Looking to put something on my Tikka .223 trainer. Mostly shooting at 100-600 yards, occasionally out to 800 yards. Both scopes look pretty solid for the money. I really like the Arken EP4 EPR Reticle, the funnel kinda reminds me of the Zero Compromise funnel (wayyyy out of my price range). Thoughts on how the two stack up against each other.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Athlon Midas Tac vs Arken EP4
- Thread starter Adkhunter3
- Start date
As far as the pre 2021 Athlon TAC 4-16, the reticle is very thin, I didn't like it. Big fail on their part by listening to someone who didn't know shit about reticles.
I like the Arken EP4 quite a bit!
I like the Arken EP4 quite a bit!
As far as price and value are concerned w/o need for illumination, my Midas Tac 6-24x50 is my favorite scope under 900 street price. No experience with the Arken
It's like this with FFP,
a .025 mil line thickness is okay at 24x, getting harder to see on 16x, and stupid hard to see on 4x. Everything is a compromise right?!
Usually one buys a mid magnification scope/4-16, so they can hopefully use/see the reticle on 4x occasionally, right?!
Now try a .05 mil reticle thickness, not too thick on 24x, fine on 16x, and seeable on 4x. It's twice as thick as .025 mil.
Let's say a dot is .1 mil which is very thick but used quite often these days for holdoff dots at the full mil. At 2000Y that dot obscures 7.2". Is there anybody really missing a 24" plate because of that dot???
Now those huge friggen numbers labeling the mil or moa lines just off the vertical crosshair, THAT is what's obscuring! But people don't mind them which I've never understood.
a .025 mil line thickness is okay at 24x, getting harder to see on 16x, and stupid hard to see on 4x. Everything is a compromise right?!
Usually one buys a mid magnification scope/4-16, so they can hopefully use/see the reticle on 4x occasionally, right?!
Now try a .05 mil reticle thickness, not too thick on 24x, fine on 16x, and seeable on 4x. It's twice as thick as .025 mil.
Let's say a dot is .1 mil which is very thick but used quite often these days for holdoff dots at the full mil. At 2000Y that dot obscures 7.2". Is there anybody really missing a 24" plate because of that dot???
Now those huge friggen numbers labeling the mil or moa lines just off the vertical crosshair, THAT is what's obscuring! But people don't mind them which I've never understood.
Go on YouTube and look at reviews there, do a search engine search of both or whatever your leaning towards.
