Based on the research I have done, I do not and will not own an IOR. Maybe I'm just stuck in my ways, but I've been more than satisfied with EVERY Leupold scope that I've owned. I can't say the same for ANY of the lower-priced optics that I THOUGHT were a good deal when I bought them (I have a a drawer full of Tasco, Simmons, etc. that are not worth mounting on a BB-gun). I see no reason to gamble my money on a relative newcomer to the U.S. market. Yes, IOR has been around forever in the eastern-bloc, but an old name and a European address do not guarantee quality optics. I know what to expect from Leupold and I know how things will be handled in the rare event that there is a problem.
"You get what you pay for" & "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" keep ringing in my ears. I generally spend almost as much (if not more) on optics as on the actual rifle. I just can't see how IOR can put out optics that supposedly rival Schmidt & Bender at far less that half the price of other German optics of KNOWN quality.
There is a lot more to a quality optic than perceived durability. And I don't recall ever hearing anyone criticize Leupold's construction.
Link to discussion thread on SniperHide.com:
[url=http://www.snipershide.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=19;t=000193;p=]IOR versus Leupold[/url]
It sounds like service is an issue with IOR products.