If one wanted to upgrade a stock, iron sight, m4 with an ACOG for the purpose of jumping out of a vehicle and engaging BG's at an unknown distance in an urban/high desert environment, which would be the best choice. Right now I am looking at the TA01NSN and the TA31F. Does BAC really work?
If I was forced to have an ACOG, one of the TA11's is the best option--I'm not a fan of the 4x ACOG's.
But ACOG would not be my first choice; I'd rather have a variable power scope like a 1-4/6/8x. I'd even rather have an Aimpoint with a 3x magnifier in a LaRue LT649 flip mount....
Why are you not a fan of the ACOG? Will the Aimpoint/Magnifier stand up to the abuse of banging around in a vehicle? This will be a hard use application in a holstile environment.Originally Posted by DocGKR
Yes... the Aimpoint will definitely take the beating. In all likelihood, better than or at least equal to the ACOG.
While I'm not trying to speak for Doc, in my experience many prefer a magnified dot or variable powered scope over an ACOG due to their greater speed and versatility when used against mixed distance targets.
Also, having shot an unknown distance and natural terrain carbine match a few months ago where targets ranged from 75-300 yards, I saw that the guys that had variable optics straight up trashed those who were shooting ACOGs. In that match, with unknown target size, unknown distances, and lots of vegetation obscuring the targets, the variable optic stood out as a clear winner. Even though many of the variables used had glass that was definitely inferior to that on the ACOG. That being said, variable scope + decent QD mount = another pound and a half on your gun. Which is kind of a bummer.
So to sum it up, I too am sold on the variable optics. They offer so much and give up so little...
I train to be better than I was yesterday. -F2S
Yes... the Aimpoint will definitely take the beating. In all likelihood, better than or at least equal to the ACOG.
While I'm not trying to speak for Doc, in my experience many prefer a magnified dot or variable powered scope over an ACOG due to their greater speed and versatility when used against mixed distance targets.
Also, having shot an unknown distance and natural terrain carbine match a few months ago where targets ranged from 75-300 yards, I saw that the guys that had variable optics straight up trashed those who were shooting ACOGs. In that match, with unknown target size, unknown distances, and lots of vegetation obscuring the targets, the variable optic stood out as a clear winner. Even though many of the variables that were used had glass that was definitely inferior to that on the ACOG. That being said, variable scope + decent QD mount = another pound and a half on your gun. Which is kind of a bummer.
As far as the close stuff (like 50 yards and in) I've always "felt" slower when using a variable optic over something like an Aimpoint. However, the first time I clocked myself with an Aimpoint and a variable side by side on the same day I found that my time to first shot and my splits were virtually identical. The few times that I actually was slower with the variable optic, it was by a few hundredths of a second. I'll gladly give up a max of .06 seconds up close to gain target engagement all the way out to 500 yards...
So to sum it up, I too am sold on the variable optics. They offer so much and give up so little.
I train to be better than I was yesterday. -F2S
A buddy of mine is looking at the Leupold VX-R Patrol for a similar purpose. How does it compare to the ACOG and/or other options in terms of robustness/durability?
"A good shooter with a weak body and weak mind will lose against one who has the physical ability to crush him, and the mental ability to do it repeatedly"
-Kyle Defoor
Do you adjust the magnification on a variable as you shoot a match or go through a class, or you stay on one mag level? You said the class had targets from 75 to 300, so I assume that people were on some intermediate level of magnification. I wonder how people handle the time-pressured situations were targets are, say, from 25 to 300, although I presume that this would mostly apply to matches.
I have a variable Nightforce (although the lower end is not 1x but 2.5x), a number of red dots [and a magnifier] and an ACOG. Just like DocGKR suggested, mine is a 3.5 as I prefer the eye relief of 3.5s, combined with a pretty good field of view. I ran all of them through the classes, with majority of those classes favoring reddots by never going farther out than 50 yards. Obviously, all of them have their own theoretical advantages depending on the intended use, and everybody's eyesight is different. Having said that, if I were to forced to keep one optic only, I'd probably take ACOG over other options I have. Although I have no personal experience with 1x8 variables.
I would not choose an ACOG. I would choose something without magnification, or something with a variable 1-4x as well. Another minus for the ACOG is the incredibly short eye relief. Even if you did an ACOG with a red dot on top, think of how many MOA that red dot is sitting above the bore. It's gonna start being "off" really quickly. Plus, you'll probably practice holding your head rearward for the red dot, and forward with an ACOG if you get a combo unit. The ACOG shines on a square range with newbie soldiers who are used to playing call of duty, and the BDC is great for those without experience with distances. I don't know where you're training for, but I'd be much more concerned about a hallway distance, or a reaction to an ambush from 50 yards, than I would 3-400 yards. A variable will do all of that, and can be left on "1x" and turned up for those longer engagements (where you'll have a little more time).
Disclaimer: I have limited experience with combat optics. TA31 on an issued M16A4, and a EoTech with a FTS magnifier. So, here's my opinion but I totally get I'm not an expert and am willing to learn.
I'm kind of surprised to see endorsements for red dots with a magnifier. Perhaps it was a problem specific to the EoTech/magnifier combo I was using, but my accuracy suffered with it compared to using just the red dot or aperture sights. Under magnification the red dot went all squirrely/refracted looking instead of being well defined, and it definitely effected my accuracy at 100 yards.
Someone asked about the efficacy of bindon aiming concept. I'm still on the fence with it, personally. It certainly wasn't an effectively employed technique by most of the Marines I knew. Fortunately I've always had a good ability to shoot with both eyes open, and the BAC seemed to work for me in training between 15 and 75 yards. Definitely not appropriate for room clearing, IMO.
I'd hardly consider the BDC to be training wheels for new soldiers....IIRC, the birth of the ACOG was marked by the use of our nations best warfighters, not the worst. In Afghanistan, 50% of engagements are occurring past 300 yards. A BDC and stadiametric rangefinder (especially) is most certainly an advantage in that threat environment but does not hurt your ability to respond to a 50 yard engagement, either. An ACOG certainly might not be the best tool for a SWAT team or anyone in a close range threat environment, but it certainly had its place. Lets not forget that a magnified optic isn't just useful for shooting at long ranges.....searching/observing with a magnified optic can be a lot more productive than using your naked eye, even at distances of only 100 yards.
In short, mission drives the gear. Just because an ACOG isn't useful to someone only planning to use their M4 for home defense or clearing rooms does not mean the tool should be blanketed as useless/gimmicky/only for noobs.
re: my comment "had its place": the development and employment of these variable power scopes is exciting.
I look forward to reading more SME input.
As DocGKR noted, the 4x ACOGs are not as all around useful as the TA11. The TA33 has the longer eye relief like the 11 too.
If spending ACOG money I think I'd have to go with the low powered variable 9 times out of 10. The $600 range Vortex 1.4 is superb and the TR24 with German #4 recticle is just outstanding too (I've used those). Few of them are going to be as "bullet proof" as the ACOGs but then how many people have a high quality scope crap out on them these days?
But I like ACOGs a lot; I'd go TA11 if it was to be an ACOG.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
Reply With Quote