I own two 3-18 x 42mm IORs and really like the MP-8 reticle, which I use for holdovers out to about 900 yds. Been using these scopes for about 3 years now on 7mm RMs. So far no complaints. The resolution these scopes provide is outstanding.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
any one like IOR Valdada
- Thread starter ak338rum
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
KILLADEAUX
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Messages
- 31
IOR Valdada
I purchased an IOR Valdada 6x24x50 last year for long range shots and to be able to identify a buck at long range as a shooter. I never used more than 18 power and the furthest deer I shot was 100 yards. I did harvest a 146 class 10 point at only 70 yards. My rifle is a Remington 700 in 300 Win Mag with a Hart barrel. I'm shooting 77.5 grains of Reloader 22 with a Hornady 150 grain Interbond. I put a Kepplinger single set trigger on the rifle and accuracy has improved tremendously. At first, I set the trigger at 10 oz's. The gun went off so quickly, it was scary. I ended up at 16 oz's and feel more comfortable. With out setting the trigger, by pushing the trigger forward, the trigger is set at 21/2 pounds which is still not hard to pull.
I purchased an IOR Valdada 6x24x50 last year for long range shots and to be able to identify a buck at long range as a shooter. I never used more than 18 power and the furthest deer I shot was 100 yards. I did harvest a 146 class 10 point at only 70 yards. My rifle is a Remington 700 in 300 Win Mag with a Hart barrel. I'm shooting 77.5 grains of Reloader 22 with a Hornady 150 grain Interbond. I put a Kepplinger single set trigger on the rifle and accuracy has improved tremendously. At first, I set the trigger at 10 oz's. The gun went off so quickly, it was scary. I ended up at 16 oz's and feel more comfortable. With out setting the trigger, by pushing the trigger forward, the trigger is set at 21/2 pounds which is still not hard to pull.
LRHWAL
Well-Known Member
Buitler Creek covers
ND Norm - I see you have Butler creeks on your IOR - my 4-14 has an eye piece larger than any of the Butler Creek eye piece covers. I'm guessing maybe you pulled off the little rubber ring and that helped, but then the cover must reduce your eyerelief (obviously only to the cover, but still). Either that or what? Maybe I'm not concentrating here, but I eventually ordered another objective cover for the eye piece.
My eye piece is 1.9" OD.
Thanks.
WL
ND Norm - I see you have Butler creeks on your IOR - my 4-14 has an eye piece larger than any of the Butler Creek eye piece covers. I'm guessing maybe you pulled off the little rubber ring and that helped, but then the cover must reduce your eyerelief (obviously only to the cover, but still). Either that or what? Maybe I'm not concentrating here, but I eventually ordered another objective cover for the eye piece.
My eye piece is 1.9" OD.
Thanks.
WL
NDNorm
Well-Known Member
the one I have is the snipers hide group designed 3-18 first focal plane and i just slipped on the ones that Scott from Liberty optics posted to use over on the hide
you might try giving Scott a call......
Scott Berish
Liberty Optics LLC
An Official Vendor of Sniper's Hide.
"See Better, Shoot Better" LibertyOpticsLLC
352-572-1469
406-890-2714 1800-2100 hours MST
[email protected]
tjonh2001
Well-Known Member
lrhwal
i have the ior 4.5x14 and didnt have a problem installing eather butler creek covers mine slipped right over the adjustable eye piece.
i have the ior 4.5x14 and didnt have a problem installing eather butler creek covers mine slipped right over the adjustable eye piece.
Jon A
Well-Known Member
If you want to stay MOA, and don't care too much about FFP, I think the 3-18 SFP is an excellent choice for you. Many may not realize the SFP version now comes with the new big knobs--25 MOA elevation. No more "counting the turns." Here are a couple pics I found (not mine):
I believe Scott at LO throws in a free set of Seekins rings which are SO much better than the IOR/TPS.
One thing I did that made the BC fit much better on my 3-18 was to shave it down so it was thinner and could be slid on all the way. I guess it depends where you have the focus ring, but as you can see here thinning it down worked really well:
I just held it to a sanding disk on a drill for a few seconds.
Yeah, the 4-14 eyepiece is bigger, I never used a cap on mine. As Norm said, Scott could probably help you out.
Jimm
Well-Known Member
I like the
IOR scope I have . 9X36 X 56 w/ 34mm tube . Bright , good resolution , repeatable tracking , and if your grandson misplaces the baseball bat ....well , the IOR can pinch hit . But that is not a negative for me , the rifle I put it on weighs 15 lbs so whats 5 or 6 more ,eh ? . I guess the negatives for me are the clunky power selector ring ( can you say "non ergonomic" ) , the obesity that is due to lack of further machining ( thereby saving costs I guess ) , and the feel of the adjustment knobs . This last item would be easy to get used to ........I think .
It sure is nice to be able to crank it up to 36 X when the situation allows it .
jimmba
IOR scope I have . 9X36 X 56 w/ 34mm tube . Bright , good resolution , repeatable tracking , and if your grandson misplaces the baseball bat ....well , the IOR can pinch hit . But that is not a negative for me , the rifle I put it on weighs 15 lbs so whats 5 or 6 more ,eh ? . I guess the negatives for me are the clunky power selector ring ( can you say "non ergonomic" ) , the obesity that is due to lack of further machining ( thereby saving costs I guess ) , and the feel of the adjustment knobs . This last item would be easy to get used to ........I think .
It sure is nice to be able to crank it up to 36 X when the situation allows it .
jimmba
Jon A
Well-Known Member
Crud Roy, I was looking at your later post and missed this. Nevermind what I said above--if you're used to FFP and like that, you'd certainly like the FFP 3-18 better. .1 Mil clicks will be a welcome change as well. To me they're "just right" at roughly 1/3 MOA fitting right between 1/4 MOA and 1/2 MOA clicks. I couldn't stand 1/8 MOA clicks...I think I'd find myself using the reticle a lot more.
LRHWAL
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the input about the Butler Creeks guys.
pressman
Well-Known Member
I have a 4-14 X 50 with the MP8
and i was thinking of getting another one in the 3-18 X42 but I was worried about the 42 mm I know it has a 35 mm tube i see you have one what do you think
and i was thinking of getting another one in the 3-18 X42 but I was worried about the 42 mm I know it has a 35 mm tube i see you have one what do you think
Jon A
Well-Known Member
You're worried it won't be bright enough? I guess that's possible, depending upon your needs--it's not a night hunting scope—but not very likely during legal hours I don't think. I can tell you how it compares with the 4-14X50 as I compared the two extensively so you can get a better idea.
In short, it's not quite as bright as the 4-14 just past legal hours. Some have said they thought it was but testing side by side to my eye I could tell the 14X was brighter. Of course this is to be expected when it has a 50mm objective with top quality glass and coatings as well.
However, the 3-18 was usable longer. My 4-14 wasn't illuminated and so the reticle would get hard to see and at some point disappear—you'd be able to see what you were looking at but might not feel comfortable taking a shot because you're losing the reticle. At that time, the 3-18 while not quite as bright, would still be bright enough to see what you're looking at and the FFP reticle would stand out and be easy to see. So the end result was the 3-18 easily beat the 4-14 for low light use despite not being quite as bright—you could simply make a shot later with it. Now if your 4-14 is illuminated that might change things a bit, keeping it useful later.
Of course everything is relative—that's comparing it to the IOR 4-14X50mm which is an incredibly bright, sharp scope. If you compare it to say, a Leupold 50mm objective you'll easily be able to see better with the 42mm IOR. The glass is just that much better. So if you've gotten by with a scope like that in the past you'll be even better off with the 42mm IOR.
Hopefully that helps. BTW, except for brightness I feel the 3-18 beats the 4-14 optically in about every other way and overall like it much better—and I liked the 4-14 a lot. Of course my 4-14 was SFP and had the old knobs which is a lot of it right there, but the 3-18 pretty much does everything better in a much smaller package. I think if a guy can afford it, it's well worth the money over the 14X. And I'm saying that after I broke two of them (first batch of the SH version that had problems) so that should tell you how much I like it.
In short, it's not quite as bright as the 4-14 just past legal hours. Some have said they thought it was but testing side by side to my eye I could tell the 14X was brighter. Of course this is to be expected when it has a 50mm objective with top quality glass and coatings as well.
However, the 3-18 was usable longer. My 4-14 wasn't illuminated and so the reticle would get hard to see and at some point disappear—you'd be able to see what you were looking at but might not feel comfortable taking a shot because you're losing the reticle. At that time, the 3-18 while not quite as bright, would still be bright enough to see what you're looking at and the FFP reticle would stand out and be easy to see. So the end result was the 3-18 easily beat the 4-14 for low light use despite not being quite as bright—you could simply make a shot later with it. Now if your 4-14 is illuminated that might change things a bit, keeping it useful later.
Of course everything is relative—that's comparing it to the IOR 4-14X50mm which is an incredibly bright, sharp scope. If you compare it to say, a Leupold 50mm objective you'll easily be able to see better with the 42mm IOR. The glass is just that much better. So if you've gotten by with a scope like that in the past you'll be even better off with the 42mm IOR.
Hopefully that helps. BTW, except for brightness I feel the 3-18 beats the 4-14 optically in about every other way and overall like it much better—and I liked the 4-14 a lot. Of course my 4-14 was SFP and had the old knobs which is a lot of it right there, but the 3-18 pretty much does everything better in a much smaller package. I think if a guy can afford it, it's well worth the money over the 14X. And I'm saying that after I broke two of them (first batch of the SH version that had problems) so that should tell you how much I like it.
