Ok so you are saying scopes don't break any more. Great ! they sure do flex a lot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5pVya7eask
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes 2014's Best Scope ShootOut
- Thread starter BullyDog
- Start date
I was saying if it isn't built to withstand that on a regular basis, then it isn't up to the task and it sucks. If any scope that costs over $2k nowadays cannot handle >.338LM and up, then it is over priced and out classed. Scopes that have repetitive failures are indicative of either poor QA/QC or poor engineering, neither of which are acceptable to me.
I understand they are precision instruments that are placed under a lot of stress in use and there will be failures from time to time, but for the cost they had better be able to handle their intended usages with an extremely low rate of failure. Some brands can claim that, others cannot. Making excuses for those that cannot while others perform to the standard is sad and reeks of a fanboy and/or shill.
I understand they are precision instruments that are placed under a lot of stress in use and there will be failures from time to time, but for the cost they had better be able to handle their intended usages with an extremely low rate of failure. Some brands can claim that, others cannot. Making excuses for those that cannot while others perform to the standard is sad and reeks of a fanboy and/or shill.
That video is always brought up here and it is misleading in that it's like the pencil trick. Also if you look closely the mount is moving adding to the pencil trick appearance of scope bend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh4usJdiEaU
Flex? Sure looks like it does. Just like the pencil that flexes when moved up & down between your fingers. Movement? - yes. Flexing? - maybe, maybe not. In any event recoil does not do anything good for optics.
Beat me to it, Rob.
OFG
Last edited:
Ok whatever ,i didnt say all scopes fail ,but all scopes models and brands period including 2-3k$ scopes have at one time or another failed and continue to fail ,for various reasons and in various ways ,being hand built some, actually more than a few also feature manufacturing errors and defects,so what is your point?
I had in my hand IOR 6-24 & 12-52 ,S&B PM2 and March 5-50x with specks of debris inside lenses sometimes quite near the middle of reticle,have seen paralax adjustmets fail on IOR ,have a colleague who broke his NF BR in couple of sessions with his HS50 ,have just shoot a sniper competition where my buddy had a brand new Khales6-24x56 MSR with 10% dialing error built it , Leupolds not track on my BR gun ,have a Burrs HBRII6x turret and tracking go bad on rimfire BR gun that scope has already been repaired once.
Upon firing every single piece of your rifle flexes to a degee scopes and mounts probably most ,flex is mostly not conductive to longevity ,like 34mm tubes are coupe of times stiffer and offer more room for internals than 30mm tubes same is true for 40mm tubes in relation to 34mm ones.
I had in my hand IOR 6-24 & 12-52 ,S&B PM2 and March 5-50x with specks of debris inside lenses sometimes quite near the middle of reticle,have seen paralax adjustmets fail on IOR ,have a colleague who broke his NF BR in couple of sessions with his HS50 ,have just shoot a sniper competition where my buddy had a brand new Khales6-24x56 MSR with 10% dialing error built it , Leupolds not track on my BR gun ,have a Burrs HBRII6x turret and tracking go bad on rimfire BR gun that scope has already been repaired once.
Upon firing every single piece of your rifle flexes to a degee scopes and mounts probably most ,flex is mostly not conductive to longevity ,like 34mm tubes are coupe of times stiffer and offer more room for internals than 30mm tubes same is true for 40mm tubes in relation to 34mm ones.
Last edited:
I started with an IOR scope that was mounted to my first rifle, that I bought on Calguns. Everything was brand new, and not a scratch/scuff on the Milspec 5R and the IOR. I spent a week on Youtube, and was fuckin excited to hit up the range, thinking I was going to be laser. Well, after 3 range visits, another member noticed my troubles, so he stepped in. Next thing, there's around 4 other dudes trying to figure it out. Long story short, it was the scope. We mounted a Vortex Viper and it was dead on after a couple shots. Short after that, I manned up and got me an NXS, that I still have to this day, never had a problem with it.
Do you know this, or are you assuming this? Sure, common wisdom would denote it's plausible... but does that mean it is? How about we start getting specific instead of focusing on unquantifiable generalizations?
Please provide the tube thickness of the 40mm tube on that IOR, and I'll compare it to the tube thickness of other scopes of which I have the specs for. I'm quite curious.
Also, a spec of crap on the reticle rarely causes a scope to become unserviceable in the field. Turrets that refuse to track, and scopes that won't hold zero, or parallax that doesn't function on the other hand... cause drastic problems. Sure, any scope has a potential to fail. I never argued that point. However, can you say with a straight face that nightforce is known for failures on magnums just as IOR is? What about NC Star compared to IOR? You see, it's all relative. It has very little to do with IOR as a whole, but very much to do with IOR's specific products that have made a reputation for themselves by refusing to track or maintain zero. ... and that is forgetting that they are simply lacking features and when compared to other scopes most of the time, and forgetting their history for having lack-luster turrets/clicks. Yet if someone comes from using a barska, hawke, nc star, or other junk optic and steps up to an IOR... they will feel like its the best scope in the world. That person feeling that it's so, doesn't make it so.
If all things are equal 34mm tube will only exhibit about 60% the siffness of a 40mm tube ,ratio betwenn 30 and 34 is not that much different in any case these things vary even more due to general scope layout long scopes vs short stuby etc.
Other thing particular to comparing scopes ither in US or Europe is that we all have quite distorted pricing in the top tier scope range ,in Europe most scopes are more expensive (VAT tax of 18-22% ) than US but that might not be the case with top tier Euro optics relation are also different S&B costs not that much more than Khales ,Steiner while IOR is quite a bit cheaper, Nightforce is way more expensive . I never considered IOR superior or even close to S&B but in its price range it is superior to anything out there. You see you might be comparing apples and oranges ,same happens when we in Europe compare euro scopes with other scopes ,Leupold,March,NF all jump on to next price level and then getting NF or March over top Euro scopes doesn't make that much sense
To illustrate my point before you get all high and mighty here ,do you consider these examples as comparable optics?
we have Weaver http://www.optics-trade.eu/shop/en/...tical-4-20x50-mil-mil.html?___from_store=siin the same price range as IOR IOR Tactical 3-18x42/IL SF, FFP, Mil/Mil
March March Tactical 3-24x42, FFP, Illum.vs S&B Schmidt & Bender 5-25x56 PM II/LP/MTC Tactical Rifle Scope
Other thing particular to comparing scopes ither in US or Europe is that we all have quite distorted pricing in the top tier scope range ,in Europe most scopes are more expensive (VAT tax of 18-22% ) than US but that might not be the case with top tier Euro optics relation are also different S&B costs not that much more than Khales ,Steiner while IOR is quite a bit cheaper, Nightforce is way more expensive . I never considered IOR superior or even close to S&B but in its price range it is superior to anything out there. You see you might be comparing apples and oranges ,same happens when we in Europe compare euro scopes with other scopes ,Leupold,March,NF all jump on to next price level and then getting NF or March over top Euro scopes doesn't make that much sense
To illustrate my point before you get all high and mighty here ,do you consider these examples as comparable optics?
we have Weaver http://www.optics-trade.eu/shop/en/...tical-4-20x50-mil-mil.html?___from_store=siin the same price range as IOR IOR Tactical 3-18x42/IL SF, FFP, Mil/Mil
March March Tactical 3-24x42, FFP, Illum.vs S&B Schmidt & Bender 5-25x56 PM II/LP/MTC Tactical Rifle Scope
Last edited:
I'm an American. My customers are Americans. This forum is predominately American. I don't make my decisions, nor do I advise my customers in accordance to what things cost in EUROPE, or anywhere else. I'm not advocating what Europeans should buy, or not buy. I'm not in a position to do so, and would never want them to listen to me if I were. Unlike many, I require myself to have first hand experience before handing out advice. As I don't live in Europe, it would be impossible for me to give advice that would carry any weight. If you don't KNOW, then you are just assuming.
Here in USA, IOR is not offering the kind of value which you say it's offering overseas. I'm not in a position to dispute that, so I won't try. If they are a great value over there, then gobble them up! Here, there are better scopes, often for less money. People would do well to remember that there are several new scopes coming soon, which are not listed in the precisionrifleblog test. One of those scopes is the GenII vortex razor, which will be $500 less than the big IOR. That scope is also configured in a much more desirable way than the IOR. Remains to be seen how well it will do, but after having used it... I can say that I liked it a hell of a lot more than the IOR. (which didn't surprise me) Another thing people would do well to remember, is that you can not judge a company, good or bad, based on a sample size of one.
You were assuming you knew what you were talking about regarding tube thickness. Do you assume correctly? Maybe. Maybe not. You have no specific data, which you've verified for yourself, so you are just making assumptions to support the choices you've already made. You don't KNOW, you are just guessing. Me? I gather data, get first hand experience, and find out the truth... THEN, and only then, solidify my choices.
If you're European, don't listen to me. It won't hurt my feelings. I don't have the experience, and can't make a value assessment for you. If you're here in America... it's my job to do so, and you can be damn sure that I do my job every single day.
Did a rough calculation and assumed same thickness and same materials ,If i take something between 1-3mm wall thickness (cca0.04-0.12) as i can not measure scope tube thickness in mid tube things only change a couple of % up or down and you need roughly 70% more wall thickness to equal 40mm tube with 34mm tube 'if all things are equal'
I understand you are American ,but the point i am trying to make is your market is as distorted (as few things are still US made)as ours so you are sometimes comparing apples to oranges if price is of any relevance.
I understand you are American ,but the point i am trying to make is your market is as distorted (as few things are still US made)as ours so you are sometimes comparing apples to oranges if price is of any relevance.
Last edited:
I would be interested in seeing the March 5-40x56 tested. Imo it's not much heavier than the little brother, still ffp, same reticle, same turrets but imo a phenomenal optic. I've done the same test by locking it down and testing the tracking and it was dead nuts on for the range I would actually use. Eye box was just as forgiving as my S&B and I actually like the reticel.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
No one is interested in your assumptions. Understand that. What the hell is the point of discussing anything over assumed data points? It's fuckn useless. I won't engage on that unless we're talking about specifics, got it?
Secondly, our market is not "distorted." The prices are what they are. There is no apples to oranges comparisons being made by me. Scopes cost what they cost, regardless of where you are, the price is the price. If they are cheaper in Europe, then that is important to Europeans, not Americans! If we can't buy it for that price here, then that price is irrelevant. Australians really take it in the shorts on price. Again, completely irrelevant to making a purchasing decision IN AMERICA. If IOR's rule the value market in Europe, good for them. I'm glad. That is NOT the case here in the states. I could tell you that X scope costs $20 here, and its a better value than Y scope over there. ... but over there the X scope costs $200, and the Y scope costs half that. It's all RELATIVE.
Now if you want to argue IOR is the best value here in the states as well... then lets start talking specifics. Otherwise you're just pissing in the wind. Pick an IOR scope that you think is the "best" and tell me why. Then if I disagree, I'll counter with the scope that I think beats it... and why. SPECIFICS. Generalities are the realm of politicians and emotional illogical people. No serious debate can happen unless specifics are presented. Generalities will never help in finding the truth of a thing.
You sure seem to be quite fired up
so i will indulge you some more, just for fun. i like you do not have the mid tube thickness ( i would guess is close to 0.1) but as mentioned it takes a lot (70+%)of additional thickness to to close the gap doesn't matter if the base line is 0.04 or 0.15 thick . I would be suprized if 40mm tube is any thinner than 34mm , it tends to run the other way around most sectioned scopes i see on the shows have thicker walls on larger tubes,has to with clamping the scopes in their mounts that is one area where tube has to grow in thickness as it grows in diameter.
That is what i am saying for you IOR is overpriced( i am suprized Valdada set their prices so high in relation to the rest of the Euro scopes) and not worth it for us NF and March, Leupold are in the same position not worth their money .
But so far in these scope tests IOR kinda runs with the rest of them ,what gives? Maybe some more units like for Leupold,March and NF are in order.
Last edited:
Fired up? Hardly. Tired of the constant barrage of inexperienced people trying to give advice on forums? Absolutely.
That means neither the brands that did well, nor the brands that did poorly, can adequately be judged by this series of testing. So stop trying to observe weight, where no weight is carried.
Wrong. This one scope, can only be compared to those other specific scopes. It's been broached before, and I applaud calz for his work, but he has already addressed this. He wasn't comfortable taking on more scopes even if the companies would have agreed to send them. It's good work, and he's passionate about it. However, with a sample size of 1, VERY few conclusions can be drawn and set in stone. 10 of each scope would paint a clearer picture. Ten scopes, purchased through regular channels, so to ensure the company in question had no chance to possibly hand-select a pre-qualified unit. This doesn't mean I knock calz and his efforts. This is just the reality when trying to collect statistical data which can be used to draw concrete solutions. Statistically, a sample size of one, is almost completely irrelevant.
That means neither the brands that did well, nor the brands that did poorly, can adequately be judged by this series of testing. So stop trying to observe weight, where no weight is carried.
You sure seem to be quite fired up
Can you BOTH just shut the hell up and argue in private? Just send PM's between each other or go meet somewhere. You have hijacked this thread long enough.
Need a nap? My posts have been on topic until this one...
Not exactly what you call "hijacking."
Well you guys can stroke each other all you want... but it will take more than 1 IOR doing well in a test to rescue the brand from the reputation it's earned here over the last 5+ years.
It's actually going to be quite amusing when people run out to a particular brand and buy it based on this test.
Then when the problems roll in, and they will, it will open up a whole new line of discussion.
Then when the problems roll in, and they will, it will open up a whole new line of discussion.
Because it leads to a lot of wasted time and money... the cheerleaders who barely uses it, or buys it and flips it, comes on and pushes people in a certain direction which ultimately is the wrong one.
I kinda see what you're saying and kinda not. Some people may buy a night force because you (and others) praise them so highly, but that doesn't mean that everyone that buys one will be happy with it. I have no doubt the majority of buyers would be happy, but there's no guarantee all would be. Same with buying an ior recon based off cal,s test. I think it would be about the same. Most would be happy with their purchase, some may not. Plus just because some professional shooter uses and recommends "x" SCOPE doesn't mean that everyone that runs out and buys it based on his recommendation will be happy with it. I just think in the end you have to hope most people will shop around and do their homework and let them buy what they want.
If you're buying a scope off a singles series of imperfect tests, which don't include shooting it, then you have bigger problems that no form of advice (other than more bad) can fix.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but many are not happy about the tests, and many of the scopes are gonna be "retested" ... there is too many points of discrepancy that can easily be explained with operator error or misalignment of the ocular or parallax. So, what will happen is, based off this single event, those taking the results as gospel, (many are as I predicted) and will now log on to hold this up as a bonafide reason "why" ...
Unsolicited I have heard from several, and the common theme in the conversations are, "just enough to be dangerous" ... that is not me reaching out, but feedback I was given.
The end results will speak for themselves, sure people who barely use their stuff, who might put 200 rounds under their scopes a year will love their decision because they will have felt their homework was done for them. So of course they will crow about their decision and how it aligns with this "test" but the others who actually use the stuff will soon see and it's their time and money that will be wasted. you can't say a person who barely uses their tools is the reason to leave it alone, those are not the guys are talking too. But when a guys spends $600 for a plane ticket, $400 for rental car, $1500 for a class, or $250 for a match, then another $400 for a hotel and his scope dies on day one, tell him about it. Explain to him how his decision to go in the direction he did was worth it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but many are not happy about the tests, and many of the scopes are gonna be "retested" ... there is too many points of discrepancy that can easily be explained with operator error or misalignment of the ocular or parallax. So, what will happen is, based off this single event, those taking the results as gospel, (many are as I predicted) and will now log on to hold this up as a bonafide reason "why" ...
Unsolicited I have heard from several, and the common theme in the conversations are, "just enough to be dangerous" ... that is not me reaching out, but feedback I was given.
The end results will speak for themselves, sure people who barely use their stuff, who might put 200 rounds under their scopes a year will love their decision because they will have felt their homework was done for them. So of course they will crow about their decision and how it aligns with this "test" but the others who actually use the stuff will soon see and it's their time and money that will be wasted. you can't say a person who barely uses their tools is the reason to leave it alone, those are not the guys are talking too. But when a guys spends $600 for a plane ticket, $400 for rental car, $1500 for a class, or $250 for a match, then another $400 for a hotel and his scope dies on day one, tell him about it. Explain to him how his decision to go in the direction he did was worth it.
One reason why I use what is proven and have a spare in the truck if needed!
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Not to put too fine a point on it, but many are not happy about the tests, and many of the scopes are gonna be "retested" ... there is too many points of discrepancy that can easily be explained with operator error or misalignment of the ocular or parallax. So, what will happen is, based off this single event, those taking the results as gospel, (many are as I predicted) and will now log on to hold this up as a bonafide reason "why" ...
Unsolicited I have heard from several, and the common theme in the conversations are, "just enough to be dangerous" ... that is not me reaching out, but feedback I was given.
The end results will speak for themselves, sure people who barely use their stuff, who might put 200 rounds under their scopes a year will love their decision because they will have felt their homework was done for them. So of course they will crow about their decision and how it aligns with this "test" but the others who actually use the stuff will soon see and it's their time and money that will be wasted. you can't say a person who barely uses their tools is the reason to leave it alone, those are not the guys are talking too. But when a guys spends $600 for a plane ticket, $400 for rental car, $1500 for a class, or $250 for a match, then another $400 for a hotel and his scope dies on day one, tell him about it. Explain to him how his decision to go in the direction he did was worth it.[/QUOTE]
I understand completely, but I can come on this site and find people carrying the torch for most every SCOPE made. Then top that off with test like cal,s that's posted here, I can tell everyone I run into I bought "x" because I read some positive posts on snipers hide about it. Who do we believe?
Unsolicited I have heard from several, and the common theme in the conversations are, "just enough to be dangerous" ... that is not me reaching out, but feedback I was given.
The end results will speak for themselves, sure people who barely use their stuff, who might put 200 rounds under their scopes a year will love their decision because they will have felt their homework was done for them. So of course they will crow about their decision and how it aligns with this "test" but the others who actually use the stuff will soon see and it's their time and money that will be wasted. you can't say a person who barely uses their tools is the reason to leave it alone, those are not the guys are talking too. But when a guys spends $600 for a plane ticket, $400 for rental car, $1500 for a class, or $250 for a match, then another $400 for a hotel and his scope dies on day one, tell him about it. Explain to him how his decision to go in the direction he did was worth it.[/QUOTE]
I understand completely, but I can come on this site and find people carrying the torch for most every SCOPE made. Then top that off with test like cal,s that's posted here, I can tell everyone I run into I bought "x" because I read some positive posts on snipers hide about it. Who do we believe?
There is another metric ... time and historical evidence.
At that point you go back to straight up numbers, who gets more customer service calls over the last number of years vs the other guy.
Or take the leap and if things go south again, (as I will predict now) you can move based off that data. If you already made the investment it's really too late to even talk about it, your next step is to shoot it and see. But if you are one of the guys chasing glass, there are certainly ways to balance the scale.
At that point you go back to straight up numbers, who gets more customer service calls over the last number of years vs the other guy.
Or take the leap and if things go south again, (as I will predict now) you can move based off that data. If you already made the investment it's really too late to even talk about it, your next step is to shoot it and see. But if you are one of the guys chasing glass, there are certainly ways to balance the scale.
Because some of us do it for a living. My customers appreciate that fact... trust me.
Yes I understand, but what I'm asking is this.......I don't know you, you don't know me. If you post on here you just bought "x" SCOPE...What do I care? You are just one of another 500 people on here posting what SCOPE you just bought. If I post on here I just bought "x" SCOPE.....What do you (or anyone else) care? Again I'm just one of another 500 people on here posting what SCOPE he just bought. At the end of the day we are all going to get what we want to get. Whether we base our decision on a post we read on snipers hide, precision rifles blog, or the rifleman magazine. .....Who cares?
one detail that was mentioned on the blog and not discussed here so far was the quote about edge clarity not being that important. I can agree with that to some extent, but I would like to point out that for those who a) actually use their scopes, and b) have a sucky reticle design with all the .1 milling hashes at the outer edge, are at something of a disadvantage.
One of the things i liked best about the MSR reticle was the extremely fine milling L was very close to the center of the optic, and not way out at the edge
given a dilemma, i'd choose a scope that holds zero and tracks over a scope with a prettier picture, but it sure would be nice to have both
One of the things i liked best about the MSR reticle was the extremely fine milling L was very close to the center of the optic, and not way out at the edge
given a dilemma, i'd choose a scope that holds zero and tracks over a scope with a prettier picture, but it sure would be nice to have both
You seem to be confusing someone having displeasure with what someone else bought, compared to recommending they buy the right thing in the first place.
Who cares? Me. I care. Lots of us that spend our days trying to help customers find the answers to their questions care.
Now, enter the problem: Some people buy things, and then post them here looking for attention or validation for their choices. Then even worse, they suggest that their choice, was the best choice ever, and that everyone else should make that choice. It doesn't matter to them that this is the ONLY choice they have any experience with, and they have a full time job as an insurance salesman, and shoot once a month if they are lucky. The only thing that matters to them is validation. So when someone like me comes in behind them, and points out that they could have had twice the features for half the money, they get all pissed off. When I see someone pushing a leupold mk4, mil/moa/sfp on a guy that wants the best scope money can buy and intends to do serious competition in the near future... that pisses me off. Guys like that are PROFESSIONALS at wasting other people's money while trying to shore up their own limitations.
If someone buys a NC Star, stick it on their rifle, and just loves it... no problem. As long as they don't go trying to tell everyone else it's the best thing since sliced bread, I'll have no problem with it.
For some its business for others its hobby and pastime but both are necessary for a complete picture. There will of course be tensions between (one accusing another either of brand bias emanating from business deals and others emanating from lack of experience or statistical/numbers perspective) but in the end a potential buyer who does his job and reads both and evaluates both will benefit.
In perfect world manufacturers would publish their reliability data and most common type of failures for their models and independent testers would be able to test with good sample size and standard methodology but there is but and we all know it and have to accept that won't happen.
If anything that can be taken away from either Lowlights/Orkan/et al experience or Calz is a simple fact that WHATEVER scope you buy make sure you test it and make 100% that its functioning the way it should. You go and buy a scope (based on anyones recommendation) put it on a rifle and go and shoot chances are (and apparently pretty good) that something will be off. As to the particular brand in question (IOR) i would guess there are good reasons for strong antibias on this site and considering my own experience and those of others in my vicinity for a good reason. Whether this is valid** or not time will tell and for all of us its good that there is such wide choice of good optics to choose from and that manufacturers know that once they loose reputation for being reliable and true its extremely hard to come back.
Edited:**valid for new models aka Recon etc... in reference to IOR
In perfect world manufacturers would publish their reliability data and most common type of failures for their models and independent testers would be able to test with good sample size and standard methodology but there is but and we all know it and have to accept that won't happen.
If anything that can be taken away from either Lowlights/Orkan/et al experience or Calz is a simple fact that WHATEVER scope you buy make sure you test it and make 100% that its functioning the way it should. You go and buy a scope (based on anyones recommendation) put it on a rifle and go and shoot chances are (and apparently pretty good) that something will be off. As to the particular brand in question (IOR) i would guess there are good reasons for strong antibias on this site and considering my own experience and those of others in my vicinity for a good reason. Whether this is valid** or not time will tell and for all of us its good that there is such wide choice of good optics to choose from and that manufacturers know that once they loose reputation for being reliable and true its extremely hard to come back.
Edited:**valid for new models aka Recon etc... in reference to IOR
Last edited:
I understand people have had bad experiences with past ior models. That is well documented on this site and others. But how many of these past owners have owned a RECON? The Recon is doing well in cal' s test and that seems to be getting under the skin of the haters. There will always be the fanboys. We really should not listen to these people because if it was broke out of the box they would post they was shooting sub .25" with it. On the other end is the haters. We should not listen to these people either. Anytime someone post something positive about IOR's the haters jump into the fray spewing all kinds of crazy stuff. Sometimes it's hard to tell who listen to and who to ignore. But I think people would be more likely to gravitate toward cal' s test because he seems to be neither a fanboy or a hater. Just a guy putting out the best info he feels he can.
Maybe the new IORs are better than those of the past but it's tough to get people who have spent their hard earned dollars in the past and been let down to give them up again. I know the feeling as their is a scope brand on there that i have had bad experiences with but the scope did very well in the test. Many more choices now so I won't go back to that brand no matter what as I don't want to take that chance and for the price there are better trusted options. I am sure some of those "haters" as you put it might be those people who actually have good reason to hate on IOR. Their personal experiences shouldn't be discounted as neither should the fan boys but both should be also looked at as the actual use of the scope and not just taken out of the box and say "this is the best scope ever!". If the fan boy has been using the scope for years then they have a right to defend their brand choice but same goes for the "haters". A person that has never used a scope but talks it down then also shouldn;t be taken as serious as someone who has had one and used it and it has let them down in use. Lots of grey so you can't just dismiss either.
On the test as a whole I will quote myself from another post where the test was used by a member to another member as a way to choose a scope:
On the test as a whole I will quote myself from another post where the test was used by a member to another member as a way to choose a scope:
Calz is doing a great job at being objective, as good as a private individual with a limited budget can be anyhow and I certainly commend him for it. Still though, just like in any common gun rag, I have to wonder about the samples sent for evaluation and the samples procured from a standard dealer. There's a shit ton of money riding on this, it's going to go into permanent record on the internet and there's going to be many individuals who will base their purchase decisions solely off this review, so I'm sure some companies sent their very best (previously tested to be flawless) while larger companies may have simply pulled one off the shelf and shipped it over. Of course Calz doesn't have the funding to buy each and every scope himself nor would he probably be able to procure them all through loans from friends. Even still, they're all a sample of one. Great testing, very thorough and well written, but in the end I'm still taking it with a grain of salt. I'm a skeptical and untrusting bastard though anytime money is involved.
Yep, IOR is certainly a polarizing company but I'll say this from a private individual's standpoint - Why should I trust IOR with my own money when their scopes have such a sketchy background? I'm going to shoot the Hide Cup next year, finally making it after being overseas for the last eight. That's a two day drive, each way, and about $1500 expense just in that one trip. What scope company should I trust on top of my rifle? One with a history of reliability or one with a history of crapping out? Which one would YOU select? I have no sponsors, no NASCARish shirt to wear, no cool guy sig line flashing any brand.
I'm neither a fanboy nor a hater. I'm a guy with a limited budget and time who has decided NightForce and Schmidt & Bender are my go-to long range precision scopes because they do it right. IOR is going to have to prove themselves for several years until I even consider them. The only thing Made in Romania I own or likely ever will are my Asolo boots because they kick ass.
I can't imagine numbers like that would exist to the normal consumer. It would have to come down to research, scouring the posts here and determining for yourself. Or give the "ELDERS" the benefit of the doubt when they say "This is the fact". This site was created to be able to share the experience they've accumulated in the field, on the hunting grounds, in tournaments, using equipment, etc......In the end everyone makes their own decision. I for one took Lowlight and Rob01's advice among the dozens of well established members advice and bought a Vortex 4.5-27, which is not in the Shootout. My statement was made in general and not aimed at you directly Mr.Greg and is just my humble opinion.
Ok. You just don't fuckn get it. Others have tried to point this out, in a nicer way... but I have a knack for sparing people's feelings and saying what IS. Sure, someone that arbitrarily hates all things IOR shouldn't be listened to if they have no experience and are just spewing what they've read. Just like someone like YOU shouldn't be listened to when advocating them despite a glaring lack of perspective and experience. No one is arguing this fact.
No amount of this feigning "I just want to understand" is going to hide the fact that you are pro-IOR yet have not a shred of the experience required to have formed that opinion. Just what kind of "crazy stuff" has been "spewed" about IOR's? The fact that DOZENS of people, on this very site, have had negative experiences with IOR and took the time to share those experiences here? Just because you are a complete fucking rookie to this sport and this industry doesn't mean the rest of us are. We're making our assessments and forming opinions based on years and sometimes DECADES of first hand experience. Yet every goddamn day some newb ass like you registers on a forum and has the nerve to start slinging bullshit at those of us that do it for a LIVING. What do you do for a living? I for one am sick of your ignorant bullshit. You want to keep pressing the issue, so lets get right to the heart of the matter. You want your opinion to be as valid as you think it should be? Fine. Here's how you do it: Give us a list of the scopes you have owned in the recent years. Provide pictures, on your rifles. Then show me the barrel log for those rifles. Explain just why your opinion should have any weight at all. I bet Frank can easily demonstrate his experience, and has before. I know I can, and have before. Lets see your resume pal.
I have a question for calz: How did you get that IOR recon? Did you call a dealer and order it yourself, paying money for it, without telling them your intention of testing? or: Did you call up IOR or their distributor/primary dealer and inform them what you intended to do? What about the rest of the scopes in your test?
Point being: Did you give each manufacturer the capability to hand-pick the unit that was being sent for eval? Can you be sure of the ones that did hand pick, vs those that didn't?
I'm not knocking you either way, because I get what you were trying to do, and you've done a great job, but it's high time that people realize just how statistically inconclusive this test is. For you to advocate that it is anything else, would be totally irresponsible. That doesn't have thing one to do with IOR or any other company involved. That is just the cold hard fact of the matter.
Last edited:
2014 Best Scope ShootOut
This isn't getting under anyone's skin @Dead Nutz
it gonna come back and bite people because how do you test a rifle scope without shooting it? Almost all problems are recoil induced and some of the other errors reported can easily be operator error. Case in point, the S&B 3-27x, a mis-adjusted ocular can easily cause the magnification to appear to be limited to 22x. Most don't realize the ocular moves the magnification range and it will easily adjust 5x or more.
I know now at least one of the returned scopes was not found to have an error by the manufacturer. They reported to me they were unable to recreate the problem -so either they are lying or it was operator error. You can decide for yourself, but understand something like a parallax or cheek weld mistake could move the reticle off the test target enough to make it appear the scope was not tracking correctly. It may not happen on purpose but it can happen.
These are rifle scopes, not spotters, recoil matters. He'll the reported IOR problems were all failures under recoil. I know I had one. There was one Gen that almost all were dying at the 200 round mark. So how do you reconcile that when you just looked through it? He'll in June I was teaching a class with an IOR on the line. It died under recoil the parallax lens turned and blurred the scope. I told the owner specifically, "tell Val I was on the line when it died" ...
There are enough holes and potential errors to see that can hurt a lot more than it helps. I applaud the effort, but when the phone starts ringing because things aren't lining up you have to take pause.
This isn't getting under anyone's skin @Dead Nutz
it gonna come back and bite people because how do you test a rifle scope without shooting it? Almost all problems are recoil induced and some of the other errors reported can easily be operator error. Case in point, the S&B 3-27x, a mis-adjusted ocular can easily cause the magnification to appear to be limited to 22x. Most don't realize the ocular moves the magnification range and it will easily adjust 5x or more.
I know now at least one of the returned scopes was not found to have an error by the manufacturer. They reported to me they were unable to recreate the problem -so either they are lying or it was operator error. You can decide for yourself, but understand something like a parallax or cheek weld mistake could move the reticle off the test target enough to make it appear the scope was not tracking correctly. It may not happen on purpose but it can happen.
These are rifle scopes, not spotters, recoil matters. He'll the reported IOR problems were all failures under recoil. I know I had one. There was one Gen that almost all were dying at the 200 round mark. So how do you reconcile that when you just looked through it? He'll in June I was teaching a class with an IOR on the line. It died under recoil the parallax lens turned and blurred the scope. I told the owner specifically, "tell Val I was on the line when it died" ...
There are enough holes and potential errors to see that can hurt a lot more than it helps. I applaud the effort, but when the phone starts ringing because things aren't lining up you have to take pause.
Well that about explains "the haters jumping into the fray spewing all kinds of crazy stuff". ....I'm out.
The tests conducted by Calz are very interesting to me. He is trying to answer a question many have had regarding comparing "x" to "y". However, I do agree that a sample size of 1 does not provide any assurance that the next optic off the line will either do better/worse than the one tested. Short of (as Orkan stated) buying multiple examples of each scope to test, I do not consider these articles as gospel for researching a scope.
Personally I have bought a number of scopes from Leupold, NF, S&B, Vortex, etc. based on general forum reviews with some being very nice and others... not so much. When I base my research on vetted competition shooters such as Lowlight, Rob01, JasonK, Knight11B4, BigJoe, A10XRifle, Maser, etc. I know the information is based on not just extensive use but abuse. The experience these gentlemen and others have with gear (via sponsorship or personal purchase) pushes the items to the limit. None of the items bought by me on their recommendation has shit the bed. I can't say that for everything ELSE I've bought in this addiction even though I baby my stuff.
My advice would be figure out how you want to use your gear. Be it tactical competitions, benchrest, spray and pray, stalk hunting, etc. and find multiple people knowledgeable (comp shooters, hunting guides, etc.) about it. Find out what they have used, how they used it, if it worked well, why or why not. That way you will have multiple valid data points from reliable sources to base your decision. As said above, that's what I do now and will always do when making a major purchase!
Personally I have bought a number of scopes from Leupold, NF, S&B, Vortex, etc. based on general forum reviews with some being very nice and others... not so much. When I base my research on vetted competition shooters such as Lowlight, Rob01, JasonK, Knight11B4, BigJoe, A10XRifle, Maser, etc. I know the information is based on not just extensive use but abuse. The experience these gentlemen and others have with gear (via sponsorship or personal purchase) pushes the items to the limit. None of the items bought by me on their recommendation has shit the bed. I can't say that for everything ELSE I've bought in this addiction even though I baby my stuff.
My advice would be figure out how you want to use your gear. Be it tactical competitions, benchrest, spray and pray, stalk hunting, etc. and find multiple people knowledgeable (comp shooters, hunting guides, etc.) about it. Find out what they have used, how they used it, if it worked well, why or why not. That way you will have multiple valid data points from reliable sources to base your decision. As said above, that's what I do now and will always do when making a major purchase!
Damn right you're out... because just like every other inexperienced MOUTH that shows up here, when pressed to explain why anyone in the whole goddamn world should listen to what you have to say, you can't back up all your fluff with some substance. That has nothing at all to do with "haters" and everything to do with people wanting their inexperienced choices validated. If you could talk specifics, citing personal experience and hard data... we wouldn't ever have a problem. Think on that good and hard before you post next time.
No... not at all actually. Just pointing out the obvious.Still fired up are we .
See there, you're starting to talk specifics... and I will NEVER be irritated with a man talking specifics and truly trying to have a discussion which is based in reality.
If I were to pick the "bane" of other IOR's I've used, it is not that the parallax fails. It does, and it's been documented MANY times, but I didn't experience it personally. The refusal to track and hold zero is what I would consider the worst aspect of their scopes I've used in the past. If they fixed the parallax problems, that's good... but they did it by sacrificing user ergonomics. A series of questions can illuminate what is important when considering parallax controls on a new scope purchase.
Would you rather have the parallax closer to you, or farther away?
If closer to you, it is easier to reach, and thereby would mean you disrupt your firing position less than if it is farther away. Secondly, things closer to you are easier to adjust, because you have more control when you aren't at the limits of your reach. In order to adjust the parallax correctly, we need to be looking through the scope, and maintaining sight picture of our intended target. The farther you reach, the harder this becomes.
Would you rather have the parallax knob rotate perpendicular to the scopes axis, or parallel?
If the knob is parallel, as is on the IOR in question, then your arm must be rotated in order to function the knob. This is a function of how our wrists are able to move, and how they are not able to move. This disrupts the firing position greatly. It doesn't bother us so much when running the magnification ring, because it is up close to our workspace when we are naturally in the firing position. If the parallax control on that scope were right in front of the mag ring or just behind the turret housing, then it wouldn't be much of an issue. Though in an age when all serious manufacturers are using side parallax, going with an adjustable objective (AO) instead... is a step backward, not a step forward. Side parallax control on the other hand can be achieved with minimal disruption of the firing position, and can be done equally well with either hand, regardless of eye dominance due to the closeness to our workspace.
Does the parallax knob control parallax AND focus in parallel?
Some IOR's I've used in the past had massive parallax/focus problems. Sometimes the image would be in focus, but the scope would still have parallax error. Other times, you could dial out parallax, but the image would not be in focus. I've also had this problem with many other scopes, including Nightforce NXS models. Some parallax lensing assemblies are extremely finicky and difficult to adjust.
Are the parallax settings forgiving?
When you set the parallax, does it have a 50yd window of parallax-free target ranges, 20yd? 10yds? Some scopes have VICIOUSLY short windows of parallax-free operation, and when you move closer or farther, you MUST re-adjust parallax or it's your ass. Using a S&B 5-25 at ranges inside of 100yds illuminates my point on this perfectly. This is usually an indication of an optical lensing design which has been pushed close to or beyond its design limitations. A LOT of otherwise really nice scopes exhibit this behavior.
Is the parallax-free setting easily achievable?
Some scopes have an extremely tiny spot in their adjustment range which is parallax free. This is somewhat tied to how forgiving they are, but they are not mutually exclusive. On some scopes, if you turn the parallax knob even the slightly, and I mean just barely bump them a hundredth of a turn, you will not be parallax free any longer. This window can be ultra-tiny. Then on top of this, some scopes are simply not easy to adjust in regard to parallax, due to the image being in focus nearly the entire time even though parallax is present. This isn't the same as the focus/parallax point above... because as long as a parallax free state can be achieved while in focus, it's ok. This has to do with how easy it is to find the correct setting. On many scopes, the image will be drastically out of focus when there is parallax error, and come in focus nicely as parallax error is adjusted out. It's easy to find your setting in a scope like that. If the image is in focus all the time, then you are bobbing your head around all the time trying to find that spot where parallax is gone.
Venturing into personal preference territory, just a tiny bit...
Would you rather have a parallax knob that rolled left right, or toward and away from the target?
On a AO scope, you are rotating a knob left/right... which has no correlation to your target. Camera enthusiasts might like it... but shooters don't. On side parallax scopes, my favorite ones have a parallax control setup in which the knob is rotated away from me/toward the target (counter clockwise) for far distances, and toward me (clockwise) for closer targets. This is a VERY intuitive and instinctive configuration. As I said, a bit of user preference there, but it is also very functional depending on how your brain works.
Bottom line is that doing parallax correctly on a rifle scope is REALLY hard. Some companies have been able to do it really well, while others have bombed out hardcore. This is one of those things that you really can't comment on unless you've been in a position to use hundreds of different optics and can recall those experiences from memory. You won't find that shit on a spec sheet, and you usually don't hear about it in product "reviews," but it for damn sure is one of the more important aspects of choosing a rifle scope. Hell of a lot more important than the ever-present "glass quality" opinion-only "testing." Being able to quickly and perfectly adjust parallax shaves a TON of precious time off of accurately engaging targets at varying distances. I can go on and on in this manner about every single feature modern rifle scopes have to offer, but this is hardly the thread for it. The point is, experience counts... and it counts more than most new guys realize.
Similar threads
