Give the NF 7-35 a look, I've heard really good things about them.. I would be really nervous investing that kind of coin in an IOR... jmo
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Ordered: VALDADA IOR 5.8-40x56 40mm Tactical FFP, MOA/MOA
- Thread starter Beiruty
- Start date
Give the NF 7-35 a look, I've heard really good things about them.. I would be really nervous investing that kind of coin in an IOR... jmo
I have one. It sits in the same safe as an S&B 12-50, S&B US 3-20, a Minox ZP5 5-25, and a Vortex RZ2 and several Beta tier scopes.
Lets put all the BS aside, such as corporate issues and past model issues.
I rank it as, at the minimum, the equal to the S&B and Minox in terms of glass. It hands down beats the RZ2, as well as a Sightmark Pinnacle, a Weaver Tactical (6-30), and spanks a Burris XTR2 8-40x.
While I haven't had time to whip out a Horus chart, I have done box tests and have been dead on, balls accurate.
It's not 100% perfect. Like the RZ2, I would not recommend a Zero setting at the bottomed out position. There is a reticle shadow if you move the eye as well as some yellow tinging around the outside if it is at the 0 MOA elevation. Both issues go away after about 10-15moa of uppity.
The parallax/focus is extremely fine from up close to about 200 yards. What I mean is that if you have a target at 50 yards, you need to set the focus at 50 yards. Anything but exact, and it's fuzzy. BUT- when you hit it, you REALLY hit it. It looks like fucking 3D tv when the focus is perfect.
Lets put all the BS aside, such as corporate issues and past model issues.
I rank it as, at the minimum, the equal to the S&B and Minox in terms of glass. It hands down beats the RZ2, as well as a Sightmark Pinnacle, a Weaver Tactical (6-30), and spanks a Burris XTR2 8-40x.
While I haven't had time to whip out a Horus chart, I have done box tests and have been dead on, balls accurate.
It's not 100% perfect. Like the RZ2, I would not recommend a Zero setting at the bottomed out position. There is a reticle shadow if you move the eye as well as some yellow tinging around the outside if it is at the 0 MOA elevation. Both issues go away after about 10-15moa of uppity.
The parallax/focus is extremely fine from up close to about 200 yards. What I mean is that if you have a target at 50 yards, you need to set the focus at 50 yards. Anything but exact, and it's fuzzy. BUT- when you hit it, you REALLY hit it. It looks like fucking 3D tv when the focus is perfect.
I just put a 4-28x50 Recon on my new 6.5 CM build. I love this scope,the glass & tracking are excellent,and since I shoot LH being able to easily adjust the parallax with my RH was another reason I bought the IOR. The only other scope that I really considered was the Kahles k624i.
HaHa,I assembled the rifle when the KRG chassis arrived,and test fit everything before taking it all apart to get Cerakoted. I'm still waiting on the Bix'n Andy LH TacSport trigger to arrive before I get to see how good it'll shoot. I figured some of you would see the trigger wasn't there,good catch!
Txhillbilly ... if the scope was test fit on rifle parts, how do you know the tracking is excellent? doesn't that require thorough testing like a box test or tall target test?
I have a whole bunch of other guns,I just put it on another rifle and used it that way. That's what is great about picatinny rails,you can swap scopes in a matter of minutes.
I guess there have to be clowns in every circus,some of you guy's question everything!
I run an IOR Recon on My AX338 for ELR. Dopes transferred from my USO ER25 to it no problem Using the same loads at a Mile. The Recon has a lot of magnification considering it is only 14 inches long.
Has best in class field of view as well.
My PM2 is really a 7-25 because it tunnels and it's a way longer scope. But it's fit and finish is excellent.
The downside to the IOR is its finish. Make sure don't move your rings once you mount because you will have nasty ring marks. Unless you don't mind ring marks.
Both my PM2 and Recon maintain excellent clarity from the bottom of mag to the top. Unlike my ER25 which starts getting foggy at 18x and up.
I guess I'm a clown because I shoot an IOR.
And a damn proud Clown.
Below pic is with the sunshade on. (Makes it way longer)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Has best in class field of view as well.
My PM2 is really a 7-25 because it tunnels and it's a way longer scope. But it's fit and finish is excellent.
The downside to the IOR is its finish. Make sure don't move your rings once you mount because you will have nasty ring marks. Unless you don't mind ring marks.
Both my PM2 and Recon maintain excellent clarity from the bottom of mag to the top. Unlike my ER25 which starts getting foggy at 18x and up.
I guess I'm a clown because I shoot an IOR.
And a damn proud Clown.
Below pic is with the sunshade on. (Makes it way longer)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Thanks, BA226.. in regards to you not getting a spotter and using your scope to spot your own shots... There is a big difference between a rifle scope and a spotter. I thought the same thing.." I'll just spot shots myself with my rifle scope" but though the IOR's have great FOV, a good spotter is much better IMO. I got a Vortex Razor 27-60 and the field of view is so large it allows the viewer to spot vapor trail quite easily and therefore spot the miss/impact with ease. Unlike rifle scopes which have much narrower FOV. But you will need a friend to spot for you and vise versa. The Razor also has 60x magnification which is really good and has the glass to back it up. I can now spot friends shots that I might not have seen with my riflescopes. But this isn't a forum about the Razor spotter so I'll shut up now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I just sold a 9-36 a few months ago. Really liked everything about it except the eye relief.
I’m building a few different rifles for different purposes. A bolt .224 Valkyrie is one of them. I’m strongly considering the Crusader for this rifle to see the 20cal holes at long distance and to use as a spotting scope. Richard Utting (whom I thouroghly respect) several years ago had great things to say about this scope.
I am well aware that IOR has had many past issues in several different areas, but is there really still a strong dislike, almost hatred for this highly reviewed, Beta Elite scope?
I’m building a few different rifles for different purposes. A bolt .224 Valkyrie is one of them. I’m strongly considering the Crusader for this rifle to see the 20cal holes at long distance and to use as a spotting scope. Richard Utting (whom I thouroghly respect) several years ago had great things to say about this scope.
I am well aware that IOR has had many past issues in several different areas, but is there really still a strong dislike, almost hatred for this highly reviewed, Beta Elite scope?
No no no lol. Not trying to start anything. I am more than aware of IOR past issues. But my understanding is that most if not all of those have been addressed and resolved.
I have looked through a Terminator and the glass was beyond breathtaking.
I have looked through a Terminator and the glass was beyond breathtaking.
I do not think they have all been resolved, but I will freely agree that I am not fully up to speed since I stopped looking at IORs several years ago. All of my information at the moment is second hand, albeit from people who I find trustworthy.
I am not aware of any significant changes made at the factory to improve QC and I find it somewhat interesting that for Recon G2, Caldada went to LOW, instead of going to the original IOR factory. Given that G2 seems to be the same basic design as a bunch of other similar LOW scopes except in a 40mm tube, I expect it to hold up quite well. That having been said, it runs more than a grand over the same scope in a 35mm tube from other brands and I am not convinced it is worth the difference.
To re-iterate though: I have not tried it and have no intention of doing so and most of what I know about it is a result of asking a few questions here and there and making a few educated guesses.
ILya
I learned something a long time ago that you clearly have not.
The average gun rag/professional review means shit. American Rifleman had an article on how awesome Tactical Rifles was...
This site is so awesome because we have guys like Ilya and tons of field users sharing their experiences.
Why would you buy something from a company with known past issues with both quality control and customer service? The highlighted portions of your comments show a pretty ridiculous disconnect.
Think those two phrases might be related?
I see where everyone is coming from. The old ‘fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me’ comes to mind. And when spending $3k an above, who wants to be fooled or be a fool.
I have been following Ilya for many years now. I can honestly say that his reviews got me to take a 2nd look at Athlon and give them a try.
So when Koshkin speaks, I listen.
I have been following Ilya for many years now. I can honestly say that his reviews got me to take a 2nd look at Athlon and give them a try.
So when Koshkin speaks, I listen.
I just bought the new Recon 4.8-30X56. Haven't got it mounted yet. But it is my first FFP scope. I also have the 3.5-18 on a custom 308, and the erminator on a custom 6.5CM. Can't wait to get mounted up and putting rounds down range.
They may have FFP models. But mine is 2nd. I got it used about 7-8 years ago, never had an issue with it. I've had my terminator about 5 years with no issues.
Back when the 3-18x42 FFP was offered with that reticle a user here helped develop I came so close to pulling the trigger. It was the first "floating dot" reticle I can recall.
So glad I didn't.
So glad I didn't.
Interesting. When it came out it was FFP only. They must have added a SFP model.
ILya
Similar threads
