ares at all points, but the Ares made me work for distinctions.
- The ATACR is, of course, the better scope; however, as many point out, there is a law of diminishing returns at work here. The question would be, "Is the ATACR worth three times the price of the ETR?" I will not try to answer that for anyone.
- I was told by someone from Snipers Hide that the ATACR line varies in IQ. According to this person, here they are in decreasing order of IQ: 7-35, 4-16, 4-20, 5-25. I cannot verify or disprove any of this. But going by this order of quality, the 4-20 is third on a list of four. Now, we must think of quality control, first vs. second focal plane (my ATACR is F1), different pairs of eyes, and whatever. These matters are beyond my knowledge and experience. I have the scope I have.
- I wish I could better remember the NX8 2.5-20 F1 that I had a couple of months ago or so. I have a better trained eye now, but I cannot retro-apply what I have learned. And besides remembering that I very much liked the scope, I cannot remember IQ particulars well enough, again and in part because I was not thinking of CA, glass color, and so on. I wish (!!) I had one handy to make this a three-way comparison. In fact, I wished I had the 2.5-20 and the 4-32. Oh well.
- I hope this little 'review' is of value to someone. I am certainly not Glassaholic or C_Does, but it was fun. I would like, God willing, to get some kind of tripod stand or whatever that can support several scopes. This is what the 'big guys' often use.
- Concerning a couple of different aspects of the scopes, the Ares turret clicks are much crisper and audible than the ATACR's (and the NX8's, for that matter). But I am not sure the Ares has convinced me that louder is better. I like the feel of the ATACR, so I am still thinking about things. From what I remember, the NX8 was right around where the ATACR was, but I cannot recall infallibly. If audible is your thing, the Ares will not likely disappoint. The ATACR illumination was not that easy to use, and the brightness leaves something to be desired. If I recall, the illumination on the NX8 was brighter than the ATACR's (perhaps especially the green mode), and perhaps the button required less force to use. I am not a fan of having to exert undue pressure to move through the range with that button. The Ares seems quite bright.
Thanks for reading this tome. S7
Last edited:
