For about a year and a half I've been working towards this final product on the first Midas Tac I picked up, and that grew to include the second one I bought from the classifieds more recently. The goal was to have yardage marks on the sidewheels for both 24x (max) and 16x so that the guns they're mounted on could be shot in Hunter or Open Class. Finally finished it today. Working up the yardage marks on a sidewheel is a pretty tedious process, lay out tape out to 55 yards and then drag something to focus on back and forth along that tape. Best done over multiple sessions with varying angles and amounts of light and a range of temperatures. Also requires a lot of verification of repeatability before the marks are made permanent (I think that's mostly to ease my mind that the finalized marks are trustable). To do it for two scopes at two different magnifications......not fun.
This isn't a tutorial of how I do my scope wheels, more intended as an idea of what the yardage marks look like for anybody considering the Midas for FT.
So, both of them are the Athlon Midas Tac 6-24x50 in MIL, with the APRS2 reticle.
Green background with yellow numbers is the 24x (left side of the wheel) and blue background with white letters is the 16x (right side of the wheel).
The 3 photos show the minimum, middle, and maximum yardage marks, in the context of 10-55 yards for field target.
Both side wheels are comma shaped.
I was surprised to see that the marks were fairly similar on both scopes. The newer of the two definitely ranges better at 16x than the one I've had longer, but I think the older one is a bit more clear at 24x. They also both focus down closer than 10 yards, reference the first photo and the pencil line all the way across is min wheel travel but the 10 yard marks start a little over half an inch from that mark at 16x and nearly an inch away at 24x. I only made that minimum wheel travel mark on the scope on the left but both display this less than 10 yards min focus attribute.
(The marks for 60 and 70 on the right wheel were made to help my son get stuff in focus when we shoot silhouettes and aren't necessarily trustable for ranging anything to 60 or 70 yards.)
I've shot around 6 or 8 monthly matches in Open class (24x) with one of these and was pretty happy with how it has ranged by focus. I think the high point for the Midas in Open class was something like a 46/48.
I've only shot 1 match with the Midas in Hunter class (16x), about 10 days ago actually. In fact, that's the first time I've ever shot Hunter at 16x, as I was a Hunter class participant back when it was 12x. As a Hunter class scope I liked the 0.2 mil hash marks on the reticle from 0-1 mil. Quite helpful for more precise hold over. @steve123 has pointed this out a couple times in various scope discussions and I saw the benefits first-hand two weekends ago. As with most scopes, differentiating between 50 and 55 is a bit tough at 16x, but in working the scope up, and during the match, I could get it to land in the same spot repeatedly, with good technique and at least a rudimentary familiarity with how the focus behaves. I think some will find the reticle to get too thin for them at 16x, especially if that individuals eye's tend to lose the reticle with dark backgrounds.
Generally though, I like the floating center dot for ft work. I like that they only weigh around 26ounces. I like that they're not a huge, long, bulky scope. I've also been impressed with the repeatability of the ranging by focus at 24x (don't have enough experience with it at 16x to make a statement there). 100% reliable turrets as well. These were also my first (and only) scopes with a zero stop and that's a nice feature too, especially with a 9 year old cranking on them (he actually does really good and hasn't gotten lost on a turret/off a revolution yet, hope that trend continues). They are not illuminated reticle, which is fine by me but some really appreciate that feature. I've spent a lot of time looking through a couple 20x SWFA scopes, and I was always pretty happy with them. That is, until I made the mistake of having two different guns out one day and going from the gun with the SWFA to the scope with the Midas, WOW, what a difference in clarity. The IQ of the Midas blows the SWFA out of the water, and it well should since the Midas is about 2x the price. Going the other way (in regards to price point) I have a Falcon X50 and at 24x the Midas is more clear than the more expensive X50. The X50 does "snap" in and out of focus better than the Midas.
As often said, all scopes are a bundle of compromises but I personally think the Athlon Midas Tac 6-24x50 is a great all-around scope that can even pull duty as a dependable range-by-focus field target scope (at 24x that is, jury's still out on how it does at 16x, will update in the future as I gain more experience with it at 16x). The image clarity one gets from a Midas makes looking through them quite enjoyable (as I stated elsewhere at one point, clear enough to see .20 caliber holes at 140 yards).
As an aside...I'm a huge fan of comma shaped side wheels. I think the side wheel thing is ridiculous but necessary if one wants to play the field target game. Center hubbed round wheels always stick up past the top turret, essentially whatever distance matches the radius of the circle. That makes round wheels a pain in the arse for gun cases, transportation, gun cabinets etc. That's why I like comma shaped wheels. The comma gives the useable radius of a large side wheel, but can be rotated around to tuck into the gun, reducing the overall profile and even reducing the chances of catching that wheel on something and damaging the scope. This tucked in comma wheel concept aids in casing the gun, as well as simply keeping a smaller overall footprint. A comma shaped wheel makes the side wheel concept less ridiculous and allows for keeping the wheel on the scope even when the gun is just being enjoyed, outside of the field target arena.
These two photos illustrate that concept of large useable radius, but also being able to rotate the "wheel" out of the way, reducing the gun's footprint.
This isn't a tutorial of how I do my scope wheels, more intended as an idea of what the yardage marks look like for anybody considering the Midas for FT.
So, both of them are the Athlon Midas Tac 6-24x50 in MIL, with the APRS2 reticle.
Green background with yellow numbers is the 24x (left side of the wheel) and blue background with white letters is the 16x (right side of the wheel).
The 3 photos show the minimum, middle, and maximum yardage marks, in the context of 10-55 yards for field target.
Both side wheels are comma shaped.
I was surprised to see that the marks were fairly similar on both scopes. The newer of the two definitely ranges better at 16x than the one I've had longer, but I think the older one is a bit more clear at 24x. They also both focus down closer than 10 yards, reference the first photo and the pencil line all the way across is min wheel travel but the 10 yard marks start a little over half an inch from that mark at 16x and nearly an inch away at 24x. I only made that minimum wheel travel mark on the scope on the left but both display this less than 10 yards min focus attribute.
(The marks for 60 and 70 on the right wheel were made to help my son get stuff in focus when we shoot silhouettes and aren't necessarily trustable for ranging anything to 60 or 70 yards.)
I've shot around 6 or 8 monthly matches in Open class (24x) with one of these and was pretty happy with how it has ranged by focus. I think the high point for the Midas in Open class was something like a 46/48.
I've only shot 1 match with the Midas in Hunter class (16x), about 10 days ago actually. In fact, that's the first time I've ever shot Hunter at 16x, as I was a Hunter class participant back when it was 12x. As a Hunter class scope I liked the 0.2 mil hash marks on the reticle from 0-1 mil. Quite helpful for more precise hold over. @steve123 has pointed this out a couple times in various scope discussions and I saw the benefits first-hand two weekends ago. As with most scopes, differentiating between 50 and 55 is a bit tough at 16x, but in working the scope up, and during the match, I could get it to land in the same spot repeatedly, with good technique and at least a rudimentary familiarity with how the focus behaves. I think some will find the reticle to get too thin for them at 16x, especially if that individuals eye's tend to lose the reticle with dark backgrounds.
Generally though, I like the floating center dot for ft work. I like that they only weigh around 26ounces. I like that they're not a huge, long, bulky scope. I've also been impressed with the repeatability of the ranging by focus at 24x (don't have enough experience with it at 16x to make a statement there). 100% reliable turrets as well. These were also my first (and only) scopes with a zero stop and that's a nice feature too, especially with a 9 year old cranking on them (he actually does really good and hasn't gotten lost on a turret/off a revolution yet, hope that trend continues). They are not illuminated reticle, which is fine by me but some really appreciate that feature. I've spent a lot of time looking through a couple 20x SWFA scopes, and I was always pretty happy with them. That is, until I made the mistake of having two different guns out one day and going from the gun with the SWFA to the scope with the Midas, WOW, what a difference in clarity. The IQ of the Midas blows the SWFA out of the water, and it well should since the Midas is about 2x the price. Going the other way (in regards to price point) I have a Falcon X50 and at 24x the Midas is more clear than the more expensive X50. The X50 does "snap" in and out of focus better than the Midas.
As often said, all scopes are a bundle of compromises but I personally think the Athlon Midas Tac 6-24x50 is a great all-around scope that can even pull duty as a dependable range-by-focus field target scope (at 24x that is, jury's still out on how it does at 16x, will update in the future as I gain more experience with it at 16x). The image clarity one gets from a Midas makes looking through them quite enjoyable (as I stated elsewhere at one point, clear enough to see .20 caliber holes at 140 yards).
As an aside...I'm a huge fan of comma shaped side wheels. I think the side wheel thing is ridiculous but necessary if one wants to play the field target game. Center hubbed round wheels always stick up past the top turret, essentially whatever distance matches the radius of the circle. That makes round wheels a pain in the arse for gun cases, transportation, gun cabinets etc. That's why I like comma shaped wheels. The comma gives the useable radius of a large side wheel, but can be rotated around to tuck into the gun, reducing the overall profile and even reducing the chances of catching that wheel on something and damaging the scope. This tucked in comma wheel concept aids in casing the gun, as well as simply keeping a smaller overall footprint. A comma shaped wheel makes the side wheel concept less ridiculous and allows for keeping the wheel on the scope even when the gun is just being enjoyed, outside of the field target arena.
These two photos illustrate that concept of large useable radius, but also being able to rotate the "wheel" out of the way, reducing the gun's footprint.
