AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ACOG challenger? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/3/2004 6:16:53 PM EDT
 IOR 3X25 Tactical CQB Things I like: Externally adjustable (with fingers) windage and elevation in 1/4 MOA increments. Compact. Adjustable illumination. Range finding/BDC reticle. Built in MIL-STD-1913 mount. $600 price tag. High quality. Anyone have one yet? |
Why not? Set them to IBZ and leave them there most of the time. If the need arises to take a longer shot with more precision, the ability is there. Contrary to the tactical fad du jour, not all combat is, or will always be, inside of 100 yards. I, for one, like having the same capability that my A2's sights give me. Of course, that capability is useless w/o the corresponding skill. |
Specs: Technical Data Magnification 3x Objective diameter 25mm Field of view at 100 yards 31 feet Exit pupil diameter 8.25mm Eye relief 3.50 inches Diopter adjustment -4 to +4 dpt. Click adjustment 1/4 min. Tube diameter 30mm Length 5.65 inches Weight 16 oz |
|
It looks like a good product and at that price I would probably consider it; but I've yet to see an IOR product that struck me as comparable to an ACOG. I like the fact that it has a bigger objective and good eye relief compared to the CQT. The reticle looks interesting as well (there are some good pics of it illuminated in the Reticle thread in the optics FAQ) |
Just seems superflous, especially seeing as that our forces are stomping the living shit of terrs in Afghanistan and Iraq, with their main optic (ACOG) not having 'target' adjustments.
OK, so I was kidding about the BUIS, but aren't those rails a bit short for light mounting? I dunno. The CQT also has them, as does the ATN offering. Sort of like purfume on a pig, those rails. I would rather have the weight savings from getting rid of them. (Granted, they do give you more options if you mount it on something other than a AR, but AR rails are pretty darned cheap...) |
WAY WAY too fine of an adjustment for a 'tactical' scope.
But not bright enough for BAC on a sunny day!!
Nice reticule for medium range shooting, but I think it's lacking for 'close up' (IIRC the 'ring' portion of the reticule does not glow).
Very pricy for what you are getting - you can find Compact Acogs in that price range if you check the EE.
According to who? I've used IOR products. They seem fairly tough, but not up to Trijicon standards. I know others with more trigger time with them that have issues (especially when they need repair). Top that off they add those silly weight adding rails that serve no purpose (like like the CQ/T). This is a scope I wanted to love, but IOR fell short - particularly on the brightness and the pricing. |
Because it's too easy to bump the knobs and throw off your zero. Or a buddy picks up your rifle and play with the knobs (don't laugh it happens).
That's funny since the introduction of gunpowder - rifle combat has generally been inside 100y. Even when the troops had big, bad .30-06s. Rifle exchanges (and most especially hits on targets that shoot back) are the rare exception in combat. |
You actually have to look through the scope to measure eye relief. They probably just slapped it on wherever on the rail for the pic. No, it does not weigh 4 lbs. I posted a link to the mfg. specs. It weights 1/4 of that. |
I asked if anyone had experience with this scope. How long have you owned yours? |
I don't know the color of your High Horse, but feel free to climb down from it any time. |
|
External knobs allows easy adjustment to compensate for the POI shift from adding or removing a suppressor or specialty ammo. To Compare weight you must compare the 3X ACOG because this IOR is 3X. IOR = 16oz ACOG = 5.89oz A TA31 is 9.9oz You could mount a TA31 and 3X Comapact ACOG on your rifle as a back up and it would still weigh less than the IOR. The 16oz weight is on par with 1-4X variables not a fixed 3X. It has a dim reticle which means no BAC. Esentially the CQT is even better than this brick of an optic. |
ACOG TA11 series (3.5X) = 14 oz Some ACOGs are lighter, some are just about as heavy. The compact ACOGS have about 1/3 of the eye relief. Having seen photos of this scope's reticle in comparison with the BAC, I don't see that the difference justifies the nearly double asking price. I'll keep waiting for feedback from someone who owns one. |
| You dont need the extra eye relief the IOR offers... its too much infact. Have you used the ACOGs? Sounds like you have not. Also thats the heaviest ACOG you quoted and its still got more magnification for less weight. The reticle in no way compares to BAC... how did a photo make you thnk its simialr to BAC ACOGs? The 3X ACOG is not double the price of the IOR its more like 35% more and 50% more for the TA31. |
Dude, relax. You pose this unknown optic from a 2nd-rate manufacturer as a 'ACOG challanger', and are suprised that people take issue with that? Hell, I am a Elcan type, hardly some ACOG fanboy, and I would certainly take the battle-proven ACOG over this unproven optic that has several disadvantages already. (Exposed adjustments, busy reticle, unknown battery life, weight.) It may be the cat's ass, but you have to hold off on calling it that until it's proven. |
|
SWO_Daddy, It's not an issue of "approval", its analysis of the features and drawbacks before posting. In my opinion, the scope has merit. I don't think it is as good as an ACOG, specifically a TA31, but it is also less expensive. In my opinion, it is worth the money to some people. It won't be worth it to others. Your problem was in describing it as a challenger to the ACOG rather than a lower cost, lower capability alternative. Many people can't afford or find an ACOG. This appears to be a good 2nd choice. I don't have the scale to measure the weight of my TA31F and ARMS #19s mount, but I don't think anyone added in the weight of the mount when they calculated the weight comparison of the ACOG and the IOR. |
And if I dont use them, they're just adding bulk. Now Im not understanding how a flash light is going to work mounted to my scope....lol Im just too tired and too simple these days. |
Here's the real problem as outlined by Tomislav with your post(s): [quoto]You pose this unknown optic from a 2nd-rate manufacturer as a 'ACOG challanger', and are suprised that people take issue with that? |
|
Yes, of course. Trijicon is so well known in Europe. So some of you have never heard of IOR. That only proves you don't know everything about optics. Listen, if you guys are going to get all offended because someone dares stack something up against the Holy ACOG, I'm outta here. There's a serious issue about reality going on. |
SWO_daddy, get a real life, the ACOG has been around since '89 in in the States. The sole problem is trying to compare ANY optic (with NO proof) to a combat proven optic. Its a pretty simple concept.  Kinda like Aimpoint v/s Tacchit. 
|
Bingo! And with the prices I've been seeing on CQTs they are priced the same. I'd rather have the Leupold. Now price this in the $250-$350 range and we'll talk. |
They are among the people that know tactical type of rifles.
The only one getting offended is you when we point out the short commings of this optic. I'm not offended, it no ACOG or ELCAN but it's not bad either - but in no way is it a ACOG challenger nor is priced realistically. |
Wasn't IOR Dr.Frankenstien's lab assistant? HAHAHAHA! Full of teh funny today, I am... Besides, I don't know if it's because of patents or proprietary manufacturing techniques or what, but there really isn't any competition to the ACOG out there. Find me another low-magnification incredibly sturdy and clear optic that uses the Bindon Aiming Concept and will give you a aiming point at night for about 12 years and needs no batteries, and then you have a challenger. Until then, at best you have a neat little optic that may or may not be worth as much as a used ACOG. Just enjoy the feedback people are making about this sight. Sure, we don't have one in front of us, but from the picture and from the specs, intelligent criticisms can be made. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ACOG challenger? (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor