I guess that the title sums it up. I’ve read the comparisons on glass quality but don’t recall anyone talking about durability. I don’t assume that they have the reputation of a Nightforce for the abuse that they will take but has anyone run any of the Cronus scopes through the ringer? How did they stand up to rough treatment?
Rifle Scopes How rugged are the Athlon Cronus scopes?
- Thread starter I am Barabbas
- Start date
It’s made by the same people who make the NF ATACR. Sooooo.....
And that matters how? Do they have the exact same components? The same exact design?
Low makes robust scopes. I never said they were the same.
The Cronus BTR is a very well made scope that we have sold many dozens of with great feedback. Of all the Cronus and Cronus BTR scopes we have sold we have not come across any issues. That's not to say that they are perfect as nothing is, however, IMO is a quality well built product offering features and opticical quality of scopes retailing for much higher prices.
Being made in the same factory is like saying you can buy apples and peanuts in a supermarket. That is literally of no bearing on the issue at all.
Of course I'm right, that wasn't the point. 
I have no idea how good or bad the Cronus is, and will not speculate, since I have no experience with it. I do know very well how scope companies work with specs and factories though, which was my point. You inferred that since they were made in the same factory, that the Cronus was just as good as the ATACR. You then said that LOW makes robust scopes. Which is true. They also make lower end scopes that I would not consider to be robust. In the case of the ATACR, things are spec'd in a way that pretty much no one else does. Which is one reason NF has such a reputation for ruggedness.
I have no idea how good or bad the Cronus is, and will not speculate, since I have no experience with it. I do know very well how scope companies work with specs and factories though, which was my point. You inferred that since they were made in the same factory, that the Cronus was just as good as the ATACR. You then said that LOW makes robust scopes. Which is true. They also make lower end scopes that I would not consider to be robust. In the case of the ATACR, things are spec'd in a way that pretty much no one else does. Which is one reason NF has such a reputation for ruggedness.
I’ve never seen a crappy Low. But I haven’t seen everything either. But I would bet it’s a safe bet that the Chronos is very robust.
For the record. I don’t even own an Athlon or a NF. Just a Weaver..... made by .......Low...
For the record. I don’t even own an Athlon or a NF. Just a Weaver..... made by .......Low...
Thanks for the replies. I figure that there are some guys who have used the Cronus in competition a maybe have beaten one up a good bit. I’ve also read about some unofficial torture test that guys have run scopes through. It’s a good bet that an Athlon hasn’t been tested by the rigors of combat use so I’m hoping that someone has tortured one a bit out of hard use or curiosity and can give some particulars.
I'm not picking on you, but your post brings up a point that i think is worth mentioning.Hard question to answer. It is all subjective!
I feel my Cronus is robust enough... but then again, I don't throw it down the stairs either!
There is nothing subjective about the ruggedness of a scope. One reason I am such a NF junkie, is that you can take the scope off your gun, play 9 innings with it, as the bat, then put it back on your gun and shoot just fine. Joking of course. NF has passed very tough military and LE tests that other scopes simply cannot pass.
One may feel that their scope is robust enough, but testing tells the tale, not how you may feel about it. Do most people here need a scope that robust? Probably not, but I guess it depends on how you care for it and what you need or want it to do.
I don't care how robust LOW makes a Athlon Cronus,I treat mine like its made of paper.
You really will have no idea how robust your scope is until you break it and all you will know then is it is not quite "that" robust. There are no real indicators other than testing. Weight doesn't show very much, most of the weight is glass anyway and glass is tender stuff. Yeah, it is hard to the touch but it is also brittle, or can be. It really, I suppose, boils down to how you treat your tools. If your habit is to toss your deer rifle in the back of a pickup and drive 20 miles up a rocky, dirt road, you will need a stauncher scope than the guy who uncases his gun from it's foam lined case and carefully sets it on a rest before putting the bolt in and loading a magazine.
Want to kill even a good scope quick? Mount it on a spring piston air rifle. Those things will turn the guts of a precision scope into a pile of gears and wheels in 20 shots.
Want to kill even a good scope quick? Mount it on a spring piston air rifle. Those things will turn the guts of a precision scope into a pile of gears and wheels in 20 shots.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
Anybody can get the Japs to make a scope to your specifications. You can even give it your own brand name. Most of these knockoff upshot names create a niche in the market. The Athlon uses cheaper parts to compete and cut costs. There is too much hype going around about them.
Ignorance is bliss. Believe what you like and spend your money accordingly.
BTW, most ATACR's are not built at LOW. Most are built here. Also, you would not believe the steps NF takes to ensure quality from LOW. I wont get into it, but no other company does what NF does at LOW.
BTW, most ATACR's are not built at LOW. Most are built here. Also, you would not believe the steps NF takes to ensure quality from LOW. I wont get into it, but no other company does what NF does at LOW.
Anyone can go online and speculate about products they haven't used and have no first hand knowledge of.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
Let’s shift to a little more of an objective look.
What kind of round count and of what caliber do you have through your Athlon Cronus BTR?
What kind of round count and of what caliber do you have through your Athlon Cronus BTR?
I had about 300 on a 1st gen Cronus, the other guy testing it said it ran great in the 2017 PRS season, and I have about 500 on a BTR version, in 6x47l.
A friend of mine has 600 rounds on his Cronus BTR that sits on a 300 win mag. He has has zero issues so far. He absolutely loves this scope.
I’ll be getting one for myself soon.
I’ll be getting one for myself soon.
Last edited:
Which one, and why do you think it compare poorly to others in its price range?
I ran one in a couple matches (~500 round) before moving to a PMII when the prices dropped. I had zero mechanical issues during my short time with it. The bottom line is there is very few that have been exposed to enough bumps and bruises to give you non laboratory real world results yet I would guess. Many of your top guys run sponsored scopes, and many of your upper tier non sponsored guys run a little higher dollar price range scopes. I'm betting there are not a lot of Cronus scopes with 10,000 plus round counts out there with the paint rubbed off the turrets like other models because they have simply been out in the wild for less time. As far as military and toughness goes, the military is easier on shit than people think. Shooting a season slamming your scopes into a barricade, or serious hunting is harder on scopes than the military is. These things aren't falling out of the air from a helicopter without a case and being dusted off and shot. They are carried and held a lot rubbing off the paint, and bumped against door jams and HMMWV doors. I'm not saying they are babied, but they take way less abuse than people think. As someone above said, NF doesn't own robust...but they are known for it.
4.5-29x56 Cronus BTR with 1507 rounds of 6.5 CM so far. Knock on wood, still doing well!
Mine was one of the ones from the very first batch arriving in the U.S.
Mine was one of the ones from the very first batch arriving in the U.S.
Slightly different versions of this same basic LOW design are used by a bunch of brands and I do not see these these failing a whole lot. My educated guess is that this is a very robust design.
ILya
ILya
Just curious to the brand and model of the similar Cronus scopes.
Given your interest and knowledge of scopes, I'm very surprised to see you write this.
Just to clarify, nothing I have written should be taken as a slam on Athlon or the Cronus. My only point was and is that simply being made in the same factory as a proven winner is absolutely meaningless, for a variety of reasons.
So to get back to koskin's post...Yes, the same basic design is used by several scope companies. I would have assumed that koskin knew about the differences and options available to prospective scope companies. The outer packaging is the least important aspect, and there are many options and price points for which internals are selected and what processes are used to help ensure repeatability and reliability, as well as ruggedness. There is a reason that the Razor II costs more (not much more, but more) than the Cronus. It has to do with what options Vortex spec'd and paid for, compared to Athlon. Same deal with NF, just that they literally take it to a whole other level of commitment.
If the Cronus is what you want, have at it. It seems like a nice scope. Just don't fool yourself (or worse, others) into believing that it is the same quality as much more expensive scopes, just at a lower price. There is no free lunch anywhere, especially in the scope world.
Athlon is near my office, and I have stopped by and chatted with the guys there. Very nice people and very knowledgeable about scopes and the scope industry. They believe that they offer a very good scope for the money, and I'm sure they are correct. None of them tried to tell me it was comparable to some of the others we have discussed here, though I think it certainly is close to the Razor in many ways.
There are a bunch of 5-30x56 and similar designs it there. Delta 4.5-30x56 is one. Sig Tango6 5-30x56 is likely related. There are a couple of others. LOW had a basic 6-30x56 design and a couple of evolutions of 5-30x56. It is not always easy to tell which is which, but they were all pretty robust.
The Delta I am testing survived some fairly rough handling, including falling onto concrete with a 15lb rifle in top of it. There is some cosmetic evidence of it, but the scope stayed zeroed and the turrets continued to track.
ILya
The Delta I am testing survived some fairly rough handling, including falling onto concrete with a 15lb rifle in top of it. There is some cosmetic evidence of it, but the scope stayed zeroed and the turrets continued to track.
ILya
SIG
Primary arms
Nightforce
Weaver
Sightmark
Delta
Bushnell
Athlon
SWFA
All have some LOW made optics
Thank god you're here bender, to keep idiots like me from wasting money on anything more expensive than a weaver. And to prevent me from wasting time trying to educate the ignorant. I use these scopes for a living, as well as for my hobby. Since you obviously know better, as well as when to call it quits, maybe you can cover class for me on monday. I'll sleep in and you can have at it. Just send me the updates you make so I won't be as dumb next time around.
tried an argos on a backup-backup .308 rifle.
poor design from factory (tiny screws used to hold turret caps) and ended up breaking after ~200 shots, no abuse (lens element or other piece was loose and rattling around in body of scope).
returned and refunded. athlon customer service was pleasant and accommodating but I would not repeat.
poor design from factory (tiny screws used to hold turret caps) and ended up breaking after ~200 shots, no abuse (lens element or other piece was loose and rattling around in body of scope).
returned and refunded. athlon customer service was pleasant and accommodating but I would not repeat.
To add to that: I am reasonably well familiar with the options LOW offers.
Razor Gen 2 is a fairly different design. I do not think it is LOW's reference design. Vortex Gen 2 was either designed by Vortex or commissioned by them. It is substantially different from the variants of LOW's own design.
ILya
Razor Gen 2 is a fairly different design. I do not think it is LOW's reference design. Vortex Gen 2 was either designed by Vortex or commissioned by them. It is substantially different from the variants of LOW's own design.
ILya
That was probably a Midas, the Argos uses one big screw on top of the splined turret. There are upgraded turrets available for the Midas now with bigger allen screws.
I have one of the Weaver Tactical 6-30x56 and I really like it. The price was right at $750 should have bought more when they were available.
I actually ran the Ares for 400-500 rounds, mostly shooting at 300-600 off shooting stick, on my 223 last year. Then I picked up a Cronus, and about all I have done is tall target test and shoot a couple hundred rounds at the 100y range. I got it right before winter and hunting seasons. So I was busy with that with my LRHS.
Does anyone have 5000 or more rounds of any caliber on a Cronus?
If I had money like jay Leno, I’d have one of every LOW made. Plus American, and European..... shit. I’d own them all..... even some Walmart Nikons.... lol
Round count isn't really what causes failure for most of us. It is adjusting POI over and over and over......
Th e Ares is a nice lower priced option. Like most of athlons stuff. It is full feature, and really nice glass for the price point. I had a 4.5-27, but can't say I use much over 10-12 most of the time. Does it get tighter at high power, yes. If you were fine with the Weaver at 30x, the Ares isn going to bother you.
I do not have any personal experience with the Athlon Cronus but I have read multiple reports on this forum where users claimed theirs or others' failed. The last one I recall was a forum member talking about a PRS competition where they said more than one Cronus went down. You could probably find the posts I'm referring to if your search skills on this forum are better than mine.
Your first sentence tells a lot. Why comment if you have no experience?
I ran a Cronus for 3 barrels last year in PRS comps. I don't remember any particularly nasty incidents, but I didn't ever give any special treatment to the scope. Still works great and tracks true. It sits on a shelf now, but I put it through its paces to see what it was all about. Good glass, good eye relief, turrets are decent, and it tracked. It's not my favorite scope in the world, but it is probably one of the better options in its street-price range. My only real complaint is the same complaint I have with pretty much any optic in that range: FOV. I prefer more.
@Yoteski
I'm simply providing the OP with information relevant to the question he posed. Seems pretty reasonable to reference information I read first-hand on this forum in other threads related to the same topic. The first thing I did in my post was qualify where I read the information I was providing so OP could assign the weight he felt appropriate to it and/or even look it up himself if he wanted.
Where is your substantive contribution to this thread? Or are you just policing the forums here?
