This is not about IOR in general but specific experience with the 2.5-10x42 vs. the new 35mm 2-12x32 scopes. At a $1000 vs $1200 respectively the 2-12x32 in a sense pays for itself since it comes with a set of rings. I would like to hear any experiences you guys have with either of the scopes particularly the 2-12 version. How does the larger objective in the 30mm vs the smaller objective but larger 35mm main tube affect brightness and light gathering capabilities between the two?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes IOR 2.5-10x42 vs 2-12x32? Inputs needed!
- Thread starter alpha6164
- Start date
Re: IOR 2.5-10x42 vs 2-12x32? Inputs needed!
Give us a chance. I have a 2,5-10. The advantage (to me) is that this is available as a FFP scope. I have the FFP Mil-clicks version.
35mm tube offers a more adjustment- the smaller objective is substantially smaller. Whether you can live with the the reduction is down to YOUR eyes as much as anything else. Mine are getting old and cranky and need all the light they can get!.
Give us a chance. I have a 2,5-10. The advantage (to me) is that this is available as a FFP scope. I have the FFP Mil-clicks version.
35mm tube offers a more adjustment- the smaller objective is substantially smaller. Whether you can live with the the reduction is down to YOUR eyes as much as anything else. Mine are getting old and cranky and need all the light they can get!.
Re: IOR 2.5-10x42 vs 2-12x32? Inputs needed!
If you use holds for your elevation, the 2-12 might have a leg up, but considering that the new 2.5-10 is mil/mil, has better illumination, FFP, and a very good historical track record, that would be the route I would take. With that said, I had a 2-12 with the cqb reticle that was pretty nice once I had done a load workup that was in line with the reticle subtensions.
If you use holds for your elevation, the 2-12 might have a leg up, but considering that the new 2.5-10 is mil/mil, has better illumination, FFP, and a very good historical track record, that would be the route I would take. With that said, I had a 2-12 with the cqb reticle that was pretty nice once I had done a load workup that was in line with the reticle subtensions.
Re: IOR 2.5-10x42 vs 2-12x32? Inputs needed!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chrismadrid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Give us a chance. I have a 2,5-10. The advantage (to me) is that this is available as a FFP scope. I have the FFP Mil-clicks version.
35mm tube offers a more adjustment- the smaller objective is substantially smaller. Whether you can live with the the reduction is down to YOUR eyes as much as anything else. Mine are getting old and cranky and need all the light they can get!. </div></div>
Awesome. Thanks.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chrismadrid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Give us a chance. I have a 2,5-10. The advantage (to me) is that this is available as a FFP scope. I have the FFP Mil-clicks version.
35mm tube offers a more adjustment- the smaller objective is substantially smaller. Whether you can live with the the reduction is down to YOUR eyes as much as anything else. Mine are getting old and cranky and need all the light they can get!. </div></div>
Awesome. Thanks.
Re: IOR 2.5-10x42 vs 2-12x32? Inputs needed!
I'm a problem child. I bought a 2x12x32 from Scott in order to try a BDC for the first time. The erector lense failed on it after 8 shots. IOR had a new, redesigned version of the scope in my hands in 4 days. I'm very impressed!
I'm a problem child. I bought a 2x12x32 from Scott in order to try a BDC for the first time. The erector lense failed on it after 8 shots. IOR had a new, redesigned version of the scope in my hands in 4 days. I'm very impressed!
