Educate me please-Athlon Argos btr 8-34

[Lefty2506]

I've always been told to spend at least as much on the glass as I spend on the rifle. With that in mind, can someone please help me understand why I would spend +$1,000 on a Viper PST (or some other optic) instead of spending ~$350 on an Athlon Argos BTR 8-32x56?

For context, I'd like to build a rifle for F class at some point, and this looks like a decent entry level option for glass. I put an Athlon Ares 4.5-27 on my 6.5 Grendel and I really like it. Prior to that, my best optic was a Leup Vari-X III 6.5-20 target scope that I bought used in '97 for $600. That optic was on my 25-06 Sendaro for 20 years, and it's still a good scope. However, it doesn't hold a candle to my Ares.

Back in those days I was shooting (and shooting very well) 3 position small bore, air rifle and NRA high-power (service rifle - across the course). Never used optics in a match, barring my spotting scope. Since the kids came along, it's been plinking at the range and putting whitetail in the freezer. Kids are half grown, and I would like to start competing again, but my eyes and my body are not as good as they used to be. F class sounds like something I could still enjoy. I'm not fooling myself into thinking that a $350 optic will get me as far as something in the $2k to $3k range. I'm more interested in what I'm giving up compared to something in the $800 to $1200 range. My thought being that if it's not keeping me from making highmaster, I'd be better off setting the extra $500 aside and saving it for that $2k upgrade.

What say ye???

 

[A-Rob]

I've had everything from an Argos to a Cronus. The Argos should track fine and the new gen 2 has a zero stop and supposedly better turrets. I think the higher price is all about the image quality and possibly increased reliability of the scope. In my opinion as long as it tracks, holds point of aim and allows you to see your hits then anything better is about want vs. need. I really like excellent glass but I'm not fooling myself into thinking it makes me a better shooter.

 

[Lefty2506]

I've had everything from an Argos to a Cronus. The Argos should track fine and the new gen 2 has a zero stop and supposedly better turrets. I think the higher price is all about the image quality and possibly increased reliability of the scope. In my opinion as long as it tracks, holds point of aim and allows you to see your hits then anything better is about want vs. need. I really like excellent glass but I'm not fooling myself into thinking it makes me a better shooter.

That's basically where I'm at as well. My Argos is better than anything I looked through 20 years ago, but it was also just over $600. $350 seems "too good to be true", but the reviews are excellent considering it's price point. If there's nothing wrong with it, I'm willing to take a chance on it for a starter. On the other hand, if it generally causes frustration, I'm not willing to push my luck.

 

[CharlieNC]

I have an Argos 6-24, and it is fine for shooting long range steel. It would be TERRIBLE for Fclass. Being a FFP scope, at the higher magnifications the reticle would be too large to properly resolve the Xring. Also you really need 1/8 MOA adjustments. In the $350 price range the Weaver T36 is a long term performer. Around $1000 the Sightron 10-50 is an excellent scope, and a bit more will get you a Golden Eagle.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Although spending only $350.00 on a serviceable scope for shooting F-Class may seem like a great bargain, it's only a bargain if you really like the scope and it doesn't create any issues for you during matches. If you find something about the scope that you really don't like and decide to replace it, that's $350.00 that just got poured down a hole. You're doing the right thing by making inquiries before spending the money. I would also suggest taking an actual look through whatever scope(s) make your short list, either at the range or at a local shooting/hunting store, etc.

For F-Class, you really want a 30mm+ body tube, 2nd Focal Plane, maximum magnification somewhere in the ~30X to 60X range, 1/8th MOA turret adjustments, and an objective lens diameter of at least 42mm, preferably 50 to 56mm. Of course, that needs to all come in a package that allows the rifle to make weight. Other features such as ED glass would be an added bonus, but may not be available on more modestly-priced scopes.

There are good reasons why the majority of F-Class shooters use scopes that fit these criteria. A 30mm+ body tube usually indicates sufficient elevation/windage travel for use in F-Class. Because the reticle doesn't change size as magnification changes, 2nd focal plane reticles are usually much finer than FFP reticles, which are sometimes so thick as to obscure part of the F-Class target center. The 1/8th MOA turret adjustments allow you to fine tune your hold without putting you clear out of the X-ring on the other side if you dial more than a single click. Having a minimum diameter objective will usually ensure that the scope is sufficiently bright to clearly observe the target aiming black and scoring rings, even on a cloudy day early in the A.M. These are all features that have pretty much come to be standard over the years as many different F-Class shooters independently came to the same conclusion about what works best in F-Class.

That is not to say a budget F-Class scope must have every single one of these features, or it cannot be used. Nonetheless, the farther you stray from these general requirements, the greater the risk that you will eventually be dissatisfied with the scope. As CharlieNC mentioned, Weaver T36 scopes are occasionally found on the firing line, as well as quite a few Sightrons and Golden Eagles. Prices typically increase noticeably as you move into the realm of Nightforce and March scopes. If I were currently shopping for a "budget" F-Class scope somewhere closer to the price range of a Weaver T36 than a Sightron or Vortex Golden Eagle, but that had more features than the T36, the following is one I'd be taking a hard look at:

Athlon Argos BTR Gen2 10-40x56 SFP
http://usaoptics.net/214071.html

It has pretty much every desirable feature for an F-Class scope I described above, all in a package that is only a few dollars more expensive than the Argos BTR you mentioned earlier. Some might find the 40X high end magnification to be on the low side, but I don't ever run mag that high in F-TR matches, so it wouldn't be an issue. The "pre-order" button suggests it isn't available quite yet, but at least you can get on the purchase list if it appeals to you. In any event, keep looking around, keeping these F-Class specific features in mind, as well as your desired price point. I have no doubt you will find a scope that works for you.

 

[A-Rob]

I actually just ordered the 10-40 gen 2 to try out on a bench .22. It should be here Monday and I’ll try to post up a brief review when I get a chance. I know what to expect with the image quality but I’m really curious to see how it tracks and how the turrets feel. Although I'll be shooting at known distances, I plan to dial back and forth between 50 and 200 quite a bit and I want to see if it keeps up.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I actually just ordered the 10-40 gen 2 to try out on a bench .22. It should be here Monday and I’ll try to post up a brief review when I get a chance. I know what to expect with the image quality but I’m really curious to see how it tracks and how the turrets feel. Although I'll be shooting at known distances, I plan to dial back and forth between 50 and 200 quite a bit and I want to see if it keeps up.

I recently looked through a friend's Gen1 10-40 scope. The turret clicks, reticle, and overall features seemed pretty good to me. I didn't assess the accuracy/consistency of turrets on actual reticle movement or shot placement (tracking), just looked through it and twirled the knobs a bit. The glass was decent...obviously, it wasn't the same quality as a Nighforce Competition or anything like that, but not bad at all. Certainly it was good enough that I wouldn't make any type of claim that having better glass would likely make a noticeable improvement someone's scores in an F-Class match. I'll be looking forward to hearing your impressions after trying out the Gen2 scope. Thanks.

 

[A-Rob]

I think Athlon would have a unbeatable value if they used ETR glass, Midas TAC turrets and put it all in a 34mm tube with a 10-50 zoom range. Something like that would have similar optics as a GE with over 100 moa of adjustment range and the excellent tracking of the TAC. Considering you can find an ETR new for around $900, an Athlon F-Class scope could probably be sold for less because it wouldn't need illumination. I'd buy one.

 

[Lefty2506]

Been a while since my original question. I've wrapped up a couple of projects around the house, so now I'm back on the rifle project.

I'm a bit surprised to hear that 1/8 moa is so highly desirable for long range. From my high-power days, I don't recall having issues with the 1/2 moa adjustments on my service rifle at 600. I get that everyone wants high X counts, but a 194-5X beats a 193-10x every time. My experience has been that a shooter is better off trying to shoot 10s instead of 9s or 8s until they start cleaning targets, or are at least coming close. If you have decent equipment and are not breaking 190/200 consistently, your money is better invested in ammo and range time, or actual training classes than equipment. Once you can read wind and mirage well enough to keep things in the 10 ring pretty consistently at distance, then it's worth spending some more $$ to focus on higher X counts.

I wasn't aware that today's optics were capable of seeing the scoring rings on the long range targets. I don't remember being able to see them at 600 through an 80mm Kowa spotting scope regardless of magnification. The mirage was normally just too much. If you can actually see the X ring at 600-1000 yds, I can certainly understand the need for a thin crosshair. The 8-34 has the same reticle as my 4.5-27 which uses .14 moa crosshairs. At 27x, they aren't too bad, but 34x is a noticeable jump up in magnification. Having said that, I would have thought that a fine FFP reticle would have made for simpler adjustments. I noticed the 10-40x56. I can see how the finer crosshairs and simplified reticle would be better suited for F Class where as a FFP Christmas tree would be better for PRS and prairie dogs .

I don't consider $400 on an entry-level optic to be wasted if I happen to stick with the sport and later upgrade to better glass. If I have to wait until I can drop +$1k on the optic, there's a good chance I'll never shoot my first match. While I don't expect to win my first outing (or my 10th for that matter) I am competitive, and I am a good shooter who does have some (limited) experience shooting distance. So I would expect to be doing respectably well by my 2nd or 3rd match. This means that I do need equipment that is capable of performing well right out of the gate.

Seems like my best bet is to go shoot a match with my Grendel and just have fun with it. Make some new friends and maybe meet a few old ones.

 

[spike-55]

just a note on the Argos BTR Gen2 10X40-56. i had one on a 6.5-300WSM for ~ 100 rounds. i noticed the parallax would need to be adjusted for focus after every shot after 80 or so rounds. called Athlon about issue and they instructed to go to website and fill out form for warranty return. got an email that day saying they were aware of the issue and were waiting on me to send the scope. within a week i received a new scope and note saying they were replacing due to parallax issue. great customer service and warranty!!! have not re-mounted back on my gun (Hall model B with 1.45 straight cylinder barrel) to see if they might not be able to handle the recoil??? otherwise a great scope for the money (427.00) and really like the reticle out to 600yds (farthest our range goes)
Stan

 

[DumpHollow]

Lefty, you're idea to just go shoot what you have in an F-Class match has merit. Get your feet wet and see what you are up against. I don't know that you realise that the F-Class scoring rings are 1/2 the size of the hi-power targets.
Todays matches in F-TR and F-Open are being decided by X-count. The equipment and shooter skill has been elevated to very high levels. The 1/8 minute turrets are necessary to get an absolute dead air zero. With a 3" x-ring at 600 yards, it only takes two 1/4 minute clicks to get you across the X-ring.
I started shooting F-Class with an 8.5x25 Leupold. I soon found out that I didn't have quite enough power for scoring ring resolution and I needed 1/8 MOA turrets to get the best zero without having to favor one side of the X-ring or the other. I moved on to a Nightforce 12-42 BR. That was a very good scope for the price point. They are just heavy and don't quite have enough adjustment range. I sold that and got into a NF Comp. That scope and I didn't get along so I replaced it with a March 10-60x52. The Comp was definitely brighter than the March but when I ask for 3 clicks on the March, I get it.
I see FFP as being a disadvantage for F-Class. As for reticle choice, that is personal. I prefer the target dot as I just hold off into the scoring rings with the dot and consider busy reticles a distraction. So, the brands and models that I have had offered that style of reticle. In addition to the March, I have Sightron SIII but can't comment on it because I have not shot it enough. For the 600 yard matches that I shot in, my power ring was usually set somewhere around 32-35. It gets too easy to crossfire onto your neighbors target and lose 10 points once you reduce your field of view. So on the budget side, a straight 36x Sightron or Weaver might not be a bad start.
Just go do it. But be aware, F-Class can quickly wreck your bank account and home life.

 

[linebaugh]

While I will endorse neither scope you still need to keep in mind you get what you pay for. I see and hear of a lot of scopes failing and I see a lot of guys try to go cheap only to upgrade one or two times before they get the scope they needed to begin with.

I hate to say this but I see your post as trying to justify taking the cheap way out. You have to do what you can afford and everyone understands simple economics but if you think you are getting apples for apples at 1/3 the price I would suggest you probably are not using good logic.

Both scopes you mention have great support. Both will likely fail if used hard for very long. You may well be happy with either if you don't use and abuse them often but I wouod venture a guess that you are going to have buyers remorse if you put price ahead of any other requirement.

 

[Om606]

I have several Athlon scopes I was a dealer when they first came out . I do not have any on an F class rifle because they dont offer anything suitable.