Archived Posts » 59,757,950
ACOG or Holographic
4/18/2012 5:19:10 PM
Hey so it is about time for me to upgrade optics on my AR and I am not sure which way I want to go. Part of me wants to go Acog, but the other part of me wants to go with a holographic site with the magnifier. Any suggestions or past experiences that can help steer me in the right direction?
Thanks!
Thanks!
4/18/2012 6:55:44 PM
What do you want to do with it? My experience with the ACOG is that it's not great for close-up work. My experience with holo sights is that they're a bit imprecise for 100m +. I use an EOtech with a magnifier for 3 gun, it works pretty well and it's cheaper than an ACOG.
4/18/2012 6:59:30 PM
Originally Posted By DesignatedMarksman:
What do you want to do with it? My experience with the ACOG is that it's not great for close-up work. My experience with holo sights is that they're a bit imprecise for 100m +. I use an EOtech with a magnifier for 3 gun, it works pretty well and it's cheaper than an ACOG.
What do you want to do with it? My experience with the ACOG is that it's not great for close-up work. My experience with holo sights is that they're a bit imprecise for 100m +. I use an EOtech with a magnifier for 3 gun, it works pretty well and it's cheaper than an ACOG.
It really does boil down to what you want to do with it.
I switched from a Ta31 to a Ta11 and the eye relief is way better and easy/quick to use for close up.
4/18/2012 7:17:53 PM
holo sight is better for civilians who aren't shooting for head shots from 50-300 yards imo. I can hit man sized targets with zero magnification so i would choose a holo or red dot sight
4/18/2012 7:29:36 PM
Eotech.
4/18/2012 7:38:32 PM
wrong post sorry
4/18/2012 8:18:45 PM
Originally Posted By DesignatedMarksman:
What do you want to do with it? My experience with the ACOG is that it's not great for close-up work. My experience with holo sights is that they're a bit imprecise for 100m +. I use an EOtech with a magnifier for 3 gun, it works pretty well and it's cheaper than an ACOG.
What do you want to do with it? My experience with the ACOG is that it's not great for close-up work. My experience with holo sights is that they're a bit imprecise for 100m +. I use an EOtech with a magnifier for 3 gun, it works pretty well and it's cheaper than an ACOG.
Thank you for the input! I am using this on a pig gun so my range can be anywhere from 2 feet to 200+ yds. So I want something that would be good at close range as well as poke something with some distance if need be, that is why I was thinking the EOTech with the magnifier.
4/18/2012 9:37:02 PM
Originally Posted By claytonsam95:
Thank you for the input! I am using this on a pig gun so my range can be anywhere from 2 feet to 200+ yds. So I want something that would be good at close range as well as poke something with some distance if need be, that is why I was thinking the EOTech with the magnifier.
Originally Posted By DesignatedMarksman:
What do you want to do with it? My experience with the ACOG is that it's not great for close-up work. My experience with holo sights is that they're a bit imprecise for 100m +. I use an EOtech with a magnifier for 3 gun, it works pretty well and it's cheaper than an ACOG.
What do you want to do with it? My experience with the ACOG is that it's not great for close-up work. My experience with holo sights is that they're a bit imprecise for 100m +. I use an EOtech with a magnifier for 3 gun, it works pretty well and it's cheaper than an ACOG.
Thank you for the input! I am using this on a pig gun so my range can be anywhere from 2 feet to 200+ yds. So I want something that would be good at close range as well as poke something with some distance if need be, that is why I was thinking the EOTech with the magnifier.
eotech with magnifier would be perfect for what your doing imo.i suggest the xps 2-0 since its their shortest one
4/18/2012 10:18:55 PM
Originally Posted By claytonsam95:
Hey so it is about time for me to upgrade optics on my AR and I am not sure which way I want to go. Part of me wants to go Acog, but the other part of me wants to go with a holographic site with the magnifier. Any suggestions or past experiences that can help steer me in the right direction?
Thanks!
Hey so it is about time for me to upgrade optics on my AR and I am not sure which way I want to go. Part of me wants to go Acog, but the other part of me wants to go with a holographic site with the magnifier. Any suggestions or past experiences that can help steer me in the right direction?
Thanks!
AFCOM answer = "Both"
~Augee
4/19/2012 9:24:16 AM
lol great setup that solder has with both, now that's got to be a heavy duty rifle right there..
4/19/2012 2:06:49 PM
SICK!!!! That is exactly what I need!
4/19/2012 5:48:34 PM
I went through a brief period where i ran an acog ta31 on my rifle. It is definitely a good optic but I really don't see the utility of the acog (esp for the $1200 price) as a civilian shooter. It would be a great when SHTF optic because of the no battery thing but that tritium is only going to last 10-15 years before it goes out but that is a really is kinda a narrow niche. I can also see why it would be a great military optic because these guys can use the 4x magnification to get that positive target identification that they need at longer ranges... our soldiers and marines might have to spot partially obscured targets at 600 yards but in all likelihood a defensive civilian engagement would probably be at no more than 100 yards so the magnification does more damage than good in this situation. I personally have no problem using my EOTech out to 250-300 yards and really only shoot slightly better groups with the acog at these distances. If you want to shoot 600 yards + you are not going to stand much of a chance with the EOTech but shit... it won't be an easy shot with the acog on either.
In short, I think that the EOTech is more practical (esp to civilians) than the acog. The acog is awesome for what it is but i would probably go with a variable 1-4x optic before i went to the set 4x magnification again. You will pick up some weight running the EOTech and the magnifier but again this issue is kinda mitigated by the fact that it will be a civilian weapon. The first EOTech / EOTech magnifier I owned I traded to my friend who was about to be redeployed to afghanistan because he didn't feel comfortable with the acog when patrolling within a village or checking houses and compounds. Also about 5 guys from 10th mountain said that they all had acogs but rarely elected to use them over their EOTechs. The guy was putting an Aimpoint on his personal weapon however haha.
In short, I think that the EOTech is more practical (esp to civilians) than the acog. The acog is awesome for what it is but i would probably go with a variable 1-4x optic before i went to the set 4x magnification again. You will pick up some weight running the EOTech and the magnifier but again this issue is kinda mitigated by the fact that it will be a civilian weapon. The first EOTech / EOTech magnifier I owned I traded to my friend who was about to be redeployed to afghanistan because he didn't feel comfortable with the acog when patrolling within a village or checking houses and compounds. Also about 5 guys from 10th mountain said that they all had acogs but rarely elected to use them over their EOTechs. The guy was putting an Aimpoint on his personal weapon however haha.
4/19/2012 9:24:21 PM
Originally Posted By thornejc:
I went through a brief period where i ran an acog ta31 on my rifle. It is definitely a good optic but I really don't see the utility of the acog (esp for the $1200 price) as a civilian shooter. It would be a great when SHTF optic because of the no battery thing but that tritium is only going to last 10-15 years before it goes out but that is a really is kinda a narrow niche. I can also see why it would be a great military optic because these guys can use the 4x magnification to get that positive target identification that they need at longer ranges... our soldiers and marines might have to spot partially obscured targets at 600 yards but in all likelihood a defensive civilian engagement would probably be at no more than 100 yards so the magnification does more damage than good in this situation. I personally have no problem using my EOTech out to 250-300 yards and really only shoot slightly better groups with the acog at these distances. If you want to shoot 600 yards + you are not going to stand much of a chance with the EOTech but shit... it won't be an easy shot with the acog on either.
In short, I think that the EOTech is more practical (esp to civilians) than the acog. The acog is awesome for what it is but i would probably go with a variable 1-4x optic before i went to the set 4x magnification again. You will pick up some weight running the EOTech and the magnifier but again this issue is kinda mitigated by the fact that it will be a civilian weapon. The first EOTech / EOTech magnifier I owned I traded to my friend who was about to be redeployed to afghanistan because he didn't feel comfortable with the acog when patrolling within a village or checking houses and compounds. Also about 5 guys from 10th mountain said that they all had acogs but rarely elected to use them over their EOTechs. The guy was putting an Aimpoint on his personal weapon however haha.
I went through a brief period where i ran an acog ta31 on my rifle. It is definitely a good optic but I really don't see the utility of the acog (esp for the $1200 price) as a civilian shooter. It would be a great when SHTF optic because of the no battery thing but that tritium is only going to last 10-15 years before it goes out but that is a really is kinda a narrow niche. I can also see why it would be a great military optic because these guys can use the 4x magnification to get that positive target identification that they need at longer ranges... our soldiers and marines might have to spot partially obscured targets at 600 yards but in all likelihood a defensive civilian engagement would probably be at no more than 100 yards so the magnification does more damage than good in this situation. I personally have no problem using my EOTech out to 250-300 yards and really only shoot slightly better groups with the acog at these distances. If you want to shoot 600 yards + you are not going to stand much of a chance with the EOTech but shit... it won't be an easy shot with the acog on either.
In short, I think that the EOTech is more practical (esp to civilians) than the acog. The acog is awesome for what it is but i would probably go with a variable 1-4x optic before i went to the set 4x magnification again. You will pick up some weight running the EOTech and the magnifier but again this issue is kinda mitigated by the fact that it will be a civilian weapon. The first EOTech / EOTech magnifier I owned I traded to my friend who was about to be redeployed to afghanistan because he didn't feel comfortable with the acog when patrolling within a village or checking houses and compounds. Also about 5 guys from 10th mountain said that they all had acogs but rarely elected to use them over their EOTechs. The guy was putting an Aimpoint on his personal weapon however haha.
great post. The acog would have been wonderful for ww2, but in urban warfare it gets a lot of solders killed in cqb.
4/19/2012 10:26:20 PM
Definately get the ACOG. You'll always wonder if you don't. Buy one used in the EE for a good price and you'll lose $00 if you don't like it and can sell it or trade it for something else you want. ACOGs apparently aren't for everyone, but for those of us who "click" with them they truly are a do-it-all scope from CQB on out to a couple hundred yards. Everyone should try one at some point.
4/20/2012 11:03:35 AM
Originally Posted By jukeboxx13:
in urban warfare it gets a lot of solders killed in cqb.
in urban warfare it gets a lot of solders killed in cqb.
This is a pretty serious accusation. Can you document it?
Not ideal and/or not preferred is a long, long ways from "it's gets soldiers killed."
~Augee
4/20/2012 1:33:42 PM
For a pig gun, i'd recommend an Eotech. With my pig experience, i've shot more pigs within 100 yards than i have at longer distances. And the Eotech dot is plenty small to feel comfortable making head shots.
4/20/2012 7:08:10 PM
Originally Posted By Augee:
AFCOM answer = "Both"
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/augeekim/25z7dzq.jpg
~Augee
Originally Posted By claytonsam95:
Hey so it is about time for me to upgrade optics on my AR and I am not sure which way I want to go. Part of me wants to go Acog, but the other part of me wants to go with a holographic site with the magnifier. Any suggestions or past experiences that can help steer me in the right direction?
Thanks!
Hey so it is about time for me to upgrade optics on my AR and I am not sure which way I want to go. Part of me wants to go Acog, but the other part of me wants to go with a holographic site with the magnifier. Any suggestions or past experiences that can help steer me in the right direction?
Thanks!
AFCOM answer = "Both"
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/augeekim/25z7dzq.jpg
~Augee
Augee I came to post this.
And in true arfcom fashion, get both like me
4/20/2012 9:11:59 PM
Originally Posted By Augee:
This is a pretty serious accusation. Can you document it?
Not ideal and/or not preferred is a long, long ways from "it's gets soldiers killed."
~Augee
Originally Posted By jukeboxx13:
in urban warfare it gets a lot of solders killed in cqb.
in urban warfare it gets a lot of solders killed in cqb.
This is a pretty serious accusation. Can you document it?
Not ideal and/or not preferred is a long, long ways from "it's gets soldiers killed."
~Augee
Well maybe my two brothers can document it for you, but one is still overseas. One of my brothers never even used his acog for cqb he just pointed his finger at the target with the way he held the for end, and knew that's where the bullet would go from what he has told me. He was mainly kicking down doors though not hiking through mountains. I am not bashing the acog btw it's a great optic.
4/20/2012 9:39:08 PM
I have an Aimpoint M4 which I love for a CQB. I also have an ACOG TA-31 that I love for everything. It's something you have to practice with to get the Bindin aiming technique down. Once it clicked the range didn't matter so much. Point and shoot. For me it took around four trips to the range and about 1000 rounds. I don't know if that is typical or that I'm a slow learner. I'm an old dog and that was a new trick.
I have shot rifles with an Eotech sight and found the holo image to be course and not well defined. I like sharp edges and cross hairs. Could have been the model I was using which I don't remember.
My vote would be for the ACOG. IMHO
Good Luck.
I have shot rifles with an Eotech sight and found the holo image to be course and not well defined. I like sharp edges and cross hairs. Could have been the model I was using which I don't remember.
My vote would be for the ACOG. IMHO
Good Luck.
4/20/2012 10:21:02 PM
I'm considering doing something similar to this with an Acog and RMR on a Burckett offset mount. Just depends on how much jack your willing to throw down I guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVy-qobrts0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVy-qobrts0
4/20/2012 10:42:51 PM
Originally Posted By jukeboxx13:
Well maybe my two brothers can document it for you, but one is still overseas. One of my brothers never even used his acog for cqb he just pointed his finger at the target with the way he held the for end, and knew that's where the bullet would go from what he has told me. He was mainly kicking down doors though not hiking through mountains. I am not bashing the acog btw it's a great optic.
Originally Posted By Augee:
This is a pretty serious accusation. Can you document it?
Not ideal and/or not preferred is a long, long ways from "it's gets soldiers killed."
~Augee
Originally Posted By jukeboxx13:
in urban warfare it gets a lot of solders killed in cqb.
in urban warfare it gets a lot of solders killed in cqb.
This is a pretty serious accusation. Can you document it?
Not ideal and/or not preferred is a long, long ways from "it's gets soldiers killed."
~Augee
Well maybe my two brothers can document it for you, but one is still overseas. One of my brothers never even used his acog for cqb he just pointed his finger at the target with the way he held the for end, and knew that's where the bullet would go from what he has told me. He was mainly kicking down doors though not hiking through mountains. I am not bashing the acog btw it's a great optic.
Yes an aimpoint / eotech will likely give a faster target acquisition without having to worry about eye relief. Although if you are within ~25 ft , hitting a man sized target without sights is attainable.
4/20/2012 11:44:30 PM
Originally Posted By jukeboxx13:
Well maybe my two brothers can document it for you, but one is still overseas. One of my brothers never even used his acog for cqb he just pointed his finger at the target with the way he held the for end, and knew that's where the bullet would go from what he has told me. He was mainly kicking down doors though not hiking through mountains. I am not bashing the acog btw it's a great optic.
Originally Posted By Augee:
This is a pretty serious accusation. Can you document it?
Not ideal and/or not preferred is a long, long ways from "it's gets soldiers killed."
~Augee
Originally Posted By jukeboxx13:
in urban warfare it gets a lot of solders killed in cqb.
in urban warfare it gets a lot of solders killed in cqb.
This is a pretty serious accusation. Can you document it?
Not ideal and/or not preferred is a long, long ways from "it's gets soldiers killed."
~Augee
Well maybe my two brothers can document it for you, but one is still overseas. One of my brothers never even used his acog for cqb he just pointed his finger at the target with the way he held the for end, and knew that's where the bullet would go from what he has told me. He was mainly kicking down doors though not hiking through mountains. I am not bashing the acog btw it's a great optic.
That's not the issue. I know all about shooting over the sights, off the front sight post, and reflex / point shooting. I know about shooting an SMG from the center of the chest.
I'm well aware that an ACOG is not preferred and not ideal for CQB.
What I am commenting on is your statement that military issued ACOGs are directly responsible for the combat deaths of "a lot of soldiers." This is a very serious accusation.
Especially considering that the Marine Corps has declared the AN/PVQ-31A and B (TA31RCO-A4 and M4) to be their standard Rifle Combat Optic (RCO) - you are suggesting that they have directly contributed to the unnecessary deaths of U.S. service members overseas - a statement which, if true would be grounds for investigation and some major rolling of heads, and possibly even a Congressional investigation.
So - do you, or do you not have evidence of "a lot of soldiers killed in CQB" due to the negligence on the part of the DoD having issued them an optic that directly contributed to their deaths, without which they would not have died? If so, it is your duty as a citizen and family member of servicemen to report and make public this evidence so that the proper measures to avoid future unnecessary deaths. If you were simply trying to pontificate and use dramatic language - I would suggest that in the future you do so without levying serious accusations at the Armed Forces and their leadership suggesting that they have willfully and knowingly contributed to the unnecessary deaths of servicemen and women.
~Augee
4/21/2012 9:26:50 AM
Originally Posted By Augee:
That's not the issue. I know all about shooting over the sights, off the front sight post, and reflex / point shooting. I know about shooting an SMG from the center of the chest.
I'm well aware that an ACOG is not preferred and not ideal for CQB.
What I am commenting on is your statement that military issued ACOGs are directly responsible for the combat deaths of "a lot of soldiers." This is a very serious accusation.
Especially considering that the Marine Corps has declared the AN/PVQ-31A and B (TA31RCO-A4 and M4) to be their standard Rifle Combat Optic (RCO) - you are suggesting that they have directly contributed to the unnecessary deaths of U.S. service members overseas - a statement which, if true would be grounds for investigation and some major rolling of heads, and possibly even a Congressional investigation.
So - do you, or do you not have evidence of "a lot of soldiers killed in CQB" due to the negligence on the part of the DoD having issued them an optic that directly contributed to their deaths, without which they would not have died? If so, it is your duty as a citizen and family member of servicemen to report and make public this evidence so that the proper measures to avoid future unnecessary deaths. If you were simply trying to pontificate and use dramatic language - I would suggest that in the future you do so without levying serious accusations at the Armed Forces and their leadership suggesting that they have willfully and knowingly contributed to the unnecessary deaths of servicemen and women.
~Augee
Originally Posted By jukeboxx13:
Well maybe my two brothers can document it for you, but one is still overseas. One of my brothers never even used his acog for cqb he just pointed his finger at the target with the way he held the for end, and knew that's where the bullet would go from what he has told me. He was mainly kicking down doors though not hiking through mountains. I am not bashing the acog btw it's a great optic.
Originally Posted By Augee:
This is a pretty serious accusation. Can you document it?
Not ideal and/or not preferred is a long, long ways from "it's gets soldiers killed."
~Augee
Originally Posted By jukeboxx13:
in urban warfare it gets a lot of solders killed in cqb.
in urban warfare it gets a lot of solders killed in cqb.
This is a pretty serious accusation. Can you document it?
Not ideal and/or not preferred is a long, long ways from "it's gets soldiers killed."
~Augee
Well maybe my two brothers can document it for you, but one is still overseas. One of my brothers never even used his acog for cqb he just pointed his finger at the target with the way he held the for end, and knew that's where the bullet would go from what he has told me. He was mainly kicking down doors though not hiking through mountains. I am not bashing the acog btw it's a great optic.
That's not the issue. I know all about shooting over the sights, off the front sight post, and reflex / point shooting. I know about shooting an SMG from the center of the chest.
I'm well aware that an ACOG is not preferred and not ideal for CQB.
What I am commenting on is your statement that military issued ACOGs are directly responsible for the combat deaths of "a lot of soldiers." This is a very serious accusation.
Especially considering that the Marine Corps has declared the AN/PVQ-31A and B (TA31RCO-A4 and M4) to be their standard Rifle Combat Optic (RCO) - you are suggesting that they have directly contributed to the unnecessary deaths of U.S. service members overseas - a statement which, if true would be grounds for investigation and some major rolling of heads, and possibly even a Congressional investigation.
So - do you, or do you not have evidence of "a lot of soldiers killed in CQB" due to the negligence on the part of the DoD having issued them an optic that directly contributed to their deaths, without which they would not have died? If so, it is your duty as a citizen and family member of servicemen to report and make public this evidence so that the proper measures to avoid future unnecessary deaths. If you were simply trying to pontificate and use dramatic language - I would suggest that in the future you do so without levying serious accusations at the Armed Forces and their leadership suggesting that they have willfully and knowingly contributed to the unnecessary deaths of servicemen and women.
~Augee
Sorry didn't mean to offend you, i don't like to argue so i'll change what i said to it can get a lot of soldiers killed in cqb since i have no evidence. My brothers have bitched about using acogs in cqb to their superiors already btw, and i always suggest people to not use them for home defense all the time.
Back to the op's topic i hope you go with the holo sight with a magnifier if you want, and spend the rest on ammo.
