Les (Jim) Fischer BigJimFish Written: Jan 14, 2020
Table of Contents: – Background – Unboxing and Physical Description – Reticle – Comparative Optical Evaluation – Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion – Summary and Conclusion – Testing Methodology
Background:
This Midas Tac 5-25×56 is the third scope I have reviewed from the relatively new Athlon optics company. Started and run by a couple of optical industry alums, Athlon sources optics from a number of different overseas OEM’s which are made to the companies’ specifications. Based on the company’s growth rate and customer satisfaction, the Athlon guys appear to be quite good at this. Certainly the scopes I have seen from them have proven predictably reliable and with features that I judge to be well chosen for the marketplace. Furthermore, Athlon appears to have a very rigorous quality control apparatus in place, as the scopes I have seen have much lower than average deviation from specifications when it comes to adjustment magnitude, reticle size, and reticle alignment. The predictability of their function is starting to make them rather dull to test.
Today’s scope, the Midas Tac 5-25×56, is a new scope being added to their existing Midas TAC line. It’s sort of a gap-filler. It is of similar glass quality and magnification to the existing Midas TAC 6-24×50, but has a larger 56mm form factor more in line with the higher end ARES ETR 4.5-30×56. You could choose to see it as a lower cost alternative to the ARES ETR 4.5-30×56, which it is similar in size to or as a larger alternative to the Midas TAC 6-24x that it shares relative glass quality with.
Unboxing and Physical Description:
We may as well start the theme of this review right here. There were no surprises in the unboxing. The Athlon Midas TAC 5-25×56 comes with a lens cloth and manual just like its little brother the Midas TAC 6-24×50 did. It is styled very similarly and, from the objective to the tube to the eyepiece, it just appears to be a slightly bigger version of the same idea. The 5-25×56 is about 4oz heavier, just under an inch longer, has a 34mm instead of 30mm tube, and, of course, has a 56mm objective instead of 50mm. Probably, the biggest highlights are the 32mil instead of 25mil total elevation adjustment and the larger 5x instead of 4x magnification ratio. 32 mils is actually a pretty large adjustment range at any price these days, and the Midas TAC 5-25×56 is not a high cost optic.
The manual included with the Midas TAC 5-25×56 I received for testing appears to be the same one as the Midas TAC Athlon Midas TAC 6-24×50 from last year. In fact, its section with scope dimensions has not been updated to include the 5-25×56. I received this scope just before they hit the market generally, so it is likely from the first run and the manual you will receive had not yet been printed. Hopefully they update the troubleshooting section of the new one to remove the suggestion to directly support the barrel with a sandbag, as well as the text about excessive grease in the barrel. There should be no grease at all in a barrel at the time of firing.
The Athlon Midas TAC 5-25×56 is available with just one mil and one MOA reticle option. The mil option, the APRS3, is a typical mil hash Christmas tree reticle with 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, this is not fully explained anywhere, though even if it were, I likely wouldn’t agree with it over the consistency of sticking with the .2 mil increments throughout. Both vertical and horizontal crosshairs are numbered every 2 mils and are on the thinner than average side when it comes to line thickness. The Christmas tree section has rows of dots every mil below the central crosshairs. Each row is graduated in fine dots every .2 mils and a thicker dot every mil. The MOA based reticle, the APLR4 FFP MOA, has essentially the same appearance as the mil reticle. Unsurprisingly, its graduations are spaced 1 MOA apart. The APRS3 Christmas tree mil hash reticle is very much in line with what I see the industry converging to and the alternation between .5 and .2 mil increments at places is really the only bone I have to pick with it.
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. The reticle graduations were correctly sized.
Athlon Midas TAC 5-25×56’s APRS3 Mil-Hash reticle on the HORUS CATS target at (magnification set at roughly 18x)
Comparative Optical Evaluation:
For optical comparisons with the Athlon Midas TAC 5-25×56,I had the entire suite of sub $1K FFP mil/mil precision riflescopes that have been part of this ongoing series of reviews. In order of arrival, they are the: Sightron SIIISS624x50LRFFP/MH, Athlon Ares BTR 4.5-27×50 FFP IR Mil, Athlon Midas TAC 6-24×50, Meopta Optika6 5-30×56 RD FFP, Sightron S-TAC 4-20x50FFPZSIRMH, and Nikon Black FX1000 6-24x50SF Matte IL FX-MRAD. It should be noted that, at the time of this writing, the Nikon was not present to be compared as the example. It had proved defective, was returned, and its replacement had not yet arrived. Testing of all the scopes was done in accordance with the same methodology that I have used now for a number of years.
All seven sub $1K FFP mil/mil long range precision riflescopes. Athlon Midas TAC 5-25×56 is on the far left.
All seven sub $1K FFP mil/mil long range precision riflescopes. Athlon Midas TAC 5-25×56 is on the far left. On balance, the Athlon Midas TAC 5-25×56 is optically the best of the Athlon scopes tested and on the better side of the field of sub $1K scopes overall. Its strongest points were field of view, depth of field, low light performance, and contrast. In these aspects it was either the best performer or close to it. The TAC 5-25×56 was more middle of the pack when it came to resolution, eyebox, barrel distortion, stray light handling, and chromatic aberration. In no aspect of optical performance that I measured did the TAC 5-25×56 test in the bottom 3rd of scopes tested. I think that the avoidance of any real weaknesses might speak as well for the scope as the overall above average finish. There is something to be said for an optical design balanced well enough that it really doesn’t stumble in any single design criterion.
Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:
The Athlon Midas TAC 5-25×56 features a virtually identical large uncapped 10 mil per turn zero stop elevation adjustment to that of the Midas TAC 6-24×50. Both scopes adjustments have the firm, postitive, “clicky” feel. that comes from a high ratio of click force / rotation force between clicks. This does mean that you will occasionally over-rotate with them or lose click count and have to look at the dial. The Midas scopes are not the most difficult in this regard, but it will happen occasionally. I think the ratio of click force / rotation force between clicks is a difficult decision for optics makers. People generally greatly prefer this “clicky” feel and dislike the squishy feel that you get if the ratio of click force / rotation force between the clicks is low. However, it is difficult to have that positive “clicky” feel and also have a knob that the user won’t occasionally over rotate or loose count and have to break position to check on. Athlon has experimented both ways on this in the past and has understandably gone with the customers preferred feel. You do not make money telling people what the ought to want, you make it by producing what they already want.
Just like the smaller Midas, the 5-25×56 has a smaller capped windage knob. This knob is a 10 mils per turn knob that is marked 1-5 in each direction. The windage knob on my 5-25×56 is significantly stiffer and “clickier” than it was on the TAC 6-24×50, and, as a result, is easier to over-rotate or lose click count on. The power ring and parallax knob on the Midas are on the looser side of average with the euro-style diopter ring about average. The diopter rings on both Midas scopes seem to have a bit more correction range than on most scopes which I classify a win since I recently had an issue with a competitor who had so little range that I couldn’t even focus my 20/20 uncorrected eye all the way back to its optimum 20/15 or so.
The zero stop system used on the Athlon Midas and Ares scopes (this pictured on an Ares BTR 4.5-27×50 FFP IR Mil, O-ring no longer present in either scope line)
The Midas TAC 5-25×56 elevation knob’s features and design are common to all of the Athlons I have tested so far. They are 10mil per turn and feature Athlon’s particular zero stop system, as well as an outer knob with the mil graduation markings on it that can be repositioned. Repositioning the markings to read zero at the rifle’s zero is done in the common way. The outer knob pops off and can be repositioned after removal of a single screw in the top. This outer knob 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 both Midas TAC scopes share with the Ares BTR but that I have not seen on other optics. 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.
In testing, the scope tracked absolutely dead nuts from 0 up to 17.4mils, returned to zero fine, and then tracked down from zero right on the money to 17.1mils for a total travel of 34.5mils. This travel range is even a bit more than the already generous 32mils advertised. Unsurprisingly, the Midas TAC 5-25×56 also tracked fine to the 4mils each way that I can measure horizontally and showed no zero shift with adjustment of the parallax, diopter, or power ring. The parallax knob even showed exactly 100yds when focused at 100yds and those things are never right.
Athlon Midas TAC 5-25×56during mechanical testing
Summary and Conclusion:
The pattern emerging with these Athlon scopes is that they
are solid predictable performers with good value at their price points and with
the most in-demand features. The quality control on the three scopes I have
seen has been superb, as two of the three showed no measurable deviation at all
from perfect in adjustment increment and the other was still better than
average. Similarly, all three had properly sized reticles and none had cant of
more than .5 degrees. This is a rather impressive record.
Optically, all the Athlons I have tested have met or exceeded my
expectations. Overall, this one was the best performer, landing well on
the higher performing half of all the sub $1K scopes tested. Larger 56mm
scopes are not my favorite, as I typically see little gain for the
extra size and weight of over 50mm scopes. In this case though, you do
get significantly more elevation range, and the optical design itself is
a little better optimized than either of its 50mm brethren.
The street price on this Midas TAC 5-25×56 is around $850, making it
about the same as the Ares BTR 4.5-27×50 and ~$200 more than the Midas
TAC 6-24×50. All three of these scopes make good arguments at their
price points so I think that Athlon has done a pretty good job of the
tricky work of product positioning. It is not hard to see why the
company is having such success.
Here is Your Pro and Con Breakdown:
Pros: – Optics are significantly better than average at the price and well optimized – Tracked perfectly – Properly sized reticle with very little cant – Athlon’s QC is starting to look pretty superior – Very simple effective zero stop that lets you chose travel below zero if you want. – Full 10mil/turn knobs – Superb 32mil elevation travel – Reticle design in line with current trends – Good warranty and reputation
Cons: – 56mm objective does add size and weight – You will occasionally lose click count on the “clicky” adjustments and need to look at the graduations. – No illumination. – Basically no extras like scope caps, sunshade, or bra – Relatively new company with short, though good, track record
Les (Jim) Fischer
BigJimFish
Written: Dec 18, 2019
Table of Contents: – Background – Unboxing and Physical Description – Reticle – Comparative Optical Evaluation – Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion – Summary and Conclusion – Testing Methodology
Background:
Sightron is best known in the target shooting community for producing solid no frills scopes at prices lower than comparable competitors. Sightron has always appeared to be low on advertising expenditures and behind the curve on features, but their quality, price, and customer service has been good. Sightron was very late to the party with ffp, mil/mil offerings, and zero stops. For years I talked to them about this and, finally, two years ago, they came out with an SIII in mil/mil ffp. That SIIISS624x50LRFFP/MH was one of the sub $1K, ffp, mil/mil scopes I reviewed last year. Since then, they have come out with both a higher cost SV ffp design and this, lower cost S-TAC which sits at $700 street with an MSPR of $1k at the time of this writing.
Unboxing and Physical Description:
At first glance, the S-TAC 4-20X50FFPZSIRMH appears to share a lot of similarities with the SIIISS624x50LRFFP/MH. They are both long and light scopes with very plain and subdued styling. The S-Tac comes in at 15″ in length and 25.6 oz weight. Both scopes’ turrets are also very similar, being 5 mil / turn with similar styling and feel. The S-TAC, however, comes standard with the better labeled and higher visibility text found on the “tactical” turrets which were an aftermarket option on the SIII and also include a zero stop. I should note that you can now get these updated adjustments (zero stop and tactical labeled turret) in the SIII with the SIIISS624X50LRZSFFP/MH model. These are the only changes from the SIIISS624x50LRFFP/MH I reviewed last year. Unfortunately, to get these additions adds a hefty $150 to the price. To that set of features, the S-Tac additionally has illumination and a flip-up throw lever on the power ring. Neither of these features is to be found on either higher cost SIII scope. In the box with the S-Tac is a lens cloth, plastic flip-up covers, two hex wrenches, a battery, and the same generic-to-all-Sightron-scopes manual that I received with the SIII last year. Said manual was supposed to have been updated to fix a minor error pertaining to angular and linear measurements in the windage and elevation movement table section, but evidently was not, as they are identical manuals. This update not happening could be worse, as it is basically a typo. However, each scope also includes a second supplemental sheet which has a reticle diagram and dimensions for said reticle, as well as a mil ranging formula. The ranging formula was wrong in the SIII’s supplemental sheet and is now somehow wrong in a different way on the S-Tac’s. These are not mere typos either, these are incorrect, non-functional, and non-sensical formulas. The correct formula should be: (target height (meters)/angle subtended (mils)) *1000 = range to target in meters. I am dismayed at both the persistence of the Sightron folks in getting this wrong and the misplaced creativity demonstrated by getting it wrong in a different way.
Sightron S-TAC 4-20X50FFPZSIRMH Unboxing
Reticle:
The Illuminated MH-4 reticle on the S-TAC 4-20X50FFPZSIRMH is very similar to that which was on the SIIISS624x50LRFFP/MH. Both are very simple mil hash reticles with .5 mil subtensions over most of the reticle and .25 for the first mil from the center. The MH-4 in the S-TAC improves on the reticle in the SIII by adding some number labels for the divisions. This may seem like a minor improvement but in practice it helps greatly in avoiding mis-counting and can also save valuable time when making adjustments. Neither reticle has a Christmas tree section, which I am not sure is a bad thing as tree sections can interfere with how well you can see the splash on a miss. The reticle on the S-TAC is also illuminated and it is substantially thicker. I expect these two may be linked since the SIII had a very fine reticle that I doubt would have illuminated well. The illumination on the S-TAC is not just on the center area but instead on the whole of the graduated section of the reticle. I prefer this arrangement. In general, I feel very much the same about the S-TAC’s reticle that I felt about the SIII”s. There is little to either enthuse or repel a prospective buyer in the design. In testing, the reticle was correctly sized and showed no cant relative to the adjustments.
Sightron S-TAC 4-20X50FFPZSIRMH’s Mil-Hash reticle on the HORUS CATS target at 20x
Comparative Optical Evaluation:
For optical comparisons with the S-TAC 4-20X50FFPZSIRMH, I had the entire suite of sub $1K FFP mil/mil precision rifle scopes that have been part of this ongoing series of reviews. In order of arrival, they are the: Sightron SIIISS624x50LRFFP/MH, Athlon Ares BTR 4.5-27×50 FFP IR Mil, Athlon Midas TAC 6-24×50, Meopta Optika6 5-30×56 RD FFP, Athlon Midas TAC 5-25×56, and Nikon Black FX1000 6-24x50SF Matte IL FX-MRAD. It should be noted that the Nikon was not present to be compared. The example I was originally sent proved defective, had to be returned, and its replacement has not yet arrived at the time of this writing.
All seven sub $1K FFP mil/mil long range precision rifle scopes. S-TAC is 3rd from the right.
The S-TAC was one of the scopes I was most interested in
doing an optical evaluation of. This was because the SIII I tested last year
was, on balance, the strongest performer optically in this sub $1K series of
reviews. The SIII’s consistently good performance across virtually all of the
aspects of optical performance tested coupled with its light weight left me
quite fond of that optic despite the features that it lacked compared to most
of the other scopes in the field. Superficially, the S-TAC appeared to share
some of the same design heritage; perhaps it would do well.
Suffice to say, this was not the case. I will go into more detail. Setting aside the currently-absent-soon-to-be-replaced-because-it-was-defective Nikon, the S-TAC significantly under performed all other scopes in the field. It was rather consistent in this, being at or adjacent to the bottom in resolution, FOV, depth of field, low light, contrast, stray light, and chromatic aberration. Its performance highlights were eyebox and barrel distortion, where it came in just behind its sibling. It is not an uncomfortable or tricky scope to sit behind, it just doesn’t resolve things are well as most of the other scopes I tested. The sum of all this is that the S-TAC was very obviously a tier below any of the other scopes optically and, I would say, was significantly further from the next scope above it in performance than that scope was from the top performer. Given its sibling, I was pretty surprised at this. The performance difference was enough that when I first picked it up and looked though it without a lineup of scopes, I was already pretty sure how it would stack up.
Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:
The S-TAC’s knobs are very similar to those on the SIII with
the addition of a zero stop. The knobs are 5 mil / turn and have clicks that
feel and sound positive, but are not so stressed out that they will skip over
detents and make you miss count. I would therefore say that the feel is a win.
As on most of the sub $1K series, the zero indicator adjusts independently of
zero stop. In this case, you loosen the top screw to change the indicator
setting. The knob is only fastened to the adjustment by this screw and so can
be easily turned when it is loose but must be carefully lined up while being
tightened as there is no indexing. The zero stop is a collar under the knob
that locks into place with three set screws. Once you have zeroed the scope,
you just loosen up the set screws on the collar and turn it until it snugs under
the knob. The actual threading for this collar is above the section that the
set screws interface with so the set screws won’t mess up the threads. Probably
the best thing about this system is that the zero stop collar has a line on it
for each turn above zero. This is very handy, especially since the 5 mil / turn
knobs mean you will often be a few turns above. I find this a substantial
improvement over designs that have lines but where you are already several up
from the bottom at zero and often also at some odd increment between them.
Because the lines are on the collar piece that is the zero stop, they always
line up right. The least attractive feature is that the collar feels a bit like
a jam nut in that the knob will jam itself onto the stop when you turn to it
and stick a bit pulling it off. Overall I like the adjustment mechanism with
the exception of being only 5 mil / turn and only being labeled for that first
turn.
When tracking, the adjustments deviate from true in a non
linear fashion.
Going up from optical center: -At 5.0 mils on the adjustments, the scope is at 5.1mils on the target. -At 10 mils on the adjustments it is at 10.1 mils on the target. -Its full range is 11.5 mils on the adjustments at which point it is at 11.6 mils on the target. -It returns to zero fine and shows no slop in the adjustments going back to center.
Going down from optical center: -At 6.0 mils on the adjustments, it is at 6.1 mils on the target. -At 10.0 mils on the adjustments, it is at 10.1 on the target. -Its full range is 11.9 mils on the adjustments 12.0 on the target. -It returns to zero fine and shows no slop in the adjustments going back to center.
On the windage, it also seems to deviate a little, showing
~3.05 mils on the target when it is 3.0 on the knobs. I expect it would prove
to follow the same pattern as the elevation if I had a target that went out
that far.
There is no zero shift with parallax, diopter, or power ring and I saw no reticle cant. The reticle graduations are also the correct size. This degree of deviation from true in the tracking is about average for all the scopes I have tested over the years.
Sightron S-TAC 4-20X50FFPZSIRMH during mechanical testing
Summary and Conclusion:
There is no getting around that the Sightron S-TAC 4-20X50FFPZSIRMH left me a little disappointed. This is because it was optically a clear step below its peers in almost every dimension tested and, given the performance of its sibling SIII last year, I did not expect that. Though not the cheapest, its ~$699 street price is one of the lower costs in the field and it does have some features not present in all other scopes. Illumination is the most notable of these features, which also include a pull out throw lever and zero stop. The S-TAC is one of the only scopes to be limited to 5 mils / turn though. I don’t think that there is one universal answer in this sub $1K price range of ffp mil / mil scopes. If cost and illumination are important to you and optical performance is less important, the S-TAC has what you are looking for. Ironically, it has precisely the opposite strengths and weaknesses from its sibling SIII. I guess they were separated at birth.
Here is Your Pro and Con Breakdown:
Pros: -Has some features not all have: Illumination, zero stop, and a detachable throw lever -It’s zero stop system provides a good indicator of which turn you are on -Adjustments have a good feel and the correct resistance to them so you don’t miss count clicks -Sightron has a good warranty and reputation -At ~$699 street, it is one of the lower cost options
Cons: -Optically a clear step below the other sub $1K optics tested -Only 5 mils / turn -Significantly below average total elevation adjustment range -Manual is lacking and contains basic errors
Les (Jim) Fischer BigJimFish Written: Nov 15, 2019
Table of Contents: – Background – Unboxing and Physical Description – Reticle – Comparative Optical Evaluation – Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion – Summary and Conclusion – Testing Methodology
Background:
Meopta is
an optics manufacturer located in the Czech Republic. They represent what is
probably the most vertically integrated of all sports optics brands. Most scope
brands do not actually have any manufacturing facilities beyond warranty
repair. Those that do manufacture usually purchase coated glass and often some
sub-assemblies as well. Meopta manufactures all the way down to coating and
grinding glass. A great deal of their business is done in this OEM capacity,
producing parts and sub-assemblies not just for sport optics,but also for a
wide variety of other industries, such as medical and aerospace. The first
Meopta product I ever used was one of these OEM’d products. The very popular,
though now discontinued, original Zeiss Conquest series of scopes were made by
Meopta and continue to live on in Meopta’s lineup as the Meopta Meopro scopes.
Like many overseas manufacturers, Meopta has had difficulty with regard to both marketing their products and deciding what features to make for U.S. consumption. Their brand awareness has also been downright terrible. Some of this is understandable, as they were formerly in the Soviet sphere of influence and so were not seen in western markets until after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Much of it has just been lack of good branding, or appreciation of brand value. In the past few years this has changed some. A lot of this has to do with an advanced U.S. based optical coatings company that Meopta acquired a few years ago. The company came with some U.S. based employees who thought like U.S. shooters and changed the thinking within Meopta to a degree. This group also developed the technology behind the Dichro reticles featured on many of the Optika6 designs, though not the example I am testing.
The Optika6 line therefore is a big departure from previous Meopta offerings in that it includes a lot of ffp designs, mil/mil configurations, zero stops, throw levers, and some reticle designs from ILya.
The Meopta MeoPro Optika6 5-30×56 RD FFP comes with a nice scope bra, lens cloth, battery, sticker, hex wrench, some spare screws, and a detachable throw lever that threads into the power change ring. There is also a manual, but it is not particularly useful. It has some stats on the scope’s specifications, but it’s directions on use are quite minimal and difficult to follow. I find the Optika6 to be an attractive scope. I am not sure exactly what makes some scopes attractive and others less so, or if there is any universality to what people find good looking in a scope or not. This one looks good to me though. I would describe it as having a softened tactical appearance. This is both figurative and literal in that the knurling on all the controls is rubber and so will not try to strip the flesh from your hands. The stiffness of each knob (paralax, power, diopter, and illumination) is right on. We will discuss elevation and windage adjustments later. Being a 30x 56mm optic with 34mm tube, it is pretty large. It weighs in at 38oz and is 15.4″ long.
Meopta Optika6 5-30×56 RD FFP Unboxing
Reticle:
The Meopta
Optika6 line comes in several different reticle options. For the 5-30×56, these
include a plex reticle, generic BDC with dichro elements, .308 drop reticle,
and ILya’s MRAD RD. It is a pity the MRAD RD does not have any dichro on it, as
I would have liked to try that concept out. That is secondary though. Having a
reticle that can hit at range is the important thing, and the MRAD RD is by far
the best option for that.
ILya’s MRAD RD reticle follows the general trend of .2mil
graduated, floating dot center, Christmas tree reticles, but with a few
distinctions. The first such distinction is that it only has only 1 mil of
graduations in the 12 o’clock sector. I like the open top section as it gives
you some space to observe a target area through with no obstructions. The
second departure ILya has from the norm is that he does less funny business
with graduation increments. Pretty much all the graduations are .2 mil
increments and there are .2mil graduations in all sectors of the reticle,
including the center. Many other scopes keep changing things up. This causes
more mental overhead and more mistakes. I never found myself second guessing
what a marking was on ILya’s reticle and that is really the goal. Lastly, the
line widths used for the graduations and crosshairs on ILya’s reticle are
significantly smaller than the average. I’m a fan of finer graduations so I
will take it. This leaves the reticle very fine indeed at 5x, but at 5x you’re
really only using the scope for observation anyway, so I don’t see a problem
with maximizing the reticles use for 15x and greater.
This brings us to the Christmas tree section. At first I was a big proponent of Christmas tree sections. The concept appealed to me because I really like more utility in a reticle. I thought that trees would make for faster measurement of shot correction, give you a faster way to make corrections in a pinch, and extend your total drop compensation range. In practice though, I have experienced less gain than I expected in these areas, and found a big trade off when it comes to seeing splash. Even when using a reticle with a tree section, I have continued to find it more accurate to measure for shot correction by moving the reticle to get read outs at right angles. Using the tree is both less accurate (big vertical gaps) and only works if your miss lands in the tree section. Not shooting strictly timed competitions (or ones that specifically contrive to disallow adjustment of the scope on some sections) I have found no speed advantage. Finally, most scopes now have adjustment range sufficient to any distance that I am confident of hitting at anyway. I really don’t do more than 15mils in drop ever and virtually every scope will give you that on the elevation turret. So, I have become uncertain as to whether or not I want a tree section at all and very certain that if I have one it should be minimal. The section in the MRAD RD is very thin but does have a lot of measurements. There are dots every .2mils and also dots at the .5mil increments between lines. For me it does interfere some in my ability to see splash. Less tree is desired. In testing, the reticle showed only the smallest deviation from correct dimensions. It starts a little larger than correct and then at about 8 mils crosses back to be very slightly smaller. At no point is it off more than .02 mils. That is to say, it is very good. The reticle is canted only very slightly relative to the adjustments, .03 mils in 10 mils of adjustment, in the counter-clockwise direction. This is also pretty good and of a small enough magnitude that it should not cause any problems.
ILya’s MRAD RD Reticle in the Meopta Optika6 5-30×56 RD FFP scope on the HORUS CATS target at 30x
Comparative Optical Evaluation:
This review of the Meopta MeoPro Optika6 5-30×56 RD FFP is part of an ongoing series of sub $1k FFP mil/mil precision rifle scope reviews. These scopes are used as the optical comparison scopes for each other. In order of arrival, they are the: Sightron SIIISS624x50LRFFP/MH, Athlon Ares BTR 4.5-27×50 FFP IR Mil, Athlon Midas TAC 6-24×50, Athlon Midas TAC 5-25×56, Sightron S-TAC 4-20x50FFPZSIRMH, and Nikon Black FX1000 6-24x50SF Matte IL FX-MRAD. For testing, these scopes were lined up together on a 5 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. Lastly, the Nikon had some issues necessitating its return. At the time of this review’s publication, its replacement has not arrived.
All seven sub $1k FFP mil/mil long range precision rifle scopes
The Meopta MeoPro Optika6 5-30×56 RD FFP was optically the
most interesting of all the Sub $1k ffp optics I have tested. The reason for
this is that it was the most unpredictable with regards to how it would perform
on any one specific attribute. For an example, we will start off with
resolution. The Meopta was significantly better than all the other sub $1k
scopes with regards to resolution. It was good enough I actually broke out a
USO SN3 3.2-17×44 I was testing for my uncle to test it beside the Meopta just
in case. That probably wasn’t necessary. The answer was no, the sub $1k Meopta
Optika6 is not competitive with the USO that had been well over twice the
price. It does, however, lead all other sub $1k scopes tested in resolution. On
the flip side, it is by far the worst at handling stray light. It should have
come with a sunshade. If you buy this scope, buy a sunshade and you will be a
much happier person. This stray light issue was a pain for me as both my
principle shooting range, and my optical comparison area are south facing and
anytime any direct sunlight landed on that objective from any angle it
significantly degraded performance. It actually took a while to figure out
exactly what was going down as the stray light would sometimes show up as the
typical hazy look, but other times things just looked out of focus or showed as
very telltale blooms.
Resolution and stray light were what I would call the two bookends of the optical performance of this scope. Following that pattern, The Meopta’s depth of field was the best in the group but its eyebox was the worst. In practice, at the range, the eyebox was perfectly functional, I actually had mistakenly thought it would prove to be roomy when compared to others. However, shorn of the stabilizing adjustable cheek piece of my rifle, it proved the smallest. On field of view, the Meopta had one of the largest, but it also had close to the most pronounced barrel distortion. The Meopta again led the field with very minimal chromatic aberration but was only average when it came to contrast. Despite having one of the few larger 56mm objectives in the lineup, the Meopta was only average in low light performance. What to make of a scope so often at the extremes? I think a couple things are notable. First, though the Meopta did spend a lot of time at both the top and bottom of the lineup, it spent more at the top than the bottom. Second, it tended to land near the top on the most important aspects of performance, these being resolution and field of view. Its worst showing, easily stray light handling, is also easily remedied with a sunshade. So, on balance I would say it performs better than average optically for the price, provided you have a sunshade on it.
Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:
First we will start by talking about the unique the Optika6 has. The elevation pulls up to adjust and pushes down to lock. Oddly, the windage is neither capped nor locking. The zero adjusts on both knobs with the removal of a single screw in the center of the elevation adjustment and then removal and repositioning of the outer sleeve. Meopta has made this single screw easily removable without tools for the elevation knob which is nice. The windage knob’s requires a coin or screwdriver. The zero stop on the Optika6 scopes is a unique system. I have illustrated how to change it in the illustration below. You will note that, due to its unique cog-based system, use of the zero stop system will limit the maximum elevation range to a little less than three full revolutions. This comes out to somewhere around 28 mils total travel, which is a lot. You also may feel the zero stop cog as you rotate past it moving to your 2nd and 3rd revolutions. It feels sort of like a loose mechanical part. In fact, the first time I felt it I thought something felt loose and broken. Eventually, I realized what it was and that it is not an issue. Really, it is a pretty clever zero stop system and solves the difficulty that adding the locking mechanism to the elevation knob created for making a zero stop system.
Setting the Meopta Optika6 zero stop
Here is where I will talk about the feel of the clicks in
the adjustments. Most people are just wrong about clicks. Everybody seems to
say they like firm, stressed out, super positive clicks and not squishy ones.
This really comes down to saying you want almost all the resistance to motion
in the knob to come from the click detent itself and not something else,
usually an o-ring. I used to think this might just be a matter of taste, but it
is not. Most people are just wrong in their preferences, and here is why. This
is not about the tactile sensation of handling your knob and wanting it firm
and positive. This is about counting the clicks as you adjust, not miscounting,
and not having to break position to look up and check that the knob is on the
correct number. If the turrets are the very “clicky” variety, best
characterized by the S&B MTC turrets, you will often experience clicks that
you miss. This is because it takes a lot of force to move the turret over the
first detent, but between the first and second it takes almost no force. So,
your turning pretty hard and the turret skips though several detents quickly
enough that you don’t feel them all. The Meopta Optika6 is not near as bad as
the S&B MTC in this regard but I did experience some miscounted clicks on
it and had to break position to look up at the knob on it. This is something
you very easily note when you are assessing the tracking on a humbler device
but might actually fail to notice in the field, leading you mistakenly
attributing a missed shot to another cause. I mention all of this because
people will like the feel of these turrets. They will say things like, ‘they
feel very positive and adjust with a pleasing amount of force’. Perhaps Meopta
has done them just right for the market. It certainly doesn’t pay to tell your
customers they are wrong and people seem to like “clicky” feeling
turrets. My thoughts are that I miscounted clicks on these very nice feeling
turrets and I never miscount on nasty, squishy feeling ones.
Now on to the tracking. The first thing to note in the
tracking of the Meopta is that there is some slop due to the locking turret
design. Internally, there is some sort of spline sleeve that allows the outer
part of the adjustment mechanism to raise and lower to lock and unlock whereas
the inner portion contains the adjustment threading. In this design, the outer
portion also contains the click detents. As such, it is the outer portion that
you can both see and feel. You cannot see or feel that there is just a little
movement in that spline sleeve joint. The effect of this is that there is about
.07 mils of slop in the system. So you might adjust up 6.0 mils on the knob and
have the reticle at 6.0 mils on target. Then, you reverse and go down to 5.9
mils on the knob but your reticle will be at 5.97, having moved only .03 mils
because of the slop. So, whenever you are adjusting up, your adjustments will
always read .07 mils higher than when you’re adjusting back. This is a bit
annoying, mostly because it means that whenever you reverse direction for a
shot adjustment, you get less magnitude of adjustment than you think. I
understand this is a common behavior for locking turret designs. The windage,
which does not lock, does not display this behavior.
Now for the tracking. Going up from optical zero, the scope
tracked clean to 6.0 mils. At that point it starts to loose little by little.
At 13.9 mils on the adjustments the scope has optically moved 14.0 mils. It
adjusts a total of 15.7 mils up from optical zero. Of course, going back it is
+.07 mils reticle position at each knob reading.
Going down from optical zero, the adjustments go to 18.0
mils. Going down they actually look good at that 10 mils but, of course, when
you reverse and go back up, the .07 mil slop now makes it look like you’re a
click off.
Overall, this means that the adjustments are quite well
calibrated, notwithstanding the .07 mil of slop you have because of the locking
turret. They are never off by more than .1 mil from what they read. The scope
shows a 33.7 mils total elevation adjustment, but remember that the use of the
zero stop will limit you to a maximum of about 28 mils.
Going left to right on the windage turret that does not have
the locking feature, you notice no slop. It adjusts cleanly for the 4 mils each
way I have on the target and has a total range of 17.0 mils right from center
and 17.3 mils left.
Testing for lash in the parallax adjustment of scopes is not
one of my regular procedures but I noticed it while shooting with this scope so
I have fully investigated. For those who don’t know, lash in the parallax knob
refers to when there is enough slop in linkage inside the scope that adjusts
for parallax that it can noticeably shift position under recoil. Important to
this is that the movement will only occur if you adjusted one way (typically
coming up to your distance from minimum focus distance) and not the other
(coming down to your distance from infinity focus distance.) This is because
the slop basically represents the internals shifting from one side of their
adjustment channel to the other. If they start on the side they would be
shifting to, they have nowhere to go. On this Meopta, if you focus up from min
distance to your range you will notice that after a number of rounds fired you
have gone from zero reticle movement with head bob to about .06 mil of movement
because the parallax has shifted a little. There is no shift if you adjusted
from infinity down to your range.
To round out the mechanical testing of the Meopta, no reticle shift occurred with change in power, diopter adjustment, or parallax adjustment. So, all good on those tests. I would say there is a trend to all of the mechanical observations on the Meopta Optika6. That trend is that the mechanisms were all calibrated and working properly but there was a little bit of play in them. Realistically, this is not going to effect the use of the scope for long range shooting or hunting. You won’t fire enough rounds at the same range to move the parallax even if it was adjusted the direction that has a little slop. Similarly, the slop in the elevation adjustment due to the locking feature never causes things to be more than .1 mil off. The only way you will notice the slop in these adjustments is if you are testing it on a humbler apparatus such as I did or are shooting many rounds at the same distance.
Meopta Optika6 5-30×56 RD FFP during mechanical testing
Summary and Conclusion:
At time of
press the Meopta MeoPro Optika6 5-30×56 RD FFP is sitting at about $899 from
the various online retailers. It is a very feature rich optic at that price,
having illumination, a locking elevation turret (though, oddly, not windage)
zero stop, and a detachable throw lever. On balance, it is the most feature
rich optic tested in this sub $1k series. You can have it in a variety of
reticle configurations, as well as with MOA instead of mil adjustments, but I
think will be most popular in mil/mil with ILya’s MRAD RD reticle, which is a
credit to the scope. This scope can also feature Meopta’s unique Dichro reticle
technology but does not currently come with this technology in a reticle I
would be interested in (a good mil one).
Optically, the Optika6 5-30×56 RD FFP is the least
predictable performer in the lineup, as often landing best or worst in the test
lineup than anywhere in between. On balance, it tends to do better on more
important aspects of performance such as resolution and worse on less important
ones such as barrel distortion. However, it really requires a sunshade in most
conditions to function well and should have included one. I will note here that
at the time of my writing, the sunshade for the 56mm Optika6 is not yet
available and the 56mm MeoStar shade will not fit. In the end, I would say the
Meopta Optika 6 performed above the average of its peers optically, but more in
a Brett Favre way than a Peyton Manning one.
Mechanically, the Optika6 5-30×56 RD FFP can be best characterized as sound and properly calibrated but with some slop in the system. Both the elevation adjustment and the parallax adjustment have this slop, which essentially means they behave just slightly differently when adjusted one direction relative to when they are adjusted the other. In the case of the parallax that means it can show a little lash when adjusted from minimum focus distance to our target distance. In the case of the elevation knob you will note about a .07 mil difference at each increment depending on whether you adjusted up to that increment or down. The Meopta MeoPro Optika6 5-30×56 RD FFP really leaves its potential buyer with a lot to think about because so often it excels or lags in such dramatic ways. On balance, though, it excels more than it lags and I think that Meopta will find this first substantial incursion into scopes with precision long range features a rewarding one.
Here is Your Pro and Con Breakdown:
Pros: -Feature rich, 10mil/turn, Zero Stop, Illumination, Locking elevation, Detachable throw lever -ILya’s MRAD RD reticle -Better than average optical performance especially with regard to resolution -Large adjustment range -Tracking and reticle are properly calibrated -Attractive appearance -Good warranty and reputation
Cons: -Really needs a sunshade but does not come with one -Noticeable slop in both elevation adjustment and parallax -Though better than average overall, the optical performance does have some significant low points -The larger, 56mm objective is not translating to better low light performance or a larger eyebox -Complicated zero stop system not well explained by poor manual
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
Background:
In
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.
Athlon is
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
trends.
Unboxing and Physical Description:
Unboxing
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.
Reticle:
The Athlon
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:
For optical
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
6-24x50mm
Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:
As
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
diopter change.
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%.
The Athlon
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
When
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
test rig.
Mechanical testing apparatus and target
The three
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
line.
The CATS
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.
Testing a
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.
Before I
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
analysis.
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.
The central
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
