I.O.R. Valdada M2 opinions?

[ram2390]

I'm looking into one as a cheaper alternative to an ACOG, anyone got any experiences with one, specifically a .223 one?

From what I've read, to adjust the BDC, there is a knob on top that you simply dial in for the correct range, in 100m increments, right?

Also, will the BDC be minute-of-torso with a 16" firing 55 grain M193? Would a 20" yield better BDC results?

I believe the IOR is calibrated for 62 grain M855 out of a 20" barrel.

How is the glass quality, reticle, etc, etc?

I plan on getting the MP9 reticle, it looks the best to me.

What are the best rings to mount it to a flattop picatinny rail?

Thanks!

[cz7]

I have a M-2 4x on my fal .for the money cant go wrong with i.o.r. scopes -very clear and range system works well too. i am going buy more of them for other weapons.

[LettersFromEarth]

I'm looking into one as a cheaper alternative to an ACOG, anyone got any experiences with one, specifically a .223 one?

From what I've read, to adjust the BDC, there is a knob on top that you simply dial in for the correct range, in 100m increments, right?

Also, will the BDC be minute-of-torso with a 16" firing 55 grain M193? Would a 20" yield better BDC results?

I believe the IOR is calibrated for 62 grain M855 out of a 20" barrel.

How is the glass quality, reticle, etc, etc?

I plan on getting the MP9 reticle, it looks the best to me.

What are the best rings to mount it to a flattop picatinny rail?

Thanks!

Yeah, the knob on top is your BDC. Once its dialed in your good to hook but it CAN BE tricky doing just that (you've just been warned) and the reticle choices do allow for hold over/hold off so... :-)

Glass quality is fantastic! Not alot of other choices in the M2 price range or even above it can claim its as good as the IOR. Thats just my opinion, though.

Getting hits w/M193 shouldnt be a huge hassle but make sure you get to a KD range and fire at a true distance. I do think you will be putting more work into getting what you want using 193 insted of 855 or something sim in weight and yes--a 20in brl would be "better" for what you describe. But, hey--do what you need to do...its all good training.

That dumb ass rubber eye boot is removable so bin it when you get a chance. Also, ER kinda blows so be prepared for that but its a little better then the 4x ACOGS, though.

Mounts and rings MAY be a problem. There just not a lot of space on the back end of the tube for rings. IOR has a line a rings but Im not sure how they stack up to other makes. Call LaRue or ADM and hear what they have to say regarding your weapon/glass combo.

If IOR would just offer their Gen2 CQB reticle i would have got one a long time ago. I still may one day.

BTW--illum for the M2 is kinda lame. But if it does everyrhing else right Id say pull the trigger on this and post your findings/opinions.

[SoDak]

Sorry to bring this thread back, but I figured it would be better than starting a new one. I'm considering one of these for most, but I thought I'd see if anyone else had any opinions on them.

LettersFromEarth, what is wrong with the illumination? That was one of the reasons I was considering this and I'd like it to be fairly usable(daytime use isn't a big deal).

[geminidglocker]

I've looked through them. I have yet to own one. I will eventually own one.

[M&P45]

I had an early M-1 with the Dragunov reticule on an FAL. Great glass but the eye releif was non existent. I could get my pinkie between the ocular and my eye. I heard they improved this slightly on the M2. I loved the Dragunov reticule but they no longer offer it. The scope was built like a tank. If you ran out of ammo you could use it as a club or to bat rocks at the opposition.... I am very interested in the new 1/4 IOR.

[matthewdanger]

I had one with the CQB reticle for a while on a 20" build back when they ran about $350. It was a good value then. Now they run quite a bit more and I am not so sure they are the deal that they used to be.

The ranging works pretty well. I like that you range using the head of the target because the head is the same whether the target is standing, kneeling, prone, facing toward, facing away, or doing back flips. However, it is a small target and can be difficult to use at distance or on moving targets.

The BDC knobs work very well. However, it lacks the speed, efficiency, and simplicity of the ACOG's reticle based BDC but it does work as advertised. Hits to 600 meters were no problem on 2/3rds IPSC steel targets.

The horseshoe reticle does a good job of drawing the eye but still providing a relitively precise aiming point. However, it is a pretty busy reticle.

The lowest illumination setting could stand to be lower.

The field of view is narrow in contrast to the pretty ample FOV on most ACOGs.

It is heavy but it is also very well constructed.

The glass is excellent.

Eye relief is short.

Mounting options are minimal.

Zeroing can be a pain in the rear. You must loosen two screws (read the manual because if you loosen the wrong screws you're screwed :) ) and then basically adjust the POI without the aid of "clicks". The upside is that you can be very precise, the downside is that you might end up doing a lot of back and forth guess work.

I liked them as a budget friendly option when they were $350-400. Now, I think I would just rather save for a lightly used and reasonably priced ACOG.

[SoDak]

I remember seeing them for $425 or so in an older bushmaster catalog. The price increase does bug me, but then again ACOGs used to be cheaper, so what are you gonna do.

Matthewdanger, you mentioned the illumination could be a bit lower. Is it still adequate for nighttime use? I'm curious since this comment about brightness came up when talking about another product from IOR.

[matthewdanger]

It is difficult to comment about the brightness level because it might be a little subjective. I would have liked to see a lower low setting but I imagine it would be mostly a non-issue. It isn't really bright enough to be day light visible so in reality you will rarely (if ever) use the illumination.

[ryanm]

Eye relief is an issue if mounting on an M1A EBR, with the cantilever mount I have to have my stock almost fully retracted which is not optimal for me.

Heavy recoiling rifles are also an issue, I had mine cammed for .308 and sort of regret that now. I'm not entirely comfortable with having my eye as close as the M2 wants on any of my 7.62 NATO rifles. I do end up using the rubber eye piece because of this issue.

On the other hand, when I mounted it on my MSAR, despite the wrong cam for the caliber, this was truly an excellent pairing. Although, the 35mm tube looks ridiculous on a 16" barrel/AUG platform. The scope is much bigger than it appears via the Internet.

I may send it back for .223 cam/62grain.

Whenever the HBAR AUG or MSAR HB offerrings become available, this scope is going to find its permanent home on one of those rifles.