You know it in the best way possible - from personal experience. There is no substitute for that with scopes given that we all have different needs and expectations. We use them in different environments and have different eyesite etc. Nobody else is more qualified to say what we each prefer."jking"I have to concur jland. it wasn't what it was hyped up to be as far as I'm concerned. It was clear enough but the reticle was too thick once zoomed out. Clarity out on the edges was fairly good/average. I'll also consider that this was my first FFP so that would might factor in as well. It was probably my most short owned scope and I've own quiet a few now. Personally I'll take the Hawke tac over the Athlon and I'm thoroughly pleased with my two Sighron SIII's. Yup, no traumatic experiences there. But what do I know......
Jimmy
It's an area where there is more gray than black and white. I can think of a number of occasions where someone has found a scope blurry that I found clear or vice versa. I think there is also a lot more variation in quality between scope samples than we think sometimes.
From what you've said, you do a lot of your shooting at longer ranges than most here. I start to notice a difference in clarity with better quality optics at longer ranges. FFP scopes are more expensive so to get comparable quality, you have to spend more than with SFP scopes. It doesn't surprise me at all that you find $400-$800 SFP scopes to be clearer than a $370 FFP scope like the Argos. Their Midas range would be more directly comparable to an S3.
I love FFP scopes for the easy and quick range changing - I.e. The ability to zoom in and out without taking my eye off the prize to check what power setting I'm on. It's great for hunting and using a holdover reticle. If I was looking for a pure target scope (for fixed range matches) or to get the best glass within a budget, I'd go with an SFP scope (or a fixed power).
Upvote 0