Arken EP5 5-25x

[J.Baker]

Well, the EP-8 I ordered showed up Monday and I've already put in a return authorization request for a return/refund. Not sure what's SOP for their optics, but the one I received wasn't sealed up at all in it's box - no round stickers holding the upper and lower halves of the box together, and no plastic shrink wrapping to remove. Opened the box and no plastic sleeve over the scope itself and no desiccant packet was present which raised even more suspicion. No owners manual, warranty card, etc. present in the box either, and the packaging for the included battery had already been opened up and someone just put the battery back into the torn open package. This was all on top of the scope and mount being shipped in an oversized box with no packaging material to take up all the extra space so I'm sure it took a beating at the hands of USPS.

Packaging aside, the main reason I'm returning it is because the reticle is all but useless IMO. At 1x the whole reticle is soo small that it just looks like a speck of dust on the lens when looking through the scope. It's not much better at 8x as it's still extremely small, and while you can at least see the precision aiming dot inside the horseshoe at this magnification the horseshoe is so bold and overbearing that your eye naturally focuses on it rather than the dot. I also found that if I moved my head even the tiniest bit out of perfect alignment the scope would wash out or I'd two slightly staggered reticles. Could just be my eyes as at nearly 50 years they aren't what they used to be, but I don't have this issue with any of the other 17 scopes I currently own.

Unfortunately the reticle issue is one that is proving to be quite common with FFP scopes utilizing a higher power zoom lens (6x, 8x, 10x). To me, it just seems these manufacturers are often taking an existing reticle design from another model they have - usually something with a 3x or 4x zoom lens, and then throwing it into these new high zoom models without giving two thoughts about the scale of the reticle and how that much larger magnification range will affect that reticles usefulness over that range. I've seen it from most every brand of scope that has come out with a high zoom lens line with FFP reticles.

[charlie b]

Sad story. Hope they make it right.

Since I shoot at the bench I prefer SFP just to make sure the reticle cross stays small at high magnification. The hash marks mean little to me shooting at known distances.

[tomme boy]

i sent a sh4 back as it had rings marks from someone else that returned it. Got my $$$ back.

[dusterdave]

EP5 is or seems to me to be the very best deal out there with the discount now--For a serious step up look at the Tract Toric top of the line--the glass is just amazing--I mean if you use one I bet you buy one.

[Txhillbilly]

EP5 is or seems to me to be the very best deal out there with the discount now--For a serious step up look at the Tract Toric top of the line--the glass is just amazing--I mean if you use one I bet you buy one.

The EP5 is a decent low end scope. I just put one on my new LH CZ 457 Varmint 22lr for some local stock class precision 22 matches. I always laugh when the internet and youtube guy's brag that a $500 scope compares to scopes that cost 3x-6x as much. They don't, they compare to scopes in the same price range and that's it.

[J.Baker]

The EP5 is a decent low end scope. I just put one on my new LH CZ 457 Varmint 22lr for some local stock class precision 22 matches. I always laugh when the internet and youtube guy's brag that a $500 scope compares to scopes that cost 3x-6x as much. They don't, they compare to scopes in the same price range and that's it.

Agreed - but 90% or more shooters can't decern the subtle differences in optical quality between those cheaper scopes and the high dollar ones. Most have no clue what chromatic aberration is, much less how to identify it. Likewise most don't know how to look for numerous other differences in lenses to be able to tell the difference between so-so, good and great lens quality. For the vast majority, the mechanicals being reliable and consistent far out weights the quality of the glass on their list of priorities for a scope. Bad/cheap glass can also be doctored to appear better than it is (to a degree) with different lens coatings (Burris is notorious for this with a coating that gives all their scopes a slight yellow-ish hue to the image to make appear brighter - just like yellow tinted shooting glasses do).

I've also found that most don't deploy their optics at times or into environments that will quickly exaggerate and expose the defects or deficiencies in their glass and/or coatings (dawn/dusk, overcast and misty, foggy, etc.) as these days a large percentage of shooters are "fair weather range day" types. If the glass is good enough for them to clearly see their target on a nice clear sunny day at the distance(s) they want to shoot it's "good enough" for them - and it's hard to argue against that point even.

[Dave Hoback]

Tell me this: how do operators hit targets, shooting with Night Vision? The optical quality of night vision is horrendous! Much worse than some of the cheapest glass out there! So how is it they are successful more often than not?

[Txhillbilly]

Agreed - but 90% or more shooters can't decern the subtle differences in optical quality between those cheaper scopes and the high dollar ones. Most have no clue what chromatic aberration is, much less how to identify it. Likewise most don't know how to look for numerous other differences in lenses to be able to tell the difference between so-so, good and great lens quality. For the vast majority, the mechanicals being reliable and consistent far out weights the quality of the glass on their list of priorities for a scope. Bad/cheap glass can also be doctored to appear better than it is (to a degree) with different lens coatings (Burris is notorious for this with a coating that gives all their scopes a slight yellow-ish hue to the image to make appear brighter - just like yellow tinted shooting glasses do).

I've also found that most don't deploy their optics at times or into environments that will quickly exaggerate and expose the defects or deficiencies in their glass and/or coatings (dawn/dusk, overcast and misty, foggy, etc.) as these days a large percentage of shooters are "fair weather range day" types. If the glass is good enough for them to clearly see their target on a nice clear sunny day at the distance(s) they want to shoot it's "good enough" for them - and it's hard to argue against that point even.

Oh, I agree. Scopes and lens coatings have come a long ways from what they were in the past. Most shooter's will never actually need high end scopes for the purpose they use them for or the conditions that they shoot in.

[Txhillbilly]

Tell me this: how do operators hit targets, shooting with Night Vision? The optical quality of night vision is horrendous! Much worse than some of the cheapest glass out there! So how is it they are successful more often than not?

The NV that they use would surprise you. It isn't the cheap stuff that civilian's buy.