IOR 3-18 x 42 Scope

OK, I guess Val was just pimping them out...I see why there isn't any left.

I bought the scope while still in Iraq for use on a designated marksman rifle because it had all the features a shooter could ask for... huge power range- for close and far engagements, sits low to the rifle, .1 Mil adjustments that matched one of the best Mil reticles I've seen, 1 turn to 1000 knob, and the glass will spoil you when you are used to Leupold. It didn't come in for two weeks after I got home, thank God because it went bad the first time out with it. I would not use it for what I bought it for...a tactical scope...wouldn't bet my life on it. It sure has the potential to be one of the best scopes made, but it's failing miserably! I will never use an IOR at work, Leupolds get that job.
Scott, I may have to take you up with an exchange...but since it's gonna stay on a long range rig how's about one of the new 6-24's???
 
Last edited:
So is the IOR optics engineer unemployed

Shouldn't the engineer be collecting unemployment checks? Why can't they or wont they re-design it? Why hasn't IOR gone belly up? Further more why doesn't Night force install IOR glass instead of current optics?
 
Shouldn't the engineer be collecting unemployment checks? Why can't they or wont they re-design it? Why hasn't IOR gone belly up? Further more why doesn't Night force install IOR glass instead of current optics?

Good questions all. IOR has made very reliable military grade opics in their history, and most of the commercial scopes have been solid. But this scope issue has been baffling.

You put IOR optics in a Nightforce and maybe stick the MP-8 in there too, LOOK OUT.
 
So seems like only the FFP

So is the design flaw limited to the FFP scopes only? I like that 6x24x50MM . How much will that cost. It would be gong on a light recoiling varmint rifle.
 
So is the design flaw limited to the FFP scopes only? I like that 6x24x50MM . How much will that cost. It would be gong on a light recoiling varmint rifle.

LOL depends who you talk to, but this FFP SH scope has a 10% failure rate, unprecedented in my 5 years of doing this.

That scope would work just fine, $1399 shipped.

Scott
 
I tried to save money but after problems with import from US I'm doing what Jon A did turning head to what the old continent offers -> 3-12x56 FFP, 50-indef parallax adj, external target turrets, mil clicks, solid European maker for 2070+18S&H Euro. The only downside is the recticle - Mil Dot only. I can live with that.

ZF Hensoldt 3-12X56 und 4-16X56
 
No Sir, I bought it from you. But why is another company advertising them for sale if they are exclusive to you?
Is the swap I mentioned out of the question?
 
No Sir, I bought it from you. But why is another company advertising them for sale if they are exclusive to you?
Is the swap I mentioned out of the question?

Sorry, I got distracted with the first part of your post. I can't answer that. Wishful thinking?

Of course, I'll facilitate the swap and make it happen!! No worries there.


Scott
 
Done!
Should I send it to you or Val? I see the new 6-24 is a little more money then the SH 3-18, let me know what the difference is. Also, do I need to send you back the Seekins rings?
 
Done!
Should I send it to you or Val? I see the new 6-24 is a little more money then the SH 3-18, let me know what the difference is. Also, do I need to send you back the Seekins rings?


Send it to:

IOR Valdada Optics
Attn: Scott Cornella
6685 W. Ken Caryl Ave
Littleton CO 80128

Put a short note in there about you talked to me about this.

Those rings are great, I would keep them if you can use them. If you need IOR V-Tac rings, then yes, swap them out.


Scott
 
Jon A.,

Val has sent your three letters to the IOR factory along with a letter himself. He is as upset and embarased by this as anyone, and for good reason. He would like to know how the S&B holds up to your rifle, please report back in periodically. If your S&B holds up for awhile, he will sahre that with the grunts overseas too.

He does want thie 3-18 scope to work.

Scott
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top