Rifle Scopes IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

[Flakbait]

IOR 2.5-10x42 Tactical 30mm Rifle Scope
•Illuminated Modified MP-8 Dot
•30mm
•First Focal Plane Reticle
•0.1 MRAD adjustments
•Exposed Target Knobs

It sells for a little over a $1000 at various places on the web.

I have been eyeing this scope for a while now, saving my pennies for a nice Christmas/anniversary gift. I plan to mount it to a .308 Rem 700 SPS Tactical with a 20 inch barrel to shoot steel out to 800 yards and hunt deer/pigs with it occasionally. I haven't done much long range shooting but I am eager to learn and dont want to buy cheap equipment and have to buy replacement scopes later.

Any downsides or other scopes I should consider?

Downsides I see:
5 Mils per Turn (not sure how important that is)
No Zero stop
IOR Customer service (spotty reputation in the past)

Upside:
MP-8 Reticle
Probably best glass in that price range

I don't really see the need to go to a 50 mm objective or higher magnification to shoot to 800 yards since the Marine/Army snipers used to hit targets at that range with fix 10x scopes for decades.

The Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40 M5 scope is around $1500 and supposably has worse glass quality. Mark 4 has a great reputation for quality and durability but may be overpriced.

Sightron 3.5-10x44 SIII 30mm Riflescope (mil/mil with no illumination) sells for around $800 but I haven't heard any news about them. Supposabily the SIII line has good optical quality and Sighton has a good waranty.

Weaver Tactical 3-15x50 for $800 has gotten some good reviews but it my have worse glass than the Mark 4 and questionable turrets.

I think anything Nightforce is too big (50 mm) and out of my budget.

Bushnell Elite 3-12x44 and the Vortex PST 3.5-10x44 have worse glass quality or questionable turrets.

I prefer a Mil/Mil setup (seems to be the current trend and I'm willing to learn).

I don't have a strong preferance for SFP or FFP and I am indifferent about illumination.

I keep waiting for others to come along but I think this scope may be the best of the variable 40 mm objective $1000 tactical scopes. I just don't hear a lot of noise about IOR, perhaps they don't have a direct competitor at this price range. I would appreciate your thoughts.

 

[AlabamaShooter]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

Look at the USO 1.8-10. Has all the features you are looking for. I know the US#3 knobs have 10.5 mils of elevation etched into them. I cant recall the EREK, but its pretty close to 10 for sure. But is a little out of your price range but worth it.

 

[glock24]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

I owned this IOR of which you question. I liked everything about it except for one detail. Below 4x, the scope exhibited significant tunneling. If you're not familiar, tunneling is something that plagues some FFP scope designs. In short, as magnification decreases, so does the FOV. At 2.5x, it was like looking through a toilet paper roll.

For what it's worth, I have also owned a few of the other scopes you are comparing;

<span style="font-weight: bold">Glass</span> - IOR > Bushnell = Weaver > Vortex
<span style="font-weight: bold">Reticle</span> - Vortex > Weaver > IOR > Bushnell
<span style="font-weight: bold">Knobs</span> - Vortex > IOR > Bushnell > Weaver (not a fan of the locking turrets)
<span style="font-weight: bold">Tunneling</span> - Vortex = Weaver > Bushnell > IOR
<span style="font-weight: bold">Tracking</span> - IOR = Bushnell = Weaver = Vortex

I haven't owned that specific Sightron SIII, but own the 6-24x. The glass is quite good, on par with Bushnell and Weaver. If you can live with SFP and a Mil-Dot reticle, it is a great value.

Nightforce also makes a less expensive 2.5-10x32mm. I had that model also. It is an excellent scope. The only reason I sold it was because the 32mm objective paled in lower light situations than anything 40mm or above. I also wasn't too crazy about the Mil-Dot reticle.

No experience with Leupold. I agree with you that they are overpriced.


I'll leave you with two thoughts;

1. Don't be too shy of a 50mm objective. It can certainly be made to fit on a Remington rifle quite nicely. (see below)

2. You might also consider this new Bushnell HDMR



<span style="font-weight: bold">Vortex 4-16x50mm in super low TPS rings</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Weaver Tactical 3-15x50mm in low Weaver Tactical rings</span>

 

[BCP]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

I would get in on the bushnell HDMR deal. That reticule and magnification range looks about perfect to me for a 308 shooting steel at longer ranges.

edit: if I wanted a 2-10etc scope I'd probably get the super sniper 3-9 with the new reticule (I have a couple IOR 2.5-10's btw and they are great BUT the super sniper is half the price and has an almost identical reticule and features). For what you are doing though I'd really try to get something with more magnification rather than less; you can turn a 3-15 down to 6X but you can't turn a 3-9 up to 15...

 

[lennyo3034]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

As far as glass is concerned, I think the Nightforce compact and Sightron SIII are the only competitors in the price range. I've looked through all three and I'd say at 10X: IOR=Sightron>NF. The 32mm objective on the NF hurts it here, whereas the Sightron's Parallax adjustment helps. HOWEVER I wanted to take my rifle hunting and wanted as wide a field of view as possible. The IOR tunnels too much and the Sightron only goes to 3.5. I went with the Nightforce for those reasons, and because I got a smoking deal on one.

For this power range, I would also prefer SFP, but that's just me. If you can deal with only going down to 4X or so due to the tunneling, I say go for the IOR.

 

[jackh]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

the bushnell HDMR is pretty sweet looking, i wish it had other reticle choices though. i cant see those being that applicable for the type of hunting i do.

dont forget about the SS 3-9 and the new leupold VX-R patrol line. theyre both about half the price of that IOR you mentioned and ive read nothing but excellend reports about the SS

 

[DannySeesUSMC]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

I don't think the Bushnell HDMR fits for what he wants, a 2 lbs. scope doesn't sound right for the rifle and a reticle that disappears against dark/busy backgrounds wouldn't be very good at all for hogs after sunset or most hunting in general.

 

[springer01]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

Love mine!! Yeah it tunnels below 4x but it really doesn't bother me. I also thought about some of your scope choices, but having owned a couple of other IOR scopes I felt confident it would be on par. I would definitely recommend it, the only other scope I think is comparable is the nighforce but its SFP and I don't think their reticles come close to the MP-8.

 

[LibertyOptics]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

No real downside with that IOR scope.

I will say I'm not sure where the rep of Weaver's glass might be less than a Mark 4. Sounds like propaganda to me.

Scott

 

[rchman]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[...]For what it's worth, I have also owned a few of the other scopes you are comparing;

<span style="font-weight: bold">Glass</span> - IOR > Bushnell = Weaver > Vortex
<span style="font-weight: bold">Reticle</span> - Vortex > Weaver > IOR > Bushnell
<span style="font-weight: bold">Knobs</span> - Vortex > IOR > Bushnell > Weaver (not a fan of the locking turrets)
<span style="font-weight: bold">Tunneling</span> - Vortex = Weaver > Bushnell > IOR
<span style="font-weight: bold">Tracking</span> - IOR = Bushnell = Weaver = Vortex

[...]
</div></div>

Regarding glass, this is consistent with what I've seen. The glass seems to be about on par or slightly better than a Nikon Buckmaster and slightly worse than the Monarch.

 

[Shooter45]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

I'd use a IOR 2-12x32 35mm with the MP-8 Dot reticle. The glass is amazing in everything, but there is some tunneling below 4x. The tracking is true and accurate. It is a lot of scope for the money, hard to compete with. The service of IOR has gotten a lot better, expecially if you get it from a reputable dealer such as Scott at Liberty Optics. If something is wrong with the scope or you are not happy in any way Scott will fix it.

 

[Stubb]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

I've been running the exact scope you describe on my precision AR-15 for nearly two years. I'd buy it again. I've never had a problem with repeatability of the adjustments shooting it out to 400 yards, and the reticle makes for easy hold-overs and ranging. I particularly like the floating 1/10 mil dot in the center. The glass gives a crisp image but with a noticeably warm tint. The center is very clear with a bit of softening around the edges. The scope does tunnel in the 2.5–4x range, which means that the FOV doesn't increase significantly. The only thing that I don't like about the scope is that zeroing the turrets requires backing out three tiny screws with a jeweler's flat-head screwdriver.

I purchased mine through Scott at Liberty Optics, and he got it into my hands real quick.

Maybe check out the SWFA 3–9x42. I think that you need to shell out $1.5k to do significantly better.

—Andreas

 

[Flakbait]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

Wow, thanks for all the quick responses. That is a lot to consider. Like I said previously, I want the highest quality scope for the application (within my budget) so I will not have the urge to upgrade my equipment later unless I move beyond .308 range or buy another rifle

The concensus of reading numerous post here is the most important features of a scope in this order are the following.

1. Mechanics (reproducability of turret changes)
2. Optical Clarity
3. Magnification

How useful is magnification beyond 10X power for .308 range shooting (under 800 yards). I know the US Military has moved beyond fix 10X scopes to 3-15X variables, but I think their needs are different than mind. I just want to shoot steel plates in daylight not make critical life or death shots requring a lot of judgment and optical clarity. My friend has a Nightforce 5-20X variable and he rarely dials it above 15x due to excessive "dancing" of the reticle at high magnification.

Since this setup will be used for deer and hog hunting too (usually within 100 yards) I need some low power ability. I have been hunting with a fixed 4X scope for years and don't find any difficulty getting multiple shots on groups of hogs with my AR 6.8mm SPC...but that's a different rifle all together from my new long range precision rifle.

 

[hgr2]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

A bit off topic but I have an IOR 1.5-8 on the way from Liberty Optics now. It will go on my favorite 3gun rifle. Also been considering the 2.5-12 for a different setup. I think this will be my 7th IOR scope. The 3-18s are great too.

 

[jackh]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Flakbait</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since this setup will be used for deer and hog hunting too (usually within 100 yards) I need some low power ability.</div></div>

have you looked at the SS 3-9? ffp, mil/mil adjustments, durable as hell, low power enough for hunting, but high enough for long range etc. i havent ever read a complaint about it and its about half the cost.

im looking for a scope for the same application as you. right now, with my skill level and time available to shoot, i cannot justify spending over a grand on a scope. i am choosing between the SS and a VX-R Patrol.

 

[javy]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

IOR for me, Used that same scope for antelope hunting this year and will be using it again when deer season gets started. Also have a 3x18x42 never a problem with either, looking real serious at a 6x24x56 next week.

Luck to ya.

 

[springer01]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

I was shooting my 20" ar-15 with the IOR 2.5-10x42 out to 700 yards at a 66% IPSC target no problem. Although I do prefer the extra magnification of my IOR 3.5-18x50 that is on my .308 for anything past 800 yards.

 

[blonz]

Re: IOR 2.5x10x42 any downside or others to compare?

I've got an older IOR 2.5-10x42 (I think Gen. II). I really like the MP recticle but the illum. is useless for me: too bright for dusk/dawn but not bright enough in day use against dark targets.
The glas has a very good quality I would say between Nightforce and Leupold. I have also some Bushnell Elite 3200 scope on .22 rifles and I like them - you get a lot of scope for the buck.