Many other things to like (clarity, repeatable dialing, durability, price point), but the eye box is as bad as they come IMHO. I will not be buying more until that matter is solved.
I'm curious about which particular scope you are referencing (and what you are comparing it to) ???
I switched from an ATACR 1-8 to a Cronus 1-6 on my 3GUN AR when I started working at Athlon and have found the eye box to be more forgiving on my Cronus.
2-12 Helos... It is simply awful.
In fairness, I will look around locally for a Cronus 1-6 before further comment.
Couldn't disagree more......love mine.
I've been scratching my head on this one. I've gotten rid of multiple scopes due to critical eye boxes, but the four 2-12x Helos I have are as easy to get behind as any scopes I've used. They seem plenty forgiving to me...
I hesitate to say this, but I'm going to anyway... 90% of the warranty claims we process are because our scopes were mounted incorrectly (usually torqued too tight). Most eye box issues are also due to having a setup that is incorrect. Here is a great video from Veteran Sniper and Long-Range Shooting Instructor Ryan Cleckner that can help resolve eye box issues - regardless of what brand of optic you use -
Many other things to like (clarity, repeatable dialing, durability, price point), but the eye box is as bad as they come IMHO. I will not be buying more until that matter is solved.
I'm curious about which particular scope you are referencing (and what you are comparing it to) ???
I switched from an ATACR 1-8 to a Cronus 1-6 on my 3GUN AR when I started working at Athlon and have found the eye box to be more forgiving on my Cronus.
2-12 Helos... It is simply awful.
In fairness, I will look around locally for a Cronus 1-6 before further comment.
Couldn't disagree more......love mine.
I've been scratching my head on this one. I've gotten rid of multiple scopes due to critical eye boxes, but the four 2-12x Helos I have are as easy to get behind as any scopes I've used. They seem plenty forgiving to me...
I hesitate to say this, but I'm going to anyway... 90% of the warranty claims we process are because our scopes were mounted incorrectly (usually torqued too tight). Most eye box issues are also due to having a setup that is incorrect. Here is a great video from Veteran Sniper and Long-Range Shooting Instructor Ryan Cleckner that can help resolve eye box issues - regardless of what brand of optic you use -
What’s too tight? Say I use Nightforce rings at their suggested 25 in lbs, or ARC rings at their suggested 55 in lbs?
What’s too tight? Say I use Nightforce rings at their suggested 25 in lbs, or ARC rings at their suggested 55 in lbs?
Anything over and above the mfg specs.
Whose specs? The rings or the scope’s specs? They often have very different recommendations. Swaro and Vortex, for example, say something like a max of only 17 and 18”lbs for their scopes. Who do I listen to? Plus different screws/hardware impart dramatically different clamping force. In the example video of the pro above, how much torque does he use with those manly fingers of his?
My point in all this is, it’s arbitrary. So I want a scope with a tube thick enough to handle some room to err on the side of tighter is “better than looser.”
If 90% of warranty claims came from one “problem” I’d think that would be telling the manufacturer something. Either 90% of consumers are inept (possibly true) or something needs a design change.
Whose specs? The rings or the scope’s specs? They often have very different recommendations.
They will dance around this issue, because their tubes are paper thin. Anything under 20 inch pounds is risking scope slip. You clamp some of these scopes to 25 inch pounds, and the side parallax freezes up. 55 inch lb will twist them up like a pretzel.
What’s too tight? Say I use Nightforce rings at their suggested 25 in lbs, or ARC rings at their suggested 55 in lbs?
Anything over and above the mfg specs.
Whose specs? The rings or the scope’s specs? They often have very different recommendations. Swaro and Vortex, for example, say something like a max of only 17 and 18”lbs for their scopes. Who do I listen to? Plus different screws/hardware impart dramatically different clamping force. In the example video of the pro above, how much torque does he use with those manly fingers of his?
My point in all this is, it’s arbitrary. So I want a scope with a tube thick enough to handle some room to err on the side of tighter is “better than looser.”
If 90% of warranty claims came from one “problem” I’d think that would be telling the manufacturer something. Either 90% of consumers are inept (possibly true) or something needs a design change.
I would (strongly) guess 90% of the people mounting scopes don't have a torque driver, have no clue they exist, and think "tight enough isn't tight enough, let's give it another crank". I have read from some other manufacturers that most of their returns are due to mounting improperly, so it's not an Athlon-only problem, but it's a hard one to solve as you're stuck with a given tube OD (1" or 30mm most of the time), increasing tube thickness means less space for components inside, and you're dealing with a low-skill user base in general. Changing alloys may mitigate it a bit, but not significantly I'd think.
I know Swaro is known for thin scope tube walls and March is known for very thick ones - would be interesting to see a data-driven chart listing wall thickness between manufacturers and scope lines.
What’s too tight? Say I use Nightforce rings at their suggested 25 in lbs, or ARC rings at their suggested 55 in lbs?
Anything over and above the mfg specs.
Whose specs? The rings or the scope’s specs? They often have very different recommendations. Swaro and Vortex, for example, say something like a max of only 17 and 18”lbs for their scopes. Who do I listen to? Plus different screws/hardware impart dramatically different clamping force. In the example video of the pro above, how much torque does he use with those manly fingers of his?
My point in all this is, it’s arbitrary. So I want a scope with a tube thick enough to handle some room to err on the side of tighter is “better than looser.”
If 90% of warranty claims came from one “problem” I’d think that would be telling the manufacturer something. Either 90% of consumers are inept (possibly true) or something needs a design change.
I would (strongly) guess 90% of the people mounting scopes don't have a torque driver, have no clue they exist, and think "tight enough isn't tight enough, let's give it another crank". I have read from some other manufacturers that most of their returns are due to mounting improperly, so it's not an Athlon-only problem, but it's a hard one to solve as you're stuck with a given tube OD (1" or 30mm most of the time), increasing tube thickness means less space for components inside, and you're dealing with a low-skill user base in general. Changing alloys may mitigate it a bit, but not significantly I'd think.
I know Swaro is known for thin scope tube walls and March is known for very thick ones - would be interesting to see a data-driven chart listing wall thickness between manufacturers and scope lines.
No disagreement. I just know which side I want to be on as a consumer. And as a manufacturer that would also tell me what I should be working on. If 90% of your customers are consistently doing something one way and it’s causing a problem, who’s wrong?
Scopes cost more than rings, follow the scope manufacturers rec. I've saw several ring sets that even say that in their instructions. There are plenty of ways to keep a scope from moving in the rings. Or as mathman said, default to the lower of the two settings. I've never used ARC rings but any maker who recommends twice or more torque than what most other manufactures recommend would have me thinking about the quality of the product, regardless of cost.
Dave.
Those who are always shooting off at the mouth usually aren't shooting straight.
Build a man a fire and he’ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.
Scopes cost more than rings, follow the scope manufacturers rec. I've saw several ring sets that even say that in their instructions. There are plenty of ways to keep a scope from moving in the rings. Or as mathman said, default to the lower of the two settings. I've never used ARC rings but any maker who recommends twice or more torque than what most other manufactures recommend would have me thinking about the quality of the product, regardless of cost.
Dave.
The reason the value is higher with ARC rings is surface area; they're significantly larger than most standard rings, and only use one screw per ring, so the compression of the rings is more evenly spread out than smaller rings with 4 screws per ring. Companies like ARC, Area419, NEAR, etc are going to have a better idea of the clamping force their rings create than a scope manufacturer who has no idea if you're going to run a one-piece Spuhr or some of those super-skinny junk rings everyone bought back in the 80s, so the scope maker is going to default to a lower torque value to keep warranty returns down.
For argument's sake, if I bought a set of CABABALIANG or Zeqwhusga (generic Chicom face-roll brand name) scope rings from Amazon that called out 55 in-lbs, I'd toss the directions in the trash and go with the standard 18 in-lbs.
There are some cluless snowflakes here. No wonder they have to shoot fenced in animals. Don’t need a scope that works for that. Just get em into a fence corner. Laffin.
