This one looks like a winner.  I was looking to pick up a used Bushnell DMR 3.5-21, but this has my attention.

ATHLON ARES BTR 4.5-27X50 FFP

Video







Magnification4.5-27
Objective Lens Diameter50 mm
Reticle APLR3 FFP IR MIL, Glass Etched illuminated
Surface FinishMatte
Lens CoatingWide Band Fully Multicoated
Extra CoatingXtra Protective Coating
Tube Material6061 Aluminium
Tube Diameter30 mm
Exit Pupil 11.1-1.8 mm
Eye Relief3.9"
Field of View @100 yards22.7-3.8 ft
Click Value0.1 mil
Adjustment range per rotation10 mil
Total Elevation Adjustment24 mil
Total Windage Adjustment24 mil
Turret StyleExposed Direct Dial
Parallax AdjustmentSide Focus – 25 yards to infinity
Purging MaterialArgon
Length13.8 "
Weight27.3 oz

ares-btr-2-5-15x50-aplr3-ffp-ir-mil

Looking at picking up the 2.5 - 15 ARES for a DMR build I'm just finishing up.    If the street price is right they might give the PST line a run for their money.

Please keep us posted on your results, looks like a nice optic.

Holy crap that looks nice, will be interesting to see tracking results if/when they pop up on YouTube.

I just ordered a Athlon Talos model(not the same league as OP's).

I'm excited to try it out. For the $ you'd be hard pressed to find more features at their price point.

I hope the glass doesn't suck.

I also just put a Midas 2.5-15 on a 20" bolt 6.5CM I am going to be running in a match next weekend at VIR.   It is the baby brother of the Ares.   First impression is good but will report back after next weekend with how it worked in the comp.   Everyone seems to bitch about the clicks but they feel almost as good as my Vortex Razor HD.   Hopefully she tracks repeatedly and consistently.

Everything  was great on mine accept for anything to do with adjusting the reticle. So it is useless as a scope to dial drops. 

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_16_5/5179_Athlon-Talos-BTR-4-14x44-Don-t-Track--Returned---NEW-SCOPE--SWFA-3-15X42-MUCH-BETTER-results-in-OP.html

Sorry to hear about the bad luck on that I've been very happy with mine. I'm looking forward to this and the 2.5-15 Ares BTR coming out.

Review to come

Not to bug you but any progress on the review? Or even some first impressions?

I was able to take the ARES out last Saturday. It was rainy and overcast, so I wasn't able to really do any great optical tests. There were several other Athlon scopes on other rifles at the range, as well as a PST Gen 1 and Burris XTRII. Unfortunately, the rain forced a lot of guys to leave before I got a chance to do a side by side comparison.

First impressions: The glass is clear and the resolution seems to be pretty good to great for a scope in this price range. During low light evaluation on Friday, I thought that the scope was clear, but not as bright as my Gen 1 razor. It was noticeable when going head to head, but the Razor comes with a higher price tag. It was just the only 50mm objective scope that I had at my disposal.

I didn't have solid dope for the load/upper combo that I was using, but I was able to see my misses in the wet dirt on the berm. Once dialed in, I was having no issue connecting on a 6" plate at 546yds. I'll try to do a tall target test when the weather is more favorable to confirm the adjustment accuracy since my unknown dope can't be used to substantiate the tracking.

The turrets are audible, but they aren't as tactile as something like a NXS or Razor. The demo doesn't have .5mil markings on the turret to help for visual confirmation when dialing fast, but the production models are said to have this modification. This would certainly be a welcomed feature. My SIII and PST's are at my dads house, so I'll try and compare the turrets head to head when I visit in 2 weeks or so.

The parallax adjustment is smooth and not overly tight like some optics (Sightron SIII's). The power ring is firm but adjusts smoothly.

I'll definitely be putting it to greater use over the next few weeks. If anyone has any specific questions, please feel free to ask.

Gratuitous pic of an ARES in the wild

I suspect this will have better results than the Talos.  

You don't have to even fire it to check tracking.
I mounted mine solid in my bench vise and cranked the knobs, it was clear immediately that it didn't track or repeat. I went way farther in depth than I needed just to get a clear view and give it a chance. 

One thing I noticed right away that was a bad sign, the reticle didn't  move at the ends of the travel while the turrets did still turn. That you can tell right out of the box.

I assume all the great tracking reviews I read on the Talos were from people that were not shooting far enough or tight enough groups to tell it wasn't  tracking. Or they ignored the fact that the first shot after an adjustment was off, then firing settled the adjustment in and the rest of the group was in the right spot.
For that reason a tracking test without firing is probably more accurate. 

But still fire a tall target test.

Thanks for the update and hopefully you have time to really give it a good test.

I was able to make a trip back home and compare the ARES to a PST and Sightron SIII. Unfortunately, the extremely windy conditions made attempting a tracking test impossible for an accurate analysis. It looks like I may need to entertain the idea of building a solid setup over the weekend if I want to get a tracking test done before sending the scope back. With my current work load, that likely won't happen.

Head to Head:

Glass-
If you have seen any of my previous posts when someone asks about a scope with great glass, you know that I'm a fan of what Sightron SIII's offer. To me, they are the gold standard for sub 1000$, maybe even sub 1300$ glass. The SIII didn't disappoint and yielded the brightest image with the best resolution and contrast of the 3 scopes. As a disclaimer, the SIII has a 56mm objective compared to the 50mm Ares. Since it was good lighting, I don't think that accounted for the difference, as I compared the 50 and 56mm SIII's previously and didn't see a huge difference in good lighting.

When the mirage picked up, the SIII glass started to separate from the Ares even further. When the Ares started to wash out, the SIII could maintain a higher magnification without a distorted image.

I did not test the PST at great lengths. The Ares had noticeably better glass providing a brighter image and higher resolution.

Results: SIII > Ares > PST

Turrets-
When evaluating the turrets, I was actually a bit surprised. I haven't touched the SIII or a PST in well over 6 months. I was expecting the turrets to have a similar audible sound as the Ares, but that wasn't the case. The Ares was noticeably louder with each "click". That said, both the PST and the SIII had a more positive/tactile feel with each tenth of a mil adjustment. This is likely due to the Ares having 10mil per rev turrets compared to the 5 mil per rev on two turrets that are comparable in size. If the turret on the Ares was slightly larger, they could possibly use a larger detent to increase the feel between adjustments. The Allen screws that hold the turret cap could probably be a bit larger on the Ares as well. I didn't have an issue, but that would be a nice upgrade as I was afraid that I'd strip them.

A gripe that I do have with the Sightron is the numbering system for the turrets. I really wish they would adhere to the more traditional 1, 2, 3 mil etc.. numbering system with a raised mark at each half mil instead of numbering 5, 10, 15, 20 etc... Sure it's minor, but it seems like an easy fix. I'm not trying to dial 45 tenths of a mil, I'm dialing 4.5mil even though they are the same.

Despite the numbering, and only 5mil per rev, the SIII had a balance of audible and tactile feel that the others didn't have. The PST was tactile compared to the Ares, but was relatively soft in sound. The Ares was the loudest, but was the least tactile. I tend to go by feel rather than sound for minor adjustments, and visual to confirm. With the lack of feel and close spacing, I think you could go past your desired adjustment with the Ares if adjusting and not visually confirming. Despite the less tactile feel, I think the 10 mil turret gives it an edge over the PST.

Results: SIII > Ares > PST

Summary: The Ares is a good scope for the price with its feature set if tracking can be confirmed. While it doesn't have the glass of the Sightron, it certainly has more features and a better reticle than the SIII, imo. I'm a fan of Christmas tree style reticles which Sightron doesn't offer. When compared to the PST, which is even in feature set minus a true zero stop, the Ares has better glass and a higher top end magnification.

I hope to get the tracking test complete before shipping her back to Athlon, but that's what I've evaluated thus far. I hope this informal and subjective analysis helps some of you out.

Thanks for the update and hopefully you can get that tracking test knocked out.

Anything new news on Athlon optics? I noticed bangsteel.com is endorsing Athlon's upper end line.

FYI the Ares BTR 4.5-27x50 is currently selling for around $850.

Can anyone confirm if these are made in Japan?

I don't think that the Ares, at least the 4.5-27's, will be shipping till mid July. They are trying to make updates based on feedback from the demo's that were sent out. They are wanting to get it right the first time (which hopefully will involve updates to the turrets) and potentially the reticle. The version that I tested was similar to the original Cronus. I would prefer a reticle similar to what is offered in the Cronus BTR. *Disclaimer- I'm not affiliated with Athlon nor do I know what upgrades will make it to the production model*

The Ares will be manufactured in China. Only the Cronus is manufactured in Japan.

I think Forrest is sponsored by Athlon, hence the push from them. The Cronus has very good glass for the price, but it doesn't appear that the turrets were upgraded when they released the BTR version. A tester and consultant for Athlon has recently complained about the windage knob being able to move too easily, resulting in misses during competition. The biggest issue that the Cronus BTR will have is that Athlon is trying to get very strict on MAP. At 1800$, it's probably too close to the 2100$ price that a 4.5-27 Razor Gen 2 can be had for. The turrets are worth the 300$ difference despite the weight imo. If you can find one lightly used for 1400-1500, then it becomes more of a decision.

SuperJlarge, thank you for your post.

seeing how the Athlon scopes in my price range are made in china i am scratching Athlon optics of my consideration list.

So, I bumped your other thread by accident.  Any way to describe to a neophyte how to set up a reliable tracking test.  I have a new gen 2 viper I want to check.

Just do a tall target test.

Follow this video exactly, use a 300' tape not a range finder or GPS, use target software to find center of groups, don't guesstimate, don't round up anything 
Go up and down the scale, the first shot after adjustment needs to be on (not a "flyer"). If you don't  take time on this the info is worthless other than to weed out a real bad scope.

The Ares and Midas have the same glass.  The Ares is FFP, some different reticles, and has better turrets.

Brief video I just threw together highlighting the Ares turrets. During my range review session, the PST that I had on hand was the 4-16 model. It was tactile, but the "clicks" weren't nearly as loud as the 1-4 that is featured in the video. And not explicitly stated in the video, I would like to see the turret resistance increased on the Ares.


Athlon Ares- Turret comparison

Got mine this week. It is a solid scope. Love the reticle. Seems like high quality, and took it outside, and compared with Burris XRT-2'and NF SHV. At 350 yards, it was very comparable in quality of image. That is where the rubber hits the road. No distortion. Some minor chromatic aberration, but only in the edge, which you can expect. Center was free of distortion and very good. All three performed about the same.

I find the reticle on the Athlon to be far superior, but I like the Christmas Tree style. On max mag, it is a little thick, but many FFP are. I would suggest a thinner line under 3 mil, but that is a preference. The NF did a slightly easier job of focusing with paralax knob. I had to go back and forth to focus. Atlhlon seems very sensitive. Maybe the FOV is smaller, not sure. The finish is more of hard-coat. It does not appear to be anodized. I am not found of the finish. Very personal thing. The turrets moved nicely with crispness, but lacking a defining click. I was hoping for locking, but at $800, I suppose you have to sacrifice something. Exterior glass is clear, nice looking scope, and the glass did not have a green or orange hue, which I see on some far-east Asian made scopes.  I know there is an aversion to made in China, but a great many scopes are made in China, The Philippines or Thailand.

All-in-all, it was like they started with a Chronus, and removed some features to save money, like NF did with NXS and SHV. Glass is probably the same, and saved money on turrets and finish. It did not seem like a build-up from the lesser priced Athlons, but a reduction from the higher-priced. Sounds like a good idea to me.  I am not 100% on this, this is only my observation.  Others have spoken with authority that the Ares is using the Midas glass -- which, by the way, has received some very high marks -- but I have no idea from where they get their information.  In this price range, I think it is as good as the Burris XTRii, and I felt far better than Vortex PST Gen 1 and the Bushnell DMR-1.  Not as good as NF SHV or Bushnell DMR-2 (but both are 50% more in retail cost)

the big but is, there are certain preferences I have in a scope (locking turrets, audible clicks and anodized finish) that make this one not for me, but still impressed.

In response to the mythical origin of the Ares, as posted on the hide, by myself, the Ares demo scopes were laser marked Midas BTR. Check the video I linked in the previous post, it's easy to see. Another big tip off is that the Cronus is a 34mm tube w/ a 56mm objective and the Midas and Ares are 30mm w/ a 50mm objective. It's much easier to change a reticle and add a few mil/moa to a turret than to engineer a new scope. The other information came from an Athlon rep a year ago that said they would be creating a FFP Midas. I'm inclined to believe the Ares is that scope. More recently, an Athlon rep or distributor said that the glass was the same in the Ares/Midas. Maybe they added new coatings on the production model Ares? I've asked what upgrades they made, but there hasn't been a response. One would think that if they did upgrade the glass, they would be wanting to share that information. More importantly, since the glass is very useable, I would like to know if they upgraded the turrets.

I didn't just come up with this info out of the blue, it was based on intel from people with a direct connection with the company.

We sell the Athlon scopes here in our shop.  As for where the glass is manufactured, this comes directly from our sales rep at Athlon.  The glass does come from Japan, in fact it comes out of the same factory Vortex's glass comes from.  As for additional coatings, or enhancements, he didn't have anything to say about this.

The Athlon Ares BTR is by far one of our best sellers.  The glass is noticeably clearer than the Viper PST.  The Midas BTR, which theoretically shares the same glass as the Ares, is noticeably not clearer than the Viper PST, but better or on par with the Viper, Viper HS-T, HS, HSLR,.  The one thing the Viper PST that is far better than the Ares BTR is the illuminated sight.  Athlon really needs to do something about this.  The illumination, in daylight, is hardly visible.  While the PST's illumination is fantastic in daylight.

For those of you who want to step up to the Athlon Cronus BTR, the glass is on par if not just a little better than the G2 Razor.  One of our employee's said that the Razor was better.  I put the Cronus BTR on my AR 10, and compared it to my Razor and noticed that there is a slight discoloration on the outer edge of the Razor, while the Cronus had none.  On the other hand, at Maximum magnification, the Razor had hardly any blur at long distance, while the Cronus had blur.  Now this was looking at a mountain over 10 miles away so I don't know how viable that is, but there was a difference and if you are going to make a 1500m shot this could effect your shot accuracy.

Second thing the Cronus BTR has over the Voretx Razor G II is the weight, or lack-there-of.  Now the Cronus is a heavier scope, but the Razor weighs over 3 lbs, where the Cronus comes in under 2.5 lbs.  Some people think that is stupid, but when you hunt with AR platforms like I do, any weight shaved off of the total weight of a rifle is good.  I don't like having to pack in a 20 lb rifle just to pack out that 20 lbs + meat.

Cont:

Overall I like the Athlon product quality over the Vortex, but Vortex wins out in the end.  One thing to keep in mind is the Vortex unconditional lifetime warranty.  Athlon has a Lifetime Warranty, so any intentional, or accidental abuse to your Athlon optics is not covered under warranty, only factory defects.

One of the owners stated that the Ares and Midas had the same glass. Maybe different coatings?
Did the rep state what models had the Japan glass?
The Viper PST and the Viper HS-T have the same glass, per Vortex reps.

Surprised by the illumination, as most give Athlon high praise for that, especially with their higher end models.

For me, the turrets need updating and refining on the Ares and Cronus. I haven't tried the Cronus BTR, but from videos that I've seen, they aren't vastly improved over the initial Cronus. I'm in the market for another premium optic and an affordable option for an AR. I'd like to check out a Cronus BTR, but I am hesitant to purchase sight unseen. As it stands, I'll likely get another RZR Gen II, ATACR w/ Mil-C ret or try out a S&B PMII and a Weaver tactical or SIII FFP. If you have any demo models for testing/unbiased reviews, I'd certainly be willing to give them a go.

I'll have to get around to doing a full and complete review soon as I've had my Athlon Cronus for a little over 4 months now. I kicked tires for almost a year.

I found the Cronus for $1500 shipped and couldn't justify spending another $1k to get the G2 Razor. And prior to the Cronus, I exclusively owned Vortex scopes with the exception of 1 Weaver Tactical.

The glass out to 600 yards IMO absolutely edges out the Razor. Which is just glass, but it got me looking much further into the Cronus. The features and build are solid and I've yet to find anything I dislike about it or that's faulty. Other than the turrets, initially. Athlon used some heavy grease and they weren't that tactile.

Took the caps off, cleaned really well, and replaced with dielectric grease. Automatically made a huge difference. But they still weren't perfect right off the bat. After a week of working them and shooting, they became even more audible and tactile feeling. Just took a little time.

So far, it tracks out to 600 on the money. Will try to mount up on a solid vise and do a more complete MOA track test.

Zero stop is brilliant as well! It's a true ZS, not a bunch of shims that will get you close. Parallax is pretty close to suggested distance but not perfect. I have a lot of confidence in this scope so far but am not going to jump on the Athlon bandwagon. IMO, the Cronus is a first class optic but I wouldn't bet on the Ares or Midas yet. It's in a different league!

can anyone confirm this?..

I bought an Ares BTR 4.5-27x, but it came with the battery cover stuck tight at an angle that appears to be cross-threaded, and I was unable to break it loose, so I'll have to send it in to Athlon.  I did perform a tracking test with it though.  I couldn't find any information online about where to measure from when doing tracking tests at short distances like this, but I ended up measuring out 1,000 inches (83'4") from the objective lens to a yardstick using a Bosch laser measure.  At this distance, dialing up 10 mils moved the reticle 10 inches on the money, and 19 mils of adjustment moved it just a hair under 19 inches (19.0 mils was a bit closer to 19" than 19.1 mils).  I'm curious where the proper measurement point is though.  In theory, if I had measured from 10" further back (i.e. near the ocular lens instead of the objective) I would have seen a ~1/10 mil error over 10 mils of adjustment.