I've been researching for my next "precision" rifle scope. I have heard and seen a lot of good things about the entire IOR Valdada lineup but cant find anything on this forum site and its even harder to find them in stock for sale. They have a 4-28x56 with 40mm? main tube ffp "Christmas tree" reticle and reported excellent tracking and build quality, in the $2k price range. Are they out of stock because they are such a good deal? Are they not as good as I'm seeing? Did I miss something?
Rifle Scopes No love for IOR Valdada?
- Thread starter JeepCrasher
- Start date
Oh boy, here we go again. BRB, making popcorn.
Please use the search function for keyword “Valdada”
Here is one (of numerous) thread(s) about IOR, as of late;
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/ior-valdada.6800403/
Looks like you would be better served by staying with one of the better known/respected brands.
Here is one (of numerous) thread(s) about IOR, as of late;
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/ior-valdada.6800403/
Looks like you would be better served by staying with one of the better known/respected brands.
Go: Vortex, Burris, Athlon or Nightforce and call it a day. /thread
But Tiborasaurus Rex likes them so they must be good.
Though, to be fair, Schott does make some very good glass.
How IOR Valdada puts it to use may be another story.
Apparently there is a new one with 150 MOA travel , made in
Japan , not wherever they are usually made . The previous
versions have seemed to stop working frequently ....
Alfa Romeo should do that : design the pretty bits and a
nice motor and good gear ratios , but let Toyota assemble it .
Japan , not wherever they are usually made . The previous
versions have seemed to stop working frequently ....
Alfa Romeo should do that : design the pretty bits and a
nice motor and good gear ratios , but let Toyota assemble it .
Once upon a time they were great.
Made in Romania.
I hope the above rumor regarding Japan is true. And, by the way, as a former photographer, I've compared Canon Florite glass to the coveted German makers lenses... Sorry Germany.
But I've read the many mechanical failure reports on the current IOR offerings and it is very disappointing.
Made in Romania.
I hope the above rumor regarding Japan is true. And, by the way, as a former photographer, I've compared Canon Florite glass to the coveted German makers lenses... Sorry Germany.
But I've read the many mechanical failure reports on the current IOR offerings and it is very disappointing.
Their glass is not the problem, optically they are pretty impressive, what appears to be the problem is the mechanics which have a bad history of not performing. They used to raise a lot of eyebrows even on the Hide, Val from Valdada used to be in Denver, I visited his shop several times and liked him but I think he had it out with some of the Hide members a while back. That along with the history of poorly designed mechanics have made them a bad word on the site. Great scopes in specs but not in the field is the general consensus. Even if they've "fixed" the mechanical issues, most will stay away in lieu of their tainted reputation. I actually bought two of their scopes years ago, it was their 3-18x42 and their 3.5-18x50, I'll see if I can dig up that review...
OP, one thing you have to consider when purchasing an scope is resale, unless you're one of the "rare" shooters out there you will most likely want to upgrade to a better scope, a different reticle, a lighter scope, etc. Things change and change often especially in our sport. Instead of the Valdada 4-28 I would highly recommend the Vortex Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27x56, it is almost the full zoom range of the Valdada but a MUCH MUCH better scope that has great resale.
That may be true in the camera world but it is not true in the sport optics world, at least not yet. Compare the best German glass (Minox ZP5, Schmidt & Bender, Hensoldt or Tangent Theta) to the best Japanese Glass (March, LOW (Vortex Razor series, Sig Tango), Nightforce, Bushnell Prime ED, etc) and you'll see the German glass still has the upper edge. March is probably the closest I've seen to German glass and I hear their new High Master series is even better, just waiting for a March 3-24x52 High Master with a new thinner reticle and I'll probably sell one of my current German optics to get it.
Found my old review notes from years ago:
Valdada 3-18x42mm MP-8 Dot Reticle MOA SFP
I also had a US Optics 3.8-22x44 and felt they had even better glass than Valdada, in fact that scope was the most impressive in low light, but then I bought a Bushnell Elite Tactical 3.5-21x50 and while the glass wasn't quite up to par with Valdada or US Optics the price was right and I loved the size for my LMT MWS 308 I had at the time. I had the Bushnell until I bought a Premier Reticles LT 3-15x50 and it ruined it for me because once you get a chance to use alpha glass it's hard to go back.
Valdada 3-18x42mm MP-8 Dot Reticle MOA SFP
- 34.2 oz
- Zoom ring very difficult to turn.
- Elevation turret – absolutely love it, 10 mil per revolution
- Looking through the front objective there is clearly not a blacked out tube inside, some type of white film is on the inside of the tube.
- Eye Relief is not very good (I like to be a little further away from the rear of the scope)
- Exit Pupil at 3x gives you tunnel vision, the diameter of the sight picture is smaller than at higher magnifications. Almost seems like the FOV is narrowed because of this “squeeze” effect.
- Finish almost looks baked on, don’t get me wrong, it’s a nice finish but different from what you would traditionally see from other mfr’s.
- Reticle is fantastic, love the MP-8 dot; however, the dot in the center appears to be a little oblong and not truly a circular dot. Will this affect accuracy, I highly doubt it, but something to note. The newer MP-8 X1 with windage and numbers is the cat’s meow.
- 36.6 oz
- Need a wrench to turn the zoom ring
- Beautiful glass
- Valdada claims this is one of their newest scopes; however, it is not offered with their latest Mil/Mil reticle the MP-8 Xtreme X1 reticle with the windage markers. The MOA version of this scope has a new MP-8X MOA reticle which does have windage but only in SFP. Why the Mil version is still the “old” style MP-8 reticle I’m not sure, those who do not like cluttered views will be happy I’m sure, but those looking for holdover values do not yet have a choice.
- Secondary point of impact option is fantastic for some. Those who might be mounting this on multiple platforms but especially for those who use suppressors as shooting with a suppressor can change your POI vs. shooting without.
- I love that Valdada put the battery compartment for the illuminated reticle inside the parallax knob on the left side of the scope. I wish more vendors would look to this design (Vortex and Leupold come to mind)
- On Valdada’s website some of their FOV information is incorrect, the MOA version of this scope is listed as 69.3’ at 3.5x which would be most remarkable; however, the MIL version of the scope is listed at 32’ which is much more realistic.
I also had a US Optics 3.8-22x44 and felt they had even better glass than Valdada, in fact that scope was the most impressive in low light, but then I bought a Bushnell Elite Tactical 3.5-21x50 and while the glass wasn't quite up to par with Valdada or US Optics the price was right and I loved the size for my LMT MWS 308 I had at the time. I had the Bushnell until I bought a Premier Reticles LT 3-15x50 and it ruined it for me because once you get a chance to use alpha glass it's hard to go back.
I've got several "cheaper" scopes like everyone has, but my "higher end glass" is razor gen 2 4.5-27 and an XRS. I've had a couple of nightforce nxs. So I may may sound like a complete idiot but i assure you I'm only mostly an idiot when it comes to glass. I appreciate the link. When I used the search feature (I don't know why) but that link did not come up. I was unaware of the mechanical issues IOR was having. I hope they turn it around but I can assure you I will be looking at other optic options.
Thanks for the input guys
Thanks for the input guys
Last edited:
How did the Premier stack up against other common similar price glass (mechanically and optically)?
I owned a very good copy of the 3-18x42.
I was pleased as punch with it. I ended up with a small piece of debris on one of the interior lenses, the scope worked flawlessly, tracked, great glass, good tactile feedback and I love the reticle.
I sent it in, Val sent me a different scope, pain free transaction.
Terrible mistake, as the replacement succumbed to the typical loss of mechanical function.
At one time, there was no other FFP, mil/mil option in that price range.
That is no longer the case. There are numerous ffp, built to high standards, with excellent reticles available at the same, or lower price.
I was pleased as punch with it. I ended up with a small piece of debris on one of the interior lenses, the scope worked flawlessly, tracked, great glass, good tactile feedback and I love the reticle.
I sent it in, Val sent me a different scope, pain free transaction.
Terrible mistake, as the replacement succumbed to the typical loss of mechanical function.
At one time, there was no other FFP, mil/mil option in that price range.
That is no longer the case. There are numerous ffp, built to high standards, with excellent reticles available at the same, or lower price.
Don't I know it!
Even the Nikon sport optics are not great (good however) and the Canon glass is far superior to the Nikon ED glass (I don't know if Nikon uses their ED glass in sport optics). I WISH Canon would get into sport optics, even if just binoculars. Edge to edge clarity, detail resolution, color rendition is just outstanding. Their secret is that all the profits from printers, copiers and other "mundane" stuff goes right into their R&D department. They grow the largest Florite crystals on earth. They've developed their own coatings. It all sounds like advertising hype until you look through the lens.
And to be clear, I agree with you. For sport optics you have hit the nail on the head.
Where is Phillip when you need him......
IOR has been putting out garbage for the last 15+ years...expecting them to turn it around now seems a bit optimistic wouldn't you say?
Optically there is no comparison, the Premier LT 3-15 is the best glass I've ever seen in this zoom range, this scope has now been replaced by the Tangent Theta TT315M which some say are even better than the old Premiers. Mechanically, different story, only 6mil per rev and I think it was limited to 2 revs for 12 mil total, clicks were precise but felt a bit loose, but TT has changed that, still 6 per rev but offer up to 18 mil total and much better "feel", if you're shooting a 45-70 you might have some issues but 18mil is sufficient for most. At just under 28oz these scopes flat out rock. Minox makes a ZP5 3-15 which uses the same optical formula as the Premier/TT but some reviewers have said the ZP5 glass for the 3-15 is not quite as good as the ZP5 glass in the 5-25, not bad mind you, just not as good as the ZP5 5-25 which rivals TT's 5-25.
If you already have a Vortex Gen II 4.5-27x56 then why are you looking at Valdada? Most shooters rave about their Gen II's. If you're wanting better glass then you're going to have to look to Schmidt & Bender, Minox ZP5, Tangent Theta and March maybe (check out the March 5-40x56). Also, there's a new kid on the block ZCO, they just came out with a new 5-27x56 that could be a dream come true for many, but they are still in pre-production so will have to wait a few months to get the skinny.
His mommy has him chained in the basement
That claim is sure to sir up some controversy.
I didn't say equals, I said rivals, there's a difference
Who bought a IOR and then started a thread comparing it to his dick? Was it that dleeds guy?
Some questions are best left unanswered...
The glass on the March 10-60x56 is something to behold mate. I haven't looked through a TT or Minox yet, but to my eyes the new March glass was a step above the S&B 5-45x56.
One definition of "rivals" (as a verb), "is superior to".I didn't say equals, I said rivals, there's a difference
I now understand you meant the 2 scopes are rivals (as a noun), or "competitors".
Last edited:
You got it Joe, I just meant close competitors as I have not seen anything that would indicate Minox as superior to TT, but since I've never owned a TT I could not say for certain, HKDave owns both and says they're very very close optically.
That's what everyone thinks, but they actually use shot glass(es) for their optics, pronounced the same but completely differentI here they have Schott glass...
The secondary zero is interesting, especially for a switch barrel setup. But that feature is not worth the risk to me.
I fiddled with that new one at Shot, it was very impressive in every way! Handling it gave me the feeling it wasn't typical IOR but two steps up in quality. Nice and compact too.
Maybe they finally woke up .... Who's going to be the first guinea pig???
Maybe they finally woke up .... Who's going to be the first guinea pig???
Take one for the team Steve, buy one and report back!
I had 4 at one time (3x 3-18 x 42 and 1x 3-18x50), the 42s all went back for service at various times. One failed while turning the mag ring after taking the rifle out of the safe and showing it to a friend. One developed a shifting zero and tracking issue. One failed within the first 10 rounds fired after being mounted, around shot 7 everything went blurry and the parallax knob no longer worked.
The 3-18 x 50 never gave me any issues, but I took a beating when I sold them all because of the reputation for failure they had earned by that point... not anxious to dive back in. LOL!
Years ago IOR was one of the, if not the only reasonably priced mil/mil/FFP scope on the market back when the 3-18x42 was released. Those were the days when Leopold Mark IVs were ubiquitous and everything seemed to have a SFP mil reticle with MOA knobs. Mil/mil/FFP was only in the domain of S&B, Hensoldt, etc, and substantially more expensive. Times have changed though and nowadays there are too many good options to give IOR another try given my past experience with them and their past reputation still significantly hurting resale values.
Last edited:
If it was me, I'd get something else other than an IOR scope these days. unless you really like them and can get a very good deal on them.
I've had IOR scopes and still have one in my closet.
For the $2K mark you are looking at, you would probably be much better served by throwing in a little bit extra and getting a S&B 5-25x56 scope (can be had on sale in the $2.5k or less range).
The biggest problem with the IOR scopes is the value for the money compared to well established brands and resale value.
I've had IOR scopes and still have one in my closet.
For the $2K mark you are looking at, you would probably be much better served by throwing in a little bit extra and getting a S&B 5-25x56 scope (can be had on sale in the $2.5k or less range).
The biggest problem with the IOR scopes is the value for the money compared to well established brands and resale value.
I used to own a 6-24x56 FFP Mil/Mil IOR and bought it when it first hit the market back in 2010 it was in the same area as the Razor Gen1 only cheaper. I have since upgraded to a Razor Gen2 4.5-27X56. It was a good scope at the time and was what I could afford. So, having been a former IOR owner, I will give my mini review:
Glass is good, no getting around that.
I personally loved the MP8 Christmas tree reticle which I got in a replacement scope(more on that later)
It tunnels below 10x magnification which makes lower than that pretty useless and it seemed to go through batteries even when turned off
Tracking seemed good. I had no issues with it.
It had a zero stop, but no way to lock the turrets. this made me uncomfortable when hunting.
I bought my scope from liberty optics when they still sold them, so I had good warranty service with them. My last time I had a warranty issue I dealt directly with IOR and that wasn't the same.
The first scope I got, I immediately sent back because the reticle was canted
The second scope died of natural causes
The third scope padded it's rifle's 3 ft decent onto concrete when some high winds caught it. The scope still held zero but lost focus after every shot, then several years later it took a 90degree fall when the blind it was in got taken down(not a very hard fall by any means). The reticle started turning when the magnification ring was turned. It was pronounced dead and $250 later I got my last IOR scope.
Decided I did not want to deal with the stress of a scope that had a sketchy warranty and couldn't take a beating, so I sold it for my current scope. The Razor Gen2 is amazing.
So I say all that to say this:
Pros:
Competitive when I first bought it
Good Glass
Good reticle
Makes you a maverick on this forum
Cons:
Fragile - handle with care
Odd sized tubes
Sketchy warranty
Poor/weak mechanical track record
IOR doesn't compete with the current offerings of other Optics makers
Would I recommend it to a friend? No
I can remember telling myself every time something went wrong: "I should have just spent the $200 extra and bought the Razor gen1."
There are much better ways to spend that kind of money.
Glass is good, no getting around that.
I personally loved the MP8 Christmas tree reticle which I got in a replacement scope(more on that later)
It tunnels below 10x magnification which makes lower than that pretty useless and it seemed to go through batteries even when turned off
Tracking seemed good. I had no issues with it.
It had a zero stop, but no way to lock the turrets. this made me uncomfortable when hunting.
I bought my scope from liberty optics when they still sold them, so I had good warranty service with them. My last time I had a warranty issue I dealt directly with IOR and that wasn't the same.
The first scope I got, I immediately sent back because the reticle was canted
The second scope died of natural causes
The third scope padded it's rifle's 3 ft decent onto concrete when some high winds caught it. The scope still held zero but lost focus after every shot, then several years later it took a 90degree fall when the blind it was in got taken down(not a very hard fall by any means). The reticle started turning when the magnification ring was turned. It was pronounced dead and $250 later I got my last IOR scope.
Decided I did not want to deal with the stress of a scope that had a sketchy warranty and couldn't take a beating, so I sold it for my current scope. The Razor Gen2 is amazing.
So I say all that to say this:
Pros:
Competitive when I first bought it
Good Glass
Good reticle
Makes you a maverick on this forum
Cons:
Fragile - handle with care
Odd sized tubes
Sketchy warranty
Poor/weak mechanical track record
IOR doesn't compete with the current offerings of other Optics makers
There is a reason it makes you a maverick on this forum
Would I recommend it to a friend? No
I can remember telling myself every time something went wrong: "I should have just spent the $200 extra and bought the Razor gen1."
There are much better ways to spend that kind of money.
Ha, I tried taking one for the team with a Gen 3 IOR, of course it broke, like my friends earlier Gen 1 and 2.
I'm pretty happy with the Cronus BTR, and the good ole S&B's.
The Gen 4 scopes seem to work pretty well.
I have a 3-18x42, to be honest, it is one of my favorite scopes.
I love the MP8 reticle, I really like the warm picture it gives, it tracks.
The finish on the scopes suck.
The Crusader and Recon really seem to have had all the bugs worked out and are apparently used with great success. I know they remain popular across the pond, as it is easier to source them there and warranty is probably easier as well.
But it comes down to this: Why bother. Considering those prices, you can easily get into a Gen 2 Razor or XRS II. The glass will be better in the IOR, but the value really isn't there.
The 3-18x42 was my first good scope. I got caught up in the excitement here when the Hide designed the reticle (has it really been over a decade?!). It shit the bed exactly at the 500 round mark on my M-14. Was replaced very quickly with no questions asked with one a couple generations later. Has been trouble free across many rifles since. Tracks true, gets shot to 1k regularly. I put it up for sale every now and then and it doesnt sell. It always finds a home on a rifle that I am saving for alpha glass for. There is nothing wrong with it except I outgrew the reticle (now called an MP-8) as its too thick to hold for wind on small targets past 750 at more than 12x or so.
The glass actually is very good, and I still enjoy looking through it. It does its job well, and I seem to be stuck with it. There are much worse fates. I dont abuse my scopes at all but its been handled rough half hoping it tanks so I get a new replacement one to sell and it just keeps going. Went flying out of a jeep one night driving a bit nutty under NVGs landing on the optic enough to bash up the elevation knob a good bit and held zero. Has spent time on a Scar-17 and magnums that would trash a cheap optic. The short eye relief on it keeps limiting what it goes on, but my understanding is the ones with the bigger objective fix that issue.
The glass actually is very good, and I still enjoy looking through it. It does its job well, and I seem to be stuck with it. There are much worse fates. I dont abuse my scopes at all but its been handled rough half hoping it tanks so I get a new replacement one to sell and it just keeps going. Went flying out of a jeep one night driving a bit nutty under NVGs landing on the optic enough to bash up the elevation knob a good bit and held zero. Has spent time on a Scar-17 and magnums that would trash a cheap optic. The short eye relief on it keeps limiting what it goes on, but my understanding is the ones with the bigger objective fix that issue.
I actually loled.......
