IOR question

pressman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
267
Location
North Vernon, in
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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 :D
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!
 
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????
 
.... 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.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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.

Recent Posts

Top