Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
any one like IOR Valdada
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jon A" data-source="post: 205927" data-attributes="member: 319"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>as bright,</em> would still be <em>bright enough</em> 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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jon A, post: 205927, member: 319"] 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 [i]as bright,[/i] would still be [i]bright enough[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
any one like IOR Valdada
Top