The new Athlon Ares BTR G3 2.5-15x50, initials, and ongoing thoughts.

[steve123]

What the glass like?

I've only seen one 2.5-15 BTR G2 in real life and the glass was horrible compared to my PST G2 scopes.

I've been waiting to find the goldilocks $1000 +/- scope for a while now, would prefer capped windage (my main complaint about the PST) but the thicker reticle in this would be nice for hunting (or even target/comp use IMO).

I'm gonna have to let you guys judge for yourselves.

I've mentioned this before but the IQ in my G1 2.5-15 wasn't bad at all. Unit to unit variance between yours and mine???
The IQ in my G1 and G2 4.5-27 wasn't bad but the prescription didn't work for my eyes, like if I had the diopter set for a clean reticle the focus was a little strained, and it's hard to describe otherwise, but enough so that I sold them.

This G3 is not like them, the IQ to me is fine, and I'm okay with it. It's one of those scopes that I can't fault it based on my price to satisfaction index so it's worthy to keep.

I had a March HM 5-42x56 that was pretty bad optically above 38x according to my old eyes. It was essentially more like a 5-30 because above 30x it started to get to dim and slightly blurry, so I sold it. One of those scopes that I wanted to like, wanted to keep, but nope my intent was to use it at high mag which it failed at there.

 

[brazz04]

Not quite the same scope, but I just added a Gen 3 Ares in 4.5-27x from Cameraland and I'm really disappointed in the glass. I put it on my Tikka 22lr thinking it would be a step up from my Helos BTR Gen 2 4-20 but less cost than a used Cronus. It's almost as if the focus on it isn't quite fine enough so at 100 yards, you can't bring the picture into clarity. I'm a big fan of the Cronus and Helos I have so I was hoping this would fall somewhere between, but It just isn't what I was hoping on the glass clarity.

 

[EscapeVelocity]

Not quite the same scope, but I just added a Gen 3 Ares in 4.5-27x from Cameraland and I'm really disappointed in the glass. I put it on my Tikka 22lr thinking it would be a step up from my Helos BTR Gen 2 4-20 but less cost than a used Cronus. It's almost as if the focus on it isn't quite fine enough so at 100 yards, you can't bring the picture into clarity. I'm a big fan of the Cronus and Helos I have so I was hoping this would fall somewhere between, but It just isn't what I was hoping on the glass clarity.

I was really hoping it would have great glass.

I just bought a Helos BTR g2 4-20 as well and LOVE it. Great glass. I put it on my 6 arc and couldn't be happier with it.

 

[WeR0206]

I was really hoping it would have great glass.

I just bought a Helos BTR g2 4-20 as well and LOVE it. Great glass. I put it on my 6 arc and couldn't be happier with it.

Hmmm I’ve been trying to decide on some glass for a 6 arc gas gun build and I was thinking of getting the ares btr gen3 but after reading this thread I may just go the route you did with the helos gen2

 

[Bluedog82]

Weather’s been crappy but I hope to get mine out this weekend.

 

[EscapeVelocity]

Hmmm I’ve been trying to decide on some glass for a 6 arc gas gun build and I was thinking of getting the ares btr gen3 but after reading this thread I may just go the route you did with the helos gen2

I'd still like more mag that the Ares btr g3 offers in the 4.5-27 but the glass really is good in that Helos 4-20. I could spot well out to 1k.

 

[WeR0206]

I'd still like more mag that the Ares btr g3 offers in the 4.5-27 but the glass really is good in that Helos 4-20. I could spot well out to 1k.

Thanks for the feedback. Id be really curious how the helos g2 4-20 glass stacks up compared to arken epl-4 6-24 which is the other optic im considering. Technically the arken epl-4 should have better Japanese glass

 

[db2000]

Thanks for the feedback. Id be really curious how the helos g2 4-20 glass stacks up compared to arken epl-4 6-24 which is the other optic im considering. Technically the arken epl-4 should have better Japanese glass

The issue is there’s some great Chinese glass and some mediocre Jap glass so you can’t define quality necessarily by country unfortunately.

 

[EscapeVelocity]

The issue is there’s some great Chinese glass and some mediocre Jap glass so you can’t define quality necessarily by country unfortunately.

Ain't that the truth. As much as I've been conditioned to avoid Chinese glass, there are some really clear optics for the price in the market. To each their own on whether or not to buy one.

 

[Bluedog82]

Shot mine for the first time this weekend and I was pretty impressed. Glass was good, no noticeable CA, and the floating center dot was great for grouping some reloads. Definitely looking forward to stretching its legs.

 

[steve123]

I'd still like more mag that the Ares btr g3 offers in the 4.5-27 but the glass really is good in that Helos 4-20. I could spot well out to 1k.

It's a bigger scope but I bet the ETR G2 4.5-30 would be a good one and on the other side is the Helos G2 6-24 and the IQ is decent in my 6-24. I have a Vector Optics Continental 5-30x56 to compare and the IQ is superior in the HG2 6-24 plus most everything else except for weight.

The HG2 4-20 is decent too and I have it on a rifle that I don't want a heavy scope on. This HG2 replaced a SWFA 3-15 and I like the HG2 much more!

This is where I've defaulted, the HG2 line as far as bang for the buck.
I've tried various other scopes of other companies the last few years that are similarly priced, some even more expensive, and only the Meopta Optika 6 has better IQ, yet still doesn't have turrets as nice as the HG2's.

But that Ares BTR G3 2.5-15 has pretty much changed my mind about scopes lately. It's just too good and a lot can be done on 15x. I don't have a many rifles and some of them I don't shoot often enough to justify better scopes on so I'm at a stand still right now.

Basically I'll stay with the HG2's for the immediate future as "good enough".

 

[WeR0206]

It's a bigger scope but I bet the ETR G2 4.5-30 would be a good one and on the other side is the Helos G2 6-24 and the IQ is decent in my 6-24. I have a Vector Optics Continental 5-30x56 to compare and the IQ is superior in the HG2 6-24 plus most everything else except for weight.

The HG2 4-20 is decent too and I have it on a rifle that I don't want a heavy scope on. This HG2 replaced a SWFA 3-15 and I like the HG2 much more!

This is where I've defaulted, the HG2 line as far as bang for the buck.
I've tried various other scopes of other companies the last few years that are similarly priced, some even more expensive, and only the Meopta Optika 6 has better IQ, yet still doesn't have turrets as nice as the HG2's.

But that Ares BTR G3 2.5-15 has pretty much changed my mind about scopes lately. It's just too good and a lot can be done on 15x. I don't have a many rifles and some of them I don't shoot often enough to justify better scopes on so I'm at a stand still right now.

Basically I'll stay with the HG2's for the immediate future as "good enough".

Thanks for all your feedback in this thread. I think I’ve decided on the HG2 4-20 for my 6 arc gasser…although it seems to be out of stock at most places. I think EuroOptic has some

 

[Fret]

I'm gonna have to let you guys judge for yourselves.

I've mentioned this before but the IQ in my G1 2.5-15 wasn't bad at all. Unit to unit variance between yours and mine???
The IQ in my G1 and G2 4.5-27 wasn't bad but the prescription didn't work for my eyes, like if I had the diopter set for a clean reticle the focus was a little strained, and it's hard to describe otherwise, but enough so that I sold them.

This G3 is not like them, the IQ to me is fine, and I'm okay with it. It's one of those scopes that I can't fault it based on my price to satisfaction index so it's worthy to keep.

I had a March HM 5-42x56 that was pretty bad optically above 38x according to my old eyes. It was essentially more like a 5-30 because above 30x it started to get to dim and slightly blurry, so I sold it. One of those scopes that I wanted to like, wanted to keep, but nope my intent was to use it at high mag which it failed at there.

Did you have both the March 5-40x56 and 5-42x56 HM?

 

[steve123]

Did you have both the March 5-40x56 and 5-42x56 HM?

Yes I did but briefly because I traded the 5-40 off shortly after I got the 5-42.

The short of it, "ha, pun intended", the 5-42 had better IQ under around 22x, and the 5-40 had better IQ above 37x. My 5-42 was a early one and got dimmer and blurrier by 37x or so and was quite bad at 42x = to my old eyes. Honestly I can't remember the exact magnifications but my numbers here are close enough.

Supposedly March massaged the 5-42 prescription later on so the later Gen is better. I tried hard to like mine but it wasn't cutting it on higher mag.

 

[steve123]

Not quite the same scope, but I just added a Gen 3 Ares in 4.5-27x from Cameraland and I'm really disappointed in the glass. I put it on my Tikka 22lr thinking it would be a step up from my Helos BTR Gen 2 4-20 but less cost than a used Cronus. It's almost as if the focus on it isn't quite fine enough so at 100 yards, you can't bring the picture into clarity. I'm a big fan of the Cronus and Helos I have so I was hoping this would fall somewhere between, but It just isn't what I was hoping on the glass clarity.

Darn! I wonder what the deal is??

 

[db2000]

It's a bigger scope but I bet the ETR G2 4.5-30 would be a good one and on the other side is the Helos G2 6-24 and the IQ is decent in my 6-24. I have a Vector Optics Continental 5-30x56 to compare and the IQ is superior in the HG2 6-24 plus most everything else except for weight.

The HG2 4-20 is decent too and I have it on a rifle that I don't want a heavy scope on. This HG2 replaced a SWFA 3-15 and I like the HG2 much more!

This is where I've defaulted, the HG2 line as far as bang for the buck.
I've tried various other scopes of other companies the last few years that are similarly priced, some even more expensive, and only the Meopta Optika 6 has better IQ, yet still doesn't have turrets as nice as the HG2's.

But that Ares BTR G3 2.5-15 has pretty much changed my mind about scopes lately. It's just too good and a lot can be done on 15x. I don't have a many rifles and some of them I don't shoot often enough to justify better scopes on so I'm at a stand still right now.

Basically I'll stay with the HG2's for the immediate future as "good enough".

HG2’s are impressive

 

[brazz04]

Darn! I wonder what the deal is??

Just makes me mad I didn't buy another used Cronus for sure. And of course you can't return a mounted scope so I'm stuck with it. I'll take it out a few more times and do a few more comparisons.

 

[EscapeVelocity]

I bought and returned the Ares BTR Gen 3 4.5x27. It was like looking through a paper towel holder. Glass was meh, but couldn't get passed the tunnel vision.

 

[db2000]

Someone is gonna get a deal here.

Optics - Athlon Helos BTR 2-12 W/mount MIL

This sat on an AR of mine in the safe for 99% of its life. Nice little scope, my eyes just suck anymore and I can’t see a damn thing with a 12x scope at the ranges I like to shoot at so I put a 3-18 on it. One small mark on the bottom of the objective. Otherwise I can’t find any flaws. Come...

www.snipershide.com

 

[bigmac55]

i have a gen 2 4.5x27 on my 17/22 cz457 chassis and it works terrific for that gun out past 200 yds. I love the aplr6 reticle and the scope overall is a winner. I just ordered the gen 3 2.5x15x50 ffp mil and cant wait to get it. I was all over tract until a read a review from a guy who had both and he said the glass, eyebox and reticles are better on the athlon. Im going to buy the midas hmr for my hog gun and still have money left over vs the lecia or tract i was after. Sometimes you can get good results and not have to break the bank.

thanks for the write up Steve123

 

[Bluedog82]

i have a gen 2 4.5x27 on my 17/22 cz457 chassis and it works terrific for that gun out past 200 yds. I love the aplr6 reticle and the scope overall is a winner. I just ordered the gen 3 2.5x15x50 ffp mil and cant wait to get it. I was all over tract until a read a review from a guy who had both and he said the glass, eyebox and reticles are better on the athlon. Im going to buy the midas hmr for my hog gun and still have money left over vs the lecia or tract i was after. Sometimes you can get good results and not have to break the bank.

thanks for the write up Steve123

I have the Ares and the Tract. I’m not super glass picky and both look great to my eye, maybe a slight advantage to the Tract. The Tract does not have a Christmas tree reticle option, but it does have locking turrets and the smoothest magnification adjustment I’ve ever used. I also like the gray color.

 

[eclectic_spaceman]

I got one of these scopes a month ago or so, in like new condition, and put it on my 22LR rifle as a placeholder while I figure out a more ideal optic for it. I think I will put it on my AR, as it's a great mag range for an SPR.

Initially I was a little unimpressed with the eyebox, and I will say it's not excellent, but I also had it mounted too far back, and once I moved it forward one slot it's much easier to acquire (so user error there). It is a little tighter at 10x than I wish it was, but it's still pretty easy to pick up and retain, at least with the low recoil of 22LR. I think with 223 it'll still be fine as long as you're not trying to take quick shots at max mag.

The dials are very solid, great positive clicks with no mush to speak of. Truly impressive at this price range. The parallax knob is quite stiff but nice that it won't get bumped. I'm not worried about bumping elevation or windage at a match but maybe slinging it over my back while hunting would be a different story. Depends on your hunting scenario and if you have time to check your dials before taking a shot.

Color is pretty decent, though I haven't shot it in dim lighting to know how bright or dark the image is in those conditions. It's plenty sharp at all ends of the magnification range. It does get a little soft towards the edges when at lower mag, but that's field curvature for you. When parallax is adjusted all the way down at low magnification, there is significant barrel distortion, with a "rolling ball" effect. This pretty much doesn't affect me because the reticle is pretty unusable at min mag and I'll be do any close up shooting with a top mounted red dot anyway.

At 25yd parallax and 8x there is very little to complain about. The depth of field is pretty shallow for close objects if your parallax isn't set within 5-10 yards, when zoomed further than 6x, but around 10x the parallax is surprisingly forgiving for longer ranges... everything from 75 to 400 yards is mostly in focus with parallax set to 100 yards. Very usable for quick shooting if you like the deep depth of field.

Overall I'm pretty pleased with the scope! The gen3 additions with the scope caps and sun shield are nice quality of life improvements at no extra charge. Yes, the scope is a little long, but I think it pays off in performance. If you like the 2.5-15x zoom range of this optic, and are looking for something focused on precision (and thus will like the fine, detailed reticle), this is one of the best options on the market IMO.

 

[steve123]

I got one of these scopes a month ago or so, in like new condition, and put it on my 22LR rifle as a placeholder while I figure out a more ideal optic for it. I think I will put it on my AR, as it's a great mag range for an SPR.

Initially I was a little unimpressed with the eyebox, and I will say it's not excellent, but I also had it mounted too far back, and once I moved it forward one slot it's much easier to acquire (so user error there). It is a little tighter at 10x than I wish it was, but it's still pretty easy to pick up and retain, at least with the low recoil of 22LR. I think with 223 it'll still be fine as long as you're not trying to take quick shots at max mag.

The dials are very solid, great positive clicks with no mush to speak of. Truly impressive at this price range. The parallax knob is quite stiff but nice that it won't get bumped. I'm not worried about bumping elevation or windage at a match but maybe slinging it over my back while hunting would be a different story. Depends on your hunting scenario and if you have time to check your dials before taking a shot.

Color is pretty decent, though I haven't shot it in dim lighting to know how bright or dark the image is in those conditions. It's plenty sharp at all ends of the magnification range. It does get a little soft towards the edges when at lower mag, but that's field curvature for you. When parallax is adjusted all the way down at low magnification, there is significant barrel distortion, with a "rolling ball" effect. This pretty much doesn't affect me because the reticle is pretty unusable at min mag and I'll be do any close up shooting with a top mounted red dot anyway.

At 25yd parallax and 8x there is very little to complain about. The depth of field is pretty shallow for close objects if your parallax isn't set within 5-10 yards, when zoomed further than 6x, but around 10x the parallax is surprisingly forgiving for longer ranges... everything from 75 to 400 yards is mostly in focus with parallax set to 100 yards. Very usable for quick shooting if you like the deep depth of field.

Overall I'm pretty pleased with the scope! The gen3 additions with the scope caps and sun shield are nice quality of life improvements at no extra charge. Yes, the scope is a little long, but I think it pays off in performance. If you like the 2.5-15x zoom range of this optic, and are looking for something focused on precision (and thus will like the fine, detailed reticle), this is one of the best options on the market IMO.

Man you're making me want to get out mine again to see if I can see the things you saw.

"When parallax is adjusted all the way down at low magnification, there is significant barrel distortion, with a "rolling ball" effect."

Was the object you were intending to look at in perfect focus? I ask because if it wasn't the image through the scope is going to be weird looking, is that what you mean by barrel distortion? Even if the focus is slightly off at close range it's going to be wonky and have poor IQ.

Because I'm used to shooting Field Target airgun comps with 10Y close focus scopes I'm accustomed to how scopes react at close range whereas many have never used a scope at close range before so this throws them off.

What I mean is you just can't dial the side focus to it's extreme/all the way down, and expect anywhere near to a proper clean image except at that one and only distance where the object in perfect focus, and from what I can tell that'd be at 10Y or very close to it.

Basically on 15x you have to have the focus almost exactly set to your eye inside 20Y for the IQ to be as nice as possible, with focus being much less critical on 2.5x but it still needs to be mostly in focus.
For the heck of it try your scope at 11 yards from lowest to highest magnification and each time you change the magnification refocus again exactly.
Not only that but changing the diopter setting at a certain distance can sometimes clean the IQ even more. This is actually a great way to set your diopter to work the best compromise between close range and long range.

 

[eclectic_spaceman]

Man you're making me want to get out mine again to see if I can see the things you saw.

"When parallax is adjusted all the way down at low magnification, there is significant barrel distortion, with a "rolling ball" effect."

Was the object you were intending to look at in perfect focus? I ask because if it wasn't the image through the scope is going to be weird looking, is that what you mean by barrel distortion? Even if the focus is slightly off at close range it's going to be wonky and have poor IQ.

Because I'm used to shooting Field Target airgun comps with 10Y close focus scopes I'm accustomed to how scopes react at close range whereas many have never used a scope at close range before so this throws them off.

What I mean is you just can't dial the side focus to it's extreme/all the way down, and expect anywhere near to a proper clean image except at that one and only distance where the object in perfect focus, and from what I can tell that'd be at 10Y or very close to it.

Basically on 15x you have to have the focus almost exactly set to your eye inside 20Y for the IQ to be as nice as possible, with focus being much less critical on 2.5x but it still needs to be mostly in focus.
For the heck of it try your scope at 11 yards from lowest to highest magnification and each time you change the magnification refocus again exactly.
Not only that but changing the diopter setting at a certain distance can sometimes clean the IQ even more. This is actually a great way to set your diopter to work the best compromise between close range and long range.

At low mag, at 10y parallax, the close up objects are indeed in sharp focus. What you'll see is objects distorting strongly at the edges when panning around. If you circle around or figure 8, you'll see that the image seems to be presented on a sphere, and conforms to the shape of that sphere. This is the "rolling ball" effect. It can be very disorienting when quickly transitioning between targets, but if mostly static, is not much of an issue. This has nothing to do with sharpness, it's just an optical compromise you need to achieve such close focus. It's very difficult to produce a flat image at such wide fields of view at that short of focus distance. You typically see this in camera lenses as well, with barrel distortion at the wide end and pincushion distortion at the telephoto end of the zoom range.

I do agree that at higher magnifications, you do need the parallax set more precisely when looking at close targets. At distant targets it's much more forgiving. I actually found that a 50y parallax at 10x was sufficient for 50y to 250y and maybe more. But, if you're shooting close targets (i.e. in NRL22) you should definitely set parallax for the closer targets... even splitting the difference will hurt you if your target is close (say, 35y and 75y targets, choosing a 50y parallax will be totally fine for 75 but 35 will be a bit blurry). But this is pretty typical I think... I just wanted to clarify that while this scope is pretty forgiving with parallax at anything beyond 50-75y, those close distances at anything over ~8x magnification do require you to set the parallax as close as possible if you want a razor sharp image. It does get razor sharp though when you set it right.

 

[steve123]

At low mag, at 10y parallax, the close up objects are indeed in sharp focus. What you'll see is objects distorting strongly at the edges when panning around. If you circle around or figure 8, you'll see that the image seems to be presented on a sphere, and conforms to the shape of that sphere. This is the "rolling ball" effect. It can be very disorienting when quickly transitioning between targets, but if mostly static, is not much of an issue. This has nothing to do with sharpness, it's just an optical compromise you need to achieve such close focus. It's very difficult to produce a flat image at such wide fields of view at that short of focus distance. You typically see this in camera lenses as well, with barrel distortion at the wide end and pincushion distortion at the telephoto end of the zoom range.

I do agree that at higher magnifications, you do need the parallax set more precisely when looking at close targets. At distant targets it's much more forgiving. I actually found that a 50y parallax at 10x was sufficient for 50y to 250y and maybe more. But, if you're shooting close targets (i.e. in NRL22) you should definitely set parallax for the closer targets... even splitting the difference will hurt you if your target is close (say, 35y and 75y targets, choosing a 50y parallax will be totally fine for 75 but 35 will be a bit blurry). But this is pretty typical I think... I just wanted to clarify that while this scope is pretty forgiving with parallax at anything beyond 50-75y, those close distances at anything over ~8x magnification do require you to set the parallax as close as possible if you want a razor sharp image. It does get razor sharp though when you set it right.

Okay I see what you mean. Maybe later today I'll get some scopes out to locate the differences in rolling ball affect. I guess I'm used to that too???

 

[Newbie85]

I’ve seriously looking at the BTR Gen 3 4.5-27. Only down side to me is the non-locking windage turret.