I recently picked up a Valdada Recon G2 4.8-30x56 and I have to say that so far I am impressed. We can all read about the scope’s spec on the internet. I am going to try to describe my experience with the scope.
My first impression when I opened the box was that the scope was HUGE. It makes my other scopes look delicate. Turns out that the 40mm main tube made the scope look larger than it really is. It was actually more compact than my Vortex Razor Gen II.
The glass is VERY clear. The picture was warm like the European scopes. Edge to edge clarity is great with no tunneling, greying on the edge or aberrancy that I could see throughout the magnification range. I own Vortex Gen II Razors, Schmidt Bender PM II, Leupold Mark 5, Bushnell HDMR and have access to NIghtforce ATACR and USO B 25 series scopes. I found to my eyes that the scope was as clear as my Schmidt and Bender. I focused all of the scopes mentioned above on a tree 200 yards from my house and asked my wife and her friends to choose the scope with the best picture. Interestingly they all chose the Valdada as the brightest/most clear followed by the Schmidt. The group was split with Nightforce and Leupold being third. . I know… scientific test right? I figured that the opinions of people with no bias might be interesting. We found that we could resolve a group of ants crawling on the trunk of the tree with the Valdada. It’s possible that the additional magnification, 30 vs 25 power, gave it the advantage over the Schmidt, Nightforce and Leupold. The reticle sub tensions are thinner than the previous model Recon. They are thick enough to be picked up rapidly with the eye but thin enough for precise aiming. The reticle is well thought out but I prefer the hold overs of the Vortex EBR-2C and Leupold’s CCH reticle.
The turrets are just about the perfect size and have a great feel and sound to them. They remind me of the turrets that Nightforce produces. What I like about them over the Schmidt and Bender that is my go to scope is that it is very easy to see, feel and hear how much the turret has moved. Those of you that have used scope with small turrets know that sometimes it can be difficult to see the value dialed. The Valdada turrets are very easy to see the dial. One of the complaints that I have read about the earlier IOR/Valdada models was that it was too easy to spin the turret and that they had a tendency to accidentally get moved. I believe that has been fixed on the G2. The turret has to be turned with purpose.
I have read on the Hide that IOR/Valdada scopes have great glass but suffer from mechanical/tracking issues. Time will tell if the scope is durable but I found it to track extremely well when I ran it through three tall target tests. The test was run at 104 yards. My bullets impacted 3.76” per mil dialed. Assuming that 1 mil at 100 yards is 3.59”. One mil at 104 yards should be 3.74”. My field results indicated that my scope tracked within 0.5% of a mil from zero to 12 mils and were repeatable with all three trials. I understand the limitations of a field test without calibrated testing equipment and can only compare these result to scope tested under similar conditions. However to put it in perspective I ran the same test, three times, on a new Leupold Mark 5 and found the error varied from 2% to 11% between zero and 10 mils and it didn’t return to zero.
So far I am very pleased with the Recon G2 scope . Time will tell if it is durable. I plan on using it for the remainder of the match season and will update this post after a few matches of abuse….I mean use.
David
My first impression when I opened the box was that the scope was HUGE. It makes my other scopes look delicate. Turns out that the 40mm main tube made the scope look larger than it really is. It was actually more compact than my Vortex Razor Gen II.
The glass is VERY clear. The picture was warm like the European scopes. Edge to edge clarity is great with no tunneling, greying on the edge or aberrancy that I could see throughout the magnification range. I own Vortex Gen II Razors, Schmidt Bender PM II, Leupold Mark 5, Bushnell HDMR and have access to NIghtforce ATACR and USO B 25 series scopes. I found to my eyes that the scope was as clear as my Schmidt and Bender. I focused all of the scopes mentioned above on a tree 200 yards from my house and asked my wife and her friends to choose the scope with the best picture. Interestingly they all chose the Valdada as the brightest/most clear followed by the Schmidt. The group was split with Nightforce and Leupold being third. . I know… scientific test right? I figured that the opinions of people with no bias might be interesting. We found that we could resolve a group of ants crawling on the trunk of the tree with the Valdada. It’s possible that the additional magnification, 30 vs 25 power, gave it the advantage over the Schmidt, Nightforce and Leupold. The reticle sub tensions are thinner than the previous model Recon. They are thick enough to be picked up rapidly with the eye but thin enough for precise aiming. The reticle is well thought out but I prefer the hold overs of the Vortex EBR-2C and Leupold’s CCH reticle.
The turrets are just about the perfect size and have a great feel and sound to them. They remind me of the turrets that Nightforce produces. What I like about them over the Schmidt and Bender that is my go to scope is that it is very easy to see, feel and hear how much the turret has moved. Those of you that have used scope with small turrets know that sometimes it can be difficult to see the value dialed. The Valdada turrets are very easy to see the dial. One of the complaints that I have read about the earlier IOR/Valdada models was that it was too easy to spin the turret and that they had a tendency to accidentally get moved. I believe that has been fixed on the G2. The turret has to be turned with purpose.
I have read on the Hide that IOR/Valdada scopes have great glass but suffer from mechanical/tracking issues. Time will tell if the scope is durable but I found it to track extremely well when I ran it through three tall target tests. The test was run at 104 yards. My bullets impacted 3.76” per mil dialed. Assuming that 1 mil at 100 yards is 3.59”. One mil at 104 yards should be 3.74”. My field results indicated that my scope tracked within 0.5% of a mil from zero to 12 mils and were repeatable with all three trials. I understand the limitations of a field test without calibrated testing equipment and can only compare these result to scope tested under similar conditions. However to put it in perspective I ran the same test, three times, on a new Leupold Mark 5 and found the error varied from 2% to 11% between zero and 10 mils and it didn’t return to zero.
So far I am very pleased with the Recon G2 scope . Time will tell if it is durable. I plan on using it for the remainder of the match season and will update this post after a few matches of abuse….I mean use.
David
Last edited:
