Rifle Scopes IOR 3-18 gen4 VS SS 5-20

[utnapishtim]

Hi all - if you're tired of the endless this vs. that threads, I apologize in advance. I still consider myself a newb in the world of long range shooting, as I've only been shooting past 200 yards for about a year now. I don't have access to a lot of scopes, so I have to rely on the wisdom of the Hide members to help me with my decision.

I recently aquired an FN-SPR with a 24" barrel. I plan to use it primarily for range work, along with one hunting trip per year. If things work out, I might also enter some amateur competitions.

I've got about $1700 to spend, and I've enjoyed my SS 3-9 on my AR quite a bit. But I also have a set of IOR binos, and the glass is stunning.

Anybody have any opinions one way or another on these two?

Thanks so much in advance! And again, I apologize for dropping another VS. thread on y'all.

 

[joemusso]

Re: IOR 3-18 gen4 VS SS 5-20

i would go with the IOR

get in touch with scott at liberty optics he will fix you up.

he is a vendor here.

 

[Twitch2120]

Re: IOR 3-18 gen4 VS SS 5-20

well, my ss 5-20 has been going strong for a year now. im not high volume shooting or anything but the gun gets bumped around in a soft case more often then i would like. i was considering the IOR when i went with the SS. just read too many horror stories about getting repair work if its needed. might still go with an IOR in the future.

 

[springer01]

Re: IOR 3-18 gen4 VS SS 5-20

Have had both prefer the IOR because of the better glass, better reticle, lower profile fatter turrets, perfect mag range, and its a little shorter and lighter. I would take a look at the IOR 3-18x42 SH X1 Tactical 35mm Rifle Scope, same as the other but has zero stops and digital Illumination, and a further modified MP8 reticle.

 

[Baranx4]

Re: IOR 3-18 gen4 VS SS 5-20

As joe pointed out contact scott at liberty
He is known for his honesty

 

[6brshooter]

Re: IOR 3-18 gen4 VS SS 5-20

I had an early 35mm 6-24ior, euro type 9moa knob. Awesome glass, excellent reticle, heavy and big. My one serious complaint.... if u tightened the rings more then 11 in/lbs the paralax adjustment froze or binded. Used the factory rings, seekins weren't available then. Scope would slip if rings torqued less then 11in/lbs and had to put a drop or 2inside the ring halves to get it to hold and still had a draggy/binding feel to parallax knob. I have a ss5-20, in fact 2, the glass is close, adjustment is precise and repetable. Reticle is not my favorite if they would put a g2dmr it would be excellent. The paralax on the ior i had also was 1/8th turn from 100 to infinity , other words real touchy to dial out perfectly compared to some scopes that use 1/2 or more of a turn to go from 100- infinity.

 

[tactic-als]

If there wasn't the FB promotion SWFA was doing for the release of the SS 5-20, I would've got the IOR 3-18x50. Great glass, I really like the FFP reticle and their digital illumination. Most complaints seem to be the earlier versions.

 

[mjh30]

As mentioned above contact Scott at liberty optics, 3-18x50 modified mp8, digital illumination, zero stop, secondary point of impact, great glass, great eye relief and within your budget.

 

[Kiba]

At one time I had 4 IOR 3-18 x 42 FFPs along with 2 IOR 3.5-18 x 50 FFPs. I still have several SWFA 5-20 HDs.

Comparing the SWFA to the 3-18 x 42 IOR, the SWFA has quite good glass but the IORs were a little better (even if it has a slightly yellowish warm hue) and the large IOR elevation knob was easier to manipulate quickly. However, IMO the weak spot on the 3-18 IOR is the eye relief; it's quite short & touchy especially above 14X and the SWFA has a much more forgiving eyebox. The IOR modified MP-8 reticle is nice but the line thickness is a bit on the heavy side. The limited tube length behind the turret box of the IOR coupled with the short eye relief makes it hard to get back far enough to be comfy especially on a bolt gun IMO; I was never able to get the IOR far enough back on my bolt guns to avoid stretching my neck to get into the scope. They worked fine on my AR's though where I could scoot them back far enough.

Given a choice between the IOR 3-18 and the SWFA I'd take the SWFA simply because of the better eye relief and more "conventional" tube geometry that allows more mounting options.

However, the IOR 3.5-18 x 50 is another animal completely. Much better eye relief than the 3-18 x 42, reticle line thickness is a bit thinner than the 3-18, it has more tube length behind the turret box for more mounting options, and the knobs on my 2 examples were very good. Illumination on the IOR is better IMO (full reticle on the IOR vs just a center dot on the SWFA.) The little cat tail machined onto the mag ring of the IOR is a nice touch too. I prefer the IOR 3.5-18 x 50 over the SWFA for the reticle, glass, and knobs... Neither scope would prevent me from hitting the target but I preferred the 3.5-18 IOR. Another thing to keep in mind is when you can get a used SWFA for about $1050 and a used IOR 3.5-18 for about $1600 it becomes a tougher decision as I'm not sure the IOR is $550 better.

 

[linedrive301ft]

Kiba, good comparison and review. I own both scopes and use them in matches.

I prefer the IOR (glass & reticle) over the SS but both will serve you well.

Good luck with your decision.

Regards