Compare/Contrast: ACOG v. IOR Valdada

[Coronach]

Due to the impending IOR Valdada Group buy, I'm accellerating my optics purchases, and I need to decide what to get. I have little practical experience with high-end tactical optics, and none with IOR in particular. I have an AR (5.56) and an FAL (7.62) that I'm looking to scope. I had originally thought of going with an ACOG (TA11E, I think) for the FAL, and I had not decided whether to do a magnified optic on the AR or to stay with a red dot.

Now, I am well aware that IOR Valdada is quality gear, but is probably not up to ACOG standards. If the price is right and the quality difference is not that great, though, I can probably live with it. And, well...let's face it. I'm a gear hound. I'll probably end up buying an ACOG eventually anyway. I just need to know whether or not the IOR scope is useful in the same niche as the ACOG, and how well it stacks up.

The scope I'm looking at in particular is the 3x25 CQB (http://www.valdada.com/vn/ior/03q). I read the recent review of it, and that was helpful. I'm mostly interested in knowing what the ACOG offers that this does not. The IOR is battery illuminated, so that's one factor. Does the IOR have some equivalent of the BAC, or not? Also, how useful is the reticle? Is that a BDC, and if so, how useful is it if the scope is not caliber specific?

Thanks,

Mike

 

[Coronach]

Anyone?

 

[Omnivore]

The description of the IOR doesn't say much about the reticle except to call it a "range finding" reticle. The ACOG has a BDC reticle specifically for the .308, but that's only going to be truly valid for a specific load fired from a specific barrel, and they never tell you which. In any case, then, you must determine the value of the various reticle positions on your own and with you preferred load.

That being said, I have no experience with the IOR, but quite a bit with the Trijicon in the 5.56 BDC reticle. The objective is larger and that's going to give you more light. The optical quality is very good. I used it at this year's Boomershoot out to 575 yards and was quite satisfied. This was the 4x 32 TA01. Still, precision shooting at small targets at long range calls for more magnification, and I used a 14x on a Rem 700 most of the time.

The big advantage of the fixed 3.5 and 4x scopes is the vastly greater field of view, plus the close-in capability = more versatility, light weight, ruggedness and simplicity of operation.

BAC is to be regarded as more of a technique than as an optical feature. It involves using the scope more like a 1x reflex sight (two eyes open, seeing the target at normal eyeball magnification with your off-scope eye while seeing the reticle with your aiming eye as you swing onto the target. Once you get on or near on target, you shift your perception to the magnified image).

In that a scope has the "BAC feature" it would facilitate BAC technique with an illuminated or otherwise highly visible reticle. Both of your examples have illuminated reticles, but one is diode and the other is "solar"/tritium. I work with the Trijicon scopes, so I would not hesitate in my decision, but you could say I'm biased.

 

[Coronach]

Thanks, Omnivore.

Mike