ACOG and astigmatism

[JodyH]

Those of you with astigmatism, how does a ACOG reticle look to you?
Specifically the 3.5x35 red fiber optic horseshoe.

[NH Shooter]

I ran two ACOGs, most recently a TA33-G8. Like you, I have astigmatism.

To me, the reticle never looked as sharp as the reticle in a scope with an adjustable eyepiece (like the Prismatic). For this reason, I found it little more precise than an Aimpoint dot, though the chevron in the ACOG was not distorted nearly as badly as the dot in the Aimpoint. Also, I find flipping up the rear BUIS and looking through it and the Aimpoint at the same time helps tremendously, to the point that the dot almost looks round.

The other issue I had with both ACOGs is that the target never appeared as sharply defined as when looking through a good scope. The view through the ACOG was bright, the chevron easy to see but it was like the focus was just off a touch. Of course, there are no adjustments for parallax or reticle focus on most ACOGs. But for pure utility in a compact/lightweight package, the TA33 was quite good. I ended up selling it and buying a new Aimpoint Pro for half of what I sold the Trijicon for.

If you're thinking about an optic for that new HK, I would go with a good 1-4/6/8 variable. I ran a SWFA 1-4 on a 16" SS HB BMC upper and was pleased with it. It was IMO more versatile than the ACOG but was much bigger/heavier.

Edit - just for reference, I have to run the adjustable eyepiece on scopes way out to get the reticle sharp. But I can get them sharp which helps tremendously for precision. if I was able to do the same with the TA33 I probably would have kept it.

[JodyH]

I keep debating on an optic for the MR762.
I do know I want to avoid the weight of an illuminated variable like the Vortex or the Meopta 1-4x (which I have on my AR).
I want a illuminated fixed low/no power that works with astigmatism.

On a whim I went ahead and ordered a ACOG 3x30 red chevron .308 from Amazon Prime, that way if it doesn't work out I can return it no questions asked.

[NH Shooter]

Seems like a good match for the HK, especially if it works with your vision. Please post some photos when you have it set up!

[rob_s]

I've been using the TA33 since it came out. It's still my favorite optic. I have an astigmatism, but it's largely correct by my glasses (which is part of the reason I quit wearing contacts), so it only somewhat causes issues with the Aimpoint. However, it was while I was still wearing contacts that I started using the TA33.

I likely don't have enough exposure to "good" optics, so I can't really comment on the clarity or whatever that might be better with a better optic, but the reticule is very crisp for me, both with the cap closed and both eyes open and with the cap open and one eye closed.

[YVK]

Got 3.5 ACOG, Aimpoint, Eotech, a couple of scopes, and astigmatism. ACOG and scopes no problems, but I do wear glasses.

[NH Shooter]

Rob, is was on your experience with the TA33 that I decided to try one and did not feel in any way steered wrong.

Poor choice of words on my part, did not mean to imply that the ACOG optics are not "good." For its weight, size, robust build and reticle illumination, it's really a marvel.

I started wearing glasses for near sightedness when I was six years old (54 years ago) and over the last 15 years, I've needed reading glasses as well. Somehow my nearsightedness has actually improved and my prescription keeps getting dialed back, but I still have to really crank that adjustable eyepiece on a scope to render the reticle sharp. It was the inability to do so with the ACOG that made me decide to go back to the Aimpoint on the carbine.

[JodyH]

Everything looks good with my glasses on.
I want something that looks good enough without glasses because you never know when you might need a rifle and your glasses are nowhere to be found.

[GJM]

Everything looks good with my glasses on.
I want something that looks good enough without glasses because you never know when you might need a rifle and your glasses are nowhere to be found.

For that, I would use a civilian legal, dual IR/visible laser. At an EAG night shoot, I thought the laser was pure cheating at Pat distances, but also viable on my 200 yard steel in low light.

I have collected a number of ACOG units in various sizes and magnification over the years. Now they strike me as yesterday's technology.

[GJM]

Why dual IR/visible and not just visible?

In case you also own a -1 or better. Jody has all the toys, certainly that includes a NOD.

[JodyH]

In case you also own a -1 or better. Jody has all the toys, certainly that includes a NOD.
I'm more of a Flir kind of guy.

[TGS]

With my astigmatism I've never been able to put an RDS to good use past 50 yards....but ACOGs have always been crystal clear to me.

If you decide to go with a variable optic, give a hard look at Aero Precisions lightweight mounts. With that and selecting a 16oz scope, you can save over half a pound of weight compared to many poorly selected combos.

[JodyH]

As clumsy as I am and as often as I bang and/or drop my rifle on things I'm probably not a good candidate for lightweight scope mounts.

[ssb]

I tried a TA-45 (1.5x) as a sort-of red dot replacement because I have an astigmatism (I am nearsighted as well). With my glasses, it was sharp and crisp. Without them, the image was blurry, though I think that was more to do with the nearsightedness. I could still easily make out the tip of the triangle (aiming point), but the reticule was not as clear as it was with corrected vision (though definitely good enough, and miles ahead of the starburst I get with Aimpoints). And, for close-quarters stuff, when in doubt I could just place the red thing on the target and shoot.

Specific to the blurriness, it was basically a blown-up version of my not-glasses vision; distant things still appeared blurry (though slightly more distinguishable), while the close things were easy to see. This effect carries over to binoculars. I don't have much experience with magnified glass beyond this optic, but that's what I've got.

I ended up selling the TA-45, but it wasn't due to the crispness of the reticule/astigmatism concerns (to me the optic wasn't magnified enough to do anything special, and was slow enough up close to be a hindrance).

[shane45]

When I bought my TA11, green horseshoe it was mostly clear. Unfortunately at this point it is not. I was going to add a T1 at 1 oclock but....its just not clear enough anymore so I have had to switch to optics with adjustable diopters. So now I go for variables with daylight usable red dots.

[PD Sgt.]

With my astigmatism I've never been able to put an RDS to good use past 50 yards....but ACOGs have always been crystal clear to me.

This has been my experience as well, though with the newer 2moa Aimpoints, I find the bloom is reduced enough to make them useable further out. I had several of the 1.5 ACOGs, as well as a TA01 and they were crystal clear. I only got rid of them due to brightness issues indoors.

The other optic I have had success with is a Short Dot. Even on 1.1 power, I am able to keep the dot crisp without any tails. When I zoom up to 4x, the reticle stays crisp, but the dot gets big enough that I usually turn it off. The trade off here is the weight of the scope, it is pretty heavy compared to other options, including the full size ACOGs.

[TGS]

This has been my experience as well, though with the newer 2moa Aimpoints, I find the bloom is reduced enough to make them useable further out. I had several of the 1.5 ACOGs, as well as a TA01 and they were crystal clear. I only got rid of them due to brightness issues indoors.

The other optic I have had success with is a Short.1 power, I am able to keep the dot crisp without any tails. When I zoom up to 4x, the reticle stays crisp, but the dot gets big enough that I usually turn it off. The trade off here is the weight of the scope, it is pretty heavy compared to other options, including the full size ACOGs.

Any scope with an adjustable focus should correct the astigmatism regardless of magnification. Its no different than wearing glasses, really.

I cant remember if i tried the 2MOA dots, specifically. Most of my RDS time has been spent on Eotechs. I can hit a clay pigeon at 50 yards with regularity, but at 100 yards the best i can do is the upper thoracic area of the average male. Pretty shitty considering with iron sights I can still do 2" groups on demand without effort.

I am significantly limited by the use of an RDS.

[JHC]

Any scope with an adjustable focus should correct the astigmatism regardless of magnification. Its no different than wearing glasses, really.

I cant remember if i tried the 2MOA dots, specifically. Most of my RDS time has been spent on Eotechs. I can hit a clay pigeon at 50 yards with regularity, but at 100 yards the best i can do is the upper thoracic area of the average male. Pretty shitty considering with iron sights I can still do 2" groups on demand without effort.

I am significantly limited by the use of an RDS.

My experience also. Exactly. ACOGs here have looked pretty good to me (TA01, TA33, and the 1.5x whose numero I forget)

[JodyH]

Received the ACOG 3x30 .308 reticle today.
Much crisper without glasses than an Aimpoint, but still a tiny bit fuzzy.
I can see the stadia lines good enough to put it on a 8" plate at 400, which is about as good as it gets for me with uncorrected vision and 3x magnification.
With my glasses on it's crystal clear and I can get the full 600 meters out of it.

A actual etched reticle like a Meopta K-Dot or Leupold VX-R is still much crisper all around, but I just don't want the added weight and fragility of a variable on this rifle for what I'm going to use it for.
Mounted on my H&K MR762 it is going to be my desert camping rifle, which means it'll get carried some, ride around in a UTV gun rack or truck seat some and get banged around a lot all while covered in sand and silt.
"Good enough" for minute of man out to 600M without glasses and 8" plate at 600M with glasses is all I need.

[JHC]

The TA33 is an awesome scope. It's fairly forgiving of eye relief, which is longer than many ACOGs but its field of view is narrower. Yet that narrower doesn't really seem to hinder performance. I studied Rob S's ACOG and mini-ACOG reviews years ago incessantly and do like those rugged little scopes.

[rob_s]

After my year of irons I'm just getting back into my TA33. I got a chance to use it in a match again last night. The techniques that are unique to this optic are coming back to me. For example, I ran a shoot house stage with the front cap down, and when I got to the end of the stage and had to engage steel, the orange paint on the steel washed out the red reticule when using it OEG style. I quickly adjusted and flipped the cap open and re-engaged the target with two hits.

I'm wanting to play with so me of the 1.x-Y optics, and they may well be better otios for many folks, but I'm having a hard time finding fault with the TA33 for my use as I get back in the swing of using it.

It certainly didn't notice any meaningful blur of the reticle. The first stage was engaging ~12" steel at ~140 yards with one round standing,one kneeling, and one prone. I got the standing and kneeling hits and missed the prone. Go figure. But I want even really consciously aware of the reticle in any way.