Why I'll never use the Arken SH4 Gen 2 4-16x50mm scope

Almost perfect, except for one tragic flaw. I'll never use the Arken SH4 Gen 2 4-16x50mm scope.

Alternatives:

Notes for YouTube Commissars: All scenes filmed on a closed set and private range.

00:00 Introduction
01:04 Eyepiece
02:00 Zoom Ring
02:51 VPR Reticle
04:06 Parallax 25y!
04:40 Illumination
05:45 Zoom Ratio
06:05 Turrets & Tracking!
08:55 Tracking Test
09:17 Dimensions
09:48 Lenses & Coatings
10:25 Goodies
12:18 CHROMATIC ABERRATION
20:25 Price
21:10 Alternatives

[SocialRegressive]

Answering some of the common questions and comments on this video:
Claim #1: "You're not testing this scope in optimal lighting conditions." Answer #1: These clips are just some of my tests. I've tested this scope in different lighting conditions and sun angles, at different heights over different kinds of ground. I've tested it at different turret adjustments and target distances. The image quality is uniformly abysmal in each EXCEPT at night with the target illuminated by artificial light.

Claim #2: "You're getting paid by other scope manufacturers to lie about the SH4." Answer #2: I know I can't prove it to you except by showing you my bank records, but I accept no money or special favors from any manufacturers. All I accept are their products for evaluation. And maybe cool T-shirts. If you watch any of my other scope and rifle review videos, you will see that I show the good and the bad, and I make recommendations based on the limitations of each piece of gear. My primary concern is that the Average Joe - like me - doesn't waste money on inferior products.


Claim #4: "You didn't adjust parallax properly." Answer #4: The image quality is so bad that it's difficult to even FIND proper parallax. I used different methods, mostly moving my head behind the scope, to find the sweet spot.

Claim #5: "You're overstating the poor quality of the image." Answer #5: I've spent more time testing and re-testing this scope than any other on my channel. I compared it to nearly every other scope I own, regardless of price, and I compared them in the same conditions and at similar magnifications. The only scope I found that was worse than this one was a Barska 8.5-25x that was on a rifle I was tuning up for a friend.

Claim #6: "No one has claimed that a $300 scope can compete with a $2000 scope." Answer #6: I bought this scope specifically BECAUSE many reviewers were positively comparing the SH4 Gen II to $2000 scopes. In fact, you're probably seeing some recommended videos right now that make that claim in the title.

Claim #7: "So you're calling other reviewers liars?" Answer #7: No. They seem to have received scopes that were exactly as good as they say. I've seen their test footage. I'm just giving you my experience with two of their scopes. And if you're wondering if I will send this second back to Arken under warranty, at this point I can't. I've made a controversial claim that I can only substantiate if I hang onto this scope.

Claim #8: "You're just trying to hurt the reputation of a scope manufacturer that competes with your favorites." Answer #8: I really wish this scope had lived up to the hype. Because I don't accept money from anyone, I'm a poor man, and losing $650 on this purchase hurt a lot. I made this video to help protect the next guy like me. At least I can use the mounts and rings on other 34mm scopes. The mounts and rings seem pretty awesome.

[PopShot]

You are stating the obvious with this scope. We all know it doesn't have glass that will compete with a Tract, but to say it's unusable is nonsense. I use one all the time to shoot medium range (300-700 yds). This scope allows those with a lower budget to experience long range shooting with an optic that will out track most of the high end scopes, with glass good enough to get the job done.

[markbraunschweig]

The key is "For the money". If you want the perfect scope, then spend 10x more. For those that can't afford it, that's where this scope is focused.

[kevindutton]

Not all of us can afford glass that is two or three times more than our rifle. This is the best optic I’ve ever had, and I couldn’t be more pleased.

[GTMGunTotinMinnesotan]

Interesting find. I have had a few. I mean the glass isn't great, but I haven't had quite the same thoughts on the CA. Always appreciate unabashed honesty. I love mine.

[randyemenhiser]

Kyle is probably the only youtuber that would ever say a rifle scope has a "Shakespearian tragic flaw".

[jonrigsby]

So, I bought my SH4 Gen 2 4-16x50 about 3 weeks before you posted this based solely on the recommendation of a friend who is also a competition shooter. Mounted on my AR10 and zeroed at 100 yards. Next weekend shot in a 300 and 600 yard match. This past June, shot it out to 1200 yards on steel plates. In July shot it out to 800 yards. In none of these 3 venues, in various light conditions (early morning, late afternoon, Cloudy overcast and bright Clear sky) did I have any issues seeing mirage, looking for wind tell-tales (grass, tree leaves, etc) or seeing splash, bullet trace, or impact marks (on the steel). I was impressed (and still am) with this scope. After the first time I watched your video, I took my AR10 (with the Arken) and another rifle with a different manufacturer's 4-16x44 scope (Rhymes with HORTEX) and did a side by side comparison at 100 yards. Both were crisp and clear at 25, 50, 75, 100, and (approximately) 112 yards. At each distance I had placed high vis, sharp edged objects (specifically, small cardboard boxes and clay pigeons) side by side with a similar object with much more muted colorings. These were placed in shaded areas as well as bright areas. At the 100 yard mark, I placed 2 separate optical clarity charts - 1 printed in bright green, and the other in purple - on the target holder itself.
In no case did I detect any Chromatic abberration of either Axial or Transverse Chromatic Abberration. I could clearly focus at any of the distances mentioned above, with no CA affects. Oh, and clarity is sharp enough that I had no difficulty reading "some" of the writing on the side of the box at 50 and 75 yards...
So, semi-empirical, annecdotal evidence that this issue isn't present in all cases for this particular make/model scope. You can take that for what it is; one user's experience. Would I buy another? Yes, absolutely.

[Jeff_Seely]

Thanks Kyle. You are no doubt a rifle optics expert. I think you spend a lot of time looking through flawless glass. I'd like to give credit to the SH4 for what it is. I paid 250 bucks for mine and yes it has chromatic issues along with aberrations. You see I am a lot older than you are, I grew up in the era where optics were often problematic. So my tolerable level is quite favorable toward an optic. Anyway, the sh4s on my daughter's 243 and all I can say is I can still hit the x-ring sub moa groups of .5 with that gun at a respectable distance. That's really all I'm after: rock solid repeatable erector assembly. It's the best you'll find for under 300 bucks, I think.

[heinrichstoltz]

Thank you for the unbiased honesty. We need these kind of reviews.

[terrystull]

I watched eagle eye's video and he had no trouble spotting misses and hits at 1000yds. Pretty good for an entry level optic with these features IMO.

[CleanRunShooting]

I run an outdoor 600 yd rifle range. I’ve had nothing but positive feedback from users. Enough to make my RSO’s get them. The parallax dial is not true to distance, but other than that, I haven’t seen any of the issues you’ve mentioned with the 2 dozen I’ve looked through.

[gregtucker]

I’m very happy with my SH4. SO much better than Vortex these days!

[chrisgarrard]

I own multiple Arken scopes one of each product line, and they have all performed fantastically. I have zero complaints.

[Theking]

For the average Joe out hunting, this scope is superior to most everything else in the price category. I have the EP 5 and really like shooting through it. I don’t shoot competitions, but the EP5 could be used on a bottom end of the capable scopes list. I use it on a heavy 6.5 Creedmoor AR platform rifle for hunting.

[kimberly]

Thank you for your honesty! I was in the process of buying one of these when I got the notification of this video. I have been down this road far too many again THANKS for the honest review and saving me my hard earned money!

[ADKwarriors]

Excellent review and I'm so glad I found it. I have an EP5 and its outstanding so I was looking to add these to my rimfire precisions for nlr22. I have seen the same glass complaint you have on several forums including the Arken community. Thank you again and subbed!

[criticalbo]

Fantastic Review. You covered everything important and really broke down what you did and didn't like. This is how reviews should be done.

[jro]

I think this honeslty one of the most fair reviews ive seen for the scope, I will say I haven't had as much trouble as you have with chromatic abberation, but it is still there. As a "newer" company maybe the problem comes down more to quality control but for the price its still fantastic for anyone who is curious to get into shooting.

[skyking]

Thank you Kyle. Great information. I don't own the SH4 but I recently purchased the Arken EPL4 6-24×50 FFP MOA VHR. Very happy with it. I have to say the glass and functionality are on par with US Optics, Night Force, Vortex and the like, at a much lower price point that rivals the high end optics . I am looking forward to purchasing the Arken EP5 5-25X56 FFP MOA VPR.

[bradbo]

Since Im frugal…i would still buy one of these. All the pro’s outweigh the cons. Plus Im in the woods of the northeast and dont need super clear long range shots. I did buy the Bushnell Nitro you reviewed….I just got the basic reticle ….works GREAT. Glass is clear and reticle is crisp. Ive put it on 2 different rifles….but most likely going to put it on a hunting gun and leave it.