Athlon Argos BTR Gen3 6-24x50 FFP vs Athlon Ares ETR Gen2 UHD 4.5-30x56
Athlon Argos BTR Gen3 6-24x50 FFP is a 6-24×50 FFP on a 30 mm tube with MRAD turrets; Athlon Ares ETR Gen2 UHD 4.5-30x56 is a 4.5-30×56 FFP on a 34 mm tube with MRAD turrets. The Athlon Argos BTR Gen3 6-24x50 FFP is lighter by 6.5 oz. The Athlon Ares ETR Gen2 UHD 4.5-30x56 has more elevation travel, 110 MOA to 61.9 MOA in the same unit. At its top magnification the Athlon Argos BTR Gen3 6-24x50 FFP keeps a 2.1 mm exit pupil against 1.9 mm for the Athlon Ares ETR Gen2 UHD 4.5-30x56 — estimated from the layout, not measured. On our last catalog check the Athlon Argos BTR Gen3 6-24x50 FFP listed for about $1,087 less.
| Spec | AthlonAthlon Argos BTR Gen3 6-24x50 FFP | AthlonAthlon Ares ETR Gen2 UHD 4.5-30x56 |
|---|---|---|
| Approx. price | ~$537 | ~$1,624 |
| Magnification | 6-24× | 4.5-30× |
| Objective lens | 50 mm | 56 mm |
| Focal plane | FFP | FFP |
| Reticle | APRS11 FFP IR MIL | APRS12 FFP IR MIL |
| Illuminated | Yes | Yes |
| Turret unit | MRAD | MRAD |
| Per click | 0.1 MRAD (0.36″ at 100 yd) | 0.1 MRAD (0.36″ at 100 yd) |
| Elevation travel | 18 MRAD (≈61.9 MOA) | 32 MRAD (≈110 MOA) |
| Windage travel | 18 MRAD | 32 MRAD |
| Zero stop | Yes | Yes |
| Turrets | Exposed | Exposed |
| Parallax | Side focus from 10 yd | Side focus from 25 yd |
| Eye relief | 3.3″ | 3.9″ |
| Field of view | 16.7–4.5 ft at 100 yd | 24.5–3.75 ft at 100 yd |
| Tube | 30 mm | 34 mm |
| Length | 14.1″ | 15.3″ |
| Weight | 30.3 oz | 36.8 oz |
| Warranty | Athlon Lifetime Warranty | Athlon Lifetime Warranty |
| Exit pupilest. | 8.3–2.1 mm (6×–24×) | 12.4–1.9 mm (4.5×–30×) |
| Twilight factorest. | 34.6 at 24× | 41 at 30× |
| Zoom ratioest. | 4× | 6.7× |
| Where to buy | Athlon → | Athlon → |
Tinted rows are where these two differ. Rows marked est. are computed, not published.
Exit pupil and twilight factor are computed from the published magnification and objective diameter, not measured. Real exit pupil is also capped by the erector at low magnification, and coatings and glass quality move low-light performance in ways the formula cannot see — read these as comparisons between layouts, not verdicts on scopes.