Acog really worth it??

[Garrett]

I had the TA31RCO-M150 and I loved it. Clear glass, solid built, and Trijicon is great to work with. If you are looking for an optic to go to hell and back and you dont have time to make adjustments then I would say take an ACOG. But the average shooter is not going to need that durability and has time to make adjustments. This is why I dropped my ACOG, because I wanted variable magnification for more versatility as civilian shooter.

Also what bigcraig says too. True 1x is great for CQ, and the Aimpoint delivers that and durability as well.

I now rock an IOR 1.5-8x26 on my Bushmaster and love it.

 

[Bonez87]

If I had the extra money I would definately own one!!

 

[grunt soldier]

I love mine definitely a great optic that you don't have to mess with.

 

[nhgluff]

NO!!! Had one in Iraq and locked it in my footlocker and never took it out again. What would I do if my sight was damaged and then no iron sights.

 

[Dave Doehrman]

NO!!! Had one in Iraq and locked it in my footlocker and never took it out again. What would I do if my sight was damaged and then no iron sights.

The military version with the BAC reticle has 2 backup systems. If the ACOG fails, you use the Docter Red Dot and if that fails, you have the iron sights integrated into the mount.

Redundant backup systems .......

 

[mkbar80]

I don't feel that I'd need a magnified optic on a 5.56 carbine (~200-300m gun)...others might.

If I had an 18 or 20" rifle an ACOG would be the best choice for most of us (at least it would be for me). Big pluses... the ability to see "into" shadows better than a non magnified optic, and to better discriminate target.

 

[42769vette]

I don't feel that I'd need a magnified optic on a 5.56 carbine (~200-300m gun)...others might.

If I had an 18 or 20" rifle an ACOG would be the best choice for most of us (at least it would be for me). Big pluses... the ability to see "into" shadows better than a non magnified optic, and to better discriminate target.

a 16 inch ar is capable of man sized hits alot further than 2-300 meters

 

[03A3]

I like the ACOG. I put a TA31RCO-A4 on a A4 clone rifle. With 4x magnification it's not an ideal close range optic but it works pretty well. It's great for shooting 100 to 600+ meters. The width of the bottom of the chevron and the width of the stadia marks represent a 19" wide torso at their respective distances. And the chevron and center post are quick to aquire. The field of view is decent at close range. It's no different than using any other low magnification optic. Better actually in low light conditions.
For 300 yards and less a Comp M4 or similar with an Aimpoint 3x magnifier in a pivot mount will work well. I hold the dot just on top of my point of impact. I haven't used that combo at any greater distance yet.
I haven't broke my ACOG yet which is a feat, or an Aimpoint or anything Larue either.

 

[IndyGunworks]

NO!!! Had one in Iraq and locked it in my footlocker and never took it out again. What would I do if my sight was damaged and then no iron sights.

I still had backup iron sights

 

[M67]

I love the glass and the reticles on the ACOGs, but does the 1.5" eye relief bother anyone else?

I'm planning an AR-15 build sometime this year since the AR-10 is a touch expensive to shoot in high volume, so I've been looking into a lot of scopes and reflex sights and I keep coming back to the ACOG for it's toughness and clearity but I can't get over the feeling like I'm crowding the hell out of the scope.

 

[42769vette]

I love the glass and the reticles on the ACOGs, but does the 1.5" eye relief bother anyone else?

I'm planning an AR-15 build sometime this year since the AR-10 is a touch expensive to shoot in high volume, so I've been looking into a lot of scopes and reflex sights and I keep coming back to the ACOG for it's toughness and clearity but I can't get over the feeling like I'm crowding the hell out of the scope.

the ta01 is horible, the 33's are not as bad but still a little short for me.

 

[LPMan59]

the ta01 is horible, the 33's are not as bad but still a little short for me.

i would agree from what i have read and heard. I can only speak for the TA33 and I don't think it bad. I have mine set on the rail so that i can still flip my BUIS.

 

[42769vette]

i would agree from what i have read and heard. I can only speak for the TA33 and I don't think it bad. I have mine set on the rail so that i can still flip my BUIS.

the ta01 was my first one. i bought it without really studying the specs. i didn't hate it but it was close

 

[mkbar80]

a 16 inch ar is capable of man sized hits alot further than 2-300 meters

I don't disagree. I had two reasons for those distances:
terminal ballistics out of 16 inch barrel drop significantly beyond those ranges.
The accuracy of a typical defensive carbine is 2-4 MOA (or more). This becomes minute of man or worse beyond those distances.

The 16" carbine shines inside of 300 yards. If I want to reach out father, I would have been wise to use an upper with a longer barrel (and a magnified optic). No trying to have a pissing match...just my rationale, should have included it originally.

and all.

 

[42769vette]

I don't disagree. I had two reasons for those distances:
terminal ballistics out of 16 inch barrel drop significantly beyond those ranges.
The accuracy of a typical defensive carbine is 2-4 MOA (or more). This becomes minute of man or worse beyond those distances.

The 16" carbine shines inside of 300 yards. If I want to reach out father, I would have been wise to use an upper with a longer barrel (and a magnified optic). No trying to have a pissing match...just my rationale, should have included it originally.

and all.

understood, i was kind of baseing what i was saying on the acog hoaving 600meter (i think) holdovers. i could not agree more that there are better choices at that range, but ive somone is shooting at me 600yds away you better believe im throwing some lead. ill blow off a toe if thats what i can hit

 

[repeter1977]

understood, i was kind of baseing what i was saying on the acog hoaving 600meter (i think) holdovers. i could not agree more that there are better choices at that range, but ive somone is shooting at me 600yds away you better believe im throwing some lead. ill blow off a toe if thats what i can hit

Great point. Course, Im thinking if they are 600m away or so, you could fire off a couple rounds. Id prefer the machine gun to handle it, still accurate and accurate by firepower too.
Back to the point, I would like to try out an ACOG myself, but looks like I will have abit more time until Uncle Sam will get me one for firing. In the mean time, I have some nice optics that will do good enough. Besides, ammo is cheap.

 

[billmyn]

had a ta01 on an armalite n.m. . great glass reticule worked great with 55gr ammo , nice solid scope . the 1 down fall and reason for selling was eye relief was about 2'' and with an A2 butt stock was not comfortable to shoot . maybe on a 16'' carbine w/ collapsible stock but not a fixed . was very impressed with glass though.

 

[Garrett]

I had the TA31RCO on my M4, I loved it of course. Not a big fan of the 1.5" eye relief though. They are built like a tank, you can pound tent nails with, and the warranty/customer server is top notch. However my only downsides with it are CQC, the BAC(bindon aiming concept) at close range works once you get used to it, but I didn't want to get used to it. I ended up dropping mine out for a variable magnification optic, the IOR Valdada 1.5-8x26 to be exact, still built like a truck and the 1.5 is excellent for quick sight picture in CQC. While the 8x you can plink some coke cans out to 650-700.

 

[M67]

Not to thread jack too bad, but since we're on the subject of high end AR scopes, does anyone have any experience with the Leupold HAMR yet?

 

[jimbob69]

They are a very tough, compact scope with a wide field of view. Great for fast target acquisition.