SHORT VERSION:

I've hit analysis paralysis. Looking for a scope for the Creedmoor I'm building off an Aero upper/lower with an X-Caliber heavy barrel. As with most of my rifles, I'm hoping for the best combination of "do it all," which brings me to my scope. I plan to take a long-range class with a friend in of these months, and want to get something that will work for hunting and precision shooting out to 1k. I've been looking at the following FFP contenders:

-- Nikon FX1000 4-16X50IR or 6-24x50 IR

-- Blackhawk (Weaver Super Slam) Tactical 4-20x50 non-IR

-- Vortex Viper PST Gen 1 6-24x50IR or 4-16 I guess

-- Athlon Midas TAC 6-24x50 or 4-16

-- SWFA 3-15 FFP non-IR (over $500, lowest mag range, and not illuminated... Is the glass/scope that much better than everything else that it merits consideration?)

--POSSIBLY the Athlon Helos in one of the above configurations...if the glass is any good compared to the PST Gen 1 that used to get all the press before the Gen 2 came out...

-- Is there something from Primary Arms that merits consideration above these? I know virtually nothing about their scopes and how they stack up.

What's the best glass in this price range (on sale these are $370-500; Weaver is closer to$600)?

What's the best scope in this range?

Is 4-16 enough magnification for 1k or do I need to look higher? Is higher with a 6x low end too much show for in closer hunting?

Any thoughts? Others I should be looking for in the $500 or less price range?

__________________________________________

TLDR VERSION

Kinda wish all the new Bushnell FFPs had illumination. Not sure they are up for the task in low light otherwise.

Basically, if it's 6-24 or has a Christmas tree reticle, I want an IR scope. I have a Vortex Diamondback Tactical 6-24 NON-IR and it's useless in low light. A 4-16 simple MRAD cross hair would probably work well with good glass. At lower mag it looks any regular cross hairs.

Never having had the chance to practice much past 200, is 16x enough for 1k? I like the lower end being in the 4x range, though I suspect 6x on a 30mm tube will have decent enough field of view to be good if hunting from a tree where they might come in from 15-100 yards.

If 16x is truly enough for 1k yards, then great. I can get more scope for less money.

Realistically, I won't be able to do much really long-range shooting where I live. Nearest 1k range is a couple hours out. That said, I'd hate to not be able to really take full advantage of the chances I DO get if 16x is to low.

Likewise, is hate to have a non-useful rifle for shorter-range work of 6x is too much.

I know glass quality really plays a role. Only glad I'm really familiar with above is the Weaver, and I'm a huge fan. My 2-10 Super Slam let's me see animals clearly long after it's dark, and far better than my other scopes.

I went hunting this summer with an Elite 3500 4-12x40 strapped to the top of a new .308. I had a deer in my sights @300 yards and with that glass@300 would have felt comfortable pulling the trigger (if I was confident the rifle was fully sighted...I let it walk).

That was my first foray into hunting scopes above 10x and as nice as the 10x Super Slam is, @300 I'd have felt better with the 12x Elite. I think the Weaver Tactical 4-16 would be about perfect for a hunting scope--I figure I'd have enough glass to hunt deer at the full range of the Creedmoor, and probably my grandfather's 300H&H.

I have a new Savage Tactical Creedmoor with the 24" fluted bull barrel and the Accustock. I've put my Athlon Ares 4.5-27 on that gun since I think that will really be a track driver once I get it going. I was going for a semi-auto long-range/hunting rifle as well.

Maybe I should just be happy with one 1000 yard set up and keep the semi-auto as a 500-600 yard gun with a 4-16x50 and be happy

I really don't have the budget for anything beyond $500. The Blackhawk/Weaver is really pushing the limit at $600 and might be out of range.

I wish I'd picked up a second Athlon Ares BTR Gen 1 4.5-27x50 when they were in sale for $380... It is far better than the Talos glass I briefly had. It's not as good as the Weaver, but then that Weaver is really nice. Better than the Elite 4200s, Diamondback HPs, Sightron SII, Zeiss Conquest, and Leupold VX-iis (or 2s)...as you can see, I don't have any really high-end glass, but I can't tolerate any of the really low end stuff anymore.

If the Blackhawk/Weaver were illuminated, this would be a done deal. I just don't know how well the reticle will be in low light...the bane of the FFP scope's existence...

Anyone have experience with all these/any of these scopes?

I am really intrigued by the Nikon... Mainly because I've never used Nikon glass. The FX line is certainly pricier than the Monarch 3-5 lines, but not able to find out if the glass is as good or better, or if Nikon sacrificed glass quality for scope features. These were at the $800+ range before their sale...

Read the Nikon doesn't stack up to the PST gen 2, but no word on the Gen 1. If it's as good as the Ares, then that sounds good.

PST Gen 2 is out.... It starts at $800 on sale As is, the Gen 1 is $500 on sale, and uses the same body as the Athlon Argos/Helos line... Making me wonder if they share similar glass too

I've heard the Athlon Gen 1 Ares is better than the PST gen 1 but worse than the PTS gen 2.

Athlon Midas TAC (with HD glass) SHOULD have glad on par with our better than the PST Gen 2, but not clear I can find one in my price range. That, and they are either 4-16 or 6-24...none of the Ares happy 4.5-27 median...