Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
IOR Valdada vs Sightron SIII |
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Author | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[QUOTE=Blackbird][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. < |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For starry night hunts, you will need an illuminated reticle.
What, exactly, is the question on Weaver vs. 1913 rail? Edited by Rancid Coolaid - February/02/2010 at 08:33 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blackbird
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/10/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 284 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Right underneath what you underlined, says "true picatinny specs". Am I wrong, or missing something ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
And what I underlined says "Weaver". Besides, I have two Ken Farrell one-piece bases and they are both Weaver spec. They are most certainly beautifully machined, but Picatinny rings do not work on them. ILya
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blackbird
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/10/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 284 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Very interesting. I have a friend who has a Farrell 20 MOA base on his Rem 700 sa, and he has 30 mm Nightforce rings mounted on the base. Also, quite a few of my competitors are using Leupold Mark IV rings on Farrell bases. I must be confused with "weaver style" and "built to picatinny specs". Me personally, I use only Farrells 30 mm rings on his bases.
Edited by Blackbird - February/02/2010 at 17:58 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Weaver and Picatinny bases are very similar except the slots are milled to slighly different specs: the slots on Weaver bases are narrower. If you have Picatinny rings with cross bolts sized to fit Picatinny bases EXACTLY, these rings will not work with Weaver bases. Conversly, Weaver rings work with Picatinny bases without any problems. Some rings that are called Picatinny actually have slightly narrower cross bolts, so they fit both Weaver and Picatinny bases. ILya
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blackbird
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/10/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 284 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All I know is that Leupold Mark IV rings and Nightforce rings fit on Ken Farrell bases. I've never seen anyone using Badger or TPS rings with Farrell bases, so I don't know if they work or not. I also heard that Glen Seekins products are also built with very tight tolerances. I have never had to lap any of Farrells rings while using his bases, and there have never been any marks on either of my Nightforce BR's or the Mark IV LR/T that I used to have. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regular TPS rings do not work with Farrell bases. TPS "W" rings do. I have not tried Badgers with Farrell bases. ILya
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
brencat
Optics Apprentice Joined: July/07/2008 Status: Offline Points: 54 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I did a lot of research last year before finally settling on the IOR 4-14x50 with the newer exposed knobs. It is a fantastic scope...and as others have said here, the glass will simply blow you away. One thing to keep in mind about the IOR 3-18 FFP version is that the turret housing on that scope is set further back toward the objective, leaving very little room for forward adjustment on many rails if you're one of those people like me with a long neck that like to push their scopes forward on the receiver.
Anyway, here is my baby... mounted on a Sako TRG-22 (.308) with Warne Picatinny Rail (0 degree) + Seekins Low 30mm rings:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That 4-14x50 IOR is a very nice scope and easily one of my favourites in IOR's line-up. As far as the mounting limitations of the 3-8x42 go, you are spot on and, depending on your build, you may have a hard time setting it up just right. Generally, if you are fairly tall, you should not have any problems. I am 6'0" and stocky, and I have no problems with rear ring location. That having been said, IOR has a new scope that was announced at SHOT (I have a picture of it in my show overview). It is a 3.5-18x50 and it has a fair bit more space behind the turrets. ILya
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kingston
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/28/2010 Location: A, B, or C Status: Offline Points: 65 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[/QUOTE]
ILya [/QUOTE]So is it known if this meant to replace the current 3-18x42 IOR that people have had so much trouble with? A 50mm objective sure would be nice to soak up the light and increase FOV. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 |