Rifle Scopes Quick look at the new Athlon Midas TAC 5-25x56 APRS3 MIL FFP HD

[Ranger Bob]

I have to admit, it was difficult for me to buy a Athlon. While I am far from being a high end optics snob, I have been hanging out in the Bushnell Elite comfort zone for more than a decade. Truth is, I haven't been shooting for a few years and I'm just getting back into it. I kinda told this story already when I was asking about the need for illumination on a scope for local matches. In the end, I decided I don't need it and after all my research, I bought the new Athlon Midas TAC 5-25x56 APRS3 MIL FFP HD.

I'm not going to run through the specs, you can get those from the Athlon website. What I am going to do is give my observations and impressions of the scope as I put it to use. Somehow, it arrived last night about 2230hrs via USPS. I've never had a delivery late night on a Sunday so that was strange. This morning I pulled it out of the box and took a look. Since it is going to replace a borrowed Bushnell XRS Gen 1, and that being the most comparable scope I have, I will make some...um, comparisons.

The first thing I noticed was the weight difference. You don't even need to hold them at the same time to feel the difference; the Bushnell is noticeably heavier.


2019-12-30_12-40-55 by Bob, on Flickr

2019-12-30_12-41-10 by Bob, on Flickr

I find the weight difference pretty interesting considering the Bushnell has a 50mm objective versus the Athlon having a 56mm front lens.

2019-12-30_12-41-20 by Bob, on Flickr

Additionally, the Midas TAC is longer than the XRS.

2019-12-30_12-41-31 by Bob, on Flickr

Both have 34mm tubes but, the dial controls and housing on the Bushnell are significantly larger than the Athlon. This is one of the reasons I chose the Athlon and I really like the covered windage knob. Yes, the clicks are going to be a little closer together on the smaller elevation dial but, I feel the clicks are also more tactile/crisp on the Midas TAC so I think that will help. Also, the Midas TAC will focus down to 25 yards where the XRS Gen 1 only focuses down to 75 yards. This was an issue for me recently when I went to zero the Bushnell to my new Tikka and I wanted to start at 50 yards because I hadn't boresighted.

2019-12-30_12-41-42 by Bob, on Flickr

I don't have any pictures through the glass yet. I will try to get some. The image is definitely brighter in the Athlon owing to the 56mm objective but, I also think there is less chromatic aberration..."if" you have good focus. Anything contrasty and out of focus has pretty major purple fringing but, so does the Bushnell. In terms of clarity, my initial call is that they are about even.

Also, I think the reticle is really nice but, it is thin and I doubt it is useable under 10x.

So, there's my first thoughts on the Athlon Midas TAC 5-25x56 APRS3 MIL FFP HD. I will update this as I learn more. If you have any questions about this thing, feel free to ask. My local range opens back up on New Years day so, hopefully I'll have my new Warne Skyline mount by then.

Bob

 

[A-Rob]

Thanks for the write up, there's not a bunch out there on this scope yet. I have had several Athlon scopes over the past couple of years and I'm down to a Cronus. I'm interested in this newer TAC for another rifle and I'd like someone who has compared it against an ETR to add their 2 cents. I don't need the illumination either and I'm interested in how much real world difference there is between the glass.

 

[drglock]

I’ve shot mine in one 22 NRL match and one 22 Jackpot match so far and thank its a great scope for the price especially for rimfire matches. This is my first scope with a center dot and don’t see how I went this long without using one, really liking the center dot. Glass is not bad, tad bit of CA but nothing horrible. Like said above the clicks are nice. Shot most of the match on 10-14X and shot groups on on 25X . Most of my time behind it has been 100yds and in and a few shots at 500yds and really don’t have any complaints. I think for 22 matches and for a scope under $900 you can’t go wrong.
On my Cz 457 with a 50yd zero using SK Rifle Match and a 35 moa rail and another 15ish moa in my rings, I have 29+ mils elevation and 4+ mils under zero.

 

[drglock]

Thanks for the write up, there's not a bunch out there on this scope yet. I have had several Athlon scopes over the past couple of years and I'm down to a Cronus. I'm interested in this newer TAC for another rifle and I'd like someone who has compared it against an ETR to add their 2 cents. I don't need the illumination either and I'm interested in how much real world difference there is between the glass.

I’ve owned an Ares BTR and ETR and to me the glass is comparable to the BTR but the turrets are more like the ETR and maybe a bit better than what my ETR was. This is on 10-12x right at 100yds about 40 minutes before dusk.
Hope this helps.

 

[Ranger Bob]

On my Cz 457 with a 50yd zero using SK Rifle Match and a 35 moa rail and another 15ish moa in my rings, I have 29+ mils elevation and 4+ mils under zero.

This is pretty much what I measured. I got 34.5 total mils of elevation. I also played around with the zero stop and it is dead simple to operate.

One other thing I noticed in comparison to the Bushnell XRS, was the resistance/dampening of the controls. They are just right on the Athlon; not too stiff and not too loose. The zoom ring on my Bushnell has always been very tight as has the parallax. They are really nice on the Midas TAC and I expect should be easy to adjust from behind the gun.

Bob

 

[A-Rob]

This is pretty much what I measured. I got 34.5 total mils of elevation. I also played around with the zero stop and it is dead simple to operate.

One other thing I noticed in comparison to the Bushnell XRS, was the resistance/dampening of the controls. They are just right on the Athlon; not too stiff and not too loose. The zoom ring on my Bushnell has always been very tight as has the parallax. They are really nice on the Midas TAC and I expect should be easy to adjust from behind the gun.

Bob

Good to hear re: adjustment smoothness. Same thing with Cronus vs. ETR. The ETR is perfect, the Cronus needs a throw lever and the focus knob is way too heavy.