IOR question

[pressman]

i have an IOR 4-14-50 and i love it. it is on my AR
i am building a 260 caliber and i am looking at the new 3-18-42
i know this has the 35 mm tube. but the 42mm. i have never looked through one of these because i can't find one in any store that i go into. will this be a good scope in low light ( early morning or late evening because of the 42mm
i know the glass and everything else i like a lot just not sure about the 42mm??
i really need some help here. i hate to spend 1400.00 and then wish i would have done something different.

 

[Stormrider]

I have one and find it to works a lot better than you would think.

 

[Pdvdh]

I have two of the 3-18x42mm IORs. They have excellent clarity and resolution, but their light transmission is not great. My belief is that in order to obtain the 6x power magnification range (6x3=18), additional lenses are required to be placed in this scope. Each additional lens will reduce the light transmission through the scope - there's no way around that law of physics. I've compared the light transmission of this scope to a number of my other scopes, and it ranks near the bottom - however the other scopes have 3 or 4X power magnification ranges. I have never seen this fact expressed in all of the posts and comments I've ever read about the 3-18X IOR. Maybe no one wants to get credit for saying anything less than "outstanding" about the scope.

The 3-18X IOR is a great scope for daytime use and I really like the MP-8 reticle. However if light transmission is your priority, then I could not recommend the 3-18x42mm IOR. I don't believe the 42mm objective is the only, or necessarily the primary, cause of the reduced light transmission, because I've looked through other 42-44mm objective lens scopes with greater light transmission. I haven't confirmed this fact with IOR, but I believe the cause of the reduced light transmission is the need for, and placement of, additional lenses in the scope to provide the 3-18x power range.

 

[pressman]

without getting silly and since you have 2 of them.. do you believe under normal hunting condition and most target shooting. This scope will deliver. i mean if you can see it ( target or critter) with your eyes.. then you can also see it well enough to place a killing shot? I love everything about the one i have... used it many times but it is a 4 X 14 X 50mm. I know that if it is light enough for me to see ( and safe to shoot) that when i look through the scope it usually is even a little better than my eyes. so their for i can make the shot.
Also since you have 2 of them i take it you would recommend this scope?????
i know i would recommend my 4X14 X 50mm to anyone wanting a very nice scope for around 1,000.00

Thanks guys

 

[Pdvdh]

I'd buy the scope to use in daylight hours. I wouldn't buy it if I planned to hunt at night by moonlight.

I agree that some scopes allow a person to see better in dim light. This particular scope doesn't do that for me. I see about the same through the scope as I do with the naked eye in dim/dark light conditions.

I bought these scopes for daytime hunting. I can turn them down to 3X and shoot at charging brown/grizzly/black bears at close range. I can turn them up to 18X and shoot at game animals 1000 yds away. I bought the second one because I came to like the MP-8 reticle so much after having used the first one for two years.

I used to hunt fox at night on snow covered ground using moonlight and/or using the nearby City lights which would reflect back off of cloud cover and provide enough low-level light to see and shoot fox when they were out and about after dark. I wouldn't purchase this scope for that type of hunting because it doesn't allow for improved visibility in these light-starved settings.

Hope this helps.

 

[MachV]

Having used a couple of 16Xs and three 6-24s(Always set @ 18X so they are MOA instead of mills) for many years the 3-18 I have is not the same scope. Its not bad by any means but not as sharp or bright as the others.
I bought the 3-18 for a long range big game scope and went with the 3-18 over the 4-14 for its ability to be able to use the MP-8 in MOA rather than mills....It was cheaper as I bought it used too
The bright issue is not a problem with the 3-18 as it works good enough to judge horns @ dusk and dawn.
If you already have and like the 4-14 and you use the MP-8 reticle for holdovers you might want to get another one as the reticle would work the same as the one you have.....The 3-18 is Mills @ 10X and MOA @ 18X, not sure about the 4-14 but is gonna be different!

 

[pressman]

now i am confused how can mp-8 change from mills to moa in the same scope they are different moa= 1.047 at 100 yards and mill is 3.6 at 100 yards. And yes my 4 X 14 X 50 has the MP-8 reticules it is all in mills. That is why i plan to stay with the IOR but i just wanted a bigger range since my new 260 will have a better range than my 223 and i thought about it 4 X 14X 50mm is enough scope for 1,000 yards it just would be nicer to have alittle more.
tell how more about how these scopes are changing from mills to moa????

 

[MachV]

I could retype the answer(well at least the red-neck answer) but its already been covered and explained better than I can.

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/ior-scopes-22912/

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/my-ior-3-18x42mm-22462/index2.html

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/ior-glass-comparison-37003/

 

[A/C Guy]

.... I love everything about the one i have... used it many times but it is a 4 X 14 X 50mm. I know that if it is light enough for me to see ( and safe to shoot) that when i look through the scope it usually is even a little better than my eyes. ...

For the same money, you can get a Swarovski in about the same max power with a larger objective. I can look through my Swarovski when it is too dark to shoot, but the scope enables me to see things that I can't see with the naked eye. If you need or want twilight or dusk performance, get a Swarovski. I do own an IOR, but it doesn't even come close to my Swarovski when the sun goes down.