I have purchased a surgeon rifle and need a scope. I spent all my money on the rifle so I can't fork out a lot on a scope. I was looking at the SWFA SS HD 5-20 and the IOR 6-24x56. Does anyone have experience with these two and if so, could you give me your assessment of the optics and performance of the scopes?
Rifle Scopes IOR or SWFA SS
- Thread starter Timl
- Start date
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
I have a few friends with the SS and I own an IOR 3.5-18. Both are great scopes and you couldn't go wrong with either. The IOR has better glass and the MP-8 reticule is far superior in my opinion, for what that is worth. From my research the 6-24 has some tunnel vision on the lower end. If you plan on shooting much at the bottom end of the magnification then go SS. If not the IOR is feature packed with top end glass.
I have a few friends with the SS and I own an IOR 3.5-18. Both are great scopes and you couldn't go wrong with either. The IOR has better glass and the MP-8 reticule is far superior in my opinion, for what that is worth. From my research the 6-24 has some tunnel vision on the lower end. If you plan on shooting much at the bottom end of the magnification then go SS. If not the IOR is feature packed with top end glass.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
I ended up bitting the bullet and upgrading to a kahles k624i.
I ended up bitting the bullet and upgrading to a kahles k624i.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
Wow that was a pretty big bullet...where are Kahles scopes made and what kind of glass do they use?
Wow that was a pretty big bullet...where are Kahles scopes made and what kind of glass do they use?
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
I don't know if the SWFA scopes have gotten any better but around 16 months ago a friend on another team sent for one, it was a moderate power zoom and many of us looked at it and through it, my friend sent it back without ever mounting it.
I do know IOR scopes and they are excellent, especially at their price.
I don't know if the SWFA scopes have gotten any better but around 16 months ago a friend on another team sent for one, it was a moderate power zoom and many of us looked at it and through it, my friend sent it back without ever mounting it.
I do know IOR scopes and they are excellent, especially at their price.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
I have the SS 5-20 and an IOR 2-12. The glass on the IOR is very good, up there with the clarity of Leica and Swarovski. As stated previously, the MP-8 reticle is great and I also prefer it over the SS reticle but have spent way more time on the MP-8 reticle so maybe the SS will grow with some more time.
I haven't shot the IOR 6-24 but have shot a number of the 3-18 in multiple generation models. The newest ones have been very good as the earlier ones did have a bad tunnel vision effect that you get with all FFP scopes at the higher powers, just varies depending on brand and quality.
Talk to Scott at Liberty Optics as he carries the IOR line and get his direct opinion and recommendation as well. I believe either scopes will suit your needs just fine. The two will only vary slightly in the differences that fit your specific needs.
I have the SS 5-20 and an IOR 2-12. The glass on the IOR is very good, up there with the clarity of Leica and Swarovski. As stated previously, the MP-8 reticle is great and I also prefer it over the SS reticle but have spent way more time on the MP-8 reticle so maybe the SS will grow with some more time.
I haven't shot the IOR 6-24 but have shot a number of the 3-18 in multiple generation models. The newest ones have been very good as the earlier ones did have a bad tunnel vision effect that you get with all FFP scopes at the higher powers, just varies depending on brand and quality.
Talk to Scott at Liberty Optics as he carries the IOR line and get his direct opinion and recommendation as well. I believe either scopes will suit your needs just fine. The two will only vary slightly in the differences that fit your specific needs.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
If the SS 5-20 and the ior 6-24 were in the same price range, which would you choose and why?
If the SS 5-20 and the ior 6-24 were in the same price range, which would you choose and why?
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
I would pick the IOR 4-16 and save a few dollars. Same knobs, reticule, glass quality, decent adjustment range all for less money. Oh yeah 30mm tube so rings can be found all over the place, 35mm mounting is a bit more hassle.
edit: the "moderate" variable suepr sniper was probably the 3-9, it's an excellent scope for 500$ but the power range is a bit limiting and I like a parallax focus at 9-10x.
I would pick the IOR 4-16 and save a few dollars. Same knobs, reticule, glass quality, decent adjustment range all for less money. Oh yeah 30mm tube so rings can be found all over the place, 35mm mounting is a bit more hassle.
edit: the "moderate" variable suepr sniper was probably the 3-9, it's an excellent scope for 500$ but the power range is a bit limiting and I like a parallax focus at 9-10x.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
Avoid IOR ...
Pretty glass and unreliable internals ... if all you want to do is look through the scope the IOR Is fine, but if you intend on using it, odds are it will fail.
Avoid IOR ...
Pretty glass and unreliable internals ... if all you want to do is look through the scope the IOR Is fine, but if you intend on using it, odds are it will fail.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Avoid IOR ...
Pretty glass and unreliable internals ... if all you want to do is look through the scope the IOR Is fine, but if you intend on using it, odds are it will fail. </div></div>
Really? How so?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Avoid IOR ...
Pretty glass and unreliable internals ... if all you want to do is look through the scope the IOR Is fine, but if you intend on using it, odds are it will fail. </div></div>
Really? How so?
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Avoid IOR ...
Pretty glass and unreliable internals ... if all you want to do is look through the scope the IOR Is fine, but if you intend on using it, odds are it will fail. </div></div>
That's definitely NOT my experience.
I have both the scopes in question. I would choose the IOR everyday and twice on Sunday.
Don't get me wrong, the SS is a good buy, but it's not as good a scope, IMO.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Avoid IOR ...
Pretty glass and unreliable internals ... if all you want to do is look through the scope the IOR Is fine, but if you intend on using it, odds are it will fail. </div></div>
That's definitely NOT my experience.
I have both the scopes in question. I would choose the IOR everyday and twice on Sunday.
Don't get me wrong, the SS is a good buy, but it's not as good a scope, IMO.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
Clearly neither of you are paying attention,
Just pull the turret caps off and looks, it's easy to see for yourself.
The number of issue and returns with IOR is huge, why do you think it stays stuff like GEN 4, GEN 3, because of the problems.
Good glass is meaningless when it comes to crappy internals and unreliability like has been seen and discussed at length.
Clearly neither of you are paying attention,
Just pull the turret caps off and looks, it's easy to see for yourself.
The number of issue and returns with IOR is huge, why do you think it stays stuff like GEN 4, GEN 3, because of the problems.
Good glass is meaningless when it comes to crappy internals and unreliability like has been seen and discussed at length.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
I've seen quite a few IOR scopes being used in Afghanistan and Iraq by different NATO forces and US troops and teams. I've used them on both a 300 WM and a 338 having very rough handling they functioned fine and always tracked the line. Any scope can get gubbered I've seen some S&Bs, USOs and NF all fall apart over the years.
Of course if you want a scope that will probably never fail in any way your best bet would be an Elcan Specter.
I've seen quite a few IOR scopes being used in Afghanistan and Iraq by different NATO forces and US troops and teams. I've used them on both a 300 WM and a 338 having very rough handling they functioned fine and always tracked the line. Any scope can get gubbered I've seen some S&Bs, USOs and NF all fall apart over the years.
Of course if you want a scope that will probably never fail in any way your best bet would be an Elcan Specter.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly neither of you are paying attention </div></div>
No, I have no opinion either way. You had originally posted without disclosing the why's of your opinion. I thought clarification was appropriate here.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly neither of you are paying attention </div></div>
No, I have no opinion either way. You had originally posted without disclosing the why's of your opinion. I thought clarification was appropriate here.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
I run a 3-18x42 IOR.
It has been a fantastic scope, though not perfect. (just some idiosyncrasies, nothing to do with operation or reliability)
I will admit, they have had a very checkered past.
I spoke with Scott at Liberty Optics in regards to my concerns, he assured me that the Gen 4 has been nearly trouble free (ALL mechanical devices are subject to failure).
Scott is well known to be a stand up guy that puts customers first.
I don't think you will go wrong with either one.
FWIW, I love the MP8 as a tactical reticle, it is one of the better designs out there for that use, but it is not conducive to shooting tiny groups. If you are looking to shoot benchrest or F Class with hunting/field use included, you might be better served with the SWFA.
ETA: did not notice that OP had gone with Kahles
I run a 3-18x42 IOR.
It has been a fantastic scope, though not perfect. (just some idiosyncrasies, nothing to do with operation or reliability)
I will admit, they have had a very checkered past.
I spoke with Scott at Liberty Optics in regards to my concerns, he assured me that the Gen 4 has been nearly trouble free (ALL mechanical devices are subject to failure).
Scott is well known to be a stand up guy that puts customers first.
I don't think you will go wrong with either one.
FWIW, I love the MP8 as a tactical reticle, it is one of the better designs out there for that use, but it is not conducive to shooting tiny groups. If you are looking to shoot benchrest or F Class with hunting/field use included, you might be better served with the SWFA.
ETA: did not notice that OP had gone with Kahles
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
Thanks for the clarity.
Thanks for the clarity.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
Scott has certainly done a lot to keep the brand alive, but i am sure people who bought the G2, & G3, heard that same thing, that the problems were fixed.
Another issue, the eye relief and the mounting, guys were having a heck of time mounting them correctly because behind the saddle has very little room.
Sure they may have improved "Gen 4" but I wouldn't risk my money when there are so many better brands that are not having these issues. Like I said pull your turret caps off and look inside, it's clear to see when compare to others.
If you like your IOR, more power to you, I am glad it is working out for you, hopefully you're luck will last.
Scott has certainly done a lot to keep the brand alive, but i am sure people who bought the G2, & G3, heard that same thing, that the problems were fixed.
Another issue, the eye relief and the mounting, guys were having a heck of time mounting them correctly because behind the saddle has very little room.
Sure they may have improved "Gen 4" but I wouldn't risk my money when there are so many better brands that are not having these issues. Like I said pull your turret caps off and look inside, it's clear to see when compare to others.
If you like your IOR, more power to you, I am glad it is working out for you, hopefully you're luck will last.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly neither of you are paying attention, </div></div>
Yeah, my experience is NOTHING compared to whatever it is I'm supposed to be paying attention to.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The number of issue and returns with IOR is huge, why do you think it stays stuff like GEN 4, GEN 3, because of the problems. </div></div>
So I assume that Glocks are overrun with problems, and that they are subject to return after return? I mean, they are all the way on Gen 4. That means that Gens 1-3 are worthless, right?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good glass is meaningless when it comes to crappy internals and unreliability like has been seen and discussed at length. </div></div>
Perhaps your own experience is different, but don't try and tell me mine is irrelevant.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly neither of you are paying attention, </div></div>
Yeah, my experience is NOTHING compared to whatever it is I'm supposed to be paying attention to.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The number of issue and returns with IOR is huge, why do you think it stays stuff like GEN 4, GEN 3, because of the problems. </div></div>
So I assume that Glocks are overrun with problems, and that they are subject to return after return? I mean, they are all the way on Gen 4. That means that Gens 1-3 are worthless, right?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good glass is meaningless when it comes to crappy internals and unreliability like has been seen and discussed at length. </div></div>
Perhaps your own experience is different, but don't try and tell me mine is irrelevant.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly neither of you are paying attention, </div></div>
Yeah, my experience is NOTHING compared to whatever it is I'm supposed to be paying attention to.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The number of issue and returns with IOR is huge, why do you think it stays stuff like GEN 4, GEN 3, because of the problems. </div></div>
So I assume that Glocks are overrun with problems, and that they are subject to return after return? I mean, they are all the way on Gen 4. That means that Gens 1-3 are worthless, right?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good glass is meaningless when it comes to crappy internals and unreliability like has been seen and discussed at length. </div></div>
Perhaps your own experience is different, but don't try and tell me mine is irrelevant.</div></div>
I will tell I put no stock in your experience on this subject, because clearly the massive amount of problems have been documented, routinely.
Read above you :
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">I will admit, they have had a very checkered past.</span>
I spoke with Scott at Liberty Optics in regards to my concerns, he assured me that the <span style="font-style: italic">Gen 4 has been nearly trouble free</span></div></div>
Nearly trouble free, well folks invest your money into "nearly trouble free" all you like and ignore the history of the product at your own peril.
The GEN 1s, had scopes failing like clockwork at 200 rounds, It was crazy, then the problems moved to Gen 2, Gen3, etc.
This isnt' a GLOCK...
I absolutely dismiss your experience on this... history is a better tell when comes to this tale. You can ignore me and read it for yourself, it's no secret.
If you value glass over reliability, you're probably just playing with yourself and wouldn't know good or reliable if it bit you.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly neither of you are paying attention, </div></div>
Yeah, my experience is NOTHING compared to whatever it is I'm supposed to be paying attention to.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The number of issue and returns with IOR is huge, why do you think it stays stuff like GEN 4, GEN 3, because of the problems. </div></div>
So I assume that Glocks are overrun with problems, and that they are subject to return after return? I mean, they are all the way on Gen 4. That means that Gens 1-3 are worthless, right?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good glass is meaningless when it comes to crappy internals and unreliability like has been seen and discussed at length. </div></div>
Perhaps your own experience is different, but don't try and tell me mine is irrelevant.</div></div>
I will tell I put no stock in your experience on this subject, because clearly the massive amount of problems have been documented, routinely.
Read above you :
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">I will admit, they have had a very checkered past.</span>
I spoke with Scott at Liberty Optics in regards to my concerns, he assured me that the <span style="font-style: italic">Gen 4 has been nearly trouble free</span></div></div>
Nearly trouble free, well folks invest your money into "nearly trouble free" all you like and ignore the history of the product at your own peril.
The GEN 1s, had scopes failing like clockwork at 200 rounds, It was crazy, then the problems moved to Gen 2, Gen3, etc.
This isnt' a GLOCK...
I absolutely dismiss your experience on this... history is a better tell when comes to this tale. You can ignore me and read it for yourself, it's no secret.
If you value glass over reliability, you're probably just playing with yourself and wouldn't know good or reliable if it bit you.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
i have a gen 3 or whastever gen it is, the ill is on the eyebox mine is a 6-24x50mm and it has amazing glass and tracks perfect and i have had no issues with it since day 1. i have it mounted on a gap 308 with over 4000 rnds through it and i couldnt be happier with my ior. as for super sniper the ones i have looked through gen 1 i believe have been on par with centerpoint from walmart, even the fixed power ss scopes look like ass. maybee then new gen 2 or gen 3 ss are better but im def not impressed.i assume it is like everything else here and becuase they are a site sponsor they can do no wrong just like gap and all the others who are untouchable.
i have a gen 3 or whastever gen it is, the ill is on the eyebox mine is a 6-24x50mm and it has amazing glass and tracks perfect and i have had no issues with it since day 1. i have it mounted on a gap 308 with over 4000 rnds through it and i couldnt be happier with my ior. as for super sniper the ones i have looked through gen 1 i believe have been on par with centerpoint from walmart, even the fixed power ss scopes look like ass. maybee then new gen 2 or gen 3 ss are better but im def not impressed.i assume it is like everything else here and becuase they are a site sponsor they can do no wrong just like gap and all the others who are untouchable.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
the Original Super Sniper Scopes are not the same as the new ones, the name was bought and moved to a new factory and completely redo. It's a different scope made in a different place.
Glad you're 1, IOR works for you... when you move to 2 scopes call us. A broken clock is right twice a day...
the Original Super Sniper Scopes are not the same as the new ones, the name was bought and moved to a new factory and completely redo. It's a different scope made in a different place.
Glad you're 1, IOR works for you... when you move to 2 scopes call us. A broken clock is right twice a day...
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
PS, show me where I have defended GAP, anywhere... never happens because they dont' need it, their product and service speaks for itself and if there are problems they come on and fix it ...
Lame ass BS from guys who can't get past the poor choice in optics. I know it attacks your manhood with the idea YOU made a bad decision. It's sucks, people pointing out problems and that speaks directly to YOU.
In all of this, I never brought up SWFA either, I just said, the truth, to avoid IOR... never praised the SS here once.
PS, show me where I have defended GAP, anywhere... never happens because they dont' need it, their product and service speaks for itself and if there are problems they come on and fix it ...
Lame ass BS from guys who can't get past the poor choice in optics. I know it attacks your manhood with the idea YOU made a bad decision. It's sucks, people pointing out problems and that speaks directly to YOU.
In all of this, I never brought up SWFA either, I just said, the truth, to avoid IOR... never praised the SS here once.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
ok so does that make the newer ss gen 2 or are they on gen3? why did they sell out or change factorys were there issues? whats the story lowlight can you elaborate on this for the people who dont know the ss story.
ok so does that make the newer ss gen 2 or are they on gen3? why did they sell out or change factorys were there issues? whats the story lowlight can you elaborate on this for the people who dont know the ss story.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
They bought the NAME ... do you understand ENGLISH, SWFA bought the name from Tasco, and then took the manufacturing to a completely different factory and started over. Heck even the Premier's have a GEN version, there are original Premiers that can't even interchange with the new ones, but very people know about.
It was optics dealer who got into the business, and it really depends on which Super Sniper because it was always designed to be a Low Cost solution, if guys want to make it more than it is, that is your problem. If you want to compare a $299 model SS with a $1600 IOR be my guess, but don't be surprised when you look stupid doing it... why not compare your IOR to S&B, Kahles, or those scopes, they are European Made, would you do that ?
Compare your IOR to a S&B ?
They bought the NAME ... do you understand ENGLISH, SWFA bought the name from Tasco, and then took the manufacturing to a completely different factory and started over. Heck even the Premier's have a GEN version, there are original Premiers that can't even interchange with the new ones, but very people know about.
It was optics dealer who got into the business, and it really depends on which Super Sniper because it was always designed to be a Low Cost solution, if guys want to make it more than it is, that is your problem. If you want to compare a $299 model SS with a $1600 IOR be my guess, but don't be surprised when you look stupid doing it... why not compare your IOR to S&B, Kahles, or those scopes, they are European Made, would you do that ?
Compare your IOR to a S&B ?
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
so ss was made by tasco probly in china as gen 1 then the name was sold and the plant was moved to somewhere else in china most likly then they are gen2 and now they are by your words a lower cost solution for 299.00 but now have scopes well over 1,500.00 bucks wich i guess are gen 3. and you are telling me that ior is much better than ss so we should compare them to other higher end scopes? does anyone else feel like this thread just took a 180? im confused now , is ior good and ss bad or is ss good and ior bad? and what gen are both on?
so ss was made by tasco probly in china as gen 1 then the name was sold and the plant was moved to somewhere else in china most likly then they are gen2 and now they are by your words a lower cost solution for 299.00 but now have scopes well over 1,500.00 bucks wich i guess are gen 3. and you are telling me that ior is much better than ss so we should compare them to other higher end scopes? does anyone else feel like this thread just took a 180? im confused now , is ior good and ss bad or is ss good and ior bad? and what gen are both on?
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
Different models, D'uh
The new ones are made in Japan, same place they make Bushnell, some NF too.
The $1500 is different from the $299 do you not understand models ?
The $1500 Super Sniper, the FFP 5-20x, is better than the IOR, they have various models of SS, some cost more than the others.
The $299 fixed 10x or 16x or whatever they are is a different animal, you are comparing the $299 version when talking about the $1500 and because you saw an older one is not the same as seeing the $1500 one. There is a difference in the build, which is why it cost more.
Different models, D'uh
The new ones are made in Japan, same place they make Bushnell, some NF too.
The $1500 is different from the $299 do you not understand models ?
The $1500 Super Sniper, the FFP 5-20x, is better than the IOR, they have various models of SS, some cost more than the others.
The $299 fixed 10x or 16x or whatever they are is a different animal, you are comparing the $299 version when talking about the $1500 and because you saw an older one is not the same as seeing the $1500 one. There is a difference in the build, which is why it cost more.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
oh ok that cleared everything up. i guess for me i would just rather have a 1,500.00 snipershide edition ior than the 1,500.00 ss but then again i already own and am very happy with my ior scopes so i wont be taking any chances on a genx ss when i could have an ior for the same coin.
thanks lowlight for clearing up all the gen1 gen 2 originally made here name bought there new model old model ss facts for me .
i hope this info helped the op.
oh ok that cleared everything up. i guess for me i would just rather have a 1,500.00 snipershide edition ior than the 1,500.00 ss but then again i already own and am very happy with my ior scopes so i wont be taking any chances on a genx ss when i could have an ior for the same coin.
thanks lowlight for clearing up all the gen1 gen 2 originally made here name bought there new model old model ss facts for me .
i hope this info helped the op.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
Maybe this will help...
Vortex has a Razor HD mode, which cost $1999 and they have a PST VIper Line which cost $699...
If a guy asks about a Razor, and you say, you saw a Viper and it sucked compared to your IOR, most people would say, yes, you are comparing the Budget Line of scope, not the Razor... yet the Razor is much better than your IOR.
See the difference a different model makes... you said the fixed 10X was ass, sure that is a $299 scope, and then you tried to overlay that part of your experience to the FFP 5-20x which costs $1500, doesn't work like that, sure if helps you feel better about your IOR.
"well I saw a fixed SS and it sucked ass compared to my IOR, so get that", never saying you saw the $299 model and not the $1500. In fact you might have saw the Tasco version by your own admission and are comparing it too the SWFA model.
The 180 is on you.
Maybe this will help...
Vortex has a Razor HD mode, which cost $1999 and they have a PST VIper Line which cost $699...
If a guy asks about a Razor, and you say, you saw a Viper and it sucked compared to your IOR, most people would say, yes, you are comparing the Budget Line of scope, not the Razor... yet the Razor is much better than your IOR.
See the difference a different model makes... you said the fixed 10X was ass, sure that is a $299 scope, and then you tried to overlay that part of your experience to the FFP 5-20x which costs $1500, doesn't work like that, sure if helps you feel better about your IOR.
"well I saw a fixed SS and it sucked ass compared to my IOR, so get that", never saying you saw the $299 model and not the $1500. In fact you might have saw the Tasco version by your own admission and are comparing it too the SWFA model.
The 180 is on you.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
By the way,
THERE IS NO SH EDITION IOR,
This site had absolutely NOTHING TO DO with that scope. Some members worked with Scott at Liberty and had IOR make the scope.
Sniper's Hide had nothing to to with it, did not authorize the use of the name, and completely disavows any connection to that scope. We were NOT asked permission to call it that, we would NOT give IOR permission to use our name in the first place.
IOR does not have our permission to use the Sniper's Hide name in any way.
By the way,
THERE IS NO SH EDITION IOR,
This site had absolutely NOTHING TO DO with that scope. Some members worked with Scott at Liberty and had IOR make the scope.
Sniper's Hide had nothing to to with it, did not authorize the use of the name, and completely disavows any connection to that scope. We were NOT asked permission to call it that, we would NOT give IOR permission to use our name in the first place.
IOR does not have our permission to use the Sniper's Hide name in any way.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
It certainly looks like someone has an axe to grind.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: "Lowlight"</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will tell I put no stock in your experience on this subject, because clearly the massive amount of problems have been documented, routinely.</div></div>
I never asked you to put stock in my experience. I asked you not to tell me that I shouldn't put stock in my own experience.
And it sounds as if Frank is basing his entire line of reasoning from the equivalent of book learning rather than actually testing the scope in question (IOR 3.5-18x50) himself. He has a very thorough testing regiment that would shed light on the argument. He probably should use it before telling others who have had good experiences with the IOR to disregard said experiences.
It certainly looks like someone has an axe to grind.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: "Lowlight"</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will tell I put no stock in your experience on this subject, because clearly the massive amount of problems have been documented, routinely.</div></div>
I never asked you to put stock in my experience. I asked you not to tell me that I shouldn't put stock in my own experience.
And it sounds as if Frank is basing his entire line of reasoning from the equivalent of book learning rather than actually testing the scope in question (IOR 3.5-18x50) himself. He has a very thorough testing regiment that would shed light on the argument. He probably should use it before telling others who have had good experiences with the IOR to disregard said experiences.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
Well eleaf, what is your threshold for too many problematic reports? If you google "IOR Valdada problems", you will see plenty of threads on the issues IOR has had. This past year I believe there was a thread on here about a serviceman using one, it crapping out on him, and then IOR giving him shit for the repair. If it weren't for Scott at Liberty Optics (top notch guy by the way), I doubt he would have ever gotten it sorted out.
I think that is what Frank is trying to say. While some of the IOR scopes have worked out well for plenty of people, there is a disproportionate amount of problems when compared to the likes of Vortex, Nightforce, SWFA, USO, etc. Based on the issues posted here and various other forums, it would be better for a new guy's initial scope purchase (or someone buying without handling a scope) to be with another manufacturer.
I initially thought about buying an IOR, but ultimately went with a Vortex PST. It has slightly less clarity, but I've verified it's tracking with a box test. The issues I read with IOR drove me away, but I don't regret my PSTs!
Well eleaf, what is your threshold for too many problematic reports? If you google "IOR Valdada problems", you will see plenty of threads on the issues IOR has had. This past year I believe there was a thread on here about a serviceman using one, it crapping out on him, and then IOR giving him shit for the repair. If it weren't for Scott at Liberty Optics (top notch guy by the way), I doubt he would have ever gotten it sorted out.
I think that is what Frank is trying to say. While some of the IOR scopes have worked out well for plenty of people, there is a disproportionate amount of problems when compared to the likes of Vortex, Nightforce, SWFA, USO, etc. Based on the issues posted here and various other forums, it would be better for a new guy's initial scope purchase (or someone buying without handling a scope) to be with another manufacturer.
I initially thought about buying an IOR, but ultimately went with a Vortex PST. It has slightly less clarity, but I've verified it's tracking with a box test. The issues I read with IOR drove me away, but I don't regret my PSTs!
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
I personally know of two Gen-3 IOR 6-24x56 35mm FFP scopes,here in Las Vegas right before my eyes took a big dump.
In both cases the scopes would no longer hold parallax.
I personally know of two Gen-3 IOR 6-24x56 35mm FFP scopes,here in Las Vegas right before my eyes took a big dump.
In both cases the scopes would no longer hold parallax.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Halcyon612</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well eleaf, what is your threshold for too many problematic reports? If you google "IOR Valdada problems", you will see plenty of threads on the issues IOR has had. This past year I believe there was a thread on here about a serviceman using one, it crapping out on him, and then IOR giving him shit for the repair. If it weren't for Scott at Liberty Optics (top notch guy by the way), I doubt he would have ever gotten it sorted out.
I think that is what Frank is trying to say. While some of the IOR scopes have worked out well for plenty of people, there is a disproportionate amount of problems when compared to the likes of Vortex, Nightforce, SWFA, USO, etc. Based on the issues posted here and various other forums, it would be better for a new guy's initial scope purchase (or someone buying without handling a scope) to be with another manufacturer.
I initially thought about buying an IOR, but ultimately went with a Vortex PST. It has slightly less clarity, but I've verified it's tracking with a box test. The issues I read with IOR drove me away, but I don't regret my PSTs! </div></div>
What criteria are we using to gauge these reports? MY OWN REPORT is that the 3.5-18x50 is a quality scope that works great. Why should I prioritize any of the other anecdotes ahead of my own? They are no more than individual anecdotes, just like my own.
But if we're going to rely on anecdotes, it's best to allow apples to be compared to apples.
Don't look up "IOR issues" or what-have-you, look up "IOR Gen 4 3.5-18x50 issues" or what-have-you. Does it matter if a Gen 2 IOR scope might have had issues a decade ago if a current Gen 4 doesn't?
I'm not trying to speak for every IOR scope made for all time. I too read the reports before I bought mine. I'm only speaking to my experience with one of their scopes; the same as the one the OP asked about.
I've read about any number of scopes from any number of manufacturers used by servicemen that have taken a shit. I'm sure if you look hard enough, even the venerable ACOG has taken a shit at some point. Red dots take shits. In early versions of the SS 1-4x (which I own), there was an issue with the battery spring that sometimes made it so that good contact could not be maintained and the illumination would go out. Anecdote is not a substitute for data.
To point: how many stories have you read about an M4 or M16 taking a shit when being used by servicemen? I've read and heard many from servicemen. Should a serviceman who has never had any issues with his standard issue M4 take the word of those servicemen over his own experience? Do you write off an entire platform because of anecdotal evidence? Some may, and that is their right to do so, but I would argue that the markets, military, LE, and consumer, have not. It's generally seen as a reliable platform.
And no, that isn't at all what Frank was trying to say. He's saying that individuals ought to rely on the second hand reports of others rather than one's own experience.
I was in angst about my scope purchase too. And I don't regret the purchase at all (in full disclosure, I have since sold that scope because I sold the rifle I bought it for). I too have verified the tracking (on both knob positions - IOR has a setting that allows for separate zeros so that it can be used on a gun w/ and without suppressor/different ammo/etc). I have verified the zero-stop. I'm not saying that it's the best scope ever developed, or that it's somehow not subject to any issues ever, but I am saying exactly what I said in my first post in this thread: it's not my experience that the scope in question is anything but a great piece of kit.
That me trusting my experience is grounds for me "not listening" is horse shit.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Halcyon612</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well eleaf, what is your threshold for too many problematic reports? If you google "IOR Valdada problems", you will see plenty of threads on the issues IOR has had. This past year I believe there was a thread on here about a serviceman using one, it crapping out on him, and then IOR giving him shit for the repair. If it weren't for Scott at Liberty Optics (top notch guy by the way), I doubt he would have ever gotten it sorted out.
I think that is what Frank is trying to say. While some of the IOR scopes have worked out well for plenty of people, there is a disproportionate amount of problems when compared to the likes of Vortex, Nightforce, SWFA, USO, etc. Based on the issues posted here and various other forums, it would be better for a new guy's initial scope purchase (or someone buying without handling a scope) to be with another manufacturer.
I initially thought about buying an IOR, but ultimately went with a Vortex PST. It has slightly less clarity, but I've verified it's tracking with a box test. The issues I read with IOR drove me away, but I don't regret my PSTs! </div></div>
What criteria are we using to gauge these reports? MY OWN REPORT is that the 3.5-18x50 is a quality scope that works great. Why should I prioritize any of the other anecdotes ahead of my own? They are no more than individual anecdotes, just like my own.
But if we're going to rely on anecdotes, it's best to allow apples to be compared to apples.
Don't look up "IOR issues" or what-have-you, look up "IOR Gen 4 3.5-18x50 issues" or what-have-you. Does it matter if a Gen 2 IOR scope might have had issues a decade ago if a current Gen 4 doesn't?
I'm not trying to speak for every IOR scope made for all time. I too read the reports before I bought mine. I'm only speaking to my experience with one of their scopes; the same as the one the OP asked about.
I've read about any number of scopes from any number of manufacturers used by servicemen that have taken a shit. I'm sure if you look hard enough, even the venerable ACOG has taken a shit at some point. Red dots take shits. In early versions of the SS 1-4x (which I own), there was an issue with the battery spring that sometimes made it so that good contact could not be maintained and the illumination would go out. Anecdote is not a substitute for data.
To point: how many stories have you read about an M4 or M16 taking a shit when being used by servicemen? I've read and heard many from servicemen. Should a serviceman who has never had any issues with his standard issue M4 take the word of those servicemen over his own experience? Do you write off an entire platform because of anecdotal evidence? Some may, and that is their right to do so, but I would argue that the markets, military, LE, and consumer, have not. It's generally seen as a reliable platform.
And no, that isn't at all what Frank was trying to say. He's saying that individuals ought to rely on the second hand reports of others rather than one's own experience.
I was in angst about my scope purchase too. And I don't regret the purchase at all (in full disclosure, I have since sold that scope because I sold the rifle I bought it for). I too have verified the tracking (on both knob positions - IOR has a setting that allows for separate zeros so that it can be used on a gun w/ and without suppressor/different ammo/etc). I have verified the zero-stop. I'm not saying that it's the best scope ever developed, or that it's somehow not subject to any issues ever, but I am saying exactly what I said in my first post in this thread: it's not my experience that the scope in question is anything but a great piece of kit.
That me trusting my experience is grounds for me "not listening" is horse shit.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It certainly looks like someone has an axe to grind.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: "Lowlight"</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will tell I put no stock in your experience on this subject, because clearly the massive amount of problems have been documented, routinely.</div></div>
I never asked you to put stock in my experience. I asked you not to tell me that I shouldn't put stock in my own experience.
And it sounds as if Frank is basing his entire line of reasoning from the equivalent of book learning rather than actually testing the scope in question (IOR 3.5-18x50) himself. He has a very thorough testing regiment that would shed light on the argument. He probably should use it before telling others who have had good experiences with the IOR to disregard said experiences.</div></div>
I have had a 3-18x, sold it right away. I have more scopes than most people might realize, not only do I use them, test them, I also see them in classes.
So believe me, I have plenty of experience with them, from multiple angles and in my opinion it's not worth the effort. The 3-18x I had is gone... no interest in pursuing them any further.
I also agree Scott is the only reason they have maintain any existence up to this point. If it wasn't for Liberty the line would have died on the vine here in the US, the problems would have eclipsed the value. He is the only thing adding value.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It certainly looks like someone has an axe to grind.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: "Lowlight"</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will tell I put no stock in your experience on this subject, because clearly the massive amount of problems have been documented, routinely.</div></div>
I never asked you to put stock in my experience. I asked you not to tell me that I shouldn't put stock in my own experience.
And it sounds as if Frank is basing his entire line of reasoning from the equivalent of book learning rather than actually testing the scope in question (IOR 3.5-18x50) himself. He has a very thorough testing regiment that would shed light on the argument. He probably should use it before telling others who have had good experiences with the IOR to disregard said experiences.</div></div>
I have had a 3-18x, sold it right away. I have more scopes than most people might realize, not only do I use them, test them, I also see them in classes.
So believe me, I have plenty of experience with them, from multiple angles and in my opinion it's not worth the effort. The 3-18x I had is gone... no interest in pursuing them any further.
I also agree Scott is the only reason they have maintain any existence up to this point. If it wasn't for Liberty the line would have died on the vine here in the US, the problems would have eclipsed the value. He is the only thing adding value.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I have had a 3-18x, sold it right away. I have more scopes than most people might realize, not only do I use them, test them,<span style="font-weight: bold"> <span style="color: #FF0000">I also see them in classes</span></span>.
</div></div>
What some of you blokes are failing to appreciate is the fact that a precision rifle instructor would see multiple versions of all brands of scopes come through their classes and see them fail in greater numbers than an individual user and also see which ones prevail and perform as required.
Run a class of 10 people every month for 10 years (for example)and you will have a pretty good idea of the merits of most systems available i would imagine
so the experience Lowlight is citing is going to be reflective of the fact he has seen more users and more of these scopes than an individual user.
just because yours works is not a good reason to recommend a purchase.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I have had a 3-18x, sold it right away. I have more scopes than most people might realize, not only do I use them, test them,<span style="font-weight: bold"> <span style="color: #FF0000">I also see them in classes</span></span>.
</div></div>
What some of you blokes are failing to appreciate is the fact that a precision rifle instructor would see multiple versions of all brands of scopes come through their classes and see them fail in greater numbers than an individual user and also see which ones prevail and perform as required.
Run a class of 10 people every month for 10 years (for example)and you will have a pretty good idea of the merits of most systems available i would imagine
so the experience Lowlight is citing is going to be reflective of the fact he has seen more users and more of these scopes than an individual user.
just because yours works is not a good reason to recommend a purchase.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
I have both scopes and multiples of both the SWFA and IOR's. I shoot the IOR on my go to rifle.
IOR must have pissed off Snipers Hide...never have seen Lowlight dog something this bad.
I have both scopes and multiples of both the SWFA and IOR's. I shoot the IOR on my go to rifle.
IOR must have pissed off Snipers Hide...never have seen Lowlight dog something this bad.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
im sure if they were a sponsor he would love them. his exp can translate through his keyboard in any fashion he chooses. thats the benefit of being king shit on turd island as far as snipershide is concerned. i would use an ior over a ss anyday and i use my equip as hard as anyone here. maybee talk to one of the sight sponsors and see if they will ship you one of each to compare and then return the one you dont want or hell ask lowlight to loan you one of his and maybee you could see which one you like first hand then purchase it.
im sure if they were a sponsor he would love them. his exp can translate through his keyboard in any fashion he chooses. thats the benefit of being king shit on turd island as far as snipershide is concerned. i would use an ior over a ss anyday and i use my equip as hard as anyone here. maybee talk to one of the sight sponsors and see if they will ship you one of each to compare and then return the one you dont want or hell ask lowlight to loan you one of his and maybee you could see which one you like first hand then purchase it.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
I have no interest in them being a sponsor... still butt hurt I see ?
Regardless of what you say, I have had one, got rid of it, and Valdada is right here in CO so if I wanted them to be a sponsor I could have easily made it happen. I turn down companies all the time and in fact I have had products for review and tossed them back as being shit rather than come on here and sing their praises. Some people will address the problem, others will disappear into the fog. Still I don't sell my reviews, I don't force them to give me anything and in fact most companies have you sign a letter to use the product and then return it.
What you think you know and how things actually work are pretty damn close to exactly opposite. I offer anyone to independently call a "Sponsor" and ask them how I treat them, or if I give favorable reviews just because. Anyone who has spent 5 minutes with me in person know I will tell you how it is straight up and I never spend other peoples money simply because someone has a banner ad on here.
I could have easily sic'd my lawyers on them (IOR) for calling their scope the "sniper's hide edition" without my permission, and made sure nobody else ever associated this site with those scopes. After all I did go through the effort to trademark the place. If it was about the money, they would be sued by now.
Sorry your manly hood was bruised by my experience on the matter, would you like me to send you a Super Sniper to play with so you can compare, as obviously you have never used one of the 5-20xs or seen one.
When you go to piss tonight, I bet your dick looks a bit smaller after the horrible optics decision you made. LOL
I have no interest in them being a sponsor... still butt hurt I see ?
Regardless of what you say, I have had one, got rid of it, and Valdada is right here in CO so if I wanted them to be a sponsor I could have easily made it happen. I turn down companies all the time and in fact I have had products for review and tossed them back as being shit rather than come on here and sing their praises. Some people will address the problem, others will disappear into the fog. Still I don't sell my reviews, I don't force them to give me anything and in fact most companies have you sign a letter to use the product and then return it.
What you think you know and how things actually work are pretty damn close to exactly opposite. I offer anyone to independently call a "Sponsor" and ask them how I treat them, or if I give favorable reviews just because. Anyone who has spent 5 minutes with me in person know I will tell you how it is straight up and I never spend other peoples money simply because someone has a banner ad on here.
I could have easily sic'd my lawyers on them (IOR) for calling their scope the "sniper's hide edition" without my permission, and made sure nobody else ever associated this site with those scopes. After all I did go through the effort to trademark the place. If it was about the money, they would be sued by now.
Sorry your manly hood was bruised by my experience on the matter, would you like me to send you a Super Sniper to play with so you can compare, as obviously you have never used one of the 5-20xs or seen one.
When you go to piss tonight, I bet your dick looks a bit smaller after the horrible optics decision you made. LOL
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have no interest in them being a sponsor... still butt hurt I see ?
Regardless of what you say, I have had one, got rid of it, and Valdada is right here in CO so if I wanted them to be a sponsor I could have easily made it happen. I turn down companies all the time and in fact I have had products for review and tossed them back as being shit rather than come on here and sing their praises. Some people will address the problem, others will disappear into the fog. Still I don't sell my reviews, I don't force them to give me anything and in fact most companies have you sign a letter to use the product and then return it.
What you think you know and how things actually work are pretty damn close to exactly opposite. I offer anyone to independently call a "Sponsor" and ask them how I treat them, or if I give favorable reviews just because. Anyone who has spent 5 minutes with me in person know I will tell you how it is straight up and I never spend other peoples money simply because someone has a banner ad on here.
I could have easily sic'd my lawyers on them (IOR) for calling their scope the "sniper's hide edition" without my permission, and made sure nobody else ever associated this site with those scopes. After all I did go through the effort to trademark the place. If it was about the money, they would be sued by now.
Sorry your manly hood was bruised by my experience on the matter, would you like me to send you a Super Sniper to play with so you can compare, as obviously you have never used one of the 5-20xs or seen one.
When you go to piss tonight, I bet your dick looks a bit smaller after the horrible optics decision you made. LOL
</div></div>
LMFAO!!! Happy New Year, LL. -Sam
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have no interest in them being a sponsor... still butt hurt I see ?
Regardless of what you say, I have had one, got rid of it, and Valdada is right here in CO so if I wanted them to be a sponsor I could have easily made it happen. I turn down companies all the time and in fact I have had products for review and tossed them back as being shit rather than come on here and sing their praises. Some people will address the problem, others will disappear into the fog. Still I don't sell my reviews, I don't force them to give me anything and in fact most companies have you sign a letter to use the product and then return it.
What you think you know and how things actually work are pretty damn close to exactly opposite. I offer anyone to independently call a "Sponsor" and ask them how I treat them, or if I give favorable reviews just because. Anyone who has spent 5 minutes with me in person know I will tell you how it is straight up and I never spend other peoples money simply because someone has a banner ad on here.
I could have easily sic'd my lawyers on them (IOR) for calling their scope the "sniper's hide edition" without my permission, and made sure nobody else ever associated this site with those scopes. After all I did go through the effort to trademark the place. If it was about the money, they would be sued by now.
Sorry your manly hood was bruised by my experience on the matter, would you like me to send you a Super Sniper to play with so you can compare, as obviously you have never used one of the 5-20xs or seen one.
When you go to piss tonight, I bet your dick looks a bit smaller after the horrible optics decision you made. LOL
</div></div>
LMFAO!!! Happy New Year, LL. -Sam
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
You too Sam,
See you 2013
You too Sam,
See you 2013
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
I would have built a savage and got a uso lol just my 3 cents
I would have built a savage and got a uso lol just my 3 cents
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It certainly looks like someone has an axe to grind.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: "Lowlight"</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will tell I put no stock in your experience on this subject, because clearly the massive amount of problems have been documented, routinely.</div></div>
I never asked you to put stock in my experience. I asked you not to tell me that I shouldn't put stock in my own experience.
And it sounds as if Frank is basing his entire line of reasoning from the equivalent of book learning rather than actually testing the scope in question (IOR 3.5-18x50) himself. He has a very thorough testing regiment that would shed light on the argument. He probably should use it before telling others who have had good experiences with the IOR to disregard said experiences.</div></div>
I have had a 3-18x, sold it right away. I have more scopes than most people might realize, not only do I use them, test them, I also see them in classes.
So believe me, I have plenty of experience with them, from multiple angles and in my opinion it's not worth the effort. The 3-18x I had is gone... no interest in pursuing them any further.
I also agree Scott is the only reason they have maintain any existence up to this point. If it wasn't for Liberty the line would have died on the vine here in the US, the problems would have eclipsed the value. He is the only thing adding value. </div></div>
But have you used the scope in question? You cite the 3-18x; the OP is about the 3.5-18x50. Those are separate scopes with different internals.
I'm not trying to say that you don't have grounds to dismiss the IOR. You certainly have more experience with both using scopes and, as you noted, you've seen tons more in the classes you teach.
But that still doesn't supersede my rather good experience with them. That is where my beef is: LL insisting that my experience with them is "not listening."
All I noted was that my experience was a good one.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It certainly looks like someone has an axe to grind.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: "Lowlight"</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will tell I put no stock in your experience on this subject, because clearly the massive amount of problems have been documented, routinely.</div></div>
I never asked you to put stock in my experience. I asked you not to tell me that I shouldn't put stock in my own experience.
And it sounds as if Frank is basing his entire line of reasoning from the equivalent of book learning rather than actually testing the scope in question (IOR 3.5-18x50) himself. He has a very thorough testing regiment that would shed light on the argument. He probably should use it before telling others who have had good experiences with the IOR to disregard said experiences.</div></div>
I have had a 3-18x, sold it right away. I have more scopes than most people might realize, not only do I use them, test them, I also see them in classes.
So believe me, I have plenty of experience with them, from multiple angles and in my opinion it's not worth the effort. The 3-18x I had is gone... no interest in pursuing them any further.
I also agree Scott is the only reason they have maintain any existence up to this point. If it wasn't for Liberty the line would have died on the vine here in the US, the problems would have eclipsed the value. He is the only thing adding value. </div></div>
But have you used the scope in question? You cite the 3-18x; the OP is about the 3.5-18x50. Those are separate scopes with different internals.
I'm not trying to say that you don't have grounds to dismiss the IOR. You certainly have more experience with both using scopes and, as you noted, you've seen tons more in the classes you teach.
But that still doesn't supersede my rather good experience with them. That is where my beef is: LL insisting that my experience with them is "not listening."
All I noted was that my experience was a good one.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
yes, hence my charge of the lack of space behind the saddle...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another issue, the eye relief and the mounting, guys were having a heck of time mounting them correctly because behind the saddle has very little room. </div></div>
Several have crossed my path, you would have to show me the "improved" internals as I don't recall seeing any difference, I tend to remember the same skinny post up the center, but I will admit I maybe overlaying the 3-18x with the 3.5-18x, however I have been around that scope. I have seen people use the "terminator" one too... as that model has showed up on the line several times.
Like i said, they are based in CO so a lot of dealers carry them here. In fact I was sitting at Mile High this week, (Thursday) and a guy came in and wanted to unload his new 4-14x and was actually looking at either the Leupold or Bushnell and they didn't want to take it in on trade. It wasn't even a negotiation thing, just a no.
Like was posted, 7 years at RO, plus doing classes every month locally, 10 people per class minimum, I tend to see a lot.
yes, hence my charge of the lack of space behind the saddle...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another issue, the eye relief and the mounting, guys were having a heck of time mounting them correctly because behind the saddle has very little room. </div></div>
Several have crossed my path, you would have to show me the "improved" internals as I don't recall seeing any difference, I tend to remember the same skinny post up the center, but I will admit I maybe overlaying the 3-18x with the 3.5-18x, however I have been around that scope. I have seen people use the "terminator" one too... as that model has showed up on the line several times.
Like i said, they are based in CO so a lot of dealers carry them here. In fact I was sitting at Mile High this week, (Thursday) and a guy came in and wanted to unload his new 4-14x and was actually looking at either the Leupold or Bushnell and they didn't want to take it in on trade. It wasn't even a negotiation thing, just a no.
Like was posted, 7 years at RO, plus doing classes every month locally, 10 people per class minimum, I tend to see a lot.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
So guys with small dicks like IOR's? Well, i don't own IOR but I do own a SS12x & soon the SS 1-6. So I'm good, right?
So guys with small dicks like IOR's? Well, i don't own IOR but I do own a SS12x & soon the SS 1-6. So I'm good, right?
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
I might provide also an info or two as i own 3.5-18 and had problem with dirt inside and sent it back for cleaning only to have dirt inside again and deciding to live with it. Scope works (for now - with me hitting the wood violently with my forehead) is actually one of the best for my eyes and cross is just about perfect but its a pain in the ass to mount (had to compromise on LOP to have it comfy) even with reworked tube on gen4. With prices gone up this scope line has suddenly found itself not so attractive. Here in Slovenia i know for at least 4 scopes (out of approx 20 known) to have broken down due to various reasons (none being other than shooting - not as a target but on the rifle as i know quite a few who would gladly put that scope on the line and have at it).
If i were in US with Scott being able to service my purchases i'd buy IOR again however once you do real honest evaluation of what is priority and what is actually needed from a riflescope i'm sorry to say IOR may be attractive at 1000$ but certainly not at 1.5k. For those who have 1.5k to spent i'm pretty sure each and everyone can add 500 to get to more reliable brands or at least brands with real quality customer service (now speaking about Europe situation not US).
I might provide also an info or two as i own 3.5-18 and had problem with dirt inside and sent it back for cleaning only to have dirt inside again and deciding to live with it. Scope works (for now - with me hitting the wood violently with my forehead) is actually one of the best for my eyes and cross is just about perfect but its a pain in the ass to mount (had to compromise on LOP to have it comfy) even with reworked tube on gen4. With prices gone up this scope line has suddenly found itself not so attractive. Here in Slovenia i know for at least 4 scopes (out of approx 20 known) to have broken down due to various reasons (none being other than shooting - not as a target but on the rifle as i know quite a few who would gladly put that scope on the line and have at it).
If i were in US with Scott being able to service my purchases i'd buy IOR again however once you do real honest evaluation of what is priority and what is actually needed from a riflescope i'm sorry to say IOR may be attractive at 1000$ but certainly not at 1.5k. For those who have 1.5k to spent i'm pretty sure each and everyone can add 500 to get to more reliable brands or at least brands with real quality customer service (now speaking about Europe situation not US).
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Another issue, the eye relief and the mounting, guys were having a heck of time mounting them correctly because behind the saddle has very little room.
</div></div>
I had one of those, it broke, replacement was fine though. Tube design and eye relief were horrible for anything but a 308 AR but great for that. Maybe 1500-1800 rounds on a DPMS SASS and then sold it to someone on this site, he hasn't complained at me so it's probably working for him too.
And yes I cranked the knobs regularly, I used to spin the shit out of the elevation knob for fun and it always returned to zero + impacts followed the reticule, box tests, etc. It always worked, held zero/tracked which is more than I can say for my Mark 4. I used to put my DPMS SASS and rem 700 w/leupie in the same case, toss it in the back of the truck and the leupie would lose zero
. But try saying that on a certain hunting forum and see what happens...
TL;DR = I liked my horrible ior 3-18, would buy another, only thing is now they are around 1700 and at that price the Razor HD is only a stone's throw away and in my opinion it's a better scope with better reticule choices and build quality. And when you have the bushnell HDMR, SUper Sniper 5-20, Vortex PST 6-24, all for hundreds of dollars less, well...
But that's just my opinion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Another issue, the eye relief and the mounting, guys were having a heck of time mounting them correctly because behind the saddle has very little room.
</div></div>
I had one of those, it broke, replacement was fine though. Tube design and eye relief were horrible for anything but a 308 AR but great for that. Maybe 1500-1800 rounds on a DPMS SASS and then sold it to someone on this site, he hasn't complained at me so it's probably working for him too.
And yes I cranked the knobs regularly, I used to spin the shit out of the elevation knob for fun and it always returned to zero + impacts followed the reticule, box tests, etc. It always worked, held zero/tracked which is more than I can say for my Mark 4. I used to put my DPMS SASS and rem 700 w/leupie in the same case, toss it in the back of the truck and the leupie would lose zero
TL;DR = I liked my horrible ior 3-18, would buy another, only thing is now they are around 1700 and at that price the Razor HD is only a stone's throw away and in my opinion it's a better scope with better reticule choices and build quality. And when you have the bushnell HDMR, SUper Sniper 5-20, Vortex PST 6-24, all for hundreds of dollars less, well...
But that's just my opinion.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
My IOR 10x42SF has been tough as nails.
I'm paranoid about optics, i've never owned a variable.
My instructors in the military always said that variables were gauranteed to break the first time you bumped, and though times have obviously changed, I still get a knot in my gut at the thought of spending a grand on a variable. My issue daysight in the military was an old m3 ultra fixed 6x.
When I was shopping for a scope, I wanted the clearest glass I could afford, and ended up getting an IOR because of the glass clarity. I wasn't about to take any chances on a variable though, i got the 10x42SF.
The first time a 40mph gust of wind blew the rifle over while it was sitting on the concrete, and it landed on the windage turret I about shat myself. It held its zero and was undamaged, so i was pretty happy.
A year later, at the same range, range 13, Ft Huachuca AZ, it was sitting on a table and another hard gust of wind blew it over and off the table. It landed on the freaking scope again, this time the elevation turret as it landed upside down.
This time it was about 2 minutes high, still dead on windage. I rezeroed it and did a box test, which it passed.
I don't know how tough the variables are, not much i'd guess, but the 10x42 is tough.
Just my opinion, others mileage may vary.
My IOR 10x42SF has been tough as nails.
I'm paranoid about optics, i've never owned a variable.
My instructors in the military always said that variables were gauranteed to break the first time you bumped, and though times have obviously changed, I still get a knot in my gut at the thought of spending a grand on a variable. My issue daysight in the military was an old m3 ultra fixed 6x.
When I was shopping for a scope, I wanted the clearest glass I could afford, and ended up getting an IOR because of the glass clarity. I wasn't about to take any chances on a variable though, i got the 10x42SF.
The first time a 40mph gust of wind blew the rifle over while it was sitting on the concrete, and it landed on the windage turret I about shat myself. It held its zero and was undamaged, so i was pretty happy.
A year later, at the same range, range 13, Ft Huachuca AZ, it was sitting on a table and another hard gust of wind blew it over and off the table. It landed on the freaking scope again, this time the elevation turret as it landed upside down.
This time it was about 2 minutes high, still dead on windage. I rezeroed it and did a box test, which it passed.
I don't know how tough the variables are, not much i'd guess, but the 10x42 is tough.
Just my opinion, others mileage may vary.
Re: IOR or SWFA SS
Have had both, actually 2 SWFA SS 5-20x50's , IOR 3-18x42, IOR 3.5-18x50, and a IOR 2.5-10x42. I sold both SWFA scopes and looking to buy another IOR in 3-18x42. Not saying the SS are bad by any means but I prefer IOR. I had one 3-18x42 go tits up and IOR's customer service was great. Sent me the newest Gen scope as replacement.
Only bad thing about IOR is it did make my dick a slight bit smaller, but it was just lasted a couple of days..LMAO
Have had both, actually 2 SWFA SS 5-20x50's , IOR 3-18x42, IOR 3.5-18x50, and a IOR 2.5-10x42. I sold both SWFA scopes and looking to buy another IOR in 3-18x42. Not saying the SS are bad by any means but I prefer IOR. I had one 3-18x42 go tits up and IOR's customer service was great. Sent me the newest Gen scope as replacement.
Only bad thing about IOR is it did make my dick a slight bit smaller, but it was just lasted a couple of days..LMAO
Similar threads
