Ares ETR 3-18x50 vs. the ATACR 4-20x50: Some thoughts

[Sanctify7]

I didn't realize you hadn't mounted that ETR yet. Are you waiting for a high end rifle to put it on?

Yep, diminishing returns is pretty much what it comes down to, that as well as budget along with feature preferences.

Are my expensive scopes superior than my Athlon higher tier scopes??? Well yes in some ways but the Athlon's are darn near as nice in most ways or sometimes superior.
One is I still prefer the turrets feel on my Cronus G2's more than my super expensive scopes but IQ nope not quite, functionality is the same as far as I can tell.

Which scope are you trying out next?

Hi, Steve.

It has been a bit, but I want to tell that I (finally!) mounted the Ares ETR on Monday. It is on a .22 Crown that I just bought on the forum. I have only shot it in my basement at under ten yards, but will like to get it outside and stretch its legs a bit in the sun asap. It is a tad heavier than I would like, but at least for now that’s okay. It gives a little more stability on the bench.
So, if you consider the Crown Mark II a “high-end rifle,” the answer was “yes,” I was waiting.

S7

 

[GeneT]

Thanks for the write-up. I think looking through window glass may mute some differences, but so does ambient lighting, light direction, 'target', etc. Doing a thorough scope review is not a trivial thing! I appreciate your honest approach in both testing and reporting. For testing IQ you can make targets with black bars which are spaced progressively closer. At some point the lower IQ scope will be unable to resolve the separation between lines. This is quick and (relatively) easy, and you can do it at varying ranges just by scaling the images. Just try to test all scopes at the same time to eliminate the confounding influences of lighting.

In my opinion, and I have ZERO experience with the Ares, the reason to go with Nightforce is the accuracy over large adjustments, and of course durability. Of course, durability is something we mostly take someone else's word on, as I (and I suspect most) am not willing to drop my scopes nor throw them against the wall. Precise adjustment though is readily tested - even more easily with airguns. Do a search for "scope box test" if you don't know what I'm talking about, then do a box test that is ~80% of the bounds of the scope adjustment range. I certainly can't claim to have tested more than a tiny portion of what's available (and again, nothing from Ares) but the NF scopes have been consistent winners in this regard in my testing.

GsT

 

[Sanctify7]

Thanks for the write-up. I think looking through window glass may mute some differences, but so does ambient lighting, light direction, 'target', etc. Doing a thorough scope review is not a trivial thing! I appreciate your honest approach in both testing and reporting. For testing IQ you can make targets with black bars which are spaced progressively closer. At some point the lower IQ scope will be unable to resolve the separation between lines. This is quick and (relatively) easy, and you can do it at varying ranges just by scaling the images. Just try to test all scopes at the same time to eliminate the confounding influences of lighting.

In my opinion, and I have ZERO experience with the Ares, the reason to go with Nightforce is the accuracy over large adjustments, and of course durability. Of course, durability is something we mostly take someone else's word on, as I (and I suspect most) am not willing to drop my scopes nor throw them against the wall. Precise adjustment though is readily tested - even more easily with airguns. Do a search for "scope box test" if you don't know what I'm talking about, then do a box test that is ~80% of the bounds of the scope adjustment range. I certainly can't claim to have tested more than a tiny portion of what's available (and again, nothing from Ares) but the NF scopes have been consistent winners in this regard in my testing.

GsT

Greetings, GsT.

I appreciate the response.

For one, I do understand the problems posed by peering through even a clean window. Again, I did get to look through both of them on that one day unimpeded by the extra factor of window glass. And I will remember the black bar test. I have seen such configurations used on Sniper’s Hide by Glassaholic. I did previously make a rather simple one (only four bars), but your comment on scaling the bar sizes for differences in distance is helpful and will improve anything I do further.

Second, if it were it not for money, I would have gone with the ATACR. Aside from that rotating ocular, it was among the two nicest scopes I have ever handled or looked through. And, come to think of it, I am not fond of the thick outer periphery either, but it is not a stopper for me. Too bad I do not remember enough about the March 4.5-28x52 to compare it to the ATACR. My scope knowledge was far too simplistic then—not that it is so great now, but it has matured. Moreover, from what I recall about the NX8 (probably close to one of my ‘ideal’ scopes for my context and budget), I would like one in either the 2.5-20 or 4-32. But I owned the Ares, it is nice, and so that is that for the moment., and the ATACR went back. The NX8s are a bit lighter than the Ares, too, while I am there.

Third, I assume that with “accuracy over large adjustments” you are talking about tracking, which you comment on right after mentioning this. I am quite familiar with box tests and so on, but it is only the last week or so that I am thinking of doing some tracking testing for myself. I am now very curious as to how different scopes perform, so you are hitting right where I am at with this comment. And yes again, I am aware of NF’s stellar reputation for tracking.

Thanks again. S7