I'm looking for "the right scope" for a 16" HBAR semi-tactical (which means that it looks tactical but spends most or all of its time punching paper.)

If I had the spare funds for a Trijicon ACOG, I'd probably go that way, but considering the type of shooting I'll be doing, which isn't likely to include urban warfare operations anytime on this side of TWAWKI, would an IOR valdada scope be a good addition to a rifle?

I'm primarily interested in quality, optical clarity, ease of use, etc....   Do these deliver?

Please - someone who uses them, dealers need not respond unless they are reviewing the pros/cons of these scopes.

Thanks!

I have an 4x24 M2 for my 223. Very well made, very clear glass, no failures or problems. Overall for the money, a great scope.

You can see a prior discussion we had about this scope and the Dragunov reticle at [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=159450[/url]

What I got from that thread is to stay away from the Drag reticle.  Guess I'd go for the Nato ret to at ease the confusion.  

I've got a question for ya guys, on a A3 upper would the front sight post get in the way with high rings?

I have a 10x56mm on my AR10.  It's a quality product.  

I have an IOR 10x42 Tactical w/ MP-8 reticle on a Rem 700 PSS 308 and I absolutely love it.

[img]http://www.metrophotohost.com/gallery_0011/gallery_albums/album22/calender.jpg[/img]

I have [url=http://www.valdada.com]IOR[/url] Bino's (10x40 w/ rangefinder) and IOR Rings and Base on my 700PSS.  Excellent quality stuff IMNSHO.

I don't see the front sight post at all with my setup using ARMS #22 high rings.

Am thinking this will be my last year hunting with iron sights on my AR-10B.  Want a scope that is fast, dependable, and has field adjustable elevation and windage settings.  So am planning on going with a AR-10A4 and a Valdada IOR M2.  So I am also very interested in this subject.  I understand you can get these with a donut reticule like so:

[IMG]http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/31ab4f23.gif[/IMG]

That picture is a .gif, so just in case it don't work here are some links:

[URL]http://www.valdada.com/vn/ior/03b[/URL]

[URL]http://www.cactustactical.com/valdada/4x24m2tact.html#topofpage[/URL]

Seems to me that would be an ideal on a hunting AR-10.  Only down side I can think of is that it seems the eye relief is a tad short, and they are heavy.  Any body know how the adjustments work?  Looks like clock wise for up but don't know about right.  I gotta have clock wise for right, or forget it.  Those darn backward adjustments like on a Aimpoint drive me batty.

Ekie,
the CQB "donut" reticle was developed with input from semi professional 3 gun shooters in the Denver area for use in competitive events.  The CQB donut's intent is to frame a target at CQB distances. The effective distances will vary from person to person.    It is lightning fast on target acquisition at close distances.   At some point, and it will vary from shooter to shooter, the intent is to transition from the donut to the illuminated center dot for aiming. The reticle also has 15 cross lines corresponding to  mils for holdover use. All in all, it is a really nice inovative reticle that was designed for competition, but have utility as a hunting scope also.  I tend to go to the dot at 100 yards or greater because my targets are typically 10 inch plates, but there is no reason that the donut can't be used to frame a game sized target at greater distances.  

I have a 1.1-4 with CQB mounted on an AR-15 for 3 gun matches and the reticle kicks butt.  I replaced a Leupold CQ/T, so you can imagine how happy I am.  

That is the kind of input I was looking for rifle_guy, thanks.

Ekie, I talked to one of the designers of the CQB reticle,  over the weekend at our local machine gun show  / gun show.   He suggested using a 200 yd zero instead of 100 yds.   By doing so,  you can effectively frame your man sized target with the horseshoe out to 300 yds and not have to transition to the dot until greater distances.  I was using a 100 yard zero, so will take his advice into account.  I spent 30 minutes talking to this guy about the reticle.   I think by going to a 200 yard zero, it will speed up target acquisition once you are comfortable framing the target. As Ed said, it is not a bench rest reticle,  it is a CQB battle reticle.   Its strength is to put rounds somewhere on your target quickly and not worrying about hitting a quarter sized spot.

Folks,

Let's clarify some items with the CQB reticle.  The interior of the upside-down horseshow is 9 MOA. The exterior width is 18 MOA.  These correspond to approximate head and center mass sizes at 100 yards.  The little circles, from left to right, are 9 MOA from 3,4,5, and 6 hundered yards (head size at these ranges).

The hashes are mil-based, NOT MOA based, and are borrowed from the IOR MP-8 reticle.

The reticle is designed for combat, competition was a secondary objective, if at all.  It just happens to work well in that arena.

Tell Ed I said "Hi."

Scott @ LibertyOptics

Mister Henry, in looking at the marketing collateral provided with the scope, I see that you are incorrect on several of your stated opinions.  

According to the scope box insert, the interior of the horseshoe is 10 moa, not 9.  And the circles provided for ranging at 300 - 600 m are for a 10 inch target. The only figure you had correct was the 18 moa exterior of the horseshoe.

You also failed to mention the range finding capabilities of the dot / horseshoe combination.   The typical human head, (10 inch circle)  will fit in the interior of the horseshoe at 100 yards.   At 200 yards,     the 10 inch circle will fit from the dot to either interior side of the horseshoe.

The more I use this scope, the better I like the reticle.

I recently acquired a M-1 4x24 on my AR-10 A4bc.
I've been in retail firearms for quite a few years, acttively shoot for over 30 years, and the Valdada so far looks to be a very good quality optic. I'm impressed with the quality vs price on the M-1 and M-2 especially.

Mine has the Dragonov reticle (yea I know), and is marked "Armalite" on the scope.

OK Rifle_guy,

My intent was to educate members of the forum on the CQB reticle.  I took extensive notes when I talked to "Mr. Ed" and I thought he said the horseshoe and circles represent 9 MOA.  My bad.  Like you said, the intent of the reticle was not to worry about putting shots in a quarter, so I won't quibble over 1 MOA!! (Which is the size of the center dot, by the way.)  I did allude to rangefinding when I wrote "These correspond to approximate head and center mass sizes at 100 yards."  

Anyway, not too argue with a potential customer.  The important thing is you are using and enjoying the scope/reticle, and understand it's unique versatility.  Thanks for your feedback!

"Mr. Henry"

Is the CQB "donut" illuminated, & if so, what color is it?
Pics perhaps?

Will an ARMS #40 fit with this scope installed?

Thanks.

NYPatriot,  

the reticle is iluminated with the exception of the horseshoe itself. Apparently, current technology would not allow that. The rest of the reticle is a nice red color that works very well with my eyes.    There are links to to photos of the reticle posted above by Ekie:

www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/31ab4f23.gif

That picture is a .gif, so just in case it don't work here are some links:

www.valdada.com/vn/ior/03b

www.cactustactical.com/valdada/4x24m2tact.html.

Mister Henry,
please do not characterize me as your potential customer.   As we have talked about in other threads, I have a long standing dealer here locally who has carried Valdada for years, supports our shooting community with sponsorships,  donations, etc and in general, I can believe that they will be around 6 months from now.
I have no intention of changing my buying patterns to give money to a faceless person on the internet who has no web presence and probably will not be around in 6 months.  

Enough said on that subject.

I will continue to correct you on your mis statements about the products in general because I would do the rest of the community a disservice if your mis-statements were allowed to stand.  

Rifle_guy,

I did go back and review the threads.  I see no reason to be hostile and verbally dismissive.  It doesn't accomplish anything positive.

Scott