Nikon FX1000 or stretch the budget to Athlon Ares ETR?

[evan the cdn]

I'm shopping for a scope that has roughly 5-25 magnification, FFP, illuminated reticle (wanting this crossed the Bushnell Forge off the list) and MRAD reticle & turrets.

The Nikon Black FX1000 6-24x50 MRAD (30mm tube) seems to have everything I want in a scope, including a reasonable price. The one thing that has me hesitating is the reticle and specifically the width of the lines at the centre. I've seen a number of people complain about it being too thick. According to the Nikon website the main reticle lines (I'm sure there's a word for these) are 0.038 mills wide. If I've got this right, and it's very possible that I don't, that should be roughly 3.8 mm at 100 meters.

On the other hand, I've seen a number of people raving about the Athlon Ares ETR 4.5-30x56 (34mm tube) and especially about the reticle. It has Christmas tree style windage marks (I'm embarrassing myself with improper lingo at this point) and centre floating dot design that is 0.03 mills round or roughly 3 mm at 100 m.

My question is, do you think it's worth it to damn near double my budget to go for the Ares ETR? The BTR or even the Midas TAC would be a more fair comparison for the price but I don't hear nearly the good press about those options. Even Athlon's press info about the ETR make the BTR sound a bit crappy.

I'm not really interested in Vortex scopes.

 

[mikeelliot]

I have the X1000 (SFP) Nikon. It’s a good scope.
I wouldn’t compare it to one with a 34mm tube and double the cost
I do not find the reticle too think, but again being SFP might not help you.

If you can, always buy the better glass you won’t regret it. Heard nothing but good about the Athlon ETR...I am thinking of getting one myself

 

[Go_Big_Tactical]

The Ares ETR has some excellent features and considering an upgrade is reasonable. Our advice is always to get the best within your budget and get out and shoot! I sent you a PM and we would be happy to answer any questions you have!

 

[evan the cdn]

Thanks guys. Sounds like it's worth the money if you've got the money.

 

[TRDYamahauler]

The reticle on a FFP is always going to be something of a compromise between being able to see it at all at low magnification and it not being too thick at high magnification. For what it’s worth, not that I’m real experienced, but in the 3 PRS style competitions I’ve done I find myself shooting at 15-20x much of the time. That’s something I’ve heard from others too but your usage may vary. Point is you may want to evaluate the reticle at like 20-80% zoom rather than 0% and 100% especially since a lot of optics will have some optical issues show up at max magnification. If I’m trying to zero or shoot a group I find my center cross a little thick at max zoom but if I use a diamond for a target I can get a good hold so there’s some ways to deal with that too.

34mm vs 30mm will mostly be about available elevation travel rather than light transmission. Whether you need it will depend on how far you think you will shoot. A rifle should zero around the center of the travel so you could guess at half the total travel then add 20moa if you have a 20moa rail or 30 or whatever if you use a different mounting setup. You could also use the reticle hold on top of the mechanical adjustment to reach out further. Keeping in mind also that your maximum reticle hold is only available at lower zoom settings.

The typical advice is you can’t really waste money on optics but I think these days you don’t need to totally blow the bank to get something that’s perfectly functional either.