Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 66 of 66

Thread: ACOG recommendations

  1. #61
    Member JMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    I can hit 16x16 gongs with a stand-alone RDS from the standing at 400m, with a 50yd zero (POA/POI @ 205m), regardless of the size of the dot, because I know my zero and my offsets, and can see the target. It's also slow-fire (let's be realistic...! ), but the fact remains that it's not a question of whether the optic/gun combo is capable or effective....quality machinery is always capable.

    Awful metaphor: Reality TV sucks goat nuts. An 80" HD TV allows one to have the most crisp, clear view of crapy TV programming one can get. It doesn't make the show more or less of a steaming turd.

    As has been stated before, magnification allows the shooter a better chance of seeing a target, discriminating it from the background, identifying it to decide whether or not it's to be engaged. It aids a competent shooter in getting hits because that shooter can now SEE further, and perhaps shoot more rapidly at distance because he's not constantly searching to re-align sights with target. It doesn't change the effectiveness of the gun/ammo one iota, and the wild-card always ends up being the dope behind the optic, not the dope ON the optic.

    -Put a garbage shooter behind 3x magnification, he's gonna see the same jitterbugging he sees with irons or at 1x, only ALSO magnified, so that he Jedi mind-tricks himself into forgetting he's still inside his wobble-zone (IF he was ever taught or if he ever assimilated that lesson). It's possible to see that shooter's errors magnified by 3x because that dude's gonna be ambushing the dog snot out of the trigger. Less than desirable...

    -Hand a gun to Milky from Me, Myself and Irene without his specs, and it'll be a miracle if he can hit Oprah in the ass at 5 paces, with or withough magnification.

    I think in the end, a competent shooter that's gonna be shooting at distance is always gonna prefer to use magnification because of what it allows him to see. I've used both the RCO and 1x w/3x magnifier in combat, along the Euphrates River from Ramadi to Al Quaim (and other garden spots), where we'd go from urban-ish building setups, to flat terrain, hilly terrain, and 80m cliffs...but only on days that ended in "Y". Magnification did ZERO to add Jesus Juice to the gun or my ability to hit what I was shooting at, but it allowed ME to observe/discriminate, and therefore reduce targets. Close-up, magnification can slow you down, but not significantly if you train your way through it.....and 3x magnifiers are usually in a QD or wing-aside mount of some sort, as in the above photos.

    A less experienced shooter might think that they can effectively buy skill by slapping something magnified on-board. They get frustrated when they STILL can't hit, and end up blaming the gun/optic/ammo/moon is in the 7th house, etc.....

    3x magnifiers also allow one to "burn through" concealment, see into shadowed areas, fish-eye through small holes in walls (dismounted magnifier); there's more to a combat environment than just shooting. They do absolutely nothing to aid or detract from the "effectiveness" of whatever RDS mounted in front of it, but being able to see better is unquestionably helpful, whether it's on a flat range or not.

  2. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Quote Originally Posted by JMS View Post
    I can hit 16x16 gongs with a stand-alone RDS from the standing at 400m, with a 50yd zero (POA/POI @ 205m), regardless of the size of the dot, because I know my zero and my offsets, and can see the target. It's also slow-fire (let's be realistic...! ), but the fact remains that it's not a question of whether the optic/gun combo is capable or effective....quality machinery is always capable.

    Awful metaphor: Reality TV sucks goat nuts. An 80" HD TV allows one to have the most crisp, clear view of crapy TV programming one can get. It doesn't make the show more or less of a steaming turd.

    As has been stated before, magnification allows the shooter a better chance of seeing a target, discriminating it from the background, identifying it to decide whether or not it's to be engaged. It aids a competent shooter in getting hits because that shooter can now SEE further, and perhaps shoot more rapidly at distance because he's not constantly searching to re-align sights with target. It doesn't change the effectiveness of the gun/ammo one iota, and the wild-card always ends up being the dope behind the optic, not the dope ON the optic.

    -Put a garbage shooter behind 3x magnification, he's gonna see the same jitterbugging he sees with irons or at 1x, only ALSO magnified, so that he Jedi mind-tricks himself into forgetting he's still inside his wobble-zone (IF he was ever taught or if he ever assimilated that lesson). It's possible to see that shooter's errors magnified by 3x because that dude's gonna be ambushing the dog snot out of the trigger. Less than desirable...

    -Hand a gun to Milky from Me, Myself and Irene without his specs, and it'll be a miracle if he can hit Oprah in the ass at 5 paces, with or withough magnification.

    I think in the end, a competent shooter that's gonna be shooting at distance is always gonna prefer to use magnification because of what it allows him to see. I've used both the RCO and 1x w/3x magnifier in combat, along the Euphrates River from Ramadi to Al Quaim (and other garden spots), where we'd go from urban-ish building setups, to flat terrain, hilly terrain, and 80m cliffs...but only on days that ended in "Y". Magnification did ZERO to add Jesus Juice to the gun or my ability to hit what I was shooting at, but it allowed ME to observe/discriminate, and therefore reduce targets. Close-up, magnification can slow you down, but not significantly if you train your way through it.....and 3x magnifiers are usually in a QD or wing-aside mount of some sort, as in the above photos.

    A less experienced shooter might think that they can effectively buy skill by slapping something magnified on-board. They get frustrated when they STILL can't hit, and end up blaming the gun/optic/ammo/moon is in the 7th house, etc.....

    3x magnifiers also allow one to "burn through" concealment, see into shadowed areas, fish-eye through small holes in walls (dismounted magnifier); there's more to a combat environment than just shooting. They do absolutely nothing to aid or detract from the "effectiveness" of whatever RDS mounted in front of it, but being able to see better is unquestionably helpful, whether it's on a flat range or not.
    I hear the same type of situation, people can effectively make hits with an RDS 200M+. What am I gaining when I can do that with irons?

    The problem I'm having.. is it realistic? Could you determine if that was a good guy or bad guy to engage in the first place?

    Realistically the average joe isn't going to be shooting his carbine further than his hallway... RDS would be ideal for that situation. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't own a carbine for close range alone.. I'd like to have the full potential of my rifle effectively (300M?).

    Confuse myself more writing it

  3. #63
    Member ezthumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Houston Texas area
    Quote Originally Posted by JMS View Post

    -Hand a gun to Milky from Me, Myself and Irene without his specs, and it'll be a miracle if he can hit Oprah in the ass at 5 paces, with or withough magnification.
    Hahaha, Thank you for that.

  4. #64
    Member JMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by JRas View Post
    I guess what I'm saying is, I don't own a carbine for close range alone.. I'd like to have the full potential of my rifle effectively (300M?).
    That's among the reasons why the magnifiers can make sense. The flexibility is hard to argue with, and I felt that the two key detractors for that arrangement tend to come down to whether the user is willing to put up with the weight and the footprint on top of the receiver, and even the latter only affected using other optics of use with NVGs; pretty much a MIL consideration, sometimes LE. That's why I prefer the twist-mount for those things, when I used them; if I didn't need to be carting the thing on the gun, it was in a pouch on my armor until I needed it.

    That said, and bearing in mind that I'm now a noncombatant that lives in the 'burbs, 400m is the extreme edge of my envisioned envelope, but that's not gonna stop me from diving in to a 1.1-6x when the opportunity arises. I really liked ACOGs once I genuinely figured out how to wring them out, but still think that the low-power variables represent the best of all possible worlds for 5.56.

  5. #65
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by JMS View Post
    That's among the reasons why the magnifiers can make sense. The flexibility is hard to argue with, and I felt that the two key detractors for that arrangement tend to come down to whether the user is willing to put up with the weight and the footprint on top of the receiver, and even the latter only affected using other optics of use with NVGs; pretty much a MIL consideration, sometimes LE. That's why I prefer the twist-mount for those things, when I used them; if I didn't need to be carting the thing on the gun, it was in a pouch on my armor until I needed it.

    That said, and bearing in mind that I'm now a noncombatant that lives in the 'burbs, 400m is the extreme edge of my envisioned envelope, but that's not gonna stop me from diving in to a 1.1-6x when the opportunity arises. I really liked ACOGs once I genuinely figured out how to wring them out, but still think that the low-power variables represent the best of all possible worlds for 5.56.
    This is how I feel.

    The thing I'm not liking is that the market seems to be advancing towards more 1-6x. Rather than go towards 1-6x, I want the market to invest in making a 1-4x that only weighs 10oz (or at least noticeably lighter than currently available).
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  6. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    I'm never going to decide on an optic

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •