So is it your position that one can't tell two scopes apart by looking through them outside for an hour?
918v... You need agree with them or get banned.
So is it your position that one can't tell two scopes apart by looking through them outside for an hour?
So is it your position that one can't tell two scopes apart by looking through them outside for an hour?
No, its a telescopic sight, which is different from a spotting scope used to stare at birds, and even the birders are smart enough to understand there is more too it than looking out the window with it. If you never put them on a chart to read the actual results you accomplished nothing but satisfy your own desire.
All you did was decide you like the color white over the blue or red car in the parking lot. You picked a color that satisfies your eye and absolutely nothing else. You have no facts , no data, you don't know a single thing more than you did before you went shopping except, you eye likes the Henny and the blue of the S&B felt too cool, the ATACR was too warm, which is all meaningless to anyone but you. My girl did the same thing last month, she picked the Black Turbo Beetle over the White Convertible one, which she liked better than the shade of blue one they had. She wanted a standard shift and a color that didn't offend her end. Beyond that, not much else mattered.
Hell as a photographer you should know there is more to a lens than the eye can resolve. If all it took was a simple look why do they waste their time with testing, color charts, etc. even more so when you can the color and look both inside the camera and in post. Can you tell which lens is better if you shoot in Log mode.... What about if you add a FLAAT color space, does just looking tell you the story ? Of course not.
Your eye is not calibrated, and your brain includes prejudices that act subconsciously.
Anyone check out the 2014 Tasco's ?????
(Kidding)
An entertaining read none the less gentleman.
It now makes me want to get a calibration chart and look at all of my various optics..
I agree completely. Although NF is on the right track. But IMO the PMII is still the benchmark, although there are some getting closer and closer...
NF are indeed on the right track, but they're made in Japan... I really wish we could claim them ALL for ourselves!
I know SB is top notch, but why is everyone in this thread dogging the IOR?
Are you guys dogging the older generations or the current generation? I understand that even SBs, USO, NF, Etc. break occasionally just like the IOR. I've read the couple examples of the IORs having problems, but I'm just trying to see what others see here.
The clicks are very precise and it returns to zero with no issues. I haven't done the "box" test yet, but it seems like a fairly solid scope. Not SB or even NF durability, but it seems okay, except for the goofy zero stop and that POI indicator.
[MENTION=7]Lowlight[/MENTION] and to all of you who was able to use in the field such an impressive number of scopes from so many brands
Can you please make a personal top 10 or top 3 ? not the brand but the specific model .
Thank you
918v... You need agree with them or get banned.
I get it, if you going to spend the money, you want what you want. If you care more about the look than how it shoots, then knock yourselves out. I don't see the point, but each to his own. Lowlight knows what he is talking about. Why argue with experience that you don't have?
You are absolutely correct in your first statement. People buy different things than others because of a multitude of reasons. Some like the price, some like the mag. range, some the color, some like the contrast....the list goes on and on.
You are absolutely correct in your second statement. Frank probably knows more about scopes than anybody. I do not question that at all.
But I respectfully disagree with your third statement, At least from my point of view, I am not arguing with Franks experience, I'm arguing that I have a choice to make when I buy a scope. That choice is mine. What ever the reason is that I decide to buy the scope (if it is a scope that Frank does not like) does not make me "wrong". Frank likes his scopes to do one thing, I like mine to do another, no-one is wrong, we're both right. I read Franks reviews, I read Ilja's (spell) reviews, but I do not make any decision based on what they say. They like what they like, I like what I like. No different than anyone else on this site. If someone here chooses to buy a scope based on Franks reviews that is awesome, that is clearly your right to do so. But if others base their decisions on looking out the store window for five minutes, that is great too. Just because that is not the way Frank would have done it. or someone else would have done it does not make him wrong. If that is his only criteria then that is the way it is. Why should anyone argue about that?
Except when some one like you a few others runs from post after post shouting how much they love their decision even after point out the negatives of the product you are crowing about.
That is the issue, it's not that your choice is "wrong" for you, your choice has some obvious issues, and more than one person told you that, so why would you continue to go post after post and state the same things over and over ?
If you can't see the problem with that, then there is no helping you.
It's not that we, "disagree" it's that you're wrong in your constant defense. So shut up about it, if it works for you, keep it to yourself instead of running from post to post defending your decision.
You can't change history, and the fact you like what you have doesn't mean you should go from post to post trying to sell it to the masses.
I see what you are saying, but when someone post on this site in the scope section "I'm thinking about buying an IOR 3.5-18X50, what do you guys think?" What should I tell them? Should I say "Frank and others around here don't like them and I would stay away from them if I was you" or should I say "I have one and it has give me no problems"? I guess I just don't understand why I should say something negative if I don't have anything negative to say?
I see what you are saying, but when someone post on this site in the scope section "I'm thinking about buying an IOR 3.5-18X50, what do you guys think?" What should I tell them? Should I say "Frank and others around here don't like them and I would stay away from them if I was you" or should I say "I have one and it has give me no problems"? I guess I just don't understand why I should say something negative if I don't have anything negative to say?
918, Frank clearly has used all the scope your arguing about, why dont you post a pic just to make sure we are all talking about the same scopes.
like this
![]()
There are a lot of really good scopes out there, we have more choices than ever before and companies are really doing well to step up. The bar is raised.
You have to remember, it's a Telescopic "Sight"... the key word here is SIGHT. It's not a spotter, it's not a camera lens, it's a sighting system designed to move the crosshair to a target at a given distance. Glass is not your primary consideration.
People get wrapped around the axle about glass, what they see, how it looks, where it comes from. All that is important only to you the owner, as no two people see the same thing the same way we all have different reasons for buying a scope. And we all come into it with a prejudice ahead of time. Either the name, the cost, the place it was spec'd from, all plant seeds in people's mind which then sways their judgement. It's how we operate, and you can't do anything about it unless you use a test like the Finn Accuracy one to help turn a subjective process into something more objective. All you need to read it once that "X" brand has better glass or is a better scope and the moment you touch it, your mind is already made up. Especially when people get into the $3k range, it instantly becomes an emotional investment that also speaks to your decision making process.
How you plan to use it, the features important to you, first focal plane, second focal plane, hunting, target, competition, zero stops, locking turrets, reticle, all matter when picking a scope. Very little of that has to do with Glass... sure some of it does, but different coatings and different objective, as well as different overall designs can also determine your choice. Longer, shorter, Wider field of View, higher magnification range, also has meaning. If you are gonna hunt at dusk, you might want to stick to a bigger objective and lower power range, if you are gonna shoot F Class you might want MOA turrets and reticles with a bigger range up to 50x or more. That same scope is not gonna work well on a hunt.
I use and employ a lot of scopes, I am fan of scopes, I have scopes from many different manufacturers and have toured several different factories over the years, to include assembling scopes. When people ask me what scope to get, the first thing I need to know is your budget... the next is what you plan on doing with it, and then I can point you in the right direction. There is no sense pushing them towards a $3600 scope if they can only afford $1600. At the same time how stupid would it be to compare a $1600 scope to a $3600 scope, or $6600 scope. It's apples and oranges, of course one will "look" better, but that doesn't mean there is not good choices in the $1600 price range. Hell I was one who pushed USO into making the first MOA scope from them, I sketched the reticle used on a napkin at SHOT with John W Sr, and a few months later, their first MOA / MOA scope was born. There are several examples like this out there swirling in the ether.
What pisses me off is people who throw their personal opinion out as if they solved the optics puzzle. Strolling into a gun shop, and comparing them out of the box is no different than going to you local car dealer and picking a car based on the color. You might get a bullet pointed break down from the salesman, but you are no more educated on the subject of cars than you were before you walked in the dealership. Saying, well I get better gas mileage, I have A/C, heated seats, etc, as if you know exactly what you are talking about is false. Yes that car fits your needs, but what about the guy looking to haul a trailer, he has a completely different mindset than you. You can't help him and in fact are not helping him at all. You bought a Camry, not a Tundra, so why do you keep trying to sell the Camry to everyone. Stupid. It's your personal opinion, and just because your opinion of the Camry matches someone else's doesn't change the fact, not everyone is looking for a Camry.
This thread was started because of an off the cuff, (insider) comment I made last year at SHOT. It was in defense of what was universally seen as a unprofessional (and personal) move by S&B towards someone highly respected in this industry. it had very little to do with the optics themselves. It was about people or a person... that also carried over towards a trend people saw with the product. If you weren't there in the know, it has very little bearing on your life or the product we all use. Since that time, everyone has moved on... it's water under the bridge, the dust has settled, however you want to say it. The subject is old news... hence the problem with digging up year old posts.
I use a lot of different rifles, scopes, mounts, in my daily travels. I am happy to show people the difference between a Vortex PST and an SWFA Super Sniper and let you make the decision. If you want to see an S&B, I will bring them too... But like I said, 1. Budget, 2. Use to include, a) rifle, b) distance c) context 3. Features important to you, and finally future proofing ... does it make sense for you to spend a bit more now vs buying a second optic down the road because you went cheap this time. It's better to mount an S&B on a Factory 700 5R than it is to buy 3 different scopes as you move up the optics ladder. At least that is how I see it.
Here is a clue... if you want to express your personal opinion and not take flak... tell people up front it's just your personal opinion, you looked at it out the shop window and in your mind, scope A was better than scope B... but don't act like you know anything more than that... just cause you have some google fu. Ownership does not equal competence, there a tons of owners who never shot their stuff, never went beyond 200 yards with it, never had it out in the rain, never tested the adjustments, never shot from an alternate position, never let it put it behind NV, don't have more than 100 rounds under it, etc... the list is endless. Hell many don't even mount their own scopes. If you think money to buy means your opinion is valid, think again. Sound harsh... if it does, you might just fit into that box. We're glad you like your scope... next.
I see what you are saying, but when someone post on this site in the scope section "I'm thinking about buying an IOR 3.5-18X50, what do you guys think?" What should I tell them? Should I say "Frank and others around here don't like them and I would stay away from them if I was you" or should I say "I have one and it has give me no problems"? I guess I just don't understand why I should say something negative if I don't have anything negative to say?
Opinions are what they are. What I (and I think most others) look for is what went into forming said opinion. If one is honest and upfront about their scope of experience (or lack there of) and under what conditions said product was used, it helps to qualify things. We all know that there are lemons as well as diamonds in the rough, but in the grand scheme, the numbers pretty much are what one would expect. And on top of that, there are lines between sharing opinions, articulating experience, and just being a plain 'ol cheerleading fanboy trying to pour kool-aid at every turn.
Absolutely, Frank says all his busted at around 200-300rds. If he only shoots 50rds a day his busted in about a week. I have no reason to doubt him. But I've had my scope for well over a year and have 1000s of rounds fired with it. Is that not enough time to come to a solid conclusion about the scope?
Here's what you say...
I have a IOR 3.5-18x50 that hasn't given me any problems but anyone wanting to spend their hard earned money would be well advised to do a search on IOR scope problems because others have not had the best luck.
DEFINITELY DO NOT SAY "it's the best damn scope period".
[MENTION=7]Lowlight[/MENTION] and to all of you who was able to use in the field such an impressive number of scopes from so many brands
Can you please make a personal top 10 or top 3 ? not the brand but the specific model .
Thank you
I see what you are saying, but when someone post on this site in the scope section "I'm thinking about buying an IOR 3.5-18X50, what do you guys think?" What should I tell them? Should I say "Frank and others around here don't like them and I would stay away from them if I was you" or should I say "I have one and it has give me no problems"? I guess I just don't understand why I should say something negative if I don't have anything negative to say?
One example, wow, impressive.
Zeiss is famous for the CA... as well I can show you two examples of my Hensoldts with the turrets that don't match up to the lines.
Your single anecdotal experience does not tell the story, that takes numbers and more experience than "your scope", a single sampling is nothing.
You say your opinion clearly stated as such, as suggested.
The follow up secret is to not act like a total wiener with other people with more experience and data come into the conversation and make you feel bad about your lovely scope choice.
I don't even know what you just said.
I've heard you can't change history. I'm not trying to change history, but I know that past performance in no way shape or form guarantees future performance.
I've heard you can't change the facts, I'm not trying to. But facts can be viewed many different ways depending on which side of the fence you are on. Is the glass half full? Or is the glass half empty? Both are indisputable facts, but are very different depending how you view it. One guy can have 20 years looking at the glass and 425 notebooks of data claiming the glass is half full. The other guy may have looked at the glass for 5 minutes and decided the glass was half empty. Who is right and who is wrong.
The answer is what I've been saying all along. Neither is wrong. They're both right. But some people just refuse to see it any other way.
It makes no sense? I don't get it?
I'm going to the "Bolt Action" section. Those guys don't argue about anything!!
There are a lot of really good scopes out there, we have more choices than ever before and companies are really doing well to step up. The bar is raised.
You have to remember, it's a Telescopic "Sight"... the key word here is SIGHT. It's not a spotter, it's not a camera lens, it's a sighting system designed to move the crosshair to a target at a given distance. Glass is not your primary consideration.
People get wrapped around the axle about glass, what they see, how it looks, where it comes from. All that is important only to you the owner, as no two people see the same thing the same way we all have different reasons for buying a scope. And we all come into it with a prejudice ahead of time. Either the name, the cost, the place it was spec'd from, all plant seeds in people's mind which then sways their judgement. It's how we operate, and you can't do anything about it unless you use a test like the Finn Accuracy one to help turn a subjective process into something more objective. All you need to read it once that "X" brand has better glass or is a better scope and the moment you touch it, your mind is already made up. Especially when people get into the $3k range, it instantly becomes an emotional investment that also speaks to your decision making process.
How you plan to use it, the features important to you, first focal plane, second focal plane, hunting, target, competition, zero stops, locking turrets, reticle, all matter when picking a scope. Very little of that has to do with Glass... sure some of it does, but different coatings and different objective, as well as different overall designs can also determine your choice. Longer, shorter, Wider field of View, higher magnification range, also has meaning. If you are gonna hunt at dusk, you might want to stick to a bigger objective and lower power range, if you are gonna shoot F Class you might want MOA turrets and reticles with a bigger range up to 50x or more. That same scope is not gonna work well on a hunt.
I use and employ a lot of scopes, I am fan of scopes, I have scopes from many different manufacturers and have toured several different factories over the years, to include assembling scopes. When people ask me what scope to get, the first thing I need to know is your budget... the next is what you plan on doing with it, and then I can point you in the right direction. There is no sense pushing them towards a $3600 scope if they can only afford $1600. At the same time how stupid would it be to compare a $1600 scope to a $3600 scope, or $6600 scope. It's apples and oranges, of course one will "look" better, but that doesn't mean there is not good choices in the $1600 price range. Hell I was one who pushed USO into making the first MOA scope from them, I sketched the reticle used on a napkin at SHOT with John W Sr, and a few months later, their first MOA / MOA scope was born. There are several examples like this out there swirling in the ether.
What pisses me off is people who throw their personal opinion out as if they solved the optics puzzle. Strolling into a gun shop, and comparing them out of the box is no different than going to you local car dealer and picking a car based on the color. You might get a bullet pointed break down from the salesman, but you are no more educated on the subject of cars than you were before you walked in the dealership. Saying, well I get better gas mileage, I have A/C, heated seats, etc, as if you know exactly what you are talking about is false. Yes that car fits your needs, but what about the guy looking to haul a trailer, he has a completely different mindset than you. You can't help him and in fact are not helping him at all. You bought a Camry, not a Tundra, so why do you keep trying to sell the Camry to everyone. Stupid. It's your personal opinion, and just because your opinion of the Camry matches someone else's doesn't change the fact, not everyone is looking for a Camry.
This thread was started because of an off the cuff, (insider) comment I made last year at SHOT. It was in defense of what was universally seen as a unprofessional (and personal) move by S&B towards someone highly respected in this industry. it had very little to do with the optics themselves. It was about people or a person... that also carried over towards a trend people saw with the product. If you weren't there in the know, it has very little bearing on your life or the product we all use. Since that time, everyone has moved on... it's water under the bridge, the dust has settled, however you want to say it. The subject is old news... hence the problem with digging up year old posts.
I use a lot of different rifles, scopes, mounts, in my daily travels. I am happy to show people the difference between a Vortex PST and an SWFA Super Sniper and let you make the decision. If you want to see an S&B, I will bring them too... But like I said, 1. Budget, 2. Use to include, a) rifle, b) distance c) context 3. Features important to you, and finally future proofing ... does it make sense for you to spend a bit more now vs buying a second optic down the road because you went cheap this time. It's better to mount an S&B on a Factory 700 5R than it is to buy 3 different scopes as you move up the optics ladder. At least that is how I see it.
Here is a clue... if you want to express your personal opinion and not take flak... tell people up front it's just your personal opinion, you looked at it out the shop window and in your mind, scope A was better than scope B... but don't act like you know anything more than that... just cause you have some google fu. Ownership does not equal competence, there a tons of owners who never shot their stuff, never went beyond 200 yards with it, never had it out in the rain, never tested the adjustments, never shot from an alternate position, never let it put it behind NV, don't have more than 100 rounds under it, etc... the list is endless. Hell many don't even mount their own scopes. If you think money to buy means your opinion is valid, think again. Sound harsh... if it does, you might just fit into that box. We're glad you like your scope... next.
But I respectfully disagree with your third statement, At least from my point of view, I am not arguing with Franks experience, I'm arguing that I have a choice to make when I buy a scope. That choice is mine. What ever the reason is that I decide to buy the scope (if it is a scope that Frank does not like) does not make me "wrong". Frank likes his scopes to do one thing, I like mine to do another, no-one is wrong, we're both right. I read Franks reviews, I read Ilja's (spell) reviews, but I do not make any decision based on what they say. They like what they like, I like what I like. No different than anyone else on this site. If someone here chooses to buy a scope based on Franks reviews that is awesome, that is clearly your right to do so. But if others base their decisions on looking out the store window for five minutes, that is great too. Just because that is not the way Frank would have done it. or someone else would have done it does not make him wrong. If that is his only criteria then that is the way it is. Why should anyone argue about that?
I am right with ya brother. I am going to buy what I like and can afford too. I just THANK GOD that guys like Frank have told me from their own experience that Scopes like the IOR can not be mechanically trusted. I do not have the time, inclination or expertise to solve problems caused by a defective scope. If others want to spend their range days chasing problems induced by the poor mechanical design and construction of their scope, good for them. For me life is too short to spend it with gear I can not trust. If I can trust my gear then I can concentrate on my shooting, that is what I shoot for.
Frank, Thank you, for saving me from wasting my money and time. I was looking at a IOR.
For my own edification - what is CA?...Is it truly impossible to believe that there Zeiss scopes that do not show CA?...
For my own edification - what is CA?
For my own edification - what is CA?
In optics, chromatic aberration (CA, also called achromatism or chromatic distortion) is a type of distortion in which there is a failure of a lens to focus all colors to the same convergence point. It occurs because lenses have a different refractive index for different wavelengths of light (the dispersion of the lens). The refractive index decreases with increasing wavelength.
Chromatic aberration manifests itself as "fringes" of color along boundaries that separate dark and bright parts of the image, because each color in the optical spectrum cannot be focused at a single common point. Since the focal length f of a lens is dependent on the refractive index n, different wavelengths of light will be focused on different positions.