Athlon Midas TAC 4-16 FFP vs Hawke Sidewinder 30 FFP 4-16

[CommissarGrub]

Hi guys,

After some extensive researchs I managed to narrow down my choice for my .22lr to these two scopes. They are already well over my initial budget but I couldn't find anything that ticked all the boxes at a lower price (at least nothing that is available in my country).

I've read a lot that Hawke is kind of a cheapos manufacturer but the sidewinder is their new 2020 flagship and their top of the line, so I thought it might be worth a look.
On the other hand Athlon has quite some good reputation, so I guess that the "budget" side of their LR scopes may still be a good pick too.

Does anyone have the chance to compare them side by side or have some knowledgeable experience with the two brands ? Which one would be your pick ?

 

[steve123]

The only thing I can comment on is the mil reticle in the 4-16 Athlon is thin. If you have young-ish eyes you might like it.

I never have liked Hawke but I haven't seen the new line yet. In my past experience they have been pretty dismal in every way.

 

[b6graham]

i'd rather the company that has been and will be around

 

[Big Bo]

I have the Athlon, have an older Hawke (3-4 years old). Athlon, hands down. Better glass, nicer turrets, thinner reticle, more mil hashes, and illuminated. I absolutely dislike the thick Hawke reticle, because you can not do precision shooting.

 

[CommissarGrub]

Thanks for your inputs, it looks like this is a no brainer choice.

I appreciate your help !

 

[Big Bo]

You are welcome. I have 3 of the Midas Tac scopes, 4.5-27x50. Yes, I like them.

 

[Atomic_Lobster]

Midas Tac doesn't come in 4.5x 27
And they don't have illumination
Midas BTR does

 

[steve123]

I belong to a Field Target air rifle club, have been for 23 years.

Hawke was the #1 scope that would fail and is why I have never owned one.
Club members started trying Centerpoint brand and experienced a bunch of failures.
I know a guy that put a Hawke on his 260 that failed, got a replacement that did also. The Co sent him another
/3rd one which he sold ASAP, then bought a NF.
One failed two months ago at a new type of magnum airgun match, that guy should have won the match.
The only Hawke another friend has, has got something wrong with it.
Maybe the new top of the line Hawke is better??
Maybe the new IOR's are better, wink.

That doesn't mean that Athlon's don't fail BUT I haven't had one of mine fail yet, that's out of many. If fact I've won my division in FT the last 5 years in a row with my cheap Argos BTR 6-24.
I am however biased so.......

 

[CommissarGrub]

That doesn't mean that Athlon's don't fail BUT I haven't had one of mine fail yet, that's out of many. If fact I've won my division in FT the last 5 years in a row with my cheap Argos BTR 6-24.
I am however biased so.......

I would call that "pragmatic bias"

Thanks for the feedback, I'll stay away from the Hawkes !

 

[Big Bo]

Midas Tac doesn't come in 4.5x 27
And they don't have illumination
Midas BTR does

I stand corrected, I have 2 Midas Tac 6-24x50 AND an Ares BTR 4.5-27x50. Still better IMHO, than Hawke optics.

 

[tango11]

The only thing I can comment on is the mil reticle in the 4-16 Athlon is thin. If you have young-ish eyes you might like it.

I never have liked Hawke but I haven't seen the new line yet. In my past experience they have been pretty dismal in every way.

Is the reticle usable at 4x?

 

[tango11]

Hi guys,

After some extensive researchs I managed to narrow down my choice for my .22lr to these two scopes. They are already well over my initial budget but I couldn't find anything that ticked all the boxes at a lower price (at least nothing that is available in my country).

I've read a lot that Hawke is kind of a cheapos manufacturer but the sidewinder is their new 2020 flagship and their top of the line, so I thought it might be worth a look.
On the other hand Athlon has quite some good reputation, so I guess that the "budget" side of their LR scopes may still be a good pick too.

Does anyone have the chance to compare them side by side or have some knowledgeable experience with the two brands ? Which one would be your pick ?

I am also thinking about getting the Midas Tac 4-16 for NRL 22. I couldn't find many scopes in the price range that has parallax down to 25 yards. Sig Sauer Tango 4 is nice but its parallax setting starts at 50 yards. The other one is Diamondback Tactical but sounds like its glass is very average. Have you actually bought the scope yet?

 

[CommissarGrub]

The scope showed up in the mail yesterday. First impression is good !

I still have good eyes, so to me the reticle is fairly thin but useable at 4x, but it is much more comfortable from 6x up.
It will function as an open cross reticle until you hit 10x, because the central dot is very tiny and barely noticeable at lower mag values.

Can't comment on the glass quality since I've never looked through any high end stuff, but it is plenty clear to me.

On the diamondback, I've read here and there about the meh glass quality, but more important to me is that some people seems to get occasionnal lemons that won't hold their zero. That's why I went for the more expensive stuff.

 

[steve123]

I am also thinking about getting the Midas Tac 4-16 for NRL 22. I couldn't find many scopes in the price range that has parallax down to 25 yards. Sig Sauer Tango 4 is nice but its parallax setting starts at 50 yards. The other one is Diamondback Tactical but sounds like its glass is very average. Have you actually bought the scope yet?

It just doesn't work well for me at 4x, or even 6x, so I sold it.

The reticle in the Talos BTR 4-14 I can use on 4x but it's a thicker reticle and the crossover hashes make it appear bigger than a normal tree reticle.
Pretty much the same reticle in the Ares BTR 2.5-15 that the Talos 4-14 has so same applies. Though in the G2 version they changed the reticle.

 

[tango11]

It just doesn't work well for me at 4x, or even 6x, so I sold it.

The reticle in the Talos BTR 4-14 I can use on 4x but it's a thicker reticle and the crossover hashes make it appear bigger than a normal tree reticle.
Pretty much the same reticle in the Ares BTR 2.5-15 that the Talos 4-14 has so same applies. Though in the G2 version they changed the reticle.

Thanks for the info. Talos seems to be a bit cheaper, does it lose any feature? Also, when you said it doesn't work well, do you mean you can't use the hash marks or you can't use it as crosshair?

 

[steve123]

Thanks for the info. Talos seems to be a bit cheaper, does it lose any feature? Also, when you said it doesn't work well, do you mean you can't use the hash marks or you can't use it as crosshair?

The Talos is a cheap scope, for what it is its great, but just not up to the standards the more expensive scopes provide. No zero stop for one and the other is only 5 mil knobs.

My eyes aren't young so since the TAC doesn't have illume, the reticle gets lost on low mag against dark backgrounds. I've gone back to SFP scopes with thicker reticles if my main intent is close and fast shooting on low mag, like for coyote hunting which has 90% of the shots under 200Y.
The exception will hopefully be the Athlon Helos G2 2-12x40, it has a thick FFP reticle, but still to be tested when they come out.

I couldn't in good conscience suggest the current Midas TAC 4-16 for hunting on low mag even though its a well made scope. Also I found myself adjusting the diopter on a different setting to clean up the reticle focus on low mag.