ACOG recommendations

[DocGKR]

JRas--While I know a couple of guys that like the Elcan, like most folks I know, I fully concur with what SeanM has written about the ELCAN Specter DR aka the ECOS SU230. Just because it is in the SOPMOD kit does not mean it is the best choice. The Elcan is heavy. It breaks. It goes out of adjustment and does not hold zero. Battery life is relatively short. Mounts suck. FOV is less than ideal. Eye relief is on the short side.

Here is what a well known SOF NCO wrote about the Specter DR:

"You know whats funny, I had 50% of my Specter DRs come from the factory unusable due to bad mounts, all of them had to go back to Crane before they could go on a gun. That's pretty much a moot point as nobody puts them on their guns anyway, but I knew that in 2005 when I tested the first ones."

S&B SD 1-4, Trijicon 1-4x24, a Leupold 1.5-5 (Vari X III), NF NXS 1-4 are all better options. Heck a Vortex 1-4x is probably better. For the money, weight, and size, I'd much rather have one of the newer 1-6x or 1-8x optics than an Elcan.

I would much rather use ab Aimpoint 3x magnifier in a LaRue LT-649 mount behind a red-dot optic offers (preferably a micro-Aimpoint T1) asi this is a very versatile set-up:

[JRas]

JRas--While I know a couple of guys that like the Elcan, like most folks I know, I fully concur with what SeanM has written about the ELCAN Specter DR aka the ECOS SU230. Just because it is in the SOPMOD kit does not mean it is the best choice. The Elcan is heavy. It breaks. It goes out of adjustment and does not hold zero. Battery life is relatively short. Mounts suck. FOV is less than ideal. Eye relief is on the short side.

Here is what a well known SOF NCO wrote about the Specter DR:



S&B SD, Trijicon 1-4x24, a Leupold 1.5-4 (Vari X III), NF NXS 1-4 are all better options. Heck a Vortex 1-4x is probably better. For the money, weight, and size, I'd much rather have one of the newer 1-6x or 1-8x optics than an Elcan.

I would much rather use ab Aimpoint 3x magnifier in a LaRue LT-649 mount behind a red-dot optic offers (preferably a micro-Aimpoint T1) asi this is a very versatile set-up:

I've heard the earlier models had issues but the problems have been resolved.

That's the first I've heard about them breaking. If it was a real issue wouldn't the testing for selection uncover it?

[Odin Bravo One]

Doesnt always work like that. If we applied that theory, no one in the military would have the SCAR either........

[LittleLebowski]

I've heard the earlier models had issues but the problems have been resolved.

That's the first I've heard about them breaking. If it was a real issue wouldn't the testing for selection uncover it?

There's any number of products that worked great in testing and did not work out as well in real world use.

[Crow Hunter]

There's any number of products that worked great in testing and did not work out as well in real world use.

I can vouch for that with personal experience from the non-firearms side of the fence.

Unfortunately part of the requirements for testing to evaluate a design and especially competing designs is repeatability and control of variables so that each test is the same so the results can be evaluated effectively.

That is s two-edged sword because the "real world" doesn't have controlled variables and they may stack up in a way that wasn't anticipated and cause problems that weren't foreseen in the original concept or DFMEA. (Design Failure Mode Effects Analysis)

Another problem is if you get the same people/entity testing it that designed it or wrote the specifications (This happens A LOT). They may, unintentionally, focus the testing on those factors that the product or improvements were designed to combat while neglecting other things that could cause a failure. (Sometimes, unfortunately, it can be done intentionally)

On the weapon side of things, that is one of the advantages that I see with something that has been used in combat in several theatres and has been proven reliables and durable, even if it might not be the "best" in "testing".

[Lost River]

For the OP,

Here is something that may be of interest. I wrote this a few years back (2009) when I was working overseas. It was essentially "Why" I chose to roll with a low power variable instead of an issued Red Dot Optic(EOtech) or ACOG.


I am very much a practical realist. I like gear that is simple to use under stress and can be operated at the level of unconcious competence.

CQB is often an interesting subject, since almost everyone believes they are some sort of CQB God. For example,you should see some of the arguements between former SEALs vs former SF guys on the "right" way to do it. It is highly entertaining to watch. Guys get very heated.

I would like to point out a couple of things that have influenced my optics selection.

A close range situation can very quickly become an extended range situation. For example, you may kick in a door to snatch some guy on a warrant or something. Classic CQB right? If the bad guy reads the script and stays inside, then yes. However if he jumps out a window, gets around the one guy covering that side of the house/structure and takes off through the neighborhood, then things just got interesting and ranges extended substantially.

Similar situations happen overseas. An intial coordinated attack may involve people up close and personal, with additional bad guys at distance with long guns/belt feds in commanding positions.

Many often associate "Urban" fights with CQB. That is simply not the case. You can get some very long shots in urban areas.

On that note, I would much rather have a fight at a distance than a close range fight. EVERYONE shoots good enough at close range. Proximity negates skill.

I have been issued red dot type optics such as EOTECHs and they are best for me at very close range. However they are not flexible. They only do one thing well and offer no target discrimination.

Fixed power optics such as the ACOG are great too as they allow me to discriminate my targets. I can look down the block and see if Haji is looking at us intently, with a cell phone in his hand getting ready to command detonate an IED on us. It also allows the user to make a better determination as to if a suspicious person is a threat or not. Perhaps (often the case) he is merely an interested observer.

Magnified optics also allow a shooter have a better chance of hitting a bad guy who only pokes part of his body around the corner down the block or at a window or dirt berm.

With all that said, the fixed power magnified optic such as a 4x ACOG is slower to get hits with at very close range such as in a meeting hall or courtyard. However I am still a fan of the 4x ACOG and prefer it over an EOTECH.

These are the reasons I finally settled on a low powered variable with illumination as an option for low light.

They are not as fast as a true red dot holographic type sight (EOTECH) for very close shooting. However with practice they are very close. Another advantage the Eotech has is head position. As long as the red dot is on the target, no matter where the dot is in relationship to the optical picture, you can get a hit. A magnified optic require a more consistant sight picture. With practice however that has not really presented a problem.

I keep my 1.5x5 optic on 1.5 power so I have the ability to shoot with both eyes open very quickly at close range.

When needed, I have the flexibilty to dial the optic up to take a more precise shot at greater distances.

BTW, in reference to my Leupold, I actually chose the VXIII over the MKIV. The reason is I did not like the exposed turrets on the MKIV. Turrets are great if you are dialing shots with a precision rifle, but I have found that shoving rifles between seats and piling kit on top of them is not conducive to keeping turrets on zero. In my line of work, guns and gear are always getting shoved where they can and the VXIII with caps covering the adjustment knobs was a better choice.

Another point. I use the same optic when at home on my Colt that I use for coyote hunting and as a general purpose truck/house gun.

It has proven to be ideal as a calling rifle for song dogs. The coyotes can come in at a dead run and be shot at extremely close ranges, or they may hang up out there 100 or 200 yards while trying to locate the source of the noise. The low powered variable has proven to be ideal. Practicing on jackrabbits is also a good and practical skill builder.

Using the same platform in a variety of sporting and work scenarios builds unconcious competence with the system.


That particular illuminated 30mm 1.5-5 Leupold VX III in a Larue mount held up extremely well and never lost zero in spite if getting banged around a lot multiple times a week. Other than finish wear, it is completely G2G and proved to be a smart choice for the type of environment I was in.

It also made for a great general purpose scope at home, as I stated above. More than a couple of 'yotes have been in its crosshairs.

It may be something to consider as an all around choice.

[Odin Bravo One]

Since this thread has been resurrected, and because I forgot it existed, or that I participated in it.................

I have been testing the Leupold VX-6 FireDot for a few weeks. I plan on having something more profound to say about it by mid-winter. I simply prefer to wait until I have been able to run it through an established protocol before piping up about how awesome it is this second, and after it has run the distance of 5k or so rounds.

[TGS]

Since I like magnification at the range, but also plan on keeping my new AR around has a home defense weapon, I ended up getting a low power variable. Plus, I've never played with a low power variable so it's a learning experience for me.

My Burris MTAC 1-4x24mm came in today. I would have liked to buy something more rugged, but after the AR, 1200 rounds of ammo and white light (I prioritized those higher than an optic) I didn't have much room to spend on an optic. I liked everything I read about the MTAC's reticle, and it seems to have a reputation of being reliable enough for a civilian. There's certainly no way I would want to take this if I was going to Afghanistan tomorrow.......I can't remember how many times I banged around, sometimes even fell, with my issue M16A4/RCO and don't think the Burris would be a good choice for that environment.

I decided to go ahead and mount it with the infamous, loved and maligned Burris PEPR mount. The mount itself actually doesn't seem too shabby, but the screws are pieces of crap and very soft. I don't plan on taking it off and on constantly, so hopefully it will last until I can upgrade to a higher grade mount and SWFA/insert-fav-optic-here/Leupold variable. Before I do that, I want to get in a carbine class with either Jack Leuba, Travis Haley or TigerSwan...so it could be a good year before I upgrade (unless it breaks).

We'll see. This should be fun!

[JHC]

I concur that the low range vaiable is all around most useful and I have a $279 Nikon African 1-4x on my N4 Recce I use for deer hunting. It's been fine for a few seasons. Back to ACOGs; after training with Frank Proctor and running a bunch of drills with irons because my other AR a BCM lightweight middie is just set up with DD irons and a white light - I realized what the SMEs had been preaching for years applied to me too. Irons were a lot of work.

But the electronic dots from Aimpoints and RMRs just look like spilt red ink running across my target to my right eye. About when I thought it would be EOTech I scored a TA44 1.5x mini-ACOG with a Larue QD mount for $650 so I just went that route. It suffers the compromises of bright light washout with just a black recticle showing etc but I think it'll do seeing that I'm not the hardest user doing CQB etc.

[JRas]

I'm resurrecting this thread, want more good info ;-P

Found these pictures on another forum and had me thinking. At 100yd, 200yd, and lets say 300yd how effective is an RDS without a magnifier? Shooting at setup targets is one thing but what about in a combat environment?

100 yard steel popper

with 3X magnifier

200 yard steel popper

with 3X magnifier