OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Scopes > Tactical Scopes
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - IOR Valdada vs Sightron SIII
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

IOR Valdada vs Sightron SIII

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13181
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/01/2010 at 18:58
[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:

414508 IOR 4-14x50 Tactical 30mm Rifle Scope                                                                                   IOR 4-14x50 Tactical 30mm Rifle Scope
  • Matte
  • MP-8
  • 30mm
  • Side Focus
  • Free IOR Sun Shade w/ Purchase
SWFA: $1,054.95
More Info... Buy Now

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:
451000 Meopta 4-16x44 Meostar R1 30mm Rifle Scope                                                                              Meopta 4-16x44 Meostar R1 30mm Rifle Scope
  • Matte
  • Mil-Dot
  • 30mm
SWFA: $849.95
More Info... Buy Now

Optically, it is right between Sightron and IOR and priced very similarly to the Sightron.

And while we are at it:

KLS10342 New Kahles 4-12x50 Helia KX Riflescope                                                                                  New Kahles 4-12x50 Helia KX Riflescope
  • Matte
  • Mil-Dot
  • 1"
SWFA: $849.95
More Info... Buy Now


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.
<
Back to Top
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9318
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rancid Coolaid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/01/2010 at 19:26
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.
Back to Top
Blackbird View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/10/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 284
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Blackbird Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/02/2010 at 04:11
Right underneath what you underlined, says "true picatinny specs". Am I wrong, or missing something ?
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13181
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/02/2010 at 12:31
Originally posted by Blackbird Blackbird wrote:

Right underneath what you underlined, says "true picatinny specs". Am I wrong, or missing something ?

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
Back to Top
Blackbird View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/10/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 284
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Blackbird Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/02/2010 at 17:56
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
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13181
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/02/2010 at 18:01
Originally posted by Blackbird Blackbird wrote:

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.

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
Back to Top
Blackbird View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/10/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 284
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Blackbird Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/02/2010 at 18:30

 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.

Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13181
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/02/2010 at 18:39
Originally posted by Blackbird Blackbird wrote:

 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.


Regular TPS rings do not work with Farrell bases.  TPS "W" rings do. 

I have not tried Badgers with Farrell bases.

ILya
Back to Top
brencat View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/07/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 54
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brencat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/02/2010 at 21:01

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:
 
 
Back to Top
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13181
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote koshkin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/05/2010 at 16:01
Originally posted by brencat brencat wrote:

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:
 
 

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
Back to Top
kingston View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/28/2010
Location: A, B, or C
Status: Offline
Points: 65
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kingston Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/06/2010 at 16:04
 [/QUOTE]

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
[/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. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.227 seconds.