I get a lot of ideas on what to address in future videos and articles from the questions I get here and on different forums where I participate. I am on a bit of a hiatus right now as I relocate my family to a different state (and my dayjob to a different, different state), so I figured I should start making a list of questions that are worth addressing when my life is a bit more settled down again. Here are a few that I recently ran into on SnipersHide:
Tube diameter. What does it really give you?
Exit pupil. How come the math does not work on low power? what changed with new high erector ration riflescopes?
More on exit pupil. Are we really wasting light with larger exit pupil? Compromises between eye fatigue, field of view and magnification.
Please comment or send me an e-mail with other ideas and I’ll add them to this post to keep a running tally. I am sure I have touched on some of these in earlier videos, but I’ll be happy to go into more detail if there is interest.
Father’s day is almost upon us. A bunch of products are on sale and I am getting hit with questions on whether something is a good deal.
Then there is a whole slew of question along the lines of: “I want to give my dad a nice optic (riflescope, bunocular, etc) for under $100, what would you recommend?”
Well, I have some bad news for you. If you look at a list of recommendations I have, there really isn’t much in terms of optics that you can get around $100 that is actually worth it.
If that is all the budget you have, I can still come up with some recommendations, but they are not really going to have much of anything to do with optics. For that stuff I mostly draw on my quirkly lifestyle: I travel a lot, so I pay a lot of attention to thinks that make my travelling life easier.
If you have budget flexibility and you are set on getting some optics, peruse my list of recommendations and see if there is anything there that might work for you: riflescopes, binoculars, spotting scopes. If you see any of the products I mention there on sale for Father’s Day and within your budget, that’s your best bet.
For those on a $50-$100 or thereabouts budget, here are some ideas.
First of all, I know I talk a lot about riflescopes, but I will not list a whole lot of riflescopes here. If Dad wants a riflescope for a hunting/plinking rifle of some sorts, your viable options start in the $150-$170 range with Sightron S1 3-9×40 or 1.75-4×32 versions and Burris Fullfield II 2-7×35. These are simple, but fairly robust scopes.
With binoculars, interestingly, there are more options, but I do not like most of them. With budget options usually less is more, so I’d be taking a good look at Leupold Yosemite 6×30 and Kowa YF 6×30.
With spotting scopes… this is the wrong price range. Decent stuff starts a bit higher up (above $300) which is a bit outside of the scope of what I am looking to cover here.
Moving a bit away from things optical, there are some tricks of the trade I learned from all the travel I do. One is to have a very thin wallet. I switched to a front pocket wallet after travelling in Europe where they will brazenly steal anything you put in your back pocket. It is also worthwhile to not have anything in your pockets that will make your life even more uncomfortable than a 15 hour flight already does. However, most of the ultra slim wallets I have tried have flaws: no space for cash, no ID window, fragility. This one from All-ett is very slim (although not as slim as some really tiny ones I have seen), and it addressed the three issues I listed above. It is a good compromise.
And now for something way into the left field… I am a life long martial artists, which is simply a nicer way of saying “aging martial artist” who does not practice enough. As I got older I learned the value of working on the fitness of some parts of your body that you pay no attention to when you are younger. One of them is the whole foot and ankle structure. As you get older, this is one of the parts of your body that really takes a beating and starts getting injured. Once your ankle is beat up, everything else you do gets even more tricky and even as you heal, you can have balance issues that effect your other joints. There really isn’t a lot out there specific for foot and ankle strengthening, so after some research I stumbled onto the AFX. If you are worried that your Father’s Day gift is too passe and same thing as everyone else gets, this one is for you. I bet noone else will be getting one of these: http://www.afx-online.com/store/
Lastly, something I found on Kickstarter, but have not yet seen. It will not get there for Father’s Day, but since I am touching on subjects normally do not address, I figured I should mention it. Here is what my typical travel week looks like:
-five hours on the plane in an economy seat that is designed to be uncomfortable for people half my size and downright torturous for.. hmm, let’s just say full-size people (you do not want to be in a seat next to me; I take a lot of space).
-five nights in hotel beds that are engineered to closely replicate Soviet gulag experience
-many hours in a rental car going from place to place.
-another five hours on the same plane flying home
By the time that is all done, if you do not have back pain, you are tougher than I am. In principle, going to a massage therapist would help, but I do not like anyone other than my wife touching me and there is no chance she can work through any of muscle aches (I am close to 300lbs, she is 120lbs on roller blades; she can pretty much practice tap dancing on my back and not wake me up). Exercise helps, but I am always looking for something else and this weird back massager from a company called Backmate caught my interest. That will be interesting to try. Given my weight class, it will also be a good stress test for my door frame.
And lastly, as far as I am concerned, you can’t have too many folding knives. One of the reasons I, specifically, can’t have too many folders is that I end up occasionally losing them, and I have (and had, unfortunately) some really nice ones. I tried to use cheaper knives for general purpose daily carry, but most of them were not particularly comfortable in the hand and used cheap blade steel that either dulled or rolled far too quickly. While I have used ESEE fixed blade knives quite a bit over the years and had nothing but good things to say about them, they are folders are new to me. They got my attention because they are inexpensive and some use D2 steel for the blade. D2 has been around forever and a day and is still one of the better general purpose steels (I have been collecting knives with different blade steels for solid 25 years, so I have tried them all). I just started carrying these, but my initial impressions are extremely good. ESEE Avispa is a little larger with a 3.5″ blade, while Esee Zancudo blade length is a hair under 3″. Both are under $50, while sporting intelligent geometries and durable materials. I bought both and will be using them as my EDC blades for the next few months.
This is not going to be a very long review.especially since I’ve got a video up where I talk about this scope. It is embedded a bit further down and there is also a link there for the same video on gunstreamer.com if you prefer that platform to YouTube.
LPVOs (Low Power Variable Optics) are getting increasingly more competent across the board. The original idea behind riflescopes of this type was to provide good performance on 1x, with performance on top magnification *first 4x, then 6x, 7x, 8x, etc) being almost an afterthought. However, recently I am seeing more and more riflescopes that are increasingly well optimized across the entire magnification range with the Blaser being, potentially, the best of the bunch in terms of optomechanical quality.
I do not think Blaser intends to market this for tactical/AR-15 use, especially since their sister brand Minox already has an excellent ZP8 1-8×24. However, they really should consider it. I think they can grab a nice slice of the market by simply adding a couple of reticles with holdover points and, maybe, some sort of an AR compatible mounting solution (although I will freely admit that the Zeiss rail on the bottom of the scope is a very flexible mounting options as is). I used Recknagel rail mounts on top of the 22MOA Badger riser and the optical axis was at just the right height.
The reason I tested the scope on my AR-15 is mostly that I wanted to spend some time shooting offhand on low power which burns a lot of ammo and 25.56×45 is comparatively more affordable.
Minox ZP8 1-8×24
Nightforce ATACR 1-8×24
Leica Magnus 1-6.3×24
GPO TAC 1-8×24
Swaro Z8i 1-8×24
Main Tube Diameter
Eye Relief, in
123 – 18 21 @ 6x
112 – 14.4 19.2 @ 6x
96 – 13.1 17.5 @ 6x
122 – 19.320.2 @ 6x
107 – 13 17.4 @ 6x
127.5 – 15.9 21.2 @ 6x
10 – 4
10.3 – 3
11 – 3
12.4 – 3.8
11 – 3
8.1 – 3
Adjustment per turn
E: 20 mradW: 14 mrad
Looking at the spec table above, a few things jump out. One is that the Blaser is expensive. Another is that it easily the widest FOV of the available FFP low power scope. It almost matches the FOV of the second focal plane Swaro Z8i, except it does so with a larger exit pupil and front focal plane reticle. Rather importantly, when you are trying to go fast with the scope on 1x, the exit pupil on low power matters. I experimented with a bunch of different scope and it seem like for optimal performance I need an exit pupil of 10mm or more. If it gets smaller on 1x, that is not a huge deal, but I can feel the difference especially from suboptimal shooting positions.
Also, Blaser is the only 28mm objective in this group and, while I have not seen all of these side by side, I am pretty confident it will do better than any 24mm scope in low light. It is not a huge difference, but it is there.
Here is a brief video review:
Here is a short video shot through the scope using a Skoped Vision adapter. It is not nearly as good of the image as you get looking directly through the scope, but it is a good representation of what the reticle looks like.
Keep in mind that the physical reticle is sized so it does not stand out much on 1x. That is where the large illuminated dot is supposed to really stand out for a shooting experience close to that of a red dot sight.
Below 4.5x, the dot is 1 mrad in diameter (right around 3 MOA). Above 4.5x, it is 0.25 mrad in diameter for precise aiming.
Blaser calls the technology IVD: Intelligent Variable Dot. I really like how it works and I hope it extends to different products and applications.
I have talked a little bit about this on a couple of forums, but I figured that I should not neglect my own website and tell the story of what I am doing with G&A and why.
If you have followed my various ramblings for a while, you may remember that a bit over a decade ago, I had a brief interaction one of the gun magazine publications (admittedly not Guns and Ammo) and in order to write for them, I would have to severely change how I talk about things. They were so afraid of upsetting their advertisers, that I chose to not have anything to do with that. I am not out to slander anyone, but sometimes you have to cal a spade a spade, so to speak. If the product is crap, I have to be able to say it is crap.
Earlier this year, the folks behind the Guns and Ammo specialty editions reached out and asked if I am interested in writing a few pieces for them. The specialty edition magazines are the issues that are published once or twice per year focusing on a particular topic. The specific one that they had coming up was the inaugural Red Dot issue and they asked if I am interesting in writing something that goes over the most common misconceptions people have about reflex and holographic sights.
Naturally, the very first question I asked was on the restrictions I would have if I agree. That turned out to be a much shorter discussion than I anticipated. They do not want me to use bad language. That’s basically it. In other words: say what you want to say, but don’t be rude about it. I figured I can do that without sacrificing my journalistic integrity.
I wrote a piece for that Red Dot magazine and they liked it well enough that they asked me to do a couple more articles for the other publications they have coming up. The next one out will be the G&A Rimfire issue that will hit the newsstands toward the end of June.
Probably the weirdest thing about print media for me is having a word budget. Vast majority of my writing has been on the internet where I can be as wordy as I damn well please. Brevity is not one of my virtues, so everything I have written for G&A so far started out as a much longer piece. So far, it takes me more time to pair down to 2000 words than it takes me to put together the original piece. I hope to get better with practice. I always knew I was wordy, but until now, I never realized how really wordy I am.
Beyond the Rimfrie issue, I have written a couple more and as they wrap up with editing and layout, I’ll post updates. For the first two pieces I wrote for G&A, their editing is very light handed, which I am pretty happy with. They move pictures around, obviously, to fit on the pages, but aside from that they just fix my occasionally random capitalization and punctuation.
If you happen to see one of these on the newsstand somewhere, read the article and let me know what you think. I will do a few reviews for them going forward, but most of the topics they want me to address or either educational or overview in nature, which fits me just fine.
I field a good number of questions here and there and I like the idea of making some of them as a blog post especially when they touch on something I get asked with reasonable regularity.
Here is a question I received today:
If I can bother you a moment, I do have a quick question on your thoughts about a few optics. As someone who’s been around awhile, I hate asking stuff like this, but with time being limited (you’ll see why in a sec), I was hoping to cut out some of the riff-raff and get right to things.
I’m looking to scope a small-frame (5.56mm) precision AR. I have a S&B 4-16×42 PMII that was supposed to go on it, but I need to free up some funds for career advancement training, so I need to downgrade. I’ll DEFINITELY be looking to replace it when I can, as it’s an amazing optic, but such is life!
Here’s where I’m at. I already have a 34mm Spuhr SP-4616, so I’m heavily considering sticking with a 34mm optic, BUT I’m not at all against snagging an SP-3616 if I opt to go with a 30mm scope. Here’s what I’m considering:
I have experience with the two Bushnells and loved them. The LRTSi/LRHSi has slightly better glass, but is a bit darker because of the small exit pupil at full power when I use it (not terribly often, but still a consideration). The DMRII doesn’t have glass quite as nice, but is a 34mm, and does have a higher mag range and is a bit brighter at the ranges I’d most often be in.
The SWFA is on the list because it’s a proven basic optic that would get me by. Stepping down that far is acceptable, but less than ideal coming from an S&B, haha. But if I needed to go that low, it would be my choice.
I’m unfamiliar with the performance (tracking/repeatability, brightness, clarity) of the PST2 and Steiner/Burris offerings. I’ve read your reviews on the P4Xi and am interested, but the lack of a sunshade is worrisome, as I live in AZ and shoot in bright sun quite often. The 5-25x T5Xi sunshade works, but I’m not aware of a way to source one by itself, and I don’t yet know if Steiner/Burris will make one specific to the scope. The 3-15x seems like the next logical option, but the DMRII can be had for less with greater mag range for the rare case it’s needed, but weight becomes a penalty. The XTRII is proven, but has a lower level of clarity and higher CA on average. But you sure can beat the hell out of them, from what I’ve read over the years!
If you have $1K to use, which would you use, or perhaps, how would you rank them? Primary uses would be local PRS-type matches, training, informal plinking, and some varmint hunting. Of utmost importance is tracking/repeatability, brightness, and low weight (I can probably find a used 3-18x Razor Gen2 for $1250 if I’m patient, but I’m not putting a lb+ optic on a small frame AR!). I appreciate your time and input, and hope you have a great day!
For this scenario, the short answer is that I would go for Vortex PST Gen 2 3-15×44. Now, onto the long answer.
Do you like mil-scale reticles like Mil-Quad, SCR or TMR? Or do you prefer some sort of a tree reticle like EBR-2D? In a market with a large number of fairly competitive designs, reticle choice can easily be the deal breaker. I do not like to compromise on reticles too much.
That out of the way, a lot depends on how you plan to use the rifle. I have an accurate small frame AR and it has a 3-15×50 optic on it. I find that to be an excellent magnification range for this gun, but I shoot offhand and from weird positions a lot, which I like to do on lower magnifications, hence the need for 3x on the low end. I really like to keep the low end magnification on gas guns at 4x or lower.
The best bang for the buck in the precision scope world right now is Steiner P4Xi 4-16×56 scope, but it is too big and heavy for a small frame AR in my opinion. If your AR is a dedicated heavy barrel setup, P4Xi would work fine, but based on how the question is phrased, I do not think that is what we are dealing with here.
Bushnell LRHSi was a nice design, but it is discontinued. LRTSi is similar and I like it, but 4.5x on the low end gives me pause. I like to have more FOV on the low end. It is different for everyone, but I would rather give up a little magnification on the high end that lose FOV on the low end in this case. 3-15x works better for me than 4.5-18x.
Bushnell DMR II 3.5-21×50 sounds like it would give you more FOV, but it doesn’t. This scope has some tunneling on the low end, so its FOV on 3.5x is almost the same as LRTSi on 4.5x. The two Bushnell scopes have FOV of around 24-25ft at 100 yards on the low end, while the PST Gen 2 has a hair over 41ft on low magnification. To me, that is a big difference.
Steiner T5Xi 3-15×50 is a compelling design, but I do not think that it is any better optically than PST Gen 2. The 3-15×44 is sort of a sweetspot of the PST Gen 2 line and it is good enough to my eyes that I effectively stopped recommending other scopes of this general configuration until we get over $2k. I think the 3-15×44 PST Gen 2 punches well above its weight class and I happened to like the reticle.
Now, when XTR 3 comes out, these two will something interesting to look at. Same for Optika6 3-18×50 when it gets here. Until then, PST Gen 2 is what I recommend in this price range.
SWFA SS 3-15×42 is an excellent and time proven design. There is nothing wrong with and if you want to save some money, it works well. However, PST Gen 2 is basically a better and more full featured scope for not a lot more money. SWFA SS has more of a track record and focuses closer though.
The text below was not written by me. It was, a blog post by a gentleman I have know for quite a few years now and I always pay attention to what he says. Admittedly, I do not always agree with him, but I always find his opinion well reasoned and driven by his personal experience. He prefers to stay anonymous. He posts as Rancid Coolaid on various forums. The text in italic is his. A few of my comments are at the bottom.
What began as an inquiry of utility has become a quick primer for pocket knives. Below is the first installment regarding automatic, semi-automatic, and purely manual pocket knives.
For most of us, it happened when we were boys. The first time we saw one, we immediately thought – or yelled – “I want one.” The switchblade is iconic, but is it practical or necessary? But, before all that, a few housekeeping items.
1. Vocabulary. Every intelligent discourse begins with an agreement on vocabulary – else all the really important points get lost in the ambiguities.
For purposes of this post, we shall consider an “automatic” knife to be one that deploys a blade by way of a button not affixed to the blade. Whether “out the side” or “out the front” – also called “OTF”, these are automatic knives.
In contrast, there exist now many “assisted open” or “semi-auto” knives with a spring assist, usually associated with a blade protrusion or extension used to overcome initial resistance. It is this resistance that keeps the blade closed and prevents its unintentional deployment. The “semi-auto” is spring-assisted rather than spring-deployed. In many legal respects, this is an important distinction, as is the means of deploying – button not on the blade vs. blade extension.
Finally, the old school manual deploy blade, whether by thumb stud or by 2-handed open, this is the knife we all did have, and we usually have a few.
2. Legal disclaimer. “Automatic knives” are illegal in many jurisdictions for most people; “semi-auto” are as well, though in far fewer jurisdictions. It is the responsibility of the one owning or possessing the knife to know local laws. I write from a free state (Texas), so convey no legal permissions on those choosing to live in a communist state (California) or other. You do the crime, you do the time.
I’ve been asked on a few occasions about automatic knives, “do I need one”, “why should I carry one”, “how should I carry one”, etc. The long answer is below, the short answer is “it depends.”
When I was a kid in the 70s, a pocket knife was usually a Buck or Swiss Army; they were opened with 2 hands and carried in a pocket, deep in the pocket, at the bottom of the pocket. By the 90s, Spyderco and the likes had introduced us to two new pocket knife features: the pocket clip, and the thumbhole, both paradigm shifts in pocket knife usage and carry. By the 2000s, spring-assist was catching on, and today one is hard-pressed to not own a few and know of quite a few more options in edged tool/weapon options of the semi-auto type.
And this brings us to one very important practical point: with the advent of very reliable, very well-made semi-auto options, the automatic became far less advantageous. And this might be a good time to address usage, and why an automatic was ever needed (as to whether it still is, we shall get there in time.)
Most people are quite adept at highly dexterous tasks, but only with their primary hand. In normal daily life, that is more than adequate; however, in life-and-death circumstances, the need for a certain measure of dexterity in one’s weak hand can be the difference between surviving and not. For those that have carried a gun professionally, there is – almost universally – a constant companion on the weak-hand side, as well there should be. I’ve had a fair bit of arms training and have taught a bit as well, and the topic always comes up, and I address it in the same way each time: with a gun on your strong-side hip, take the strong-side hand and place it flat on the center of your chest, then prevent or discourage me from taking your weapon and/or your life. As an aggressor, the first thing I will do is immobilize your primary hand – I have trained to do this, I can do it quite efficiently, and will do so probably before you realize there is a threat. As a defender, that means having a plan that begins with no strong-side hand.
The uninitiated and untrained often don’t get that far. And this is why so many fail the first test, and die. Don’t fail the first test.
It is in exactly this circumstance that an automatic knife can literally save your life. Worn weak-side or in an accessible location, the knife can be used efficiently with the weak-side hand to regain control of the weapon or the use of the primary hand. This is why law enforcement and military can carry automatic knives, because they have need to control their weapon in defense of your liberties.
Prior to the proliferation of spring assisted knives, an automatic was the best choice – or a small, fixed-blade option.
On the automatic side, the pros are – in my estimation and experience – these: 1. Easy, no-fumble, one-handed operation. 2. Rapid deployment, great control. 3. These tend to be knives we don’t use to open boxes and envelopes, so they stay sharp by lack of use – or mine do. 4. On OTF knives in particular, the coolness factor is unmistakable. There is a reason John Wick carried an OTF, they are, in simplest terms, cool.
Cons: 1. Legality. If it is on your side, it isn’t a con, but it is seldom on the side of the masses. 2. If poorly designed or improperly carried, it can open unintentionally, and – given #3 above – create problems. 3. OTF in particular, they fail. They get gritty or get hit just right, and the blade does not fully deploy – sometimes not at all. This is the primary reason I own but never carry a few OTFs. 4. It is a mechanical device, and is often designed to not be deployable without working properly (no thumb stud, no designated place to grab the blade, blade locks in when button is not depressed, etc.)
When you take the good and the bad and compare it to semi-auto knives, the shine on automatics does indeed diminish a bit. I own several semi-auto and have yet to have one catastrophically fail – I have had one OTF fail miserably, and another fail to deploy on many stress-free occasions.
So, highlights and take-aways:
1. Because – for me – the task almost always chooses the tool, I am usually carrying a semi-auto now. With reliable, rapid deployment on the weak side, I can carry with confidence. 2. I have shelved the OTF autos for any real-world use. They are great to pull out at social events, if only to show the normies what cool stuff some of us have. *A note of caution: OTFs can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. As the cutting edge shoots out the front, anything forward of and in the line of the opening will get cut. Ask me how I know… 3A. For hard use, I will almost always have an automatic tucked away on my plate carrier or duty belt. It is the insurance policy, and a well made one will stow better in a non-pocket than will a semi-auto built for pocket carry.
3B: Todays pocket knives, especially those with pocket clips, are usually designed for pocket carry. They are made to ride at the back of the pocket with the blade pressed firmly against the rear seam. If you are carrying on molle gear or in something other than in a pocket, they don’t always carry so well. For non-pocket use, be sure you know how it positions, how/if it shifts, and how it feels in the hand when you need it.
Finally, as it will come up: very pointy pens, always carry, be ready to use. And the TSA has yet to take one from me. I also have one of these (https://countycomm.com/products/persuader-titanium) which can be called a “stylus” if it needs to be, but is extremely useful as a tool of persuasion.
If you need recommendations, here are a few:
1. semi-auto, weak-side or strong-side carry: Zero Tolerance combat folder. 2. OTF: Microtech. **Skip everything under $500 as these tend to have the weak springs and breakage-prone internals, but the higher dollar OTFs are close to robust enough for real-world carry. 3. “Out-the-side” auto: Protech, the rocking bolster design is my favorite as it takes an inexperienced user time to figure it out – in the rare event you lose your sidearm AND your knife. Their blades are very well made and come from the factory very sharp. Great craftsmanship and dependability. Additionally, the rocking bolster is almost impossible to deploy unintentionally, which is good, because they arrive very sharp. 4. Budget “out-the-side” autos: HK has a collaboration with someone to make some very good knives, their actions are quite robust, they deploy with authority, but the button design isn’t great – mine is rocker that passes through the handle and must be pulled down to release – either a locked in or locked out blade. Mine has deployed once, on a vest, when it was not supposed to. The blades are decent material but not usually the best. Most out-the-side knives have a safety to prevent accidental deployment (as does the HK) but that seems stupid to me, at least in real-world usage terms.
*The OTF that I blew up was a Benchmade, it not only malfunctioned, it came apart in multiple pieces, with the blade uselessly stuck in one of them. It is, in my estimation, a poorly made knife with inferior materials and workmanship.
*The OTF that malfunctions occasionally is a Microtech Troodon. When it deploys and locks up, it is rock solid; when it fails to deploy, a wrist-flicks gets the blade out and locked probably 75% of the time. For real-world use, I would kinda equate that to carrying a 6-shot wheel gun with 4 rounds loaded, and you only have time to draw and squeeze once.
I live in California for the time being and my knowledge of automatic knives is purely theoretical. In this state you can get lynched for just thinking about one. I do, however, have a long history with fixed blade and folding knives. I was interested in knives before I was interested in guns.
I am also a life long martial artist, most of it open hand, but some limtied knife training as well. I regularly practice to deploy a manual folding knife with either hand and can do so fairly well. However, RC’s point above about doing it under stress is important. I am right handed and I suspect that fine motor skills with my left hand will go the way of the dodo before they do on the right hand.
To me, a natural solution to that is a small fixed blade. When properly carried, it requires no manual dexterity to speak of: grab handle, pull out of the sheath, slice whichever portion of the assailant is closest to you. Even a small blade can be extremely effective in the right hands. What is even more important, a sharp blade is extremely effective even in marginally trained hands. Find a local Kali or Escrima school and train there for a few months. If the teacher is any good, you will get a reasonable grasp of the fundamentals of using knife and stick. They usually start doing more complicated things too early and most of them are useless in a real fight when adrenaline is pumping. However, that is still good practice and gets the basics properly grooved in. The rest is all mindset.
There are some small fixed blade knives that can be carried in the pocket and some that can be carried on the belt or as a neck knife. Except that is, apparently, in California where they are illegal as well. I looked at the regulations and unless I am misreading it, a 3 inch fixed blade knife concealed is deemed more dangerous than a 6″ folder. Yes, I know. California is special in that short bus sort of way.
If it is legal where you live, consider a short fixed blade like Esee Izula or KaBar TDI for weak hand carry. Izula is an excellent neck knife and I have seen some pocket sheaths for it. TDI is angled in a way that makes it very viable for belt carry. Indonesian karambit style knives are also angled in a way that can make for some interesting carry options, but these knives require somewhat different training, so I do not recommend them for general purpose carry.
Lastly, please do not rely on me for legal advice: figure out what the laws are where you live.
I have mentioned elsewhere that I am not a huge fan of large frame ARs. They are a little harder to shoot and there is a fair amount of mass cycling back and forth, so you kinda have to “manhandle” more so that I am sued to with small frame ARs.
Still, I have built a few and since a friend of mine has asked me how I would go about selecting components for one, I figured I should make a post out of this. First a little about nomenclature: I have only messed with building DPMS-pattern guns, so I will use the term “LR-308” throughout to mean a large frame AR.
My LR-308 is a somewhat specialized set-up since after many changes I settled on a heavy barreled 243Win gun that I use for testing scopes and will also use as a heavy varminter. Here is what it looks like in its latest iteration with a Dracos barrel and an inexpensive, but surprisingly decent Guntec handguard:
One thing to keep in mind is that I was not looking to save weight with this gun. In the past, I ran it for a bit with an 18″ 308 barrel and had I stayed with that configuration I would definitely go for a somewhat lighter build. In this particular case, I was asked how I would configure such a gun for a use case where it would be utilized for home defense and for occasional hunting. First of all, I will freely admit, that for home defense I would be more likely to use a smaller AR platform with a smaller cartridge. 308Win is a bit of an overkill for home defense. However, if we extend this to “estate defense” and with hunting thrown in for good measure a large frame AR makes reasonable sense (although I have an AR-15 chambered for 6.5 Grendel for this purpose and do not feel undergunned).
Anyway, here are some component considerations:
Make sure you get matched upper and lower receivers. There is no mil-spec standard for large frame ARs and I have seen some variations that do not fit each other. On top of that, I have also seen some fit issue with handguards and upper receivers from different makers. If I were starting a build now, I would probably get a matched kit from Grey Ghost that has a matched upper and lower receivers together with their handguard. Rainier seems to have it on sale right now and I happened to like the camo patterns they have. This pretty much guarantees that the pieces will fit together.
If you decide to not get a fully matched up set above, you can get matched upper and lower receivers with Grey Ghost being a good option again, although Rainier’s own set is quite good too.
Keep in mind that there are multiple DPMS standards out there, so if you buy a handguard separately make sure you pay attention to whether it is a high rail or low rail standard. I prefer to go with “Low rail” everything, but it does not matter too much as long as you stay consistent. Handguard aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder, so choose what works for you. I have reasonable mileage with different makers so this is where you kinda have to decide what fits your build. If you are looking for making the gun as light as possible, you may have to spend some money on a Brigand handguard. On the other hand, if weight is less of a concern, options really open up. Since I prefer to have the handguard go over the gas block, I would stick with something around 15″ in length. That all having been said, if I were doing a new build for myself, I would either go light with a Brigand or a little heavier with a Blklbl handguard that has an integrated bipod (or to minimize compatibility issues, see the Grey Ghost links above).
Barrel is also a personal choice, but an important one. There are many good barrels out there and for a general purpose rifle, I would lean toward some light to mid-weight design with 18″ length. I have a Fulton armory 18.5″ barrel that is built on a Criterion blank in a light-ish profile. It is chrome-lined which makes it almost impervious to elements and pretty unlikely to ever be shot out with any normal use. Given the application, I would lean heavily toward either QPQ or chrome-lines barrel, so for a lightweight QPQ option, I think this pencil weight Faxon is one of the better “bang-for-the-buck options out there right now. For hunting/home defense gun, one of these would be my choice.
Gas block: many people opt for an adjustable gas block, but for someone doing it for the first time, I would probably go for a standard low profile gas block, preferably of the clamp-on variety, but a well fitted set screw gas block works just fine. For something a little more dedicated for precision or for a gun that will have a suppressor on it, I might go for an adjustable gas block. However, since we are talking about something that has to be California legal (no suppressors) and used for home defense and hunting, standard gas block is fine.
Furniture: in CA, you can’t have a collapsible stock or regular pistol grip, so this is the grip you have to use (for right handers). With buttstocks, I am a firm believer in using a rifle spring and buffer if you can’t have a collapsible stock. The recoil is going to be a little softer with a rifle buffer. There are a few buttstock options out there that will work fine, but I would probably just get Magpul’s MOE rifle stock and be done with it.
Extension, spring and buffer. The extension is the same as on the AR-15, but buffer and spring are different, so make sure you pick the right ones. Standard weight rifle buffer from anyone reputable (like this one from Brownells) will work fine. With springs, I would go with JP’s tuned and polished spring (part number JPSOSR308 ).
Last, but not least, you’ll need a trigger and lower parts kit. A couple of parts are different between large and small frame ARs, so make sure you get the right one, like this one from DPMS. Technically, this lower parts kit has everything you need, but in practical terms, you should really get a better trigger and an ambidextrous safety (ambi safety is key for California since you can’t have a proper pistol grip). There are many ambidextrous safeties out there and most work just fine. I am partial to the Radian Talon ambi safety, personally. Finally, we get to triggers. I tend to use Geisselle SSA-E in a lot of my builds and I have yet to regret it. I think it is the best general purpose trigger available for the AR Platform right now. It is not cheap, so for the budget conscious, ALG’s ACT trigger is a good option. It is, essentially, a GI trigger that is tuned and adjusted to be about as good as a GI trigger can be.
That takes care of the rifle, so we can spend a minute on optics. Home defense means red-dot or a scope that goes down to 1x. Hunting means low light and large objective. The two requirements are essentially mutually exclusive. Also, for any gun that is intended for defensive purposes I really like to have two independent sighting system.
If you want one scope that goes down to 1x, I think it is wise to start with Steiner P4Xi 1-4×24. It is exceptionally quick on 1x and quite decent on 4x. The reticle is intended for 5.56, but inside of 500 yards, the drops are almost the same.
If you want a little more reach, consider Hawke Frontier 1-6×24. Its reticle is mrad based, so it is not cartridge specific.
If you are willing to consider a dual sighting system set-up, I would suggest something like Meotpa Meostar R1 1.5-6×42 with a micr red dot like Burris FastFire II set-up on an offset mount. Mestar is a great general purpose scope for hunting and all sorts of other use that happens to be quite fast on 1.5x. With an Fastfire mounted on an offset Daniel Defense mount, you ahve a red dot that can be in front of your eye by rotating the rifle just a bit.
As I was ready to publish this, I noticed that Doug from CameralandNY just put this scope on sale for $849. If you call him and mention Dark Lord Of Optics, you will get an additional $50 gift certificate for anything else from Cameraland (rings, caps, etc). That brings the price of the P4Xi down to a hair under $800.
I have been looking at this scope for some time now and I found myself liking it a fair bit. It is a little bit of an oddball design in a sense that finding something similarly configured to compare it to. The only other 4-16×56 scopes I found are the much more expensive Hensoldt and S&B. Most of the 3-15x, 4-16x and 3-18x scopes out there use a smaller 50mm objective (kinda like Steiner’s own T5Xi 3-15×50). Meopta Optika6 will have a 3-18×56 design, but that is not here yet. In the end, I ended up looking at the Steiner P4Xi next to a couple of higher magnification scopes I have on hand with 56mm objective lenses to get an idea of how it stacks up.
Here is my conclusion in a nutshell: if you can find this scope for around $1K you should pick one up. At $1500, it would be a bit of a harder sell, but around a grand it is a superb option. It tracked true. The turret feel is very good and optical quality is very respectable. It especially shined in low light. There is enough magnification to get me pretty far out and the reticle is very well suited for precision shooting where you dial for elevation and hold for wind.
Here is my customary comparison table which is not really useful in this case because of the unusual configuration.
Steiner P4Xi 4-16×56
Hensoldt 4-16×56 FF
S&B PMII Ultra Bright 4-16×56
Meopta Optika6 3-18×56 (not out yet)
Athlon Ares ETR 4.5-30x 56
Delta Stryker HD 4.5-30x 56
Main Tube Diam
Eye Relief, in
3.5 – 4
3.2 – 3.8
FOV, ft@ 100yds
27.5-6.9 11.04@ 10x
26.1-7.5 12 @ 10x
33.2 – 5.810.4@ 10x
24.5 -3.7 11.2@ 10x
24.8-3.7 11.2@ 20x
9.5 – 3.1
8.8 – 1.9
8.8 – 1.9
Adj per turn, mrad
10 Dual turn
Adj range, mrad
E: 30 W: 16
E: 27 W: 12
E: 30 W: 15
Yes + Dichro
FFP or SFP
Adj 50 – inf
Adj 25 – inf
Adj 23 – inf
Looking at the numbers, nothing really sticks out. The scope is reasonably sized for the class and on the light weight side for a 56mm objective design.
There is plenty of internal elevation adjustment available, but the turret is a double turn design, wo you get 20 mrad with proper mounting. I had it mounted in a Aadmount with 20 MOA incline built in. With that configuration I go the two full turns.
In practical terms, since I do not shoot ELR (yet), I do not need that much adjustment, so most of my testing was over the first 9 mrad. I did not do a shooting test for the entirety of the 20 mrad adjustment, but I did test on a gun out to 16 mrad with very uneventful results.
The scope spent time on two guns: The Fix with a 24” Proof barrel chambered for 308 and large frame AR with Dracos 243Win barrel on it (below). Neither is a kicker, but I have spent some time shooting off the bench, prone and sitting with both guns to see how forgiving the scope is. The eye relief is fairly long and quite flexible. This scope is pretty easy to get behind. That is one of the advantages of a large objective. Even at 16x, the exit pupil is a rather generous 3.5mm
Another nice feature is that the elevation turret does not go up and down when you dial. It always stays the same height and there is a window at the bottom of the turret that serves as a revolution counter: white for the first turn and green for the second turn.
The numbers engraved on the turret are color coded to match the turn indicator. 0 through 9 are white and 10 through 19 are green.
Side focus adjust the image from 50 yards on out to infinity and infinity is actually infinity. I was able to focus on some trees a couple of miles out. Depth of field is fairly generous, but still, for shooting inside of 50 yards, lowering the magnification helped. On 4x, I could shoot quite comfortably and accurately don to 20 yards or so. There was some parallax, but it was manageable.
Reticle illumination control is a rotary knob integrated into the side focus turret. The illumination level is calibrated to be just about perfect for low light. Only a portion of the reticle is illuminated, making an illuminated “T”, of sorts. In the picture below, I set illumination on a rather bright level, so that the camera could focus on something. It looks much sharper when you look through the scope.
In general, the SCR reticle that Burris and Steiner use across a wide variety of different scopes is quite thin and well suited for precision shooting. I think it is a little too thin on 4x, especially as light goes down, but that is where reticle illumination really helps. Here is what the reticle looks like on 4x, 8x, 12x and 16x.
Optical quality was very good given the price. When I compared it next to the Delta Stryker which costs a fair bit more, Delta was the better scope during the day, with better resolution and better CA control. However, at night, they performed very similarly with Steiner having unusually good flare control for the price range. Compared to Ares ETR, P4Xi had a little more CA and little lower resolution, but the contrast on the Steiner was better. In the middle of the day Athlon Ares ETR looked a little better, but as the light went down P4Xi was the better scope. Its reticle illumination is also much better in low light than that on Ares ETR.
I think you are beginning to see the drift of my take on the P4Xi at this point: it is easy to get behind, seems solid mechanically and optically and it really shines in low light. Its only really notable optical flaw is some visible CA on high contrast targets, but I am kidna picking at it a little since there isn’t much else to complain about. It really reminds me of the original Steiner Military scopes a little in terms of the feel of the image. So many modern designs try to squeeze huge magnification range into a scope ro make it super compact and generally that is a good thing. However, with optics, everything is a compromise. If you are not ready to drop $3k+ for a modern ultrashort, I suggest looking at something with a design that is a bit more on the conservative side of things and this Steiner is exactly that. If you really want a 4-16×56 Hensoldt, but don’t have the budget for it, consider the P4Xi. No, it is not as good as the Hensoldt. It would be silly of me to claim it was, but it costs less than a third of the Hensoldt, stays zeroed, tracks true and is very good optically.
Table of Contents: – Background – Unboxing and Physical Description – Reticle – Comparative Optical Evaluation – Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion: – Summary and Conclusion – Testing Methodology: Adjustments, Reticle Size, Reticle Cant – Testing Methodology: Comparative Optical Evaluation
reviewing both the Athlon Ares BTR 4.5-27x50mm and this Athlon Midas TAC
6-24x50mm this year, I have an unusual situation. Both scopes are from the same
brand and, at $849 and $629 street, respectively, I would consider them to be
in the same price bracket. This suggests that there will be a lot of overlap in
the potential buyers of each scope and begs a great deal of direct comparison
as well as an unavoidable degree of re-use of text when discussing things in
common such as the background of the company, the near identical manuals, or
the very similar adjustment design. My apologies for the overlap, such as the
rest of this background section.
one of the newest players in the sport optics industry and it turned some heads
a few years ago as it seemed to be born, fully formed, with a complete line of
scopes at a wide variety of price points. This is because, in some respects,
the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, or runner, depending on your metaphor
(I know, stretching it). Athlon was founded by (and is still run by) some
Bushnell alums. As such, Athlon had the experience and contacts of a major
market player at its start. Its business model also essentially differs little
from that of its parent. They are both importers and brands – not
manufacturers. As with most importers, they offer a broad selection of product
lines and price points sourced from a variety of OEMs.
Where Athlon departs from many of the importers, or at least
from its parent, is that it is smaller, more nimble, and flatter in terms of
corporate organization. The principal players of Athlon are on the floor at
tradeshows talking to customers, industry players, and grumpy writers. This is
not really a large or small company thing so much as a philosophic thing. Huge
companies, like Kahr or Benchmade for instance, can, and do, have founders on
the floor. Much smaller and more bureaucratic companies often do not. This
shows in the timeliness of the features Athlon puts in scopes: they have their ear to the ground. My take
is that the plan is basically to win on three things: cost, service, and up-to-date feature sets. So far they appear to
be mostly delivering on these points. Athlon scopes are generally less costly
than other brands coming from the same OEM, they seem to be building a solid
reputation for customer service, and their features are up to date with market
Unboxing and Physical Description:
the Athlon Midas TAC 6-24x50mm reveals the exact same sparse accessories found
with the big brother Ares scope: no
caps or covers, just a lens cloth, battery, manual, and invitation for the
customer to review the product online. I think I’ll do that.
Athlon Midas TAC 6-24x50mm unboxing
The scope itself is on the smaller side for this
magnification range. It features a mid size 50mm objective and is a little
longer than the Ares at 14.6″, but slightly lighter at 26.3oz. I am a fan
of smaller objective, lighter weight optics. I have the general opinion that
traditional objective sizes have never adjusted to the incredible light
transmission gains that current generation lens coatings have made possible and
this has left many scope makers manufacturing huge, heavy, scopes that gain
little additional low light capabilities for all that added weight.
The Midas features a large uncapped 10 mil per turn zero
stop elevation adjustment. The design and appearance of the adjustment is
nearly identical to that of the Ares though the Midas knob does not include the
extra O-ring that the Ares has. The resulting feel is similar to the Ares with
the ring removed though the Midas is a bit stiffer. Specifically, it has a
little higher ratio of click force / rotation force between clicks. This makes
it a little harder to rotate just one click at a time without going over. I
would not characterize it as too difficult a scope in this regard, but you are
going to occasionally over-rotate with it.
I have a slight overall feel preference for the Ares elevation
adjustment. I would characterize the Midas as having an average elevation click
stiffness with the Ares on the squishier side. Both have a feel I would
characterize as fine but neither excellent. These differences between two
scopes’ adjustment feel on exceptionally similar elevation knobs serves to
highlight just how touchy a thing the adjustment of feel on the clicks of a
scope can be.
In a departure from the Ares, the Midas has a smaller capped
windage knob. This knob is a 10 mils per turn knob that is marked 1-5 in each
direction. It has good feel and is a nice compromise between a hunting design
and a tactical design. That is to say, you could really use it either way and
be pleased. The power ring and euro style diopter on the Midas are on the
looser side of average with a parallax knob I would classify as perfect.
Looking at the features of the Midas TAC elevation knob
specifically, it is 10 mil per turn and features both a zero stop system that
is a little different from what I have seen before and markings that can be
repositioned. Repositioning the markings is done in a common way. They are
located on an outer sleeve that pops off and can be repositioned after removal
of a screw. This sleeve is toothed with enough teeth that its markings will
properly line up with the actual detents instead of landing between as some
others have done. The zero stop system is one that the Midas TAC shares with
the Ares BTR but I have not seen on other optics – I am embarrassed to admit
that I did not even notice that these scopes had one until halfway through the
Ares review. As is common, the whole elevation knob on the Midas screws up and
down as the adjustment it rotated. This attribute forms the basis of both the
zero stop and the simple scribed turn indicator. The zero stop consists of a
brass disc they refer to as the “zero stop locking plate” located
under the removable outer adjustment sleeve. This disc can be repositioned
using three set screws. So, basically, you zero the scope, remove the outer sleeve,
loosen the set screws, and move the disc so that it is lying flat on the saddle
with its stop protrusion immediately to the right of the stop protrusion on the
scope saddle. You then gently tighten the set screws and replace the sleeve and
its screw with the proper alignment of the zero. This zero stop is very
inexpensive to make in addition to being quite functional. It also has the same
advantage as most plunger style systems in that you can set it independently of
the markings to give you a few tenths of adjustment below the zero if you want.
It is a well designed system and I’m a fan.
The Mil-stop system used on the Athlon Ares BTR and Midas TAC scopes
The manual included with the Midas scope is the same mixed
bag as the Ares and varies little in its text. It includes pretty good sections
on focusing, setting eye relief, bore sighting, zeroing (although it mistakenly
refers to the “zero stop locking plate” as black when it is actually
brass) and a lesser section on mounting. It also has nice dimensioned diagrams
of the reticle. There is some lack of clarity in the manual regarding if
Athlon’s MOA based scopes are calibrated to true MOA (TMOA) which is
1.047″ @ 100 yds or shooters’ MOA / inches per hundred yards (SMOA /
IPHY) which is 1.0″ @ 100 yds.
This is very important as 4.7% error is a lot of error when making long
distance calculations. Upon speaking with the guys at Athlon, I found that
their adjustments and reticles are calibrated in TMOA. The manual section on
troubleshooting tips for accuracy is the most problematic section as it has
some poor enough advice in it that I felt the need to write a whole paragraph
about the manual. The section advises the shooter to “use a bench rest or
sandbag to support the barrel and stock”. Force on the barrel deflects the
barrel, causing shots to stray and should be avoided – not encouraged – when
seeking to shoot with accuracy. Support of the barrel with sandbags is actually
often the cause of inaccuracy and not a solution for it. The manual also says
to make sure there is “no excessive grease inside of the barrel”.
This suggests to me that there might be a good reason to have a proper amount
of grease in the barrel and a novice shooter might then, in error, apply grease
to such. Though grease is sometimes used in a barrel for long term storage,
there should never be any grease in a barrel when you are shooting. Grease in a
barrel can not only cause inaccuracies, but can also cause dangerous and/or
unbalanced pressures in a barrel. Grease does not protect a barrel from wear
either, as wear is overwhelmingly a product of erosion in the throat of a
barrel from powder burning there and not a product of friction with the bullet
over the length of the barrel.
Midas TAC 6-24x50mm is available in two mil reticle options, the APRS2 and
APRS3, as well as one MOA option, the APLR4. The two mil options are very
similar to one another with the APRS3 being comprised of the APRS2 plus a Christmas
tree section graduated in one mil increments vertically and .2 mil increments
horizontally. The APRS2 is a typical mil hash reticle featuring a floating dot
center and .2 mil increments horizontally out to 6 mils then .5 mil increments
after that out to 9 mils, at which point there is just a thick crosshairs.
Vertically, the reticle is graduated in .2 mil increments for just one mil. At
that point, the top half is graduated in .5 mil increments out to 9 mils and
then it becomes a thick crosshairs, while the bottom half is graduated in .5
mil increments out to 7 mils where it goes back to .2 mil increments until 10
mils, at which point it becomes a thick crosshairs. While there is probably
some rationale for the alternating use of a .2 mil graduation system and a .5
mil one, that is not fully explained anywhere and I likely wouldn’t agree with
it over the consistency of sticking with the .2 mil increments throughout,
though it probably doesn’t matter a whole heck of a lot anyway. For what it’s
worth, I think .2 mil graduations are a pretty good choice on a scope of this
power range. Both vertical and horizontal crosshairs are numbered every 2 mils
and are on the thinner than average side when it comes to line thickness.
Generally, I think users will find both the APRS2 and APRS 3 reticles good
choices with the user’s preference regarding a Christmas tree section the
dividing factor on choice.
When tested, the reticle showed a very slight cant of ~.5
degrees counter-clockwise relative to the adjustments. This is not an amount of
deviation I would be concerned about.
Horus CATS 280F test target through Athlon Midas TAC
6-24x50mm scope with APRS2 FFP MIL reticle.
Comparative Optical Evaluation:
comparisons to this Athlon Midas TAC 6-24x50mm, I had the other scopes in this
series of sub $1K FFP mil/mil precision rifle scope review, the Athlon Ares BTR
4.5-27×50 FFP IR Mil and Sightron SIIISS624x50LRFFP/MH, as well as two that
have been used as comparisons by me in previous reviews for context, the
Leupold Mk 6 3-18×44 and my old (and now discontinued) Zeiss conquest
4.5-14×44. All of these scopes were lined up together on a five slot adjustable
v-block and evaluated using the procedure outlined in the methodology section
at the end of this review. This same methodology is used on all long range
scope evaluations and has been for several years now.
I have never before had a set of five scopes with such
generally close optical performance. Usually, scopes somewhat sort themselves
into performance tiers with higher tier scopes being better than lower tier
scopes in pretty much all characteristics. That was not even remotely the case
with this lineup. No scope was always first or last when evaluating particular
performance parameters and the order of the scopes’ rankings changed with
pretty much every particular parameter being evaluated. That being said, the
Midas was, on balance, on the lower side of average for the group and was
bested by its Athlon Ares stablemate in almost all respects. The best aspects
of optical performance for the Midas were its larger than group average field
of view and better than average contrast. Its weakest points were eyebox,
chromatic aberration, and pincushion / barrel distortion. None of these
performance aspects were what I would consider problematic, but they were areas
where it lagged behind the comparison scopes and, most importantly, its
sibling. The Midas scope performed closer to middle of the pack in resolution,
stray light handling, and depth of field. Edge to edge clarity was excellent on
all the scopes tested and no scope displayed any tunneling.
It is worth noting here that the
Midas is the least expensive scope in this lineup by a significant margin. In
that respect, bully to the Midas for keeping up and even beating the average in
a few aspects. That is not how I feel about it overall though. Being a 6-24x
scope, the Midas is much simpler to do well than its 4.5-27x Ares sibling. At
the same design and build quality, the Midas would look much better than the
Ares because 6x erector ratios are much, much harder to do well than 4x ones.
That is not the case however. The Ares is optically better is almost all
respects. It has a truly excellent performance at the price the Ares puts out
and merely adequate performance at the
price the Midas provides. It’s hard to feel really good about the Midas
optical performance next to the Ares.
Doing the mechanical testing on the Athlon Midas TAC
Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:
mentioned in the unboxing section, the Athlon Midas TAC 6-24x50mm sports a very
feature rich 10 mil per turn zero stop elevation knob where the zero stop and
zero are set independently, allowing you to set whatever amount of turn below
the zero before the stop that you desire. The windage knob is also 10 mils per
turn, though with a lower profile and capped construction. It also lacks a stop
and is marked out to 5 mil left and right instead of continuously. Testing the
accuracy of these adjustments was done in accordance with the methodology
section detailed at the end of this review. This methodology was followed on
all the scopes this year and has been in use for a few years now.
In testing, the adjustments tracked monotonously perfectly
in all respects. The scope adjusted up from optical center 14.3 mils with no
deviation and then perfectly down 8.5 mils. This is not the full range of
travel down but rather the travel with the zero stop flush to the center post.
There is a little room internally for the zero stop to protrude above the post
with no problems. I show a maximum of 12.4 mils down on my example in this
configuration though I did not test the tracking out to that point. You could
also remove the stop feature entirely and get even more travel. I show a max of
14.1 mils on my example. These numbers would suggest a 30 MOA base should not
cause a problem and that some users might be able to do a 40 MOA and still have
a 100yd zero though that will depend a lot on the rifle since there is variance
in all rifles between the centerline of the rail and that of the bore.
Tracking on both adjustments was repeatable and the scope
returned to zero with no problems. The windage and elevation were also properly
independent. No zero shift was affected by power change, parallax change, or
You don’t get any better than zero deviation so a big win
for that. Getting adjustments to exactly match the correct magnitude is one of
the most difficult aspects of scope manufacture. As such, most scopes show
deviation to some degree measurable with my equipment. The average deviation
for precision rifle scopes, based on my past tests, is about 1%.
Midas TAC 6-24x50mm is a lot of scope with a lot of features for the $630
street that it goes for. The thing is that its sister scope, the Athlon Ares
BTR 4.5-27x50mm is a even more scope at its $850 price. This is emotionally
hard for me. I understand intellectually that the 35% more that the Ares costs
is a very meaningful difference and that the Midas might itself be a budget
stretch that represents a new world of possibilities since you are talking
about a scope with real long range capabilities in a price range otherwise full
of set and forget limited range scopes. The Midas will mean that previously
inaccessible game at 400yds is very doable. That could be quality meat for
months for a family. It is hard, as an optics geek (even a not so well-heeled
optics geek) to connect with that though. It is much easier for me to be really
impressed that Athlon managed to get better optical performance out of the Ares
while also cramming in a 6x magnification ratio and landing it at the very low
price of $850. Sure, a 6x vs 4x magnification ratio might not really translate
into much more utility for you, the added illumination on the Ares is no more
utility to almost anybody, and the Ares is only a little optically better, but
aren’t you moved by how much more lit up some optics geek got about it?
Here is Your Pro and Con Breakdown:
Pros: – Optics are significantly better than average at the price – Tracked perfectly – Very low price for a full featured FFP Mil/Mil zero stop scope – Properly sized reticle with very little cant – Very simple effective zero stop that lets you chose travel below zero – Lightweight, 26.3oz – Smaller 50mm objective I prefer – Full 10 mil/turn knobs – Good adjustment range, 25mil – Reticle design in line with current trends – Good warranty
Cons: – It’s hard not to recommend its sister scope, the Ares BTR 4.5-27×50, over it for better optics, more features, and a much larger 6x magnification ratio – Basically no extras like scope caps, sunshade, or bra – Athlon is a new company with a good, though very short, track record – Manual has some advice that may lead a novice astray
testing scope adjustments, I use the adjustable V-block on the right of the
test rig to first center the erector. Approximately .2 or so mil of deviation
is allowed from center in the erector as it is difficult to do better than this
because the adjustable V-block has some play in it. The erector can be centered
with the scope mounted or not mounted. If it started unmounted, I mount it
after centering. I next set the zero stop (on scopes with such a feature) to
this centered erector and attach the optic to the rail on the left side of the
Mechanical testing apparatus and target
fine threaded 7/16″ bolts on the rig allow the scope to be aimed precisely
at an 8’x3′ Horus CATS 280F target 100 yds downrange as measured by a quality
fiberglass tape measure. The target is also trued to vertical with a bubble
level. The reticle is aimed such that its centerline is perfectly aligned with
the centerline of the target and it is vertically centered on the 0 mil elevation
target is graduated in both mils and true MOA and calibrated for 100 yards. The
target is mounted upside-down on a target backer designed specifically for this
purpose as the target was designed to be fired at rather than being used in
conjunction with a stationary scope. (Since up for bullet impact means down for
reticle movement on the target, the inversion is necessary.) With the three
bolts tightened on the test rig head, the deflection of the rig is about .1 mil
under the force required to move adjustments. The rig immediately returns to
zero when the force is removed. It is a very solid, very precise test platform.
These bolts allow the scope to be precisely positioned such that its reticle is
perfectly aligned with the test target prior to moving the adjustments. Each
click of movement in the scope adjustments moves the reticle on the target and
this can observed by the tester as it actually happens during the test: it’s quite a lot of fun if you are a bit of
a nerd like I am! After properly setting the parallax to the target (head bob
method) and diopter (after the parallax), I move the elevation adjustment
though the range from erector center until it stops, making note every 5 mils
of adjustment dialed of any deviation in the position of the reticle on the
target relative to where it should be and also making note of the total travel
and any excess travel in the elevation knob after the reticle stops moving but
before the knob stops. At the extent of this travel I can also determine the
cant of the reticle by measuring how far off of the target centerline the
reticle has moved. I next reverse the adjustment process and go back down to
zero. This is done several times to verify consistency with any notes taken of
changes. After testing the elevation adjustments in this manner, the windage
adjustments are tested out to 4 mils each way in similar fashion using the same
target and basically the same method. The elevation and windage are then tested
in conjunction with one another by making a large box 8 mil wide and as tall as
the adjustments will allow. If the scope is one where it is easy to do so (not
a pin type zero stop model), I next re-align the test rig to point the scope at
the bottom of the target and test the elevation in the other direction for
tracking and range. After concluding the testing of adjustments, I also test
the reticle size calibration. This is done quite easily on this same target by
comparing the reticle markings to those on the target.
single scope of a given model from a given manufacturer, which is really all
that is feasible, is not meant to be indicative of all scopes from that maker.
Accuracy of adjustments, reticle size, and cant will differ from scope to
scope. After testing a number of scopes, I have a few theories as to why. As
designed on paper, I doubt that any decent scope has flaws resulting in
inaccurate clicks in the center of the adjustment range. Similarly, I expect
few scopes are designed with inaccurate reticle sizes (and I don’t even know
how you would go about designing a canted reticle as the reticle is etched on a
round piece of glass and cant simply results from it being rotated incorrectly
when positioned). However, ideal designs aside, during scope assembly the
lenses are positioned by hand and will be off by this much or that much. This
deviation in lens position from design spec can cause the reticle size or
adjustment magnitude to be incorrect and, I believe, is the reason for these
problems in most scopes. Every scope maker is going to have a maximum
acceptable amount of deviation from spec that is acceptable to them and I very
much doubt they would be willing to tell you what this number is, or better
yet, what the standard of deviation is. The tighter the tolerance, the better
from the standpoint of the buyer, but also the longer average time it will take
to assemble a scope and, therefore, the higher the cost. Assembly time is a
major cost in scope manufacture. It is actually the reason that those S&B
1-8x short dots took years to make it to market. Tolerances are a particular
concern for scopes that have high magnification ratios and also for those that
are short in length. Both of these design attributes tend to make assembly very
touchy. This should make you, the buyer, particularly careful to test purchased
scopes that have these desirable attributes, as manufacturers will face greater
pressure on these types to allow looser standards. If you test your scope and
find it lacking, I expect that you will not have too much difficulty in
convincing a maker with a reputation for good customer service to remedy
it: squeaky wheel gets the oil and all
that. Remember that some deviations, say a scope’s adjustments being 1% too
large or small, are easy to adjust for in ballistic software, whereas others, a
large reticle cant for instance, are not.
leave adjustments, reticle size, and reticle cant, I will give you some general
trends I have noticed so far. The average adjustment deviation seems to vary on
many models with distance from optical center. This is a good endorsement for a
20 MOA base, as it will keep you closer to center for longer. The average
deviation for a scope’s elevation seems to be about .1% at 10 mils. Reticle
size deviation is sometimes found to vary with adjustments so that both the
reticle and adjustments are off in the same way and with similar magnitude.
This makes them agree with each other when it comes to follow up shots. I
expect this is caused by the error in objective lens position affecting both
the same. In scopes that have had a reticle with error, it has been of this
variety, but fewer scopes have this issue than have adjustments that are off.
Reticle size deviation does not appear to vary in magnitude as you move from
erector center although adjustment deviation often does. The mean amount of
reticle error is less than .05%. Reticle cant mean is about .05 degrees.
Reticle cant, it should be noted, affects the shooter as a function of
calculated drop and can easily get lost in the windage read. As an example, a 1
degree cant equates to about 21 cm at 1000 meters with a 168 gr .308 load that
drops 12.1 mil at that distance. That is a lot of drop, and a windage misread
of 1 mph is of substantially greater magnitude (more than 34 cm) than our
example reticle cant-induced error. This type of calculation should be kept in
mind when examining all mechanical and optical deviations in a given
scope: a deviation is really only
important if it is of a magnitude similar to the deviations expected to be
introduced by they shooter, conditions, rifle, and ammunition. Lastly, the
proliferation of “humbler” type testing units such as mine appears to
have resulted in scope companies improving their QC standards. I see less
deviation in products now then a few years ago.
The goal of
my optical performance evaluation is NOT to attempt to establish some sort of
objective ranking system. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it
is notoriously difficult to measure optics in an objective and quantifiable
way. Tools, such as MTF plots, have been devised for that purpose, primarily by
the photography business. Use of such tools for measuring rifle scopes is
complicated by the fact that scopes do not have any image recording function
and therefore a camera must be used in conjunction with the scope. Those who
have taken through-the-scope pictures will understand the image to image
variance in quality and the ridiculousness of attempting to determine quality
of the scope via images so obtained.
Beyond the difficulty of applying objective and quantifiable tools from
the photography industry to rifle scopes, additional difficulties are
encountered in the duplication of repeatable and meaningful test conditions.
Rifle scopes are designed to be used primarily outside, in natural lighting,
and over substantial distances. Natural lighting conditions are not amenable to
repeat performances. This is especially true if you live in central Ohio, as I
do. Without repeatable conditions, analysis tools have no value, as the
conditions are a primary factor in the performance of the optic. Lastly, the
analysis of any data gathered, even if such meaningful data were gathered,
would not be without additional difficulties. It is not immediately obvious
which aspects of optical performance, such as resolution, color rendition,
contrast, curvature of field, distortion, and chromatic aberration, should be
considered of greater or lesser importance. For such analysis to have great
value, not only would a ranking of optical aspects be in order, but a
compelling and decisive formula would have to be devised to quantitatively
weigh the relative merits of the different aspects. Suffice it to say, I have
neither the desire nor the resources to embark on such a multi-million dollar
project and, further, I expect it would be a failure anyway as, in the end no
agreement will be reached on the relative weights of different factors in
The goal of
my optical performance evaluation is instead to help the reader get a sense of
the personality of a particular optic. Much of the testing documents the
particular impressions each optic makes on the tester. An example of this might
be a scope with a particularly poor eyebox behind which the user notices he
just can’t seem to get to a point where the whole image is clear. Likewise, a
scope might jump out to the tester as having a very bad chromatic aberration
problem that makes it difficult to see things clearly as everything is fringed
with odd colors. Often these personality quirks mean more to the users’
experience than any particular magnitude of resolution number would. My testing
seeks to document the experience of using a particular scope in such a way that
the reader will form an impression similar to that of the tester with regard to
like or dislike and will be aware of the reasons for that impression.
technique utilized for this testing is comparative observation. One of the test
heads designed for my humbler apparatus consists of five V-blocks of which four
are adjustable. This allows each of the
four scopes on the adjustable blocks to be aimed such that they are collinear
with the fifth. For the majority of the testing, each scope is then set to the
same power (the highest power shared by all as a rule). Though power numbers
are by no means accurately marked, an approximation will be obtained. Each
scope will have the diopter individually adjusted by the tester, the
adjustments centered optically, and the parallax set. A variety of targets,
including both natural backdrops and optical test targets, will be observed
through the plurality of optics with the parallax being adjusted for each optic
at each target. A variety of lighting conditions over a variety of days will be
utilized. Specific notes are made regarding:
resolution, color rendition, contrast, field of view, edge to edge
quality, light transmission, pincushion and barrel distortion, chromatic
aberration, tunneling, depth of field, eyebox, stray light handling, and
optical flare. The observations through all of these sessions will be combined
in the way that the tester best believes conveys his opinion of the optic’s
performance and explains the reasons why.
Comparative optical testing of this years sub $1k
precision rifle scopes behind the adjustable v-block