Rifle Scopes SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

[Soliner]

So after looking around now for a while and talking to Chris at SWFA, I've been recommended and told that the SS 3-9x42 is pretty much the "best" sub-$1000 scope for an AR/SPR type rifle.
I've read enough reviews here and in other places to suggest that while it may not be "the best", it's certainly worth it's salt according to plenty of other folk.
So my question to you guys is: How many of you actually have used one and what are your thoughts on it in general? Does it hold up to the reputation that a lot of reviewers are giving it?

Since my budget was around $1000 to begin with, give or take a bill or two, I've seen the IOR Valdada 2.5-10x42. Both optics are FFP as I have decided on, and both optics are in mil adjustments as I had decided. This amounts to: Do any of you think the IOR scope warrants spending the extra money on and if not, then what would within that similar price range ($1200-$1300)?

As always, thanks for the input.

 

[Soliner]

Re: SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greywolf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The IOR is built like a tank, and the SS is pretty tough as well. The problem with the IOR is that if you do have issues or problems, it can sometimes take quite a bit of time for the warranty work to be done. The IOR, at least my early ones, seemed also to be a little more touchy with regards to eye relief - just a little less forgiving for eye placement, but again that was some time ago and I don't have any experience with the newer models. I do know that IOR has some great glass, but so does the SS. </div></div>
Great input, Greywolf. Thanks a lot for it. Both optics definitely look very good, I guess the question I'm asking is if the IOR's quality is really that noticeable or better to warrant the step up.
Thanks.

 

[opeagle]

Re: SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

I don't have a new 3-9 SS to compare but the IOR glass is very good, IMO. I do have the new 2.5 - 10 x 42 and like it well enough.

I have been told the IOR glass is a step or so above the SS and i like the MP8 dot more so than the Mil Dot. Illumination is nice and one of my personal criteria.

 

[Soliner]

Re: SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: opeagle</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't have a new 3-9 SS to compare but the IOR glass is very good, IMO. I do have the new 2.5 - 10 x 42 and like it well enough.

I have been told the IOR glass is a step or so above the SS and i like the MP8 dot more so than the Mil Dot. Illumination is nice and one of my personal criteria. </div></div>
Sounds like a great scope, Opeagle. I'm definitely digging the IOR. One thing I'd like to ask you though is: How's the illumination and eye relief? I read a few posts now saying that the eye relief is more around 2-2&1/2" and that the illumination is pretty bad. Any comments on this?

 

[RHutch]

Re: SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

The illumination has been fixed. Used to be blinding at the lowest setting with the entire reticle lit up.
Now only the center dot is lit and it can be adjusted much lower than the older model. The lowest setting is barely visible at night.

As for eye relief, I have not noticed an issue with mine. I'd guess it to be well over 3". I have the latest version and have had an older model.

 

[7mmRM]

Re: SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

Id have a hard time overlooking a 3-9 SS for an SPR type rifle.

 

[dontstrokeme]

Re: SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

I like my Super Sniper 3-9 FFP and run it on my 18" 7mm-08 Bolt rifle and have made hits on 10x12" steel at 1160 yards. Best thing about the lower magnification is that you keep a good sight picture and the light intake is better.

The one thing I would change about the SS is getting the MP8 reticle in it, the Mildot is fairly course subtensions and for a LR bolt gun the difference between .4MIL and .5MIL at 800 yards is incredibly difficult to decifer. But if you are using it on an AR you probably won't be running it LR. The SS also turns to damn near a reverse duplex at 3x power.

For an AR I would lean towards the SS, as it is smaller and has less "stuff" on it to be in the way. BUt if you want the other items go for it.

One more thing to look at is which one sells more often.....it is rare to see the SS 3-9 FFP's for sale used....but fairly common to see the IOR 2.5-10 FFP's for sale after a few rounds or not even firing. Could be a coincidence that the IOR owners needed cash quickly but I think it might be more than that.....

what that is showing about each I don't know but makes me wonder!!!

 

[BCP]

Re: SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

The IOR has better glass and an awesome reticle but I don't know that you would get 2X the use out of it vs the 3-9 SS. I'm in the process of building an SPR type AR and the 3-9 SS is probably what I will buy for it.

edit: I only have 5-600 to spend, if I had 1200-1300 I would look for a nightforce 2.5-10.

 

[Prairie Dog Dundee]

Re: SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

I just spent the day in the desert with a SS 3-9 on a MA1 NM. I was shooting steel targets using 3/4 Scale IPSC targets every 100 yards between 300 and 700 yards. I can't think of a scope that sells for under $1,200.00 that I would trade for this scope. It got very windy for a bit. When I missed I just measured and dialed for a hit. Any more magnification and parallax would enter in and you would be slowed down making adjustment. I have not had parallax issues with it at all. It is a great SPR scope.

 

[Prairie Dog Dundee]

Re: SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

Looks like Lowlight has been busy again. One of the banners says SWFA will give a 10% discount on 3-9 and 10XHD Super Snipers with a code of SSHIDE.

 

[SWFA]

Re: SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Prairie Dog Dundee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just spent the day in the desert with a SS 3-9 on a MA1 NM. I was shooting steel targets using 3/4 Scale IPSC targets every 100 yards <span style="font-weight: bold">between 300 and 700 yards</span>. <span style="color: #990000">I can't think of a scope that sells for under $1,200.00 that I would trade for this scope.</span> It got very windy for a bit. When I missed <span style="font-weight: bold">I just measured and dialed for a hit</span>. <span style="font-weight: bold">Any more magnification and parallax would enter in and you would be slowed down making adjustment</span>. I have not had parallax issues with it at all. It is a <span style="font-weight: bold">great SPR scope</span>. </div></div>

You hit the nail on the head in regards to how to use this scope. The 3-9x42 was designed and built for Designated Marksmen. The lower power range, lack of parallax adjustment, lack of illumination, locking reticle focus and simple mil-dot reticle were all results of direct Army input.

In the past we have sold large numbers of the SS 10x42 to Army for DM work and after a few years of feedback and suggestions, the 3-9x42 was born specifically to replace some of the aging fixed powers and to address some of the problems they were having in regards to operating the scopes. The fact is that the majority of guys in-country using optics did not get enough training on optics and in many cases received no training. The two biggest issues we addressed jointly were in regards to the parallax and the reticle focus being used inappropriately. We switched the ocular to a locking type so that they are not tempted to use it as an image focus, left off a parallax adjustment as it was not needed and was only slowing them down and did not illuminate the reticle to keep cost down and maintain the scope’s durability. The FFP simple mil-dot with the posts coming way in is really one of the best things about this scope and you will realize it once you use it. It does a great job on both ends and in low light which makes up for the lack of illumination.

The end result is a K.I.S.S., soldier proof scope....... well it’s not really soldier proof actually as I've seen firsthand what these guys are capable of destroying.

The 3-9x42 is a purpose built scope that when used for what it is intended to be used for works extremely well.

 

[-=boone=-]

Re: SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

@ Swfa,

where is my 4-16 and 5-25 with a mlr type reticle.

 

[Prairie Dog Dundee]

Re: SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

I did not realize that so many of the SS 3-9 scopes were going to our troops. That is great and commendable that SWFA offers a robust product that addresses this need at a price that allows two or three troops to be properly equipped for the same price as the top end scopes. A solder can buy one of these out of pocket and still feed his kids.

The SPR scope is intended to be the red dot of medium range shooting. With a 300 yard zero on a mil dot, if you know your range and trajectory, you can have minute of bad guy accuracy from 100-700 yards with out touching a knob. If you don't know your range you have a mil dot reticule. If you miss, what you see is what you dial when equipped with mil/mil FFP features. Simplicity is the key. Minimize the variables needing attention and you address threats faster. I've been shooting steel IPCS targets for several months just to see what I can do between 300-700 yards with a SPR scope. I just started to time myself and it is getting interesting. The target in the photo was shot with a M1A NM with a SS 3-9 at 500 yards. The SS has everything I need in a rugged package. I understand they have great customer service....haven't needed it.
[imgimg]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Basher]

Re: SWFA SS 3-9x42 vs. IOR 2.5-10x42

I have one mounted on my SPR type build and love it. I've used it a few times for general plinking, and also used it to enter my first F-TR competition at 500 yards. When I arrived, I had to laugh at how "under-gunned" I was. Most of the other shooters had purpose built bolt guns with high magnification scopes. I just had a free-floated 20" AR and was still using the stock chrome-lined barrel and my little SS 3-9x42.

Regardless, I shot anyway and had a blast. I only scored a 455-2x out of 600-60x, but considering how windy it was and that it was my first time, I feel I did a great job. It doesn't help that about 5 of my first "for record" shots were also completing my 500 yard zero (it was zeroed for 100 yards before I arrived).

I feel that 500-600 yards is the maximum effective range of my setup, and was pleased with how well the scope performed. I don't know if the features the IOR has are worth the extra money to me at this point, but YMMV.

But the SS 3-9x42 is a real tough cookie to beat. Mine will be with me for a long time.