Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
IOR Valdada vs Sightron SIII |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgta
Optics GrassHopper Joined: December/31/2008 Status: Offline Points: 18 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: January/04/2009 at 20:25 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I have posted previous messages and I have narrowed my decision down to two scopes based on feedback from others. The scope is going on a new Savage 10FP w/ 24" barrel that I will soon be upgrading with a new stock probably a Bell and Carlson whenever the new medalist comes out to fit the new Savage models. Below are the two scopes I have narrowed my decision down to, I'm basically wanting to know if the IOR Valdada is worth the extra $350.00. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
trigger29
Optics Master Extraordinaire X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ? Joined: September/29/2007 Location: South Dakota Status: Offline Points: 4353 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tagged. Want to see how Koshkin weighs in on this. I have no useful information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jonoMT
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: November/13/2008 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 4853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Some differences that come to mind: I couldn't find out with this one, but most IORs are FFP, which has the advantage of always demarcating the same angle of measurement regardless of magnification but (to some) the disadvantage of the reticle changing size with magnification. The IOR glass will probably be better. The magnification range is better on the low end, IMHO. Personally, for what I assume is a .308, I'd consider the IOR 2-12 or the Sightron 2.5-10. But just between these two, the IOR seems the better fit for the rifle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Special Ball
Optics GrassHopper Joined: January/08/2009 Status: Offline Points: 1 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If you want an IOR in FFP you'll need to go 2.5-10x or 3-18X. I have the former and it's by far my favorite scope. The MP-8 is a bit easier to work for ranging with than Mil-dots . Can't say I know much about Sightron though. You won't hear much about them in "tactical" circles.(i.e. Snipers Hide, Sniper Central ect.) That's where you can find some really solid info. Good Shootin'! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dougedwards
Optics Apprentice Joined: April/16/2008 Location: Williamsburg, v Status: Offline Points: 213 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Don't count the Sightron 3 out until you look through it in dim light situations. I think you will be very suprised. They also have the best tracking and unequaled CS in the industry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
but you brethren are not of the flesh but of the spirit if indeed the spirit of Christ dwells within you...Romans 8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Whether IOR is worth the extra money is a personal question. That depends on how much that money is worth to you.
Also, this is an apples to oranges comparison, really. The magnification ranges are different and IOR has an illuminated reticle to boot. Personally, the new IOR you are mentioning has that big elevation knob which I have grown to like quite a bit on my 3-18x42FFP scope. For long range shooting, where you need to use the knobs a lot that one is a very good way to go. On the other hand, if you are comfortable with older style IOR knobs (more comparable to the SIghtron's ones) and can forgo illumination, you can save $100 right there:
With all that having been said, Sightron is a very nice scope that offers a lot for the money. Still, IOR has better optics and personally, I would prefer better glass to higher magnification. I also prefer MP-8 to Mil-Dot. I think it is a more versatile reticle (and I am used to it). On the other hand, if higher magnificaiton is really important to you, you will not be disappointed with the Sightron. Oh, and just to throw another wrench into you rdeliberations, consdier this scope as well:
Optically, it is right between Sightron and IOR and priced very similarly to the Sightron. And while we are at it:
First of all, I suggest you figure out how much money you want to spend. Then, decide what magnification range and objective lens diameter you want. Then figure out which reticle you want and how much you will need to use the knobs. From your other thread it seems that you want to shoot out to 1000 yards. If that is the case knobs make a big difference. It is quite a bit easier to have a knob that can get you pretty far out with a single revolution. You seem intent on a Mil-Dot or similar reticle. That implies that you expect to use it for rangefinding and/or holdover. In that case, MP-8 with its half-mil hashmarks is pretty useful. Just keep in mind that once you get past 400-500 yards, using the reticle for holdover is not really an option any more. You have to use the knobs. If you are learning to shoot long range, just use the knobs for any range you are shooting at. Get used to it. On the other hand, if you insist on using hte reticle for ranging and holdover a lot, I would probably invest in a good quality FFP scope. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgta
Optics GrassHopper Joined: December/31/2008 Status: Offline Points: 18 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wow! Great response. In regards to the money, I really don't mind spending the extra money on the IOR, I just wanted to make sure it is a superior scope over the Sightron. If I'm going to spend close to $1000.00 on a scope a couple hundred $'s below or above is not going to make or break me. I do prefer better glass over magnification and with the IOR going up to 14 I believe that will be more than enough to get to 1000 yards.
I don't mind spending the extra money for the FFP, however, I want to learn to use the knobs as you said for my long range shooting, with that being said should I stick with the MP-8 reticle or the FFP?
Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MP-8 is a reticle type. FFP refers to where the reticle is positioned in the scope. FFP stand for Front Focal Plane. With that configuration, as you change the magnification, both the image and the reticle change in size together, so that you can comfortably use the reticle for ranging or holdover at any magnification.
The cheapest quality scope with FFP reticle is IOR 2.5-10x42: http://www.swfa.com/pc-10157-292-ior-25-10x42-tactical-30mm-rifle-scope.aspx The next step up is IOR 3-18x42 FFP (this is the one I use): http://www.swfa.com/pc-10161-292-ior-3-18x42-tactical-35mm-rifle-scope.aspx If you are planning to use the reticle for ranging and/or holdover, I would definitely suggest an FFP scope. ILya |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgta
Optics GrassHopper Joined: December/31/2008 Status: Offline Points: 18 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thanks, I was looking around at prices and I spotted a couple of websites with prices much cheaper. Are there some older models out there with the same specs, if you check out usaoptics.net they have the 4-14X50 MP-8 illuminated for $986, however, the knobs look a little different. Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgta
Optics GrassHopper Joined: December/31/2008 Status: Offline Points: 18 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sorry for so many questions. Regarding the Warne bases are you referring to the one piece tactical base and the warne maxima rings in the detach or permanet. Any opinions on the tactical rings?
Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That is an older design. Also, the guy who owns that website (usaoptics.net) is a scumbag. I would not buy anything from him regardless of the prices. Either way, SWFA (the company that supports this forum) has a price matching policy. If you find the same scope elsewhere for less, they will match the price. ILya |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I am referrin gto Warne one-piece tactical base and Maxima detachable rings. ILya |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon A
Optics Journeyman Joined: March/14/2008 Location: Everett, WA Status: Offline Points: 670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In my opinion the new big knobs are well worth the extra money for the newer models. They are outstanding and a big leg up on most other tactical scopes. As for the other stuff, if you really "don't mind" spending more for the IOR I'd suggest spending even a bit more and getting the 3-18 instead of the 4-14. I feel it's enough better in enough ways to be well worth the money. There were two ways the 4-14 was better--it was brighter in low light conditions (as you'd expect from the 50mm objective) and it withstood the brutal recoil of my light 300 RUM. While it was brighter, mine wasn't illuminated and the FFP reticle on the 3-18 was much easier to see in low light than the SFP 4-14. As for recoil, all the 3-18's I broke were early production--I haven't heard of any breakages of the more recently made scopes. Since your rifle will have a fraction of the recoil of mine I doubt you'd have a problem--I expect I'll get another soon for a lower recoiling application. Other than that, I feel the 3-18 is pretty much better in every way. Better low end at 3X, better high end--more magnification and every bit as beautiful glass. Unless shooting small varmints is the goal, I like the reticle much better. I found the sidefocus seemed to work better. It's much smaller and more compact. But mainly, if you ever want to use the reticle for anything, it's so much easier with the 3-18. Even forgetting FFP for a minute, the 4-14 comes with 1/4 MOA clicks and the Mil based MP-8. Also, the reticle is calibrated on 10X so you can't even use it with mils on 14X--you need to do some math. It can be done, I like to hold wind and it works out on 14X each "Mil mark" is about 2.5 MOA so it can be done...but the mental gymnastics are simply much more difficult. If it was calibrated at 14X it would be easier to use as you could simply use straight mils when using it at LR. Put mil knobs on it and it would be about as good as a SFP can get. Even the SFP 3-18 has a big advantage here since on 18X the reticle becomes a ~MOA/IPHY reticle which matches the knobs very closely. For holding wind, reasonable amounts of holdover/under you can use the same data for the knobs and the reticle. Of course the FFP version eliminates all that worry--the reticle and knobs always match. They're never "wrong." There are plenty of threads here that describe those differences. In short, I thought the 4-14 was excellent and so much better than the 4.5-14 Leupold I had at the time (and actually cheaper than a comparable MK 4), but if I was going to spend that much money I'd spend a bit more and get the 3-18. There's just nothing that competes glass quality and feature-wise anywhere near the price for LR shooting. The one Achilles heel the early models had was withstanding extreme recoil. For that reason I still wouldn't recommend it for a really hard kicker at this time. Sorry, I have no experience with the Sightron so I can't help you there. Edited by Jon A - January/10/2009 at 19:46 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
puppezed
Optics GrassHopper Joined: December/31/2008 Location: Finland Status: Offline Points: 44 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Has anyone measured how much IOR 3-18x42 weighs?
Valdada com says 28 oz and 28.8 oz for the illuminated model, but Finnish importer says 960g (33.9 oz). Do you who makes decent but not overly pricey scope rings for 35mm tubes? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgta
Optics GrassHopper Joined: December/31/2008 Status: Offline Points: 18 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thanks for the great feedback, I will now consider the 3-18 in the FFP if it really is that much easier, I'm all for ease of use. Is it going to be that much of a difference going from the 50mm obj to the 42mm obj on the 3-18, will I be loosing some adjustment in the 3-18X42? However, now I'm getting into a price range where maybe I should consider brands like Nightforce.
Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think it was established that IOR's 3-18x42 weighs a bit more than they profess.
The larger knob on the elevation is a great thing for long-range work. IOR's Customer Service is hit-n-miss. I've heard great things. I had a bad experience with them almost 2 years ago and will not buy again till I KNOW it is better. The MP-8 reticle is nice, their illumination is good but not great, their glass is usually fantastic, and their internals go from rock-solid to piss-poor and back. I have owned a few IOR, I own one now and love it (4x hunter) but I would say be ready to get the greatest scope you've ever owned OR the biggest headeache you've ever endured - and you probably won't know which till you mount it and take it to the range a few times. Do you need FFP? Why? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cheaptrick
MODERATOR Joined: September/27/2004 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 20844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://www.snipercentral.com/ior414.phtml
I obtained Mel @ Sniper Central permission to post scope reviews over here. Here's the IOR, but without the illumination or the target knobs obviously.
I thought you may find his review helpful and the pics are pretty cool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If at first you don't secede...try..try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kingston
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/28/2010 Location: A, B, or C Status: Offline Points: 65 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Unless shooting small varmints is the goal, I like the reticle much better."
Can someone explain this statement to me. I am looking at this scope for a new precision rifle build in .308. I do plan to shoot woodchucks and p-dogs. Also, How is this scope (IOR Valdada 3-18x42 Tactical 35mm Rifle Scope) in low light. I'd like to shoot coyotes on moonlit and clear starry nights. Will this scope work? If not what scope will? Many Many thanks! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blackbird
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/10/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 284 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[QUOTE=koshkin]Whether IOR is worth the extra money is a personal question. That depends on how much that money is worth to you.
Also, this is an apples to oranges comparison, really. The magnification ranges are different and IOR has an illuminated reticle to boot. Personally, the new IOR you are mentioning has that big elevation knob which I have grown to like quite a bit on my 3-18x42FFP scope. For long range shooting, where you need to use the knobs a lot that one is a very good way to go. On the other hand, if you are comfortable with older style IOR knobs (more comparable to the SIghtron's ones) and can forgo illumination, you can save $100 right there:
With all that having been said, Sightron is a very nice scope that offers a lot for the money. Still, IOR has better optics and personally, I would prefer better glass to higher magnification. I also prefer MP-8 to Mil-Dot. I think it is a more versatile reticle (and I am used to it). On the other hand, if higher magnificaiton is really important to you, you will not be disappointed with the Sightron. Oh, and just to throw another wrench into you rdeliberations, consdier this scope as well:
Optically, it is right between Sightron and IOR and priced very similarly to the Sightron. And while we are at it:
First of all, I suggest you figure out how much money you want to spend. Then, decide what magnification range and objective lens diameter you want. Then figure out which reticle you want and how much you will need to use the knobs. From your other thread it seems that you want to shoot out to 1000 yards. If that is the case knobs make a big difference. It is quite a bit easier to have a knob that can get you pretty far out with a single revolution. You seem intent on a Mil-Dot or similar reticle. That implies that you expect to use it for rangefinding and/or holdover. In that case, MP-8 with its half-mil hashmarks is pretty useful. Just keep in mind that once you get past 400-500 yards, using the reticle for holdover is not really an option any more. You have to use the knobs. If you are learning to shoot long range, just use the knobs for any range you are shooting at. Get used to it. On the other hand, if you insist on using hte reticle for ranging and holdover a lot, I would probably invest in a good quality FFP scope. Fixed reticle dimensions make things easier. If you can't spend twelve hundred and are OK with the magnification range, go with an IOR. If you can't spend twelve hundred and want to spend eight hundred, go with the Sightron or Meopta. In either case, get a 20MOA slanted base (Warne is not a bad way to go for $85 as is the slightly cheaper TPS) and good quality rings (I mostly use Warne and TPS). I have used Ken Farrell base with good success as well, but you |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It's not bad in low light.
Since the original post, I have reviewed the 6-24 and owned (and now sold) the 4-14 IOR. The glass in the IOR is a little better, I'd say, and the IOR "should" be tougher as it is a tac scope and not a bench scope. So long as it is going on a gun without heavy recoil, the 3-18 "should" be a good optic for you. I owned it for awhile, swapped it for something else, and the one I traded away failed. it was the first batch of the 3-18s, many of those failed. I understand it is less failure-prone now, and that most going on .308s do not have problems. IOR has good glass for the money, but their Customer Service is a sometimes good, sometimes terrible, it's a gamble that sometimes pays off - and sometimes not. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |