Why isn't this scope wildly popular ?

[Mendopellet]

I realize everyone is different. And I realize we all use scopes for many different airgun purposes. But this scope seems to have a bit of everything good offered, imo.



Athlon 6-30x56 Argos 30mm Riflescope

This has a HUGE light gathering front obj lens. A huge magnification range. Is slightly longish at 14.8", but only weighs 22 oz ! Side focus to 10 yds. And thankfully no illum for me, as that is a plus in my book. Other than requiring tall mounts I am thinking what a well rounded design this is. Considering it ships free for $315, I am grabbing one fast as I can.

 

[Coldair]

I think it may be due to other good offerings on the market from China for less money from Discovery Optics.



CA

 

[STO]

I have one, not that exact Argos, but a different Argos model from Athalon. Its not as good as a Vortex or Nightforce in terms of clarity, brightness, and accuracy however for the price it is damn hard to beat. *shrug*

Only disadvantage to it I can see is that the illumination knob slightly obscures my scope level and that the enlarged ribbing on the ocular meant I had to fabricate a custom piece to adapt it to my through-scope night vision rig. Neither were a big deal. Would buy again, for sure. 

 

[Imold]

Nothing wrong with that scope, it would be good for 50-200 yards I’ve just never thought of putting a 6-30 on a airgun. I prefer a non illuminated scope myself.

 

[Mendopellet]

That is a good thought. I couldn't do that however. To get less expensive, means the VT T line. Smaller obj, less magnification, and a quarter of a pound heavier does not compare. I was about to buy the VT T, when I found this Athlon instead. But you may be correct. Popularity usually wins.

 

[Mendopellet]

Nothing wrong with that scope, it would be good for 50-200 yards I’ve just never thought of putting a 6-30 on a airgun. I prefer a non illuminated scope myself.

I would have agreed with you, until I found I could do it for only 22oz ! And still get a huge mm obj lens, and 30mm tube. This should be very bright, and lightweight, while offering a LOT of magnification to have without penalty. Looking at the scope, I would have guessed it would weigh 27 or 28 oz. Most scopes with this large of an obj do. 

 

[MarkNagel]

Its a good scope, not great, and there are many better, IMO that's why. I had one and returned it. It wasn't very sharp at farther distances (Or as sharp as my Vortex's, Leupolds or even mt Aztec). Yes, its better than MANY other scopes in the price range, but there are sharper, as light, and better overall optics (eye box, FOV, turrets, etc). Its getting more popular, but there are so many to chose from, its hard to dominate.



M

 

[Scotchmo]

I know you said it went down to 10yds, but the only specs I saw says otherwise.

https://athlonoptics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Athlon-Optics-2016-Product_Catalog.pdf#page=20

Many airgunners (including myself) prefer 10yds. That's why I bought the Athlon Helos 6-24x50 which focuses down to 10yds. The higher power Helos (and Argos) won't.

 

[JungleShooter]

Well, for me this scope has two characteristics that for some might be a plus:

(1) Minimum Parallax Distance
The OP stated 10 yards. However, the webpage does omit that vital piece of information. Sctochmo looked at their 2016 catalog and found it, their 2018 PDF catalog has it on p. 73 – it says 25 yards. That’s a deal breaker for me, I need 10 yards for an airgun.

(2) Turret Style
I’m not so much of a hold’er-over, I’m more a clicker – I dial my scope. I like to lazer the distance, take wind and weather data, plug those numbers into Strelok Pro, and let it calculate a shooting solution. Then I click it on my turrets, cross-hair my target, and Whack, (hopefully) a first round hit....
It fascinates me how numbers translate into hits.
But this scope has capped turrets – a manufacturer’s way of saying, “Zero the scope once, put that cap back on, and leave it alone – shoot with hold-overs. The scope is not made repeatable or to track true.”
Deal breaker for me.




If you want to go Athlon and need 10 yards min. parallax, the highest variable magnification is 24x:
Argos BTR 6-24x50
Midas TAC 6-24x50
Helos BTR 6-24x50


Loosing some weight always means losing some features, or some quality, or both (or paying exorbitant prices for space-tech materials to make things lighter...).


If you want such a large magnification, there are a few scopes that focus down to 10 yards, and give you that (and cost between $300 and $500.
MTC: Viper Pro Tactical series: 5-30x50 (25.8oz) | $500
Nikko Stirling: C-More X10 series: 5-30x56 (34.2oz) | $507
Falcon: S30: 5-30x56 (32.5oz, FFP!) | $377 shipped from Cyprus, around 430$ on Ebay




For a comprehensive scope model comparison with specs of 6-24x scopes for $300-500 (some 5-30x, 5-20x), cf.
https://www.airgunnation.com/topic/scope-model-comparison-with-specifications-6-24x-300-500/

 

[Mendopellet]

Hi Jungle Shooter. I respectfully disagree. The only thing I can tell you, is I have it in my hands, and it focuses clearly down to 12 yds for me. 10 yds ? If I ever shoot anything around 10 yds, I hope someone shoots me. LOL I haven't taken a shot under probably 25 yds in 20 years. It's boring when you can just spit and hit the target. No one needs a scope for 10 yd shooting, unless maybe Stevie Wonder, lol. And my eyes ate old and bad. And target turrets ? Tactical ? Not necessary. I find all better scopes track just fine, even without target turrets. I've learned Tactical means heavy in modern scopes, for the most part. Overbuilt. And, 30+ ounces ??? Just wow. Two pounds of scope ? THAT IS my point. Those scopes do NOT compare well. Too heavy.

And just no on the price range. $300 and $500 are not similar numbers to a lot of people's pocket books. So throw out all of those other scopes, and let's compare $300 scopes to the one I listed. I can find a slew of options at $500. That is my original point; This scope compares with way more expensive offerings monetarily, for what it offers. I love your points and counter points, but they are not in line with my experience. Losing weight means losing features or quality ? Maybe features like heavy illum. But quality ? No way. Just incorrect. See Sightron and Leupold for two examples. Extra weight means the manufacturer didn't care to design a scope with weight in mind. Otherwise they could have. Aluminum is all you need. Nothing exotic for this. I'm looking actively. But I have not found a comparable scope near $300, with all of the benefits I listed above. JMO

 

[Mendopellet]

I guess I was trying to decipher what reasoning, and validity others place on scope choices. And I think I have deciphered what I was after. The why's anyone would spend over a $1000 on a scope, or even $800 for that matter. The psychology of it had me curious. After comparing a few REALLY expensive scopes my buddy Bob owns, I got a handle on it pretty well I believe. 



He goes to Alaska every year to hunt. He told me in 40 years of hunting, he can say he never once made a shot, where he could simply state " Only the extra $2000 I spent on this scope made the shot possible" When any of my scopes would have worked the same for the shot. He now regrets not owning a LOT more air rifles with the amount he used to spend on expensive scopes. He told me when we were unboxing my new scope yesterday, " I wish I would have been satisfied with a great scope like this, instead of shopping for prestige of ownership and pride". 



What I learned is, I will NEVER spend more than $300 to $400 on a scope again. I can't shoot any better with more expensive glass, And my choices in scopes will never cost me "the shot", in my lifetime, where a better scope would have been a hit. I sleep better now.

 

[Coldair]

I would like to add that the more expensive scopes with clearer glass results in less eye fatigue when shooting prolonged sessions. 

It is like no eye strain or brain strain or mental stress whatsoever. Looking through the higher dollar scopes are more soothing to the eyes

if that makes any sense at all IMHO...

I try whenever possible to use the best scopes for my eyes on the guns I shoot the most, not necessarily for the most expensive guns I have but the ones I prefer to shoot most often.

The Discovery is on one of them and it is one of the cheaper scopes, that doesn't make sense but my eyes like it a lot.


CA

 

[Scotchmo]

The only thing I can tell you, is I have it in my hands, and it focuses clearly down to 12 yds for me. 10 yds ? If I ever shoot anything around 10 yds, I hope someone shoots me. LOL I haven't taken a shot under probably 25 yds in 20 years. It's boring when you can just spit and hit the target. No one needs a scope for 10 yd shooting...

The "focus" adjustment is actually a parallax adjustment as well. It's purpose being to dial out any parallax error.

On many scopes, it is possible to turn the magnification down and get a fairly clear picture at a distance that is considerably less than advertised. But when you bob your head, you will often see considerable parallax error (reticle moving in relation to target). That makes it unsuitable for accurate shooting at close range

In USA airgun Field Target matches, targets can be as close as 10yds, and the kill zone as small as 3/8". In order to get the entire pellet in the kill zone, you only have +/- 0.1" of wiggle room. So it matters to some people. In order for an airgun scope to be "wildly popular", the advertised minimum focus distance will need to be 10yds, or there will be a large number of airgunners that just won't buy it.

It might be a great airgun scope otherwise.

 

[JungleShooter]

Mendopellet, I think I overstated my case, saying that "Loosing some weight always means losing some features or some quality" – few things in life are "always" or "never." Sorry about that.

I think it's great that you are beginning to understand what it is that you were looking for in a scope, and that you are looking for now (I understand there was a change).

I can relate, because just last month I went through a similar process – analyzing what I really need/ want – ending up with a change of mind:

And to me it was clear I needed (1) a 6-24x magnification, and (2) I didn't need an illuminated reticle, and (3) 50 MOA elevation turret adjustment range was plenty, and (4) weight was not really a big issue to me.



(1) But analyzing the field of view of 6x and how it relates to magnification, I needed a much lower magnification on the bottom end, something like 3x, for walking hunts. Otherwise, acquiring my target is just not going to happen in a hurry....

And 18x magnification is still so close to 24x that I can see my typical targets fine, even 16x for that matter – especially if the glass is clearer on my anticipated $300 scope than on my current $100 scope.



(2) In the last couple of months it happened 3 times that I stumbled upon quarry after dark. I got them, but without an illuminated reticle it would not have been possible. Again, with the 6x bottom end target acquisition was very hard.



(3) I'm planning to shoot out to 100 and 150 yards, maybe 200, and for that I need my scope to click that far...! 50 MOA won't get me that, especially with the heavier pellets I'm trying to use since they often have a better BC.



(4) Weight still is not a big issue to me, as I'm planning to buy a light gun, and for my walking hunts I'll have a sling so no sweat. I'm a packrat anyways, so I'm used to carrying more than some others.... 



So, as I was completing my scope list of 6-24x50 (the one I linked to above), I realized I should actually be looking for something a bit different. Now I'm working on a scope list for 3-16x50, same price range....!



Mendopellet, I hope you really enjoy your scope. I'm glad you found something that fits your particular needs. Happy shooting!

Matthias