I have been in the lucky position to test a lot of scopes recently including the IOR crusader and more recently a PM2 with LRR-Mil ret. I think I could waffle on for hours talking about them both.
The IOR I tested functioned flawlessly and had its features were very impressive - i.e. mag range, the amount of internal adjustment, the simplicity of the turrets etc etc. However, it was a prime example of a scope that will forever split opinion it as simple as that. (optical clarity, position of the parralax adjustment etc) but it is feature rich and performs to a high level which is where IOR gain their following.
On the flip side, the S&B PMII for example quite simply appeals to the masses. Everything is done in a way that satisfies peoples desires (renowned glass, functionality, heritage/reputation, huge range of options etc etc) Does this make it a better scope?
Not necessarily! I think this is where people get in a muddle when comparing/reviewing scopes. After all SO much is about personal preference.
I shall stop waffling now