For me, the TA31(F in my case) eye position is optimal when my nose is on the charging handle or damn close.  This isn't a problem until I fully extend my stock then my cheek welds is on the buffer tube.  I still haven't had the oppportunity to shoot with it.  I mounted it then took it off till I can get to the range.  Still brand new and back in the box.  I like it alot but I keep hearing  "Schmidt and Bender" echoing in my head.    
I did play with it a bit in full darkness and can tell you you have to look for the reticle.  At least on mine it wasn't like a red dot where you pull up and "whoa" there it is.  

tagged

What is the TA11 BDC calibrated for? 20" w/ 62 gr M855?

I thought it was M193 from a 20" on the CH.

TA11 is M193 from a 20" CH
TA11F is M855 from 16" Flattop.

Thanks guys. I wish they put this in the description on their own damn website.

TA31F pics

Tagged for good info!

I got to play with a TA11F and TA31 and I really liked the TA11 much better due to the eye relief. That said I'm going to go with the TA11. I was amazed at how clear the scope was. I've never been so impressed with an optic. I'm going to try to find a Colt 6700 to put it on with a Bipod, KAC RAS and ARMS 40.

Amazing discussion of parallax error with inconsistent eye relief in another thread.

Seems the eye relief "flexibility" of the TA11 comes at the price of  parallax...can't get something for nothing.

Played with a TA31 the other day. Could not get proper eye relief using an A2 or like stock.  For me to use a TA31, it would have to be used in conjunction with a collapsible stock.  I was amazed how clear the glass was and how bright and sharp the donut was.  I was pretty impressed except for the eye relief (too short.)
Nick-

Now that so much good info on TA11 -v- TA31 is out there... what about firearm configuration?

I just acquired a TA11D and was hoping to put it on a soon to arrive 14.5" M4gery, but I'm wondering if the TA11 is too much sight for the short M4? Isn't the TA11 more geared for a 20" rifle, not a short carbine? I know the bullet compensation is geared for a 20" handle mount, but what about fast and accurate shooting, such as 3-gun? Would a 14.5" M4 with a TA11D be a good tool to use in 3-gun or other tactical shoots?

The TA11D would be sweet on my 20" Gov't but I had bought it for use on the M4gery as I really don't want to put alot of rounds through the pristine 6550... Now I'm not so sure this is wise....

Is the TA31's more appropriate for a short carbine?

I used to use a ACOG Reflex, which was VERY FAST but I wanted magnification...

Can the more experienced sages help me figure this out???

Rmpl

I have a TA01NSN and really like it...a lot!!!  It is pretty much the same design as the TA31.  I have not tried the TA11, so I can't comment on how it would compare though.  Sorry.

My question:
It seems many of you prefer the TA11.  If the TA11 is better, why has the military gone with the TA01NSN and recently the TA31RCO?

Quoted: I have a TA01NSN and really like it...a lot!!!  It is pretty much the same design as the TA31.  I have not tried the TA11, so I can't comment on how it would compare though.  Sorry. My question: It seems many of you prefer the TA11.  If the TA11 is better, why has the military gone with the TA01NSN and recently the TA31RCO?

TA31 has a wider field of view that the TA11 and if you use a M4 stock in notch or two and can get you eye centered as fast as with the TA11 (i.e. pratice ;-) then the TA31 maybe a better option (plus is smaller).

For an A1/A2 stock with my neck etc., the TA11 works better ... (could change stocks, but like the longer buffer travel on the M16A1, when shooting some uppers on full).

For when the SHTF the "cool-headed" shooter the TA31...for the rest of us...it's the TA11.

It's all about eye-relief.

Quoted: I have a TA01NSN and really like it...a lot!!!  It is pretty much the same design as the TA31.  I have not tried the TA11, so I can't comment on how it would compare though.  Sorry. My question: It seems many of you prefer the TA11.  If the TA11 is better, why has the military gone with the TA01NSN and recently the TA31RCO?

The TA11 & 31 kick ass over the TA01-NSN.    The NSN was picked way-back-when and when it was, it was king.   Times change and newer, better items come out.   Once you look through a fiber-optic equipped Acog, you'll know why.  

"Once you've had BAC, you'll never go back"


______________________________________

I have both the NSN & a 31F.  I agree the TA31F is better in low light conditions but I prefer the cross hair clean look during bright daytime use of my TA01 NSN.

Quoted: TA11F is M855 from 16" Flattop.

Shouldn't this read: 14.5" flat top?

Quoted: Quoted: TA11F is M855 from 16" Flattop. Shouldn't this read: 14.5" flat top?

According to Trijicon, it is a 16" barrel - I figured it was a typo on their website as well since the M4 has a 14.5" barrel and for the longest time, Trijicon had a couple of blatant errors in their product literature on the website; but in email, they confirmed the 16".

Moot point either way since the practical difference in point of impact between the two is so small that world-class shooters would have trouble noticing the difference at 600m.

tagged..great thread

I chose the TA11F over the 31f and I think it was a great choice , the eye relief was the biggest difference

Tagged b/c I'm getting ready to have the same dilema.

Tagged

With the TA11 can one still shoot nose to the charging handle? Do you have to move the optic forward, or would you mount it the same spot as the TA31?  Thanks

Remman


eta: I will be buying a TA11F when funds allow, only if the above will work.

Yes, provided you have a 3" nose  You're gonna have to move your head back quite a bit due to its eye relief, me thinks..

With the TA11 mounted as far as it can go forward on a regular upper, you can shoot NTCH.
 [ link to LARGER image ]
I realize that's a MRP upper, but you get the idea.

I use the same mounting position that Zak shows in the photo above and it works well for me. I set the forward edge of the ARMS #19S flush with the forward edge of the receiver and run my Magpul stock at P3 and the eye relief is perfect.



One thing to keep in mind with the TA11 though is that its exit pupil and eye relief is so generous that you can be pulled back from the scope enough to cause parallax and not notice it because you still have a full field of view. Somebody opened my stock up to P4 once and I didn't notice the different position and spent about three runs trying to figure out why I was suddenly shooting so horribly.

Picked up a TA11 from JTAC Supply.  LOVE IT.  Mounted it on a 20" JP rifle for 3-Gun or Tact. Rifle Matches.  Shot out to 200yrds the other day.  Bright glass, sharp reticle, and eye relief was not an issue.  Note that my 8 yr old daughter shot it off the bench and was making consistent hits on steel at 200 yards.   Very nice.
Nick-  

The TA11 is sounding pretty good to me. Glad I saw this.

What is the big deal with NTCH? This isnt iron sights and it isnt BRM. That is fine for square range fire but in the real world that isnt always the way it works. besides with an optic, NTCH is not  needed to obtain an adequate  sight picture. If you can see the reticle and the target, y0ou can hit it. The whole purpose of optical and dot sights is to allow for out of position shooting and snap shooting with marginal  or no cheek weld.

Now regarding the TA11: here is an abridged reply to an earlier topic but it is all about the TA11.

I have a TA11D that I purchased through my own shop when I heard I was being deployed again. I used the TA01NSN in Afghanistan and the Reflex II. I have also used the Aimpoint Comp M2 (M68). All have been mounted on M4's. I spent 10 months in Afghanistan participating in air assault operations and ground combat operations in south astern Afghanistan. I had a chance to use and or observe a number of scopes, sights, red dots, etc. employed in extremely adverse conditions. Currently I have ben using this ACOG TA11D f on an 11.5" M4 for more than 6 months in theater (IRAQ) with no issues.

The TA11D is hands down my favorite. At 46, my eyes don’t have the acuity they had even 5 years ago. The optical system with magnification really helps with target acquisition and ID. I find the BAC feature to be a non-issue. It’s like falling of a log, for me anyway. I shoot both eyes open and I can engage targets at close range with no loss of speed or hit ability. Prior to this deployment I attended a course at Blackwater for a week and shot my TA11D extensively (about 2500 rounds) at distances from 7 yards to 100 yards at stationary, lateral movers, and turning targets. It was too easy. I could put every round on the 12" x 16" mover from 75 meters with no problem. The other shooters in the class tried it and all agreed it was unbelievably easy to hit with it. They jokingly said I was cheating because it seemed so easy to hit with the scope. That triangle reticle stands out. It gives you an easy reference on target, doesn’t obscure the target and has a precise aiming point with the tip of the triangle for precision shots and the whole triangle for CQB engagements. In bright light the reticle turns black so there is no wash out. The 3.5X magnification doesn’t hurt at short ranges because of the BAC feature. I like it better than the NSNTA01 because it has almost 2.5" of eye relief compared to the 1.5" of the NSNTA01. Better for ou tof position shooting. That doesn’t sound like much but its 60% more. The TA11 is larger and heavier but the benefits outweigh that factor (no pun intended). I also have mine mounted on an ARMS double lever mount. That adds a little weight. I have had no problems with maintaining zero with it in the conditions here in Iraq. I conduct mounted patrols in M1114 HMMWV's regularly and the system has had no issues. NOTE: my version is intended for the carry handle mounting on an M16A2 with fixed handle. It was the only one available so I took it. They said the reticule was calibrated for carry handle mounting, which is higher above centerline of the bore so at longer ranges, over 300M the reticle would not be spot on in relation to the stadia wires for each range. No big deal. ) I had no problem shooting 40 for 40 on the qual. Range with the 11.5” Upper and the TA11D.

Another situation this set-up is good for is the urban environment we operate in. Scanning rooftops and buildings for shooters is so much easier and you can see who is who. Several times other soldiers would see a LN and thought they had a weapon. Pull up an ACOG and you see it’s a guy with a rake or something.

The TA01NSN is a good scope but it is nowhere near as fast as the TA11 due to the reticle. The TA01NSN has a crosshair reticle, which is okay for deliberate shots, and it is illuminated with Tritium for night use. But the wires are too thin for me to acquire quickly and at night, they don’t stand out to my eyes. Coupled with the shorter eye relief, I will take the TA11. The NSN is a bit smaller and lighter but it still doesn’t do the job of the TA11.

Trijicon production is being sucked up by the US military daily. You will not find them everywhere. Just watch out for the clones I have seen advertised on Ebay. If its priced below what the normal market is doing, it probably is an import.

The ACOG is the only way to fly.

Quoted: What is the big deal with NTCH? This isnt iron sights and it isnt BRM. That is fine for square range fire but in the real world that isnt always the way it works.

NTCH is an easy way to use the same weld on the stock every time. It isn't a must; but for me, I learned how to shoot on irons and have trained that way for thousands of rounds. I'd rather use a system that lets me continue my ingrained habits rather than force me to modify them for no appreciabe gain.

Besides with an optic, NTCH is not  needed to obtain an adequate  sight picture. If you can see the reticle and the target, y0ou can hit it. The whole purpose of optical and dot sights is to allow for out of position shooting and snap shooting with marginal  or no cheek weld.

If that optic is magnified, then a repeatable cheek weld is absolutely critical to hitting your target. Here is an experiment you can try with your TA11 anywhere from 25m-50m. Take your normal stance and cheekweld with the rifle and fire two shots from low ready at a target for time. Now move your stock back a notch (or adjust your cheekweld towards the rear of the stock about 3/4"). You want to move your head away from your normal cheekweld; but not so far you don't have a clear image through the scope or see any shadowing of the image. Repeat the drill above. Unless you have a particularly unusual ability to center the dot in the exit pupil under time pressure, you will see a noticeably different point of impact on your target due to parallax errors from the different cheek weld.

The TA11 will give you a fair amount of flexibility; but it isn't an Aimpoint or dot sight that can be used with a marginal cheek weld without affecting point of impact.

I had a TA-31 and sold it last October Now I'm looking for a TA-11F. Where can these be had Also the TA-11E is available in .308 I plan on useing the Acog on both my M4's and AR-10. Would the TA-11E work with the 223? I shot mainly targets out to 300 yards.

I am well aware of what the purpose NTCH serves. I understand the effects of parallax and the other variables that NTCH helpts to eliminate. However, in a real world tactical environment  (Baghdad AOR) , wearing IBA, ACH and all the other accoutrements we have to carry, getting into that "static range position" is damn near impossible.  When you have to acquire a precision sight picture, yes go ahead and use NTCH. But in an urban environemt, with targets only visible for seconds, a flash sight picture is good enough.

Just because you have trained that way foreever doesnt mean its the right way to do it. Not knocking your method, if it works dont fix it. But trying to employ one method for all environments is unrealistic.  You should have enough flexibiloity in your technique to adapt to different tactical environments. I am sure you and most everyone else trains with right elbow up and left foot forward towards target also. Thats what I have encountered with numerous soldiers I have trained in CQB marksmanship because thats the way they learned in the Army.
Body armor, especially IBA with SAPI  changes the dynamics of shooting posiiton and sighting  quite a bit.

Getting your eye centered in the exit pupil or not may or may not have a measurable impact on what you are trying to do. It is situational dependent.  A shot center mass on an AIF  25 meters away with a couple of inches of parallax mixed in isnt goign to dramatically alter the outcome.

More often than not, you cannot get clsoe enough to the charging handle when wearing all of that crap and shooting from behind cover or from under a HMMWV.

yes, get all you can out of whatever position you are but dont restrict yourself based on one method

Quoted: But in an urban environemt, with targets only visible for seconds, a flash sight picture is good enough.

I've missed static IPSC targets entirely at 50m using the "flash" sight picture due to parallax issues with the TA11. I do dynamic shooting both while I am moving and while the target is moving. My conditions are still much easier than the conditions you describe above and under these easier conditions you do need a good, repeatable cheek weld with magnified optics to achieve hits.

Getting your eye centered in the exit pupil or not may or may not have a measurable impact on what you are trying to do. It is situational dependent.  A shot center mass on an AIF  25 meters away with a couple of inches of parallax mixed in isnt goign to dramatically alter the outcome.

Tell you what. Why don't you try what I recommended and see for yourself how much that will alter the outcome? There is nothing situationally dependent about it. If your eye is outside the ideal eye relief AND not centered in the exit pupil, then your bullets are going somewhere besides where you are aiming and it is dramatic enough to affect whether you hit man-sized targets at ranges of 25-50m. Do a run with your normal cheekweld for time. Move your cheekweld back and repeat the run for time again. Compare the targets.

More often than not, you cannot get clsoe enough to the charging handle when wearing all of that crap and shooting from behind cover or from under a HMMWV.

Nobody is saying you have to shoot NTCH. I prefer to shoot that way because that is the way I trained and I am not going to undo thousands of rounds of ingrained habit unless I get some substantial benefit from it. What I am saying is that with a magnified optic, a good, repeatable cheekweld is a must have item - however you achieve it.

yes, get all you can out of whatever position you are but dont restrict yourself based on one method

I don't see how shooting NTCH or using any other method to get a repeatable cheek weld is a restriction and I think we are talking past each other to entirely different points. I understand that you cannot always use the ideal cheekweld you train with and I do train for unusual firing positions and less than optimum sight pictures so that I can use those techniques when they are appropriate. If that is the point you were trying to make, then we already agree and always have.

The point I am trying to make is that the TA11 is not an Aimpoint and you cannot shoot it the same way without regard for cheekweld or you will increase your chances to miss entirely. I want very much for you to hit your targets. That is the only reason I am stressing the point. Try the test I mentioned. It may be you are a rare shooter that is very talented in centering the exit pupil outside the ideal eye relief and my comments do not apply to you; but the phenomenon I described is basic physics and affects most people.

It took me about 4 runs to identify the problem and I had the luxury of being able to stop and examine my targets, take my time, discuss with other shooters etc. You may well be experiencing the same issue and have not even noticed it.

Here is the thread where I discussed the issue here. Take note of the info from Paul, he knows a thing or two about shooting and describes the issues involved very well.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=221176

Quoted: However I do get the scope to hit my shooting glasses once in a while which is very annoying.

Quoted: The TA31 will clink my glasses every  now and then on full auto.

This used to occur with a TA01 which I sold a few years ago. Those that prefer the TA31, do you shoot with glasses?

Well, I checked the link for the other post.  Understand, I am open to new methods that will help me but I find that while there is validity in the argument that having a consistent sight picture helps make for better groups, the comparison of the TA11 vs the TA31 is flawed  by the logic of the longer eye relief of the TA11  making for larger errors at close range.  Longer eye relief makes for less aiming error for a given offset of the exit pupil.

The TA 11 has a 60% longer eye relief. (one of you optics geeks who knows all the scientific formulas and stuff can correct this if I am wrong) The shorter eye relief of the TA01 means that  there will be more error with your eye not centered in the exit pupil than with the longer eye relief of the TA11.

You said in an earlier post:
“One thing to keep in mind with the TA11 though is that its exit pupil and eye relief is so generous that you can be pulled back from the scope enough to cause parallax”

Eye relief doesn’t cause parallax. Misalignment of the lenses with the image and reticle cause parallax. That’s why scopes are set for a specific distance or have adjustable parallax. If the generous eye relief causes parallax, then regular Leupold hunting  or tactical  fixed objective scopes would have even more yet since they have much longer eye relief than the ACOGs.

What it appears to be is that you are making a comparison based on engaging static targets  while moving , on a  range, while not needing or trying to use cover and concealment, not having anyone shooting back at you and  suppressive fire doesn’t count towards your final score compared to moving in a high threat environment at the low ready much of the time when dismounted, acquiring potential targets  and  making that decision of shoot or don’t shoot, all while wearing 50 pounds of gear including IBA and Kevlar and if you engage and miss, you at least are keeping their head down until you can get to better cover.  

I have use the TA01 NSN  in Afghanistan and Iraq. The short eye relief was the major shortcoming of the scope I didn’t like. I bought my own personal TA11 and will never go back.  I also  have used the Trijicon Reflex II and the M68 (Aimpoint Comp M2) and as I state earlier, with my older eyes, the  perceived drawbacks of  possible parallax   don’t come close to the benefit of speed and  accuracy I get from the magnification and the triangle reticle of the TA11. Yes, we may be talking apples and oranges, but the whole issue of longer eye relief causing more misses is off.
So I will agree to disagree.
Bottom line is the TA11 is a great scope, especially for out of position shooting, in combat conditions, wearing IBA,  specifically because of  its  longer eye relief.

Next range we do, I will try yur experiment. We have had so much rain thee last three days that the range we were goign to be using this weekend is under about a foot of water. So i have to wait.

(I am currently in Iraq)

Quoted: Well, I checked the link for the other post.  Understand, I am open to new methods that will help me but I find that while there is validity in the argument that having a consistent sight picture helps make for better groups, the comparison of the TA11 vs the TA31 is flawed  by the logic of the longer eye relief of the TA11  making for larger errors at close range.  Longer eye relief makes for less aiming error for a given offset of the exit pupil.

You do not understand what I said. I am not saying that the longer eye relief of the TA11 causes larger errors at close range.

You said in an earlier post: “One thing to keep in mind with the TA11 though is that its exit pupil and eye relief is so generous that you can be pulled back from the scope enough to cause parallax” Eye relief doesn’t cause parallax. Misalignment of the lenses with the image and reticle cause parallax. That’s why scopes are set for a specific distance or have adjustable parallax. If the generous eye relief causes parallax, then regular Leupold hunting  or tactical  fixed objective scopes would have even more yet since they have much longer eye relief than the ACOGs.

Again, you misunderstand my point.  Parallax errors occur when the eye is not centered properly behind the reticle and is off to one edge or another. Ideal eye relief is the spot where the exit pupil of the scope overlaps your eye's own pupil to its fullest extent. At ideal eye relief, it is easier to keep your eye in the center of the beam of light being transmitted by the scope.

Move your eye forward or aft of this ideal point and eventually you lose part of the picture (See this diagram explaining how this works). It also becomes harder to perfectly center your pupil behind the beam of light exiting the scope.

The TA11 has a very generous exit pupil. One result of this is that you can have your pupil off to one side of the beam of light exiting the scope (not centered behind the reticle) and still see a very good image. If you fire the weapon with your eye not centered behind the reticle of a magnified optic in the same way you had it when you zeroed the sight, you will see a shift in the point of impact. This is also true of scopes with shorter eye relief and smaller exit pupils; but it becomes harder not to notice when your eye has moved beyond the ideal point because the scope goes black.

Yes, we may be talking apples and oranges, but the whole issue of longer eye relief causing more misses is off.

I might as well be talking to you in Swahili for as well as you are understanding me. I wish I could explain it better; but is obvious you don't get what I am trying to say.

Bottom line is the TA11 is a great scope, especially for out of position shooting, in combat conditions, wearing IBA,  specifically because of  its  longer eye relief.

Yes it is. I am not saying its not. I own one myself and like it a lot. I am just saying that what you said earlier, specifically the part where you said "If you can see the reticle and the target, y0ou can hit it. The whole purpose of optical and dot sights is to allow for out of position shooting and snap shooting with marginal or no cheek weld.", is not true for the TA11. Marginal or no cheekweld WILL cause a point of impact shift unless your eye is perfectly behind the reticle despite having a marginal (i.e. different) cheekweld. Likewise, because of the big exit pupil, your eye can be in a different position and you will still see the reticle and the target clearly. It is not a bad thing; but it is something you should be aware of because it will cause misses and I am sure we both agree that this would be a bad thing.

Next range we do, I will try yur experiment. We have had so much rain thee last three days that the range we were goign to be using this weekend is under about a foot of water. So i have to wait

Please do try the experiment and use a timer since time stress is critical to seeing the problem. Without the time stress, most of us take the time to make use of the bigger exit pupil of the TA11 and center the reticle properly even if our eye may be a bit out of place. It is only under time stress where you are rushing and you think you have a good sight picture but don't (because your eye is out of place) that I have seen the problem - and I used the TA11 for a good two years, including this type of shooting. I wouldn't have seen it there if someone hadn't jacked with my stock and moved my head back further from the position I used to sight it in.

Quoted: I had a TA-31 and sold it last October Now I'm looking for a TA-11F. Where can these be had Also the TA-11E is available in .308 I plan on useing the Acog on both my M4's and AR-10. Would the TA-11E work with the 223? I shot mainly targets out to 300 yards.

Can anyone answer this question

Quoted: Well, I checked the link for the other post.  Understand, I am open to new methods that will help me but I find that while there is validity in the argument that having a consistent sight picture helps make for better groups, the comparison of the TA11 vs the TA31 is flawed  by the logic of the longer eye relief of the TA11  making for larger errors at close range.  Longer eye relief makes for less aiming error for a given offset of the exit pupil. The TA 11 has a 60% longer eye relief. (one of you optics geeks who knows all the scientific formulas and stuff can correct this if I am wrong) The shorter eye relief of the TA01 means that  there will be more error with your eye not centered in the exit pupil than with the longer eye relief of the TA11. You said in an earlier post: “One thing to keep in mind with the TA11 though is that its exit pupil and eye relief is so generous that you can be pulled back from the scope enough to cause parallax” Eye relief doesn’t cause parallax. Misalignment of the lenses with the image and reticle cause parallax. That’s why scopes are set for a specific distance or have adjustable parallax. If the generous eye relief causes parallax, then regular Leupold hunting  or tactical  fixed objective scopes would have even more yet since they have much longer eye relief than the ACOGs. What it appears to be is that you are making a comparison based on engaging static targets  while moving , on a  range, while not needing or trying to use cover and concealment, not having anyone shooting back at you and  suppressive fire doesn’t count towards your final score compared to moving in a high threat environment at the low ready much of the time when dismounted, acquiring potential targets  and  making that decision of shoot or don’t shoot, all while wearing 50 pounds of gear including IBA and Kevlar and if you engage and miss, you at least are keeping their head down until you can get to better cover.   I have use the TA01 NSN  in Afghanistan and Iraq. The short eye relief was the major shortcoming of the scope I didn’t like. I bought my own personal TA11 and will never go back.  I also  have used the Trijicon Reflex II and the M68 (Aimpoint Comp M2) and as I state earlier, with my older eyes, the  perceived drawbacks of  possible parallax   don’t come close to the benefit of speed and  accuracy I get from the magnification and the triangle reticle of the TA11. Yes, we may be talking apples and oranges, but the whole issue of longer eye relief causing more misses is off. So I will agree to disagree. Bottom line is the TA11 is a great scope, especially for out of position shooting, in combat conditions, wearing IBA,  specifically because of  its  longer eye relief. Next range we do, I will try yur experiment. We have had so much rain thee last three days that the range we were goign to be using this weekend is under about a foot of water. So i have to wait. (I am currently in Iraq)

thanks for posting your insights.  
tell the guys "we are proud of all of you" and come home safe.

As a newbie and lurker, I've really appreciate all the info in this thread.  From what I've read on the Trijicon web site, some type of attachment/mount is needed to place an ACOG onto a Weaver or rail as compared to an AR carrry handle.....do most folks have flat-top AR's or carry handle mount? Has anyone put an ACOG on a rifle other than an AR successfully? Am looking to buy a TA11 for use with a Weaver-type mount.

Thank you again.

Is anyone using both the TA11 and a model with the 1.5" eye relief (TA01, TA01NSN, TA31x)? Or, as it seems, you can either live with the short eye relief or you can't?

Quoted: Quoted: However I do get the scope to hit my shooting glasses once in a while which is very annoying. Quoted: The TA31 will clink my glasses every  now and then on full auto. This used to occur with a TA01 which I sold a few years ago. Those that prefer the TA31, do you shoot with glasses?

This is why I sold my TA31.  I thought I was crazy.

sovereign,

At one time, I owned one TA31 and several TA11's.   I could shoot with either, I was just faster with the TA11.

-z

Quoted: sovereign, At one time, I owned one TA31 and several TA11's.   I could shoot with either, I was just faster with the TA11. -z

I still have both a TA31F and 2 TA11Es. I run the TA11s on my AR10 and 6.8SPC. I have no problems using either, but as Zak stated the TA11 is alittle faster to run with.

DAMMIT!, I was all decided on a NSN, now I have to look at a TA11F

I  know some will think this impossible, but maybe the training and practice done in the past was oriented around games and not real life?  Even the military has acknowledged this without formally saying it by having to sends some of their top shooters, members of the service teams, to various shooting schools prior to sending them out on MTTs to train troops.  I know those guys were some of the best shooters in the world, but their expertise and thousands of rounds put down range in training didn’t not create expertise in real world employment, hence the retraining required in order to be relevant.  

If you look at it objectively that was the whole point of the AMTU sending MTTs to Iraq to assist training of troops, they have to show they have more function than games.  

Quoted: Have not seen much from the TA31 proponents...looks like a victory for the TA11.

The Marine Corps ordered 53,000 TA31RCO's.  They must have missed this tread.