Is the ACOG dead?

[Unobtanium]

I watched when ACOG was the only thing worth having if you wanted durable magnification on a fighting gun.
Then it became NXS and SB 1-4's on QD mounts with irons backing them up.
Now it is 1-8's hardmounted, with offset T2s and RMRs.

Which brings me back to the ACOG...if 4x is enough for your AO, is the acog+offset t2 a better path than a LPVO? Most of the competition shooters I've watched simply roll the gun for those stages rather than throw the lever on the lpvo, effectively turning it into a fixed mag sight.

The acog is tough, and weights in at a whopping <14oz WITH mount. A t2 in an offset is about 5oz. Mounted up, on the gun, this is a 19oz combo. That is shaving over half a pound off of a Razor-E in a 6oz mount...

[gskip]

ACOG's are great. But the eye relief sucks balls. The only ones that I actually like, are not the the popular models (TA33 is absolutely fantastic, and TA11 is also great).

My 1-4 Accupoint does everything the TA31/TA01 does, but better I think. I keep it in 1x for patrol use, and if needed, I can bump it up to 4x. Unlike the ACOG, which is great for medium engagements, but not great close. My 1x Accupoint in a 1.93 mount I can run just as fast as my MRO or Eotech (even in odd positions, as the eye relief is just fantastic). You just can't do that with an ACOG.

Just depends on what you do primarily. Most people need a 1x alot more than they need a 4x (or 6x or 8x). Most 1-4/6/8s are cheaper than the ACOG as well, so that doesn't help.

[Notorious E.O.C.]

My TA44 does what no red dot has ever done: gives me a clearly-defined reticle instead of a glowing amoeba. Whether it's the LASIK scarring or the astigmatism coming back, the 1.5x ACOG is the best hardware fix I've found for that. But I am frequently a fringe case.

[Gray222]

Yep, when a $300 1-8x vortex can do everything and more, time to hang it up.

[El Cid]

Never saw the draw to a fixed power optic on a rifle that is destined for any close up work. I know there are work around like closing the front cap and shooting both eyes open, but that is nowhere near what I want to do. Yes, I would agree the ACOG is basically dead.

[JRB]

One of my Soldiers managed to drop his M249 ACOG-side down on asphalt. The ACOG was scuffed up but the glass was fine and it worked just fine.
I haven't seen any other optic that routinely survives similar abuse.

I do agree about the eye relief though - the TA11's are my favorite for that reason.

[Mike C]

One of my Soldiers managed to drop his M249 ACOG-side down on asphalt. The ACOG was scuffed up but the glass was fine and it worked just fine.
I haven't seen any other optic that routinely survives similar abuse.

I do agree about the eye relief though - the TA11's are my favorite for that reason.

Agreed, I've seen ACOG's take shit on deployments I don't know any other optic could survive. To add, Condition Write has a good point about the clarity of the TA44 for people with issues like he has but it's not quite the comparison of variable to fixed 4x's or the like. gskip has got a point as well and I believe F2S or maybe Kevin B. has also made similar comments about the 4X's. Their experience mirrors mine and the magnification for the 4X is too great to be useful across the spectrum without degradation at closer ranges. The 3X and 3.5X models do not affect my shooting at close proximity like the 4X model does but is still not ideal and IMHO after spending some good time with a variable and a 3X Acog side by side variable wins. hands down.

If I was just looking to keep weight down and have a simple setup or needed something to give JOE that he can't break easily and is stupid simple to use I could still see using a 3x/3.5x model but for the cost you do get some awesome options in the variable optics market. Trade off is weight but that is a small price to pay because with the ACOG you're stuck to the BDC reticle, the eye relief and price point. Personally I was hesitant with the weight trade off on the NX8 and the cost but I am a believer now. A good variable optic with etched reticle, daylight visible dot and a first focal plane crushes the shit out of an ACOG, especially when you have something with Mil/Mil. While there is some viability for ACOG's for front line grunts to keep shit simple I think for everyone else, civilian, gamers, law enforcement and applications outside team level (thinking SDM's or Sniper teams) the ACOG is absolutely dead. I never thought anything could crush my love for these sights but NF has ruined me completely.

To sum up see voodoo_man's post.

[txdpd]

No they’re not dead, Our boys in uniform that will go out and actually stack bodies will still be toting ACOGs. They aren’t the greatest thing since sliced bread anymore, pretty far from ideal, but what kind of gun industry would we have if they weren’t pushing new toys you didn’t need life saving equipment that will save you from getting kilt on da streets.

If you’re looking for something new and you don’t need the durability of the ACOG, there are plenty of better priced options out there. If you already have an ACOG there’s no reason to think you need a better mousetrap.

[JRB]

Agreed, I've seen ACOG's take shit on deployments I don't know any other optic could survive. To add, Condition Write has a good point about the clarity of the TA44 for people with issues like he has but it's not quite the comparison of variable to fixed 4x's or the like. gskip has got a point as well and I believe F2S or maybe Kevin B. has also made similar comments about the 4X's. Their experience mirrors mine and the magnification for the 4X is too great to be useful across the spectrum without degradation at closer ranges. The 3X and 3.5X models do not affect my shooting at close proximity like the 4X model does but is still not ideal and IMHO after spending some good time with a variable and a 3X Acog side by side variable wins. hands down.

If I was just looking to keep weight down and have a simple setup or needed something to give JOE that he can't break easily and is stupid simple to use I could still see using a 3x/3.5x model but for the cost you do get some awesome options in the variable optics market. Trade off is weight but that is a small price to pay because with the ACOG you're stuck to the BDC reticle, the eye relief and price point. Personally I was hesitant with the weight trade off on the NX8 and the cost but I am a believer now. A good variable optic with etched reticle, daylight visible dot and a first focal plane crushes the shit out of an ACOG, especially when you have something with Mil/Mil. While there is some viability for ACOG's for front line grunts to keep shit simple I think for everyone else, civilian, gamers, law enforcement and applications outside team level (thinking SDM's or Sniper teams) the ACOG is absolutely dead. I never thought anything could crush my love for these sights but NF has ruined me completely.

To sum up see voodoo_man's post.

That is a well thought out perspective, and in the game of true optimization there is no doubt that many current options beat the heck out of the ACOG. But the ACOG is not limited to the BDC reticle - Primary Arms offers the TA01 style ACOG with an ACSS reticle, they haven't yet done a TA11 which my wallet is thankful for.

But we should discuss the mission and typical UoF continuum in place in a combat environment vs a civilian or LE environment. With a 3-4x ACOG you're losing precision at 400+M for sure. But the ACOG shines on a typical sloppy M4/M16, and typical lots of M855/M855A1 ammo, and an RoE that does not fuss about repeated follow up shots until you make that hit. An NX8's primary advantages would be wasted on most M4's and M16's and with most lots of M855 or M855A1, though it would offer the higher magnification and observation abilities inherent to good glass at higher magnification.

On the other hand, an NX8 on a well-kept free-floated AR with a good barrel and loaded with much better ammo would be far more ideal in a Civ or LE situation where there's a great emphasis on first-shot precision and minimal shot count. It would similarly be superior in most competitions/matches as those typically have fixed shot counts and the emphasis is on precision and speed without the ammo and weapon limitations of true off-the-rack military rifles.

Long story short - whenever I manage to afford a $2500 AR build of some kind, or plunk down the money on an HK, KAC, or LaRue, it's not going to wear an ACOG. But for an LE6921 upper with a P&W muzzle device on an AR build that gets fed shitty ammo and rides my muscle memory on M4/M16's, it's the perfect choice.

[rcbusmc24]

We are shortly going to be getting the Squad Common Optic in the Marine Rifle Squads which is going to be a 1 to 6/8 powered ffp option from.....? Most of the Major brands are participating in the testing. Right now testing is ongoing at MARFORSYSCOM and hopefully it will be soon that they start production and units receive them..... All of these will be mounted on M27's as we pure fleet those to the Infantry units....

I like the ACOG / RCO and we are all issued them right now. As a Infantry optic it is not bad however it has some issues to include night shooting if not wanting to emit IR spectum energy, gas mask integration, slowing down room clearing speed somewhat. It also has a tendency to suck guys into the optic to look at things resulting in a net loss of overall situational awareness. The last one will still be a problem for a lpvo. All of the rest are issues that can be trained around or honestly are not thought about that much as the org doesn't know what it doesn't know.....

The new SCO will help with all of these as well as require increased training time at first, hopefully we will get the high mounts that we have asked for as well. Battery life is going also be a real issue at first as well as the GPF Marine Corps has very little institutional experience with having to religiously change batteries in optics.....

[Mike C]

JRB, maybe we can get a thread split, I don't want to completely derail this thread but I completely agree with you about combat environments about precision loss 4x to 3x. Though for me, even though you lose some precision at 4 + for the shorter engagement ranges the advantage difference on having 3x is its easier to run house to house and you get a little more SA which for my experiences was more important but if you are in A'stan or places where there are longer engagement ranges then that's different. Seriously though you and rcbusmc24 make excellent observations and points. I also get what you are saying about needing/wanting a solid barrel and FF tube to make it worth the squeeze but even if I had a basic gun a Vortex would probably be riding on it if not something else at max budget, since I am not in anymore. Caveat I'd say and as you pointed out would be for training gun use by someone who still has their feet in issued boots, I see your point and couldn't agree more for your situation. If I were still wearing issued boots I would be running the most common optic on all my stuff for the same reasons.

rcbusmc24, I am excited for the Corps this concept is really interesting and seems to follow trend with what SOCOM is doing with common optic. Better measure after all than new guns, I think will make a great difference at squad level. The Corps does a great job at training marksmen and impressing upon Marines that they are all riflemen first. A squad optic with 1-6 will be the ticked I'm certain so long as they are robust enough to withstand a Marine. Your points on night shooting are spot on even at 90M at night I had a hard time making shots due to poor illumination through one when we were running SKT's. Newer lens coatings and light transmission on some of the newer variables are insane. Not wanting to emit IR can and could especially in the future is a real concern. Integration with PPE getting the extended eye relief and all the other points are spot on. As for getting sucked in yes that can be an issue but you already know the fix to that by making sure SL's and TL's are switched on. Exciting times for you guys for sure. You could really get into the weeds on this.

[rob_s]

Much like the “magwell hold” thread I think there’s optimal and then there’s killed on the streets.

There’s not doubt that the ACOG has been used, and continues to be used, to kill badguys and even win matches. But maybe it’s not the ideal choice for a fully trained and switched on user.

I was always particularly happy with my TA33 in match and training environments but I’ve never been in a gunfight with it (or without, for that matter). I used the front-cap-closed trick for close up but (a) never felt hamstrung by it and (b) was completely capable of running without it, just preferred closing it to not.

I am going to fall back to my days of running and shooting local carbine matches, and IMO the masses keep rushing in to things like LPVOs with no idea how to use them. I’ve regularly beaten tac-tardy at matches with them using all the new hotness and me using either irons or the ta33. Doesn’t mean irons or the ACOG are the best, and I doubt either are winning 3xgun nationals, JT it also means they aren’t particularly “bad” and I wouldn’t feel wrong or challenged using either (although I’d prefer the ta33 to the irons).

[JRB]

JRB, maybe we can get a thread split, I don't want to completely derail this thread but I completely agree with you about combat environments about precision loss 4x to 3x. Though for me, even though you lose some precision at 4 + for the shorter engagement ranges the advantage difference on having 3x is its easier to run house to house and you get a little more SA which for my experiences was more important but if you are in A'stan or places where there are longer engagement ranges then that's different. Seriously though you and rcbusmc24 make excellent observations and points. I also get what you are saying about needing/wanting a solid barrel and FF tube to make it worth the squeeze but even if I had a basic gun a Vortex would probably be riding on it if not something else at max budget, since I am not in anymore. Caveat I'd say and as you pointed out would be for training gun use by someone who still has their feet in issued boots, I see your point and couldn't agree more for your situation. If I were still wearing issued boots I would be running the most common optic on all my stuff for the same reasons...

I'm afraid I wasn't very clear - I didn't mean the loss of precision going from 4x to 3x, but instead the loss of precision having a 3 or 4x ACOG vs a modern 1-6x or 1-8x variable at its max setting.

I definitely prefer the M68 CCO aka Aimpoint CompM4 when doing room to room stuff, but if I needed a 'do it all' option, I'd take the ACOG every time. Sure, it'd be ideal to have something like an NX8, and when they make one that is as durable as an ACOG, that'll be awesome. It'll be even more awesome if they issue them to guys like me!

I do think it's on topic, though, because until there's a truly durable 1-6x or 1-8x that'll survive what an ACOG can, the ACOG is not dead. Even after that happens, all of these ACOG's will still be around and work just fine.

[Hizzie]

Not for me. Running AK’s makes eye relief critical and most of the good LPVO’s have too much. The TA33 has gotten me through multiple classes and the TA44 continues to impress.

[JodyH]

The ACOG isn't dead mainly because you can't kill them.
On a carbine that's carried around in a Pelican case and deployed on da streetz or at da rangez a LPVO is the best thing going.
On a carbine that spends its life getting banged around in da dirtz and rockz the ACOG is still undefeated when it comes to durability.

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

Jody nailed it, IMO.

For civilians, having a magnified optic on a carbine does not make a ton of sense. There is virtually no need for additional magnification in any practical situation within 200 yds barring any sort of WROL scenario. Our troops on the other hand often need magnification in addition to absolute durability and reliability. For these individuals, ACOG's fill that role beautifully.... but at the cost of obviously not being ideal up close.

It is for this reason they are going to LPVO moving forward, closer threats are generally a far greater concern than ones hundreds of meters away. Marines still need to be able to reach out so LPVO makes sense especially now considering technology is doing a good job of making these types of optics suck less in terms of durability/weight/reliability/etc.

ACOG's only really came en vogue 'cause the military only uses the best and if it's good enough for them it's what I need' types of mindset, without actually looking at how they might have different realities than an infantryman. I believe an Aimpoint T2 or Trijicon MRO would serve virtually any non-LEO/MIL ideally for any serious purpose other than hunting/gaming.

[Unobtanium]

OP here, I'm still following the thread. I just have very little input as my ACOG experience is largely YouTube, while I have done more with, and own LPVO's. My budget kindof became viable right around the time LPVO's hit their stride, so I bought what the cool kids bought, but the ACOG still seems to pop up, more now, since the ACSS reticle has made it into them, and it got me thinking. Good idea fairy and all...

[Hizzie]

OP here, I'm still following the thread. I just have very little input as my ACOG experience is largely YouTube, while I have done more with, and own LPVO's. My budget kindof became viable right around the time LPVO's hit their stride, so I bought what the cool kids bought, but the ACOG still seems to pop up, more now, since the ACSS reticle has made it into them, and it got me thinking. Good idea fairy and all...


ACSS in the TA44 is great if you have perfect vision. It’s pretty damn small. The circle dot is my preference. I know with 762x39 that a forehead hold gets me torso hits at 300. Honestly I didn’t bother with the BDC in the TA33 at CSAT. I knew my hold and it was faster. That technique allowed me to run the Scrambler clean. I just look at the 44 as a RDS equivalent.

[HCM]

Jody nailed it, IMO.

For civilians, having a magnified optic on a carbine does not make a ton of sense. There is virtually no need for additional magnification in any practical situation within 200 yds barring any sort of WROL scenario. Our troops on the other hand often need magnification in addition to absolute durability and reliability. For these individuals, ACOG's fill that role beautifully.... but at the cost of obviously not being ideal up close.

It is for this reason they are going to LPVO moving forward, closer threats are generally a far greater concern than ones hundreds of meters away. Marines still need to be able to reach out so LPVO makes sense especially now considering technology is doing a good job of making these types of optics suck less in terms of durability/weight/reliability/etc.

ACOG's only really came en vogue 'cause the military only uses the best and if it's good enough for them it's what I need' types of mindset, without actually looking at how they might have different realities than an infantryman. I believe an Aimpoint T2 or Trijicon MRO would serve virtually any non-LEO/MIL ideally for any serious purpose other than hunting/gaming.

There is no need for magnification to make hits out to 200 but in “practical” use there is a real need for magnification to locate and identify / discriminate threats,

[HCM]

I watched when ACOG was the only thing worth having if you wanted durable magnification on a fighting gun.
Then it became NXS and SB 1-4's on QD mounts with irons backing them up.
Now it is 1-8's hardmounted, with offset T2s and RMRs.

Which brings me back to the ACOG...if 4x is enough for your AO, is the acog+offset t2 a better path than a LPVO? Most of the competition shooters I've watched simply roll the gun for those stages rather than throw the lever on the lpvo, effectively turning it into a fixed mag sight.

The acog is tough, and weights in at a whopping <14oz WITH mount. A t2 in an offset is about 5oz. Mounted up, on the gun, this is a 19oz combo. That is shaving over half a pound off of a Razor-E in a 6oz mount...

Your premise is flawed.

You mean is the 4x ACOG with shitty eye relief dead ? No. There are hundreds of thousands in service use and people will be buying them for decades based on that alone.

The 3x and 3.5x have much better eye relief and are better general purpose optics IME.

The 1.5x will have a continued market with people who have astigmatism.

Nice gear is nice but training > gear.

I love my Khales 1-6 but at work I can use an Aimpoint H-1 or.... an Aimpoint H-1. Taking what you are issued and making it work is not a unique situation.

As Kyle DeFoor said “An ACOG might not be my first choice, but if it’s what you’ve got, I can make pretty deadly with an ACOG.”

[rob_s]

For civilians, having a magnified optic on a carbine does not make a ton of sense. There is virtually no need for additional magnification in any practical situation within 200 yds barring any sort of WROL scenario.


There is no need for magnification to make hits out to 200 but in “practical” use there is a real need for magnification to locate and identify / discriminate threats,

I have made both sides of this argument myself in the past. The arguments seem to go:
1) civilians don’t need to shoot past 200 yards and you can do that accurately without magnification
2) yes, you can make hits out to 200 yards without magnification but the magnification is needed for target ID and/or threat assessment
3) (and this is the argument not yet made here) outside of civil unrest or societal collapse you may well have a hard time justifying shooting someone at even 50 or 100 yards, so we’re back to not *needing* that magnification again.
4) and so on

Personally, I wouldn’t mind having an LPVO on a carbine in the safe, up it wouldn’t be the one I’d necessarily keep with me after a hurricane. That said, by “old busted” still wears a TA33 and both times I’ve packed up the family and left town for the storm that poor old 6720 flattop conversion, quad-rail-handguarded, TA33-wearing (even with the burnt out tritium) old busted is the one that’s made the trip while suppressed SBR new hotness and slim-railed ultralight new-new-hotness both stay behind.

Do I think I’ll really need that limited 3x? Nope. Do I feel hamstrung by it? Nope. Do I envision a post-hurricane scenario where I might find myself happy to have it? Yep. Do I just feel way more comfortable with my nearly 20-year-old carbine with thousands of rounds through it, despite having an obsolete optic on it? You betcha.

[JodyH]

The 3x and 3.5x have much better eye relief and are better general purpose optics IME.

The 1.5x will have a continued market with people who have astigmatism.

My wife's carbine has a 1.5x, my boy's carbine has a 3x.
Both of them can shoot very well, neither one of them are "into" guns to the point they can keep track of the idiosyncrasies of various accessories.
ACOG's are awesome for grab and go, no on/off switches, no batteries, no brightness adjustments.
My M4 carbine has a MRO, my MR762 has a Elcan 1.5-6x because I am a gun nerd and do keep on top of stuff.

[Hizzie]

RDS look no where near as clear as the ACOG to me.

p/B2Zt3cLgEQ8

[StraitR]

I wanted to like the TA33, but couldn't get past the FOV. I really liked everything else about it.

[Backspin]

Hizzie,

How is the 1.5x ACOG in low light or shooting from dark to light? I heard the reticle can washout in those situations.

[Lost River]

My main "grab and go" AR has a 4X TA01 with the original BDC 5.56 ranging reticle, and a custom mount for a Burris FF on top. I don't consider myself particularly handicapped at all with this setup.

It is not hard at all to make hits on IPSC sized targets out to 600.

Doing it over, I would likely opt for a Nightforce NXS 2.5-10, but in the hands of a competent shooter, a 4X ACOG is a pretty capable piece of gear and not nearly the handicap that the internet chatter makes them out to be.



http://i.imgur.com/xKzIxuf.jpg (https://imgur.com/xKzIxuf)

[Hizzie]

Hizzie,

How is the 1.5x ACOG in low light or shooting from dark to light? I heard the reticle can washout in those situations.

I actually ran it during the night shoot with Presscheck Consulting. The only deficiencies observed with my technique/skills, none with the optic.

[JHC]

My main "grab and go" AR has a 4X TA01 with the original BDC 5.56 ranging reticle, and a custom mount for a Burris FF on top. I don't consider myself particularly handicapped at all with this setup.

It is not hard at all to make hits on IPSC sized targets out to 600.

Doing it over, I would likely opt for a Nightforce NXS 2.5-10, but in the hands of a competent shooter, a 4X ACOG is a pretty capable piece of gear and not nearly the handicap that the internet chatter makes them out to be.



http://i.imgur.com/xKzIxuf.jpg (https://imgur.com/xKzIxuf)

I’ve shot at 600 exactly one time. Went to probe with a Bushmaster carbine and TA01, used the 600 hash mark and wore the target out. Sold me on BDC.

[RevolverRob]

It’s totally dead.

If anyone has a Triangle/Delta Reticle ACOG that needs to be disposed of, PM me. I’ll send you a shipping address.

Like wise I hear the Trijicon Reflex is also dead. Triangle/Delta reticle Reflexes are also capable of being recycled with RevolverRob’s Obsolete Optics Recycling Service.

[Bigghoss]

It seems to me like anyone that might take a hard hit and then find themselves in a fightfight might be well served by an ACOG. So if you ride in helicopters that might get shot down, trucks that might get blown up, or cars that might have to force a fleeing suspect vehicle off the road, that level of durability might be useful to you.

I have an irrational urge to get an M16A4 clone with an ACOG, beyond that I would never get one. But I can't really make an argument for them being a bad choice.

[Hizzie]

It’s totally dead.

If anyone has a Triangle/Delta Reticle ACOG that needs to be disposed of, PM me. I’ll send you a shipping address.

Like wise I hear the Trijicon Reflex is also dead. Triangle/Delta reticle Reflexes are also capable of being recycled with RevolverRob’s Obsolete Optics Recycling Service.

I wish I had learned about the RX30 before Aimpoint.

[RAM Engineer]

How do the 1.5x16 ACOGs compare to the 1.5x24 versions?

[BillSWPA]

How do the 1.5x16 ACOGs compare to the 1.5x24 versions?

I would be interested not only in the above comparison, but also in a comparison of either or both of the above with the 2x20 version.

[rob_s]

How do the 1.5x16 ACOGs compare to the 1.5x24 versions?


I would be interested not only in the above comparison, but also in a comparison of either or both of the above with the 2x20 version.

Primary difference is eye relief and FOV

Model | eye relief | degrees | @100

1.5x16 | 2.40 | 7.40 | 39.00
1.5x24 | 3.60 | 4.90 | 25.60
2.0x20 | 2.10 | 5.60 | 29.50

I am having a hell of a time sharing google sheets of late, so apologies if this link doesn’t work. It is an old sheet, but I can’t imagine the specs on these models has changed.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16_QkWFLqumY6f5MTPHQgtrbKyg3dTsRLEcFBTVqVzFc/edit

Attaching an image as well just in case.

61353

[NH Shooter]

Primary difference is eye relief and FOV

Model | eye relief | degrees | @100

1.5x16 | 2.40 | 7.40 | 39.00
1.5x24 | 3.60 | 4.90 | 25.60
2.0x20 | 2.10 | 5.60 | 29.50




Just to throw the Leupold 2.5X20mm in to the mix;

2.5x20 | 4.9 | 7.5 | 39.5 | 6.5 ounces

You lose reticle illumination but get a reticle you can focus (and for some of us, actually see sharp enough to use).

[ffhounddog]

I do like the Steiner 3x and 4x Fixed power.

I got to use them at Modern Day Marine last year and the previous version the year before, First year T-series and second year the S-Series but ended up buying a Steiner 1-4x before the price went up.

[rcbusmc24]

Just as a Update: USMC selected the 1-8 Trijicon VCOG as our new Squad Common Optic, it will eventually be replacing all of the currently used optics on our M27's and M38's. Still not sure on the fielding timeline. M4's in the supporting establishment are expected to remain equipped with RCO's (ACOG's).

[Borderland]

Yep, when a $300 1-8x vortex can do everything and more, time to hang it up.

Which Vortex is that? Just asking because I'm not familiar with the models.

[farscott]

As mentioned by others, the 4X ACOG "scope image" is better for me due to less distortion caused by my astigmatism compared to Aimpoints. It also is a good fit on an AR used for coyotes. I have one AR with a COMP M4, one with Leupold 1.5-5X20, and another with an ACOG. The first is the one designated for HD. The ACOG is better for my usage in the farm fields than the Leupold due to the better image and lit reticle.

[Seven_Sicks_Two]

I have a TA31 that I traded into years ago. It's in a return-to-zero QD mount from GDI that I bought on closeout. The eye relief sucks, but the BDC is pretty useful, having a little magnification is nice, and the RTZ works well enough for me to not notice a zero shift with the ammo being used.

Would I pay retail for one in 2020? No, probably not. I'd likely buy an LPVO in 1-4 / 1-6 / 1-8 / etc. if I were starting from scratch today.