Turbulent Turtle
F-TR competitor
I’m always leery when people use superlatives when describing their products comparing them to others. In the optics world, comparing one scope to another or to several others is not something that should be done at the drop of a hat or with impressions from one person over a span of time; comparing riflescopes is extremely difficult and requires scientific rigor and instruments. And knowledge.
To be honest, I totally discount anyone’s “impressions” and comparisons. Let me explain why, then I’ll dive into hogan’s posting on this thread.
When you want to compare scopes, you MUST start with equivalent scopes with equivalent capabilities and most important equivalent setup. Then you need to know what you’re looking for and come up with a repeatable way to measure what you are considering. That’s where scientific rigor and instruments come in and the knowledge to use them and even to know what to look for and how to measure it.
For example, it is totally ludicrous to compare a 10X40 to 5-25X56 or any other combination of riflescopes that do not have the same specifications. If you MUST compare the 10X40 to the 5-25X56, you must set the variable to 10X. Even then, the objective lens of the variable is much larger than the fixed power so the exit pupil will be much bigger and easier to see. Also, there is a lot more light coming in so the image will be brighter, as well as easier to see.
Comparing an FFP 4.5-29X56 (the Cronus) to a March-X (I’ll refer to mine because I know it so well,) SFP 5-50X56 requires that we compare them when both when they are set at the same magnification; in other words between 5 and 29X. We can go no higher, but we can certainly note that one goes lower (Cronus to 4.5X) and the other goes much higher (March-X to 50X).
Also, it is vital, critical even, that we do a side by side comparison on the same day, looking at the same target on the same mount, be it a rifle or a tripod. The setup has to be the same, looking at the same target at the same time. And then we need to use the instruments to measure the different parameters.
This is when you deploy targets that have black and white lines and various other geometric shapes as well as numbers. You use these things to measure resolution, contrast and other qualities instead of looking at runway lights at some distance, with one scope. If you want to measure light transmission, you use an instrument for that and you get real values, not an impression. The human eye cannot really distinguish light transmission between similar scopes.
The OP of this thread is a question about someone doing LR benchrest at 500 and 1000 yards. He currently has a 10-50X60 Sightron. Our friend hogan, comes in and starts touting the extraordinary capabilities of a 4.5-29X56 scope. A first focal plane scope. As an upgrade to a 10-50X60 scope, for LR benchrest.
Our friend hogan proposes an upgrade that has half the magnification and a smaller objective and with a reticle that will vary in size. I would think that the OP is considering getting MORE magnification, not surrendering more than half of it right off the bat. I also suspect he’s wondering if he should look at better glass than he currently has. Well, getting a smaller objective is going in the wrong direction, even if the glass in the Cronus is better than the one in the Sightron.
I went to the website that hogan posted and looked at the specs of the Cronus. As I’ve explained many times before, the big differentiator in glass is the use of ED elements in a riflescope. ED glass was invented by Nikkor in the 1970s to bypass the issues that come with using fluorite glass to correct chromatic aberration. Canon has its own similar glass as now do a few others. The Athlon website says they use HD glass and that it “gives you the utmost contrast, light transmission, and the sharpest image.” It’s not ED glass; I have no clue what it is but the description does not match ED glass qualities. Also, ED glass is expensive, though not quite as expensive as fluorite, and is only required for a few elements in a scope. It will not affect light transmission, that’s done with lens coatings. We do not know who makes the glass for the Cronus, but I do not believe it is ED glass.
The remainder of the features touted by Athlon on their website is geared at comparing their expensive high end offering to cheap optics. For example, they say their fully multicoated lenses give you a brighter image that normal single coated lens. Well, duh, my SUV goes faster than a bicycle. Their one-piece tube is better than multi-piece tubes; it’s as if they invented the concept and nobody else does that. Same with argon purging and many other things.
I also see in their specs, that the Cronus is porky at 35.8 ounces. My March-X 5-50X56 with ED glass is at 32.6 ounces. I use the weight difference in my barrel and benefit from 80% increase in magnification, ED glass and closer focus as the minimum focus distance for the Cronus 4.5-29X56 is 25 yards. My March-X above has a 10 yard minimum focus distance.
Now, it’s very possible that the Athlon Cronus is all that and a bag of chips, but I will wait for actual user reports from F-class and LR benchrest shooters before I form a final opinion.
And as for seeing bullet holes at 1000 yards with a 29X scope not even set at its maximum magnification, the less said, the better.
Not to the OP, I would say that your next step up is ED glass and staying near 50-60X.
To be honest, I totally discount anyone’s “impressions” and comparisons. Let me explain why, then I’ll dive into hogan’s posting on this thread.
When you want to compare scopes, you MUST start with equivalent scopes with equivalent capabilities and most important equivalent setup. Then you need to know what you’re looking for and come up with a repeatable way to measure what you are considering. That’s where scientific rigor and instruments come in and the knowledge to use them and even to know what to look for and how to measure it.
For example, it is totally ludicrous to compare a 10X40 to 5-25X56 or any other combination of riflescopes that do not have the same specifications. If you MUST compare the 10X40 to the 5-25X56, you must set the variable to 10X. Even then, the objective lens of the variable is much larger than the fixed power so the exit pupil will be much bigger and easier to see. Also, there is a lot more light coming in so the image will be brighter, as well as easier to see.
Comparing an FFP 4.5-29X56 (the Cronus) to a March-X (I’ll refer to mine because I know it so well,) SFP 5-50X56 requires that we compare them when both when they are set at the same magnification; in other words between 5 and 29X. We can go no higher, but we can certainly note that one goes lower (Cronus to 4.5X) and the other goes much higher (March-X to 50X).
Also, it is vital, critical even, that we do a side by side comparison on the same day, looking at the same target on the same mount, be it a rifle or a tripod. The setup has to be the same, looking at the same target at the same time. And then we need to use the instruments to measure the different parameters.
This is when you deploy targets that have black and white lines and various other geometric shapes as well as numbers. You use these things to measure resolution, contrast and other qualities instead of looking at runway lights at some distance, with one scope. If you want to measure light transmission, you use an instrument for that and you get real values, not an impression. The human eye cannot really distinguish light transmission between similar scopes.
The OP of this thread is a question about someone doing LR benchrest at 500 and 1000 yards. He currently has a 10-50X60 Sightron. Our friend hogan, comes in and starts touting the extraordinary capabilities of a 4.5-29X56 scope. A first focal plane scope. As an upgrade to a 10-50X60 scope, for LR benchrest.
Our friend hogan proposes an upgrade that has half the magnification and a smaller objective and with a reticle that will vary in size. I would think that the OP is considering getting MORE magnification, not surrendering more than half of it right off the bat. I also suspect he’s wondering if he should look at better glass than he currently has. Well, getting a smaller objective is going in the wrong direction, even if the glass in the Cronus is better than the one in the Sightron.
I went to the website that hogan posted and looked at the specs of the Cronus. As I’ve explained many times before, the big differentiator in glass is the use of ED elements in a riflescope. ED glass was invented by Nikkor in the 1970s to bypass the issues that come with using fluorite glass to correct chromatic aberration. Canon has its own similar glass as now do a few others. The Athlon website says they use HD glass and that it “gives you the utmost contrast, light transmission, and the sharpest image.” It’s not ED glass; I have no clue what it is but the description does not match ED glass qualities. Also, ED glass is expensive, though not quite as expensive as fluorite, and is only required for a few elements in a scope. It will not affect light transmission, that’s done with lens coatings. We do not know who makes the glass for the Cronus, but I do not believe it is ED glass.
The remainder of the features touted by Athlon on their website is geared at comparing their expensive high end offering to cheap optics. For example, they say their fully multicoated lenses give you a brighter image that normal single coated lens. Well, duh, my SUV goes faster than a bicycle. Their one-piece tube is better than multi-piece tubes; it’s as if they invented the concept and nobody else does that. Same with argon purging and many other things.
I also see in their specs, that the Cronus is porky at 35.8 ounces. My March-X 5-50X56 with ED glass is at 32.6 ounces. I use the weight difference in my barrel and benefit from 80% increase in magnification, ED glass and closer focus as the minimum focus distance for the Cronus 4.5-29X56 is 25 yards. My March-X above has a 10 yard minimum focus distance.
Now, it’s very possible that the Athlon Cronus is all that and a bag of chips, but I will wait for actual user reports from F-class and LR benchrest shooters before I form a final opinion.
And as for seeing bullet holes at 1000 yards with a 29X scope not even set at its maximum magnification, the less said, the better.
Not to the OP, I would say that your next step up is ED glass and staying near 50-60X.
