I am looking for an optic for a 6.5 creedmoor build. Fairly new to long range shooting. I have been considering both the newer Athlon Ares ETR and the Vortex Viper PST gen II. Both are right under $1000 mark and that’s where I need to stay price wise. My main intention will be shooting from approx 100-1000 yards. Maybe the occasional hunt with it. I do have a Argos Btr on a 270 deer gun that I was fairly impressed with for the money. Has any been able to compare the two of these or have any other suggestions. I appreciate any input/advice.
Rifle Scopes Athlon Ares ETR vs Viper PST gen II
- Thread starter Focusrs22
- Start date
I wasn't that impressed with the glass on the Pst. I think the Etr is a step above it. You will have to decide if you like the reticle on the Etr. It is different from your Btr.
I wish there were complete reviews of the etr with comparisons to it's direct competitors (Lrhs, pst2, Leupold, Steiners, sign tango, Cronus btr, at the very least)
Buying the etr right now is only done on speculation.
Apparently everyone who got a pre-order was told to talk good about it... Or they have no other scopes in their house that they can do a side-by-side with.
I get that it just came out, but how hard would it be to spend 1-2 hours to do a side by side with what you have laying around... Even if you only have better scopes it would still be nice to see how it stacks up.
I, like many others, will not buy one without a hands on or a somewhat trustworthy review.
Good luck on your decision.
Buying the etr right now is only done on speculation.
Apparently everyone who got a pre-order was told to talk good about it... Or they have no other scopes in their house that they can do a side-by-side with.
I get that it just came out, but how hard would it be to spend 1-2 hours to do a side by side with what you have laying around... Even if you only have better scopes it would still be nice to see how it stacks up.
I, like many others, will not buy one without a hands on or a somewhat trustworthy review.
Good luck on your decision.
This. Felt the same way. Love my ETR, been shooting it 3-4 days a week for the last 2 weeks now. Not a single complaint and actually about to pick up a second
I’ve done a head to head with the Nikon FX1000 Black and the ETR here. May have to scroll a few pages back. Reticle in the ETR is awesome. Was shooting it yesterday. Love it. Will be running it in a match in two weeks, so I can give more feedback then.
gen 2 razor>Cronus=>Pst gen 2>Ares. I'm hoping the ETR is better than conus. I have both gen 2 razors and the reticle is better than the Cronus. The glass was close to the razor. Pst 2 is equal or slightly less quality, because of the glass than Cronus, but weighs less and has a better reticle, IMHO.
Last edited:
I think the Ares ETR is pretty much awesome at its price point. Vortex glass xoes nt impress me until you get to Golden Eagle/ Razor territory. The Athlons are much better glass wise at this price point.
ETA- I have not and do not own a Athlon but have spent time with a few and many Vortex. Also have not checked tracking on a Athlon. So thats still a mystery for me. But I have spent time at their shop and have faith in the crew.
ETA- I have not and do not own a Athlon but have spent time with a few and many Vortex. Also have not checked tracking on a Athlon. So thats still a mystery for me. But I have spent time at their shop and have faith in the crew.
That’s not even possible. You must’ve gotten a bad Cronus or damaged the glass somehow.
I own a Cronus and purchased it from Rainier Arms near where I live. I had the ENTIRE staff in the parking lot with me doing a side by side comparison with the Cronus, Gen 2 Razor and a Vudu. Everyone came to same conclusion. The Cronus and Razor2 are nearly identical in glass quality. And I hate to tell you friend, but PST are nowhere near Razor2 or Cronus glass. Not even the same ballpark.
I think the truth is somewhere in between your statement and the person you quoted. I don't think the Cronus and Razor 2 are equal, but I also don't think the Cronus is worse than PST2.
All 3 of those scopes are great values in their price range though.
I’m a big vortex fan but went with the ETR for the newest AR build. I just wasn’t impressed with the gen 2 PST after the limited time I got to play with one.
I will say vortex has significantly better turrets. The ETR has audible clicks but tactile feels cheap (subjective). Also, Vortex will be around for awhile where as Athlon could disappear as fast as they entered, that’s something to be cognitive of.
No regrets with the ETR thus far but I won’t be able to run it in a match until the end of this month so we shall see.
I will say vortex has significantly better turrets. The ETR has audible clicks but tactile feels cheap (subjective). Also, Vortex will be around for awhile where as Athlon could disappear as fast as they entered, that’s something to be cognitive of.
No regrets with the ETR thus far but I won’t be able to run it in a match until the end of this month so we shall see.
I have Ares BTR, Ares ETR, PST Gen 2, Delta Stryker, Tango6 4-24x50 and AMG 6-24x50 on hand.
Optically, PST Gen 2 is clearly better than Ares BTR and Stryker is clearly better than PST Gen 2. Tango6 is a little better than PST Gen 2 and a little worse than Stryker. AMG may be marginally better than Stryker, but it is a close call. Razor Gen2 and Stryker are extremely close in optical performance, but have different color cast and FOV.
I will have the Ares ETR and PST Gen 2 side-by-side tomorrow, so I'll have some initial impressions on how they compare. Stryker HD is better optically than Ares ETR and Ares ETR is better than BTR (looked at them last week).
I will try to offer more detail as time allows.
ILya
Optically, PST Gen 2 is clearly better than Ares BTR and Stryker is clearly better than PST Gen 2. Tango6 is a little better than PST Gen 2 and a little worse than Stryker. AMG may be marginally better than Stryker, but it is a close call. Razor Gen2 and Stryker are extremely close in optical performance, but have different color cast and FOV.
I will have the Ares ETR and PST Gen 2 side-by-side tomorrow, so I'll have some initial impressions on how they compare. Stryker HD is better optically than Ares ETR and Ares ETR is better than BTR (looked at them last week).
I will try to offer more detail as time allows.
ILya
I've got both Viper Gen II and Ares ETR in stock, and ready to ship with a lever and level installed.
As far as quality, I think the ETR has the slight edge in glass. Haven't done scientific comparisons, but just holding them up and looking through, I do prefer the ETR. Reticles are different. I think the Viper Gen II is a bit cleaner looking aesthetically.
As far as quality, I think the ETR has the slight edge in glass. Haven't done scientific comparisons, but just holding them up and looking through, I do prefer the ETR. Reticles are different. I think the Viper Gen II is a bit cleaner looking aesthetically.
in for results. I just bought a gen 2 PST and am not totally happy with it. tracks good and like the turrets, im just not happy with the glass. At high magnification it isnt totally clear and i get the fish eye effect.
Im wondering if the ETR is going to be a noticable upgrade in the glass over the PST. Also is the eye box bigger/more forgiving than the PST?
A friend of mine and I did some side-by-side first impressions type stuff at the range yesterday. We did not have much time, so all the side-by-side evaluation was done at 20x. The scopes we had with us were Deltra Stryker HD 4.5-30x56, Athlon Ares ETR 4.5-30x56, Athlon Ares BTR 4.5-27x50 and Vortex Vortex PST Gen 2 5-25x50.
In general, if I step back and think of the state of precision optics 15 years ago, none of us have any reason to complain today. We are all just spoiled rotten.
With that out of the way, there is a clear difference in color cast of the scopes which will effect how you perceive things. PST Gen 2 has a slightly warmer color cast, so if your eye likes that, it will look more contrasty. That having been said, Gen 2 PST does have notably better contrast than Gen 1 did and is generally a much improved design.
Also note that two scopes have 50mm objectives and two have 56mm objectives. We did the testing in the middle of the day, so exit pupil differences have minimal effect.
In terms of resolution, Delta was better than others. Stryker HD > Ares ETR >= PST Gen 2 > Ares BTR.
Contrast: Stryker HD >= PST Gen 2 > Ares ETR > Ares BTR
Chromatic aberration: Stryker HD >= Ares BTR > PST Gen 2 > Ares BTR
Distortion: all about equal at 20x, but I will look more carefully at other magnifications as I do the testing.
FOV: PST Gen 2 > Stryker HD = Ares BTR > Ares BTR Ares BTR FOV looks smaller than it is.
Other general impressions:
-Ares ETR is easily the best precision scope I have seen come out of China to date. It is almost as if they took apart and LOW's reference 5-30x design and reverse engineered it with some minor changes to the objective design in order to account for manufacturing complexities. That's not a bad way to go if you are looking to make a precision scope.
-The tiny center dot in the Ares ETR will take some getting used to. Then again, this is what I said about the EBR-2C reticle as well, since I do not like aiming with an open space. I got used to that, so we'll see how it goes with the ETR.
-In general, I am used to dissecting the target, so the Ares BTR reticle works really well for me. With the aiming dot, I prefer something a little larger. Of the reticles we had there yesterday, as far as the primary aiming area goes, I really prefer the Delta reticle. In general, if they moved the numbers to the outside of the tree, the LRD-1T reticle would be just about perfect for my purposes. It will be interesting to see how it looks side by side with Gen 3 XR. The center dot on the Delta is 0.045 mrad, while on the Gen 3 XR, it is 0.075 mrad (ETR has 0.03 mrad dot). Generally, I seem to do well with the aiming dots in the 0.05 to 0.1 mrad range, so Delta is on the low side of that and Gen 3 XR should be smack in the middle. However, without seeing it in a scope, it is hard to tell.
I will spend more time with the scopes side by side in different lighting conditions and check the ETR tracking (the other scopes I have have already been checked).
ILya
In general, if I step back and think of the state of precision optics 15 years ago, none of us have any reason to complain today. We are all just spoiled rotten.
With that out of the way, there is a clear difference in color cast of the scopes which will effect how you perceive things. PST Gen 2 has a slightly warmer color cast, so if your eye likes that, it will look more contrasty. That having been said, Gen 2 PST does have notably better contrast than Gen 1 did and is generally a much improved design.
Also note that two scopes have 50mm objectives and two have 56mm objectives. We did the testing in the middle of the day, so exit pupil differences have minimal effect.
In terms of resolution, Delta was better than others. Stryker HD > Ares ETR >= PST Gen 2 > Ares BTR.
Contrast: Stryker HD >= PST Gen 2 > Ares ETR > Ares BTR
Chromatic aberration: Stryker HD >= Ares BTR > PST Gen 2 > Ares BTR
Distortion: all about equal at 20x, but I will look more carefully at other magnifications as I do the testing.
FOV: PST Gen 2 > Stryker HD = Ares BTR > Ares BTR Ares BTR FOV looks smaller than it is.
Other general impressions:
-Ares ETR is easily the best precision scope I have seen come out of China to date. It is almost as if they took apart and LOW's reference 5-30x design and reverse engineered it with some minor changes to the objective design in order to account for manufacturing complexities. That's not a bad way to go if you are looking to make a precision scope.
-The tiny center dot in the Ares ETR will take some getting used to. Then again, this is what I said about the EBR-2C reticle as well, since I do not like aiming with an open space. I got used to that, so we'll see how it goes with the ETR.
-In general, I am used to dissecting the target, so the Ares BTR reticle works really well for me. With the aiming dot, I prefer something a little larger. Of the reticles we had there yesterday, as far as the primary aiming area goes, I really prefer the Delta reticle. In general, if they moved the numbers to the outside of the tree, the LRD-1T reticle would be just about perfect for my purposes. It will be interesting to see how it looks side by side with Gen 3 XR. The center dot on the Delta is 0.045 mrad, while on the Gen 3 XR, it is 0.075 mrad (ETR has 0.03 mrad dot). Generally, I seem to do well with the aiming dots in the 0.05 to 0.1 mrad range, so Delta is on the low side of that and Gen 3 XR should be smack in the middle. However, without seeing it in a scope, it is hard to tell.
I will spend more time with the scopes side by side in different lighting conditions and check the ETR tracking (the other scopes I have have already been checked).
ILya
Thanks for posting the review ILya. Having been in "the industry" for the better part of 40 years no truer words have been spoken. The quality that is being produced these days is fantastic and accounting for the value of money change over the past few decades these high quality feature rich optics are not overly expensive.
I always look forward to your reviews. Thanks for taking the time
Similar threads
