Anyone have one and care to give a review of it's pros and cons?
I am a designated marksman in the infantry, currently deployed to Iraq, and I've used an IOR M2 on my DMR in place of my issued ACOG, because I prefer a BDC cam rather than a BDC reticle.
I'll give a bulleted list of pros and cons, but feel free to post any additional questions
- Extremely clear glasswork, as good as the Leupolds I've used, and better than my ACOG
- I have the CQB reticle, which I like a lot. It does good ranging, and the donut is good for close-in work. There are two other available reticles, the NATO MP9 and the Dragunov.
- Reticle illumination is clear and doesn't bloom. Illumination is not visible in daylight, but that works fine for me. The center donut does not illuminate, which works for me because in low light it would be a little much. With the front cap close I can use it with two eyes in low light or indoors as a BAC sight.
- Ruggedness. This thing is built like a tank.
- Bullet-drop compensating cam is extremely well calibrated for 62r, from 100m to 800m.
- Has held zero throughout my tour here (I use IOR quick-detach high rings)
- Great field of view
- 8mm exit pupil for great scope brightness
- eyecup is removable, so you can use it or not
- price: I think this is the best bang-for-your buck in a fixed mag scope you will find anywhere. You can find them for about $330-340.
- It is a fairly long scope.
- Illumination not day-visible, if that matters to you.
- having trouble coming up with the third con.
As you can see, I really like this thing. I also have an IOR 3x25 and an IOR 1.1-4 CRT. I got many gifts from my shooting family when I came here!
It's the close in that concerns me most. Without the eyecup can you pull it up quickly and get on close in targets or will I need to add a Jpoint to cover that area?
That depends on the shooter, but I've engaged human targets at maybe 4 meters with it. Of course, I don't recall exactly how the sight picture worked in that situation, I just pulled the trigger and it hit the guy, no conscious process.
I'd say it works about as well as my ACOG at super-short distance.
How close in are you talking about? If this is primarily for close in work, don't get a 4x scope.
I've heard a LOT about the very limited (I've heard the term "unforgiving" used more than once) eye relief of the M2, which is the only reason I've never bought one... I didn't like the 4x ACOG's short eye relief, so I didn't want to invest more money towards the same issue.
I'm not saying there's ANYTHING wrong with the M2, and I still may try one someday, but it sounds like you might consider checking out the Trijicon TR21... I had one VERY briefly (finance/wife issues) and though I never even mounted it on my rifle, I could tell by holding it in-hand that it had serious potential. The eye "relief" is more like an eye "suggestion". It was good from about 4" to fully extended arms-length and I could still see the triangle.
They're an extra $150 over the IOR, but IMHO they were worth every penny of their price too.
I'll own another one when I can afford it.
I currently run an Eotech. I know it's not in the same ballpark but I want something that will reach out a bit further and not be useless for basic sighting up closer.
I reviewed one over at lightfighter.net recently. My main gripe was eye relief...mine was just too short for me.
So an archive search for "IOR M2"... you'll find quite a few.
I have one on my AR but I have yet to take it to the range. Just haven't had a chance...
I like it but i have a really hard time getting a good sight picture with the rubber eye-piece on it. I like the eye-piece because it does seem to block out outside "visual noise". I ended up cutting it down a little and it seems to "fit" a little better.
I have the Dragunov reticle and I can't wait to try it out.
I got it from Mike at CSGunworks and he was awesome to deal with.