Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 11/22/2002 8:26:49 PM EDT
Gents,

I wanted opinions on "bang for the buck" between these two scopes. I lean toward the IOR just because I can get it for about 319.00 vs 619.00 for the TA01. I'm not looking for BAC, I already have an Aimpont ML2 for CQB. I'm just looking for somthing I can put on a ARMS QR mount and slap on for long range work.

Also, if I go with the IOR, should I get the nato mil dot and not the druganov style?

Thanks,

The Yuckman...
Link Posted: 11/23/2002 3:02:34 AM EDT
IOR blows the ACOG away as far as bang for the buck goes. The reticle is a personal preferance I have known people who like the dragunov reticle and those who hate it. Most hate it though. I kind of like it. Try to find a scope with the reticles in question before purchasing.
Link Posted: 11/23/2002 8:13:43 AM EDT
One nice thing about the IOR scope is the ability to adjust the rear to account for non 20-20 eyes. Putting your glasses against the rubber mount will mess them up. Don't forget you don't get any rings for that $318. -- Chuck
Link Posted: 11/23/2002 8:21:39 AM EDT
Even at 318 dollars, the ring is only another 100 at the most. That brings the total to 418 plus shipping. It is still a good overall value. my opinion is to save the cash and buy an ACOG, it is a much better optic at twice of the price, but you will get what you paid for. I got an arrangement to pick up a NIB IOR M2 for 300, I think this will kick start my 91 project I had on the back burner.
Top Top