I’ve got a 16” carbine and I’m looking for a good G.P. scope. Ideally I’d be looking for something that can go from zero to several hundred meters. I don’t think such a scope exists though. I’ve seen the posts about ACOGs with the Optima/ Dr. Optik on top, looks like an interesting solution. What about compact ACOGs for mixed ranges? Or Aimpoints at long ranges (around 300-400 yrds)? So, any G.P. scope ideas?

Thanks!
Mrf2

The first thing you need to decide is how will you be using the scope.  And what magnification you want to meet your needs.  I would look at Trijicon, Elcan, Leupold and Aimpoint.  But until you decide what you will do with your scope you cannot pick one.  If you want one for close quarters than I would look at the Compact ACOG and Aimpoint m2 and m2-2x.  These scopes can have no magnification up to 3x and they can be interchangeable to many weapons because the reticle is not calibrated to a specific size.  The Elcan standard ACOG or Leupold would be better suited for mid to longer range because they have a higher magnification around 3.4-4x.  These scopes have calibrated reticles.  But I would definately pick one from the above manufacturers.  Trijicon or Aimpoint are the best overall general scope.  

Compact ACOG 2x or 3x, triangle or crosshair.  Good for between 1 and 400 meters.

This is not a cheap answer to your question, but I have tried a lot of scopes and a lot of ACOGs and I am sold.

The TA31 does it all. It has the BAC for CQB, but also has 4x magnification to get you out there.

Yes, the Compact ACOG has the same features with a little less magnification, and it is a fair amount smaller and lighter. However, it does not have a bullet drop compensator or any other way to account for bullet drop. You can "hold over" on the longer shots, but the solid dot or triangle reticle will cover your targets on hold over. If you get a Comp ACOG with the cross hair reticle, it is just a simple cross hair. It will be slower to use with the BAC and it has no refference marks for hold over.

The reticles on the TA31 can all be used for bullet drop, are all quick to use with BAC (though the Chevron reticle will be slower than the donut or the triangle.)

TA31 has it all in a magnificently rugged and simple design. I wouldnt trade mine for anything else out there.


Edited to add these excellent overview of eyesight and optic considerations.

Quoted: One thing I notice a lot in discussion of optics, is that we often forget that not everybody sees as well or as poorly as we do when we discuss our favorite optics. If you have certain eye conditions, optics that are much beloved on this board can be optics that you absolutely despise. The following is a quick list of various eye conditions that can radically change how certain optics perform for you: 20/20 or better vision: You have less reason than most of us to sacrifice unlimited eye relief and parallax-free aiming to gain magnification. My vision is only 20/30 but at 200yds, my friend with 20/18 vision can consistently ID targets that are barely a visible blur to me. You'll gain a lot from Aimpoint and EOtech (red-dot) optics since you are less dependent on magnification than many of us. Red-colorblind: Optics that are much loved here will probably show extremely poor contrast for you. Likewise, amber-colored reticles that many people dislike will show up much better for you than for the average guy. Phoria: This is basically a slight misalignment of the eyes. Illuminated scopes using BAC (the Bindon Aiming Concept) can show larger shifts between weak-eye and strong-eye views. Note that this is also a common condition as you get older and eye muscles weaken. Cross Dominant: You are right handed; but your dominant eye is your left eye or vice versa. Again, the BAC concept of using both eyes open with magnified optics may be difficult for you. The brain may have a hard time choosing between the improved magnified version offered to the weak eye and the unzoomed version offered to the dominant eye. Limited Pupil Dilation: There are a slew of eye-related conditions that can limit the ability of your pupils to take in light. The most common of these conditions is age. At 20, your eyes might dilate to a maximum of 8mm. At 50, your eyes may only dilate to a maximum of 5mm. As a result, scopes with large objectives and large exit pupils will look no brighter to you than smaller, less expensive magnified optics. The only benefit you'll enjoy for the higher end optics will be a few millimeters more freedom in head movement. Astigmatism: If you suffer from astigmatism, the reticles used in red dot, reflex-style scopes may often appear to be oddly shaped and irregular. This is by no means all of the issues you might need to consider; but represent just a few of the commonly reported ones. Always remember that your eyes are quite likely to see things differently from someone else and your ideal optic may be less than ideal for others.

Quoted: It might also bear mentioning that you may effectively fall into the "limited pupil dilation" category if you have had any type of refractive surgery (PRK, Lasik), especially if you are (were!) a high myope (very nearsighted), say worse than -7 diopters. In this case it's not that your pupil can't dilate, it's just that the optical zone on your cornea may now be smaller (as small as 5mm), and thus light received outside this zone can cause refractive distortions. This is typically seen as starring or blurring of bright objects at night.

Elcan is a waste of your time.

Trijicon ACOG is recommended.

The Leopold CQ/T was specifically designed for GP use and is the most practical for the cal. your using and practical distance that most times it is employed, cost not being a factor.
Good Shootin, Jack

Quoted: The Leopold CQ/T was specifically designed for GP use and is the most practical for the cal. your using and practical distance that most times it is employed, cost not being a factor. Good Shootin, Jack

And I thought you were a progressive forward thinker.
I have not been to impressed with the CQ/T - I would go US Optics before sinking that much into the Leupold battery hog.

but all said I like Trijicon the best for that application.  TA-31F for me.

General purpose means just that, and that is best accomplished by an optic that can go from 0 to 3X, which is ferfect for the practical distance that the weapon is normaly utilized. US optics isn't realy US optics, it's realy JAP!
Good Shootin, Jack

Leupy 1.5X5 Illuminated

What about a Weaver V10 2-10x?

Quoted: US optics isn't realy US optics, it's realy JAP! Good Shootin, Jack

What you mean?
Where did you hear that?

I would say the trijicon acog compact. Do you have a A2 or A3flattop?

I've got to agree,go with the ACOG, or the Compact ACOG. I own the 2x20 with amber triangle. I think it's great.

If you have a carry handle with the acog compact you can still use the iron sights. And cheek weld isn't bad. I have a acog compact ta44-2 on my bushmaster. I also have a aimpoint ML2 on my 40 cal olympic.It's mounted on my Fobus hanguards, but I'm not a big fan of co-witnessing the iron sights through the aimpoint

also no batteries on the trijicon!!!

Although I know new-arguy will diagree I still think the TA11 is a better optic for CQB than the TA31.  Its larger exit pupil and longer eye relief allows you more leeway to keep a good sight picture in less than ideal conditions (moving, snap shooting, etc.)  The TA31 is better at longer ranges with its greater magnification and wider field of view.  

I think you need to determine what % of your shooting will be at what ranges and that will help you in your selection process.  Also how small of a target will you be shooting at?  The smaller and more distant the target the greater your need for magnification.  If all you need is to shoot close range with the rare shot at a 12 inch diameter vital zone at 300m then you can get by with a dot sight.  Anything smaller or further away requires magnification.

NO, NO, NO!! I DISAGREE!!!!! TA31!!!!

Seriously though, TA31 and TA11 are nearly the same optic. If shorter eye relief bugs you, go TA11. If not, I appreciate the wider FOV in a smaller and lighter package of the TA31. Either is great.

I would definately go with either the Compact ACOG 1.5x24 with Amber Triangle with special rings or if you have a a2 model then go with the M16 base.  If you do not get the Compact ACOG go with the standard ACOG TA31 or TA31F depending on if you have a flat top or carry handle.  If you have a carry handle go with the TA31 and if a flat top go with the TA31f with chevron reticle.  But either way you cannot go wrong with the compact acog or standard acog.  The compact acog will be more versatile because it does not have a calibrated reticle.  And you could interchange it with many weapons.  And it will be much better for close quarter up to 200-300m.  The standard acog will be for more mid to long range 300-800.  I would go with the compact acog TA24-2 or TA45-2 depending on if you want one for a flat top or carry handle.

Just a point to clarify, you can switch and ACOG with a ranging reticle on a variety of different firearms. It will matter VERY little if the reticle is actually callibrated for the gun you mount it on or not.

new-arguy,

How well does the TA31 work for CQB?  Does the 4x view make it hard to aim at things that room distance?  You also mentioned the chevron would be slower than the donut or triangle, why is this?
 
Thanks!

Yojimbo,

The Trijicon BAC system allows you to use the illuminated reticle from the right eye and your unmagnified view from the left eye.  As you sweep to a close target the blur of motion in your right eye makes it like looking through an occluded gunsite... you dont notice it.  In fact you could put a cover on the objective lens and still use the BAC system for close range.  Only when you stop and the piture becomes stable will your brain automatically zoom in by using the sight picture from the right eye.  With practice you can actually ignore the zoomed view and only use it when you want to.  At first though its easy to use when you are swinging the scope on target but you almost cant stop yourself from seeing the magnified view once you quit moving.  This is probably why new-arguy is always telling people the scope seems to work better after you have some practice with it.  My suggestion is to actually use the sight in question.  If you cant try one out on a buddies rifle then at least go to a gunshow and look through it for yourself.

Mini-ACOG for GP optic if the price is a concern.  If not, go with the big brother TA31A.  I highly recommand the TA31 series.  Although for out to 300m, an EOtech or Aimpoint is also a feasible alternative.  I have both, and I found they are about equal, with EOTech edging the Aimpint for CQB work.

I stay away from the Elcon, it is crap, but the optic is nice ans clear.  US Optics has had bad rep in customer service, and for 1600 dollars, you are better off with the TA31, and you would still have eonugh left over to outfit you AR with all the cool gadgets.  CQ/T, I have only handle them at shows, never used them in the field, but as far as I can see, don't care for them much.  

ACOG with BAC is the hands down winner of the GP optic.

Quoted: US Optics has had bad rep in customer service, and for 1600 dollars, you are better off with the TA31, and you would still have eonugh left over to outfit you AR with all the cool gadgets.  CQ/T, I have only handle them at shows, never used them in the field, but as far as I can see, don't care for them much.   ACOG with BAC is the hands down winner of the GP optic.

Ä US Optics SN-12 (closest to the ACOG) starts at $850-900. The SN-4 1-4x starts at around $1100. And if you order it at Sniper's Hide you get a discount.

I got an ST-10 that I ordered thru Lowlight and I've been extremely happy with it.

Thanks for all the suggestions, it looks like the ACOG is the scope to go with. I'll have to look thru a few of the sugguested ones. And, save up some cash...

Thanks!
mrf2

look for some ACOG's in EE, I just sold a TA01NSN for 650 because I needed the money for another project, you can get some great deals on scopes in EE

If you have the cash, the Triji's with the BAC are unbeatable. Stay away from the NSN what a waste, not at all effective for dynamic shooting. I find the F series unbeatable. I actually spent the money to outfit my m4 at work with one(TA11F). Finally someone saw the light and we're buying them now, so I can get rid of it and spend money on the next shortfall.
 We have at work: NSN's,Comp M2's, Reflex's, and assorted leupold mildots. I've T&E'd almost every optical gadgetry out there, and have a pretty good perspective.
 The Leupold CQT is the biggest hyped POS i've ever seen. Reflex's wash out in urban situations. Irons, Aimpoints, and Triji's with BAC are definitly the way to go.

Whoa! Lots of questions and replies since this morning!!!

First thing, BAC is BAC, and it doesnt matter is the scope is 1.5x or the full 4x, BAC will be as fast. Using the BAC does not get harder or slower as you get more magnification. I have used BAC ACOGs in 1.5x, 3x, 3.5x and 4x. They are all the same.

HOWEVER! Reticle does play a part in how well/fast BAC works. The illuminated reticle is what makes BAC work. Therefore, the more illumination the reticle gets, the brighter it is, and the faster/easier you can see it. This is why the chevron loses some speed on BAC. It is the smallest, and finest reticle available on the full size ACOGs. Being a smaller, finer reticle makes it a little slower. Thats the disadvantage. the advantage to these reticles are smaller and finer, they are... you guessed it, more accurate! BTW, all of the above holds true for the Compact ACOGs with the crosshair reticle.

Another thing, SAR3k is exactly correct. Not all ACOGs are the same. Both the TAO1 and TAO1nsn ACOGs absolutely DO NOT have the BAC feature we are talking about. DevL did a very good job of describing how BAC works. You need a full time illuninated reticle for BAC to work, and the TAO1/TAO1nsn do not have full time illuminated reticles. The reticles on those two models ONLY glow in reduced lighting. Both are GREAT optics, but they are not all purpose optics. They are pretty specific task optics and are SUPERB at doing the job they were designed to do. And they were not designed for CQB at all.

I love Compact ACOG's. I have shot a fair amount with a few different kinds. I will get one soon. No doubt about that. However, if I could only have one, and it was to be on my general purpose rifle, it would still be the TA31 (or TA11 if I was senstive to shorter eye relief). The TA31 has the largest field of view of any ACOG except the 1.5x. It has enough magnification to increase your accuracy potential out to far beyond the 5.56 round is very useful, it has a bullet drop compensated reticle which allows you  be far more accurate than merely guessing at hold over, something you will have to do with Compact ACOGs.

Sorry for the long response... In case I forgot to mention, I love ACOGs and the TA31 most of all!

I forget to say what I did not like about Leupold CQ/T. It's a good idea, but I think it leaves a lot to be desired in a few crucual areas. First of all, it is HUGE! I thought they looked big in the pictures, but when I finally got the chance to check it out, it was even bigger.

That's not really my biggest dislike of it though. The CQ/T also can use the BAC we have been talking about. GREAT option. However, the CQ/T reticle is powered soley by a battery. And the battery life is rated at about 10 hours. BIG downfall of the optic in my opinion. Without the BAC option, it loses a lot of its usefulness as a CQB type optic. 10 hours just isnt acceptable to me. YMMV?

I have never shot  a BAC acog so I can't comment on them.  I can tell you I found my NSN ACOG wanting in CQB so I mounted a Docter optics on mine.  Now I have a bright red dot with loooong battery life (seven months always on and counting) for CQB and  a fine cross hair range finding bullet drop scope for longer ranges. I love the set up.

www.msnusers.com/arstuff/shoebox.msnw?action=showphoto&photoID=2

GREAT information!

From the Rifle Performance section at the Maryland AR15 Shooters Site

M193 : 55gr FMJBT (BC = .243) round used by US forces in the M16A1.

M855: 62gr FMJBT (BC = .304), penetrator tip, NATO round used in M16A2.

Barrel Length vs. Velocity & Fragmentation

Barrel Length  (in) MV M193   (fps) MV M855   (fps) Frag M193   (Yd) Frag M855   (Yd)

16 3132 2989 105/160 90/155


What does this tell us?  For reliable fragmentation, your 16" carbine is good to about 160 yards.

Now I've shot man (small, very small) sized pop-up's on a military range from 25m to 500m.  I've used irons, a Reflex, a 6-24x, a 8x, a 10x and a 3x Compact ACOG.

I did my best with the 3x compact ACOG.  Speed of acquisition is very important on these shoots (and real life, yes?) as well as "good enough" accuracy.  

In a Rainy Day scenario, I highly doubt I would be shooting past 200 meters, and would probably stay within fragmentation range.  I doubt it for many reasons, target ID being a major one.

All that said, I think the compact ACOG is the ideal sight, unless you wanna do more benchrest type of shooting, but then you should rebarrel to a 20" or a 24" anyway.

AFAS the Dr. Optik, I don't see the need.  With carry handle mounted ACOG, I've got backup irons anyway.

... Another vote for ACOG specifically the TA01-NSN model. Absolutely ergonomically perfect for me.

BAC ACOG; Yes.
TAO1nsn ACOG; no.

The NSN is an awesome scope when used within the parameters it was designed for. But it is not an awesome general purpose scope.

Quoted: BAC ACOG; Yes. TAO1nsn ACOG; no. The NSN is an awesome scope when used within the parameters it was designed for. But it is not an awesome general purpose scope.

TA01NSN - Shooting on a Range
I have played with it a fair amount now and have some major issues with it - particularily where it grays out to no reticle during twilight.  IMHO the DR OPTIK red dot is a necessary mod for anyone using this sight off the range.

Canadian tactical

Are you Boland?

If so you are probably one of the few people who have ever shot both the optima/ta01nsn and a ta31 (I have not).  If you would please compare and contrast these two optics.  As you probably know I have a ta01nsn/dr.oprics.  I wonder how it stacks up against the much praised ta31.  In particular please address eye relief, parallax, and shifting point of impact w/BAC.  Also have you ever had the opportunity to use the Optima as an occluded eye sight with a night vision monocular over your weak eye?

Thanks in advance
Kris

Great topic!

new-arguy or anyone else that's tried both the BAC ACOG and the Aimpoint:  

Is the BAC as fast as a Aimpoint?
How does the BAC work in low light condition?
Have you tried the BAC with a white light (like Surefire) and does it take a millisecond for your eyes to adjust to the BAC?
What the recommendation for the ACOG reticle - chevron, donut,or triangle?

Kris - yep its me.

The more I used the TA01NSN I found that the reticle too fine for tgt acquisition out in the field with dark terrain.  Then the annoying habit at twilight of the reticle turing gray while it is not dark enough to use the tritium and not light enough to use the black reticle.  Under 100M the fine reticle was hard to pick up.  With the addition of the Optima or Dr Optik it gave excellent handling at <100m for one could keep ones head higher and get a better crouch/postion to move etc. and still engage tgts.  

Enter the TA31F - the red chevron I can pick up very well and my eye seems drawn to its tip (not as fast as I can use the EOTechs) it does not suffer day/night transition issues - I do find I have to concentrate more for precise shooting that I did with the TA01 (dunno why yet)  Even for longer shooting the chevron give you an excellent refence to find the range stick both to JD and engage.

I have used the DR OPTIC as an OEG with a PVS-14 - it worked but not ideal - I also have used a C79 Elcan and TA31F in the same manner - good for close in but...

As far as eye relief goes they both have the identical relief (to me) I get smoked on my eyebrow in the sitting with both.
I have not tested the parallex using the BAC - honestly any short shooting I have done has not been to a standard where it was descernible.
Given the # of TA01NSN's out there the red dot back up seems a viable option - but it does not solve all the problems and I feel the TA31's are a better GP scope.  (I don't like,or do well with, the Donut for whatever reason but that is just me)

For KD rfle matches the TA01NSN is very hard to beat - and I have shot some killer groups out of the RO921 M4A1 with it.

-Kevin

YMMV

Well, at first the BAC is a little hard to get used to. You have to work with it for a little before it really starts to become natural. But once you do become at ease with it, I think the BAC is as fast as an Aimpoint. If not as fast, then very nearly as fast.

The BAC works in all lighting conditions. When there is not enough light for the fiber optics to work, the internal tritium power source takes over. So the reticle is always glowing red.

There's only one option on AR15's I like as much as ACOGs, and it's Surefire lights. Therefore, I have actually done a lot of interesting testing with the TA31 and Surefires. When you are in a very dark room, and you use a Surefire light, the red reticle does not glow nearly as bright as in other conditions. HOWEVER(!) this does not seem to cause a problem like it does with the Trijicon Reflex. I have one of those too and am intimately familiar with the wash out problem.

When you use the BAC ACOGs with the Surefires in a darkened room, the Surefire lights up you environment very brightly. What happens then is the reticle in the optic turns black and contrasts very well with the brightly lit area in front of it. I have not noticed it to take any time at all in recognizing or adjusting to the difference.

OK, now for the interesting part. I use a Surefire M900 on my TA31 gun. I put a blue filter on the main light. Now when I use the Surefire with this blue filter, the bright blue light makes the red reticle of the ACOG REALLY stand out well. It's very cool. It is also one of the reasons I chose the blue filter over the red. While I have not tried the red filter, I was afraid the red filter of the Surefire light and the red reticle of the ACOG would not mix well. I have been told the red filter wont mess with an Aimpoint dot, so maybe I am just thinking too hard (that happens a lot! )

As for the reticle, I would either go with the donut or chevron. I just dont see much use for the triangle. Which reticle you get may depend on what type of shooting you will be doing most. For me, the donut was the best choice. CT loves the Chevron. I think the donut is quicker and less precise, and the chevron is more precise but not as quick. This is absolutely not to say that you cant be fast with the chevron, or accurate with the donut. Only that I believe it is easier to be quicker with the donut, and more accurate with the chevron.

However, whichever way you slice it, I dont think any single optic does as many things as well as a TA31. Really a fantastic optic.

new-arguy - glad you added - there were things I had completely forgotten

IMHO my choice of the Chevron or Triangle has to do with my C79 Elcan experience - my eyes have just been trained to look for that type of reticle - for what ever reason I have trouble centering the donut well - that being said practise makes perfect and I did not take any other time other than a quick familiarization with it.

CT, centering that donut can be hard. I dont think its just you. I had a thread over in the General AR discussion about my shooting my TA31 mounted M4 out at 300. While I was able to achieve sub-moa, finding a good way to repeatably center the donut on the target was one of the hardest parts. I believe having the tip of the chevron would have made things much easier.

I try not to say the Chevron is absolutely more accurate, or the donut is not accurate. Only that the Chevron is easier to be accurate with. You can be accurate with the donut, it just takes a lot more effort on your part IMO.

CT, If you get a chance try using a Surefire M900 with the FM16 blue filter (FM26 for the Turbo head) and the TA31 ACOG at night. The contrast between the glowing red reticle and the vivid blue light of the Surefire is pretty whicked. I wish I could take a picture of it through the optic.

OK well, an hour and one perfectly good trio of Duracell 123a batteries later, I was able to take some pics and somewhat illustrate what I am talking about. Hope you find it useful...

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=142762

new-arguy,

Thanks for the insights.

A few more question for you.  

Does the view through the BAC look fuzzy, unfocused up close at say 10 ft. or so?  Or does having both eyes open somehow reconcile that and give a clear view?

Does it seem easier to hit a moving target with the BAC or with the Aimpoint?

Is cheek weld important (more so than for an Aimpoint) and is eye positioning critical?

Does having the BAC so close to the eye seem to hamper CQB peripheral vision? With an Aimpoint mounted forward, it seems you can be more aware of your surroundings.

Thanks in advance.

Lots of good questions. I had to think about them a while before I felt at ease answering them...

Yeah, the ACOG reticles can be blurry, but it has nothing to do with how close or far your target it. Is has to do with not using the optic properly. People who keep reading my posts keep hearing me say you have to use the BAC ACOGs a while before you really get used to them. This is also true for the reticle. When picking up an AR with an ACOG on it, most people have the tendency to close an eye and look into the scope to see it. When you do this with an ACOG, you will probably be very disappointed. Closing an eye and looking into the optic will make the reticle appear very blurry. You wont be able to make out much of anything. Sort of off topic, but I have found this to be the especially true with the TAO1 series.

Anyway, you really have to use these scopes with two eyes open. And don't look into the optic. Look right past it at your target area. When you do this, the reticle shows up sharp and clear no matter what. If you are doing this, it wont matter if the target is 5 feet in front of you or 500 yards. The reticle will be crisp, clear and easily in focus.

As far as the moving target, hmmmm, I don't know. I think that if you have never used either, it will be FAR easier to use the Aimpoint for moving targets or fast paced shooting. I don't think there is an easier to use dot sight than the Aimpoint. You can take someone who has never shot before, give them an AR with an Aimpoint, and they will know what to do. The same can not be said of BAC ACOGs. Again, they take some getting used to. However, once you are used to them, I think they are just as easy to engage moving targets with. If not just as easy, than very, very close to just as easy.

Yes, cheek weld is much more important for an ACOG than a Aimpoint. It's not like you don't have a millimeter to move and your eye has to be perfectly centered behind the ocular lens. It's not hyper sensitive, but you do have to be more still and you do have less movement available to you than with something like an Aimpoint.

Trijicon advertises that there is 1.5" of eye relief required to use the TA31. This is a very conservative estimate. The eye relief is short. Shorter than the TA11, shorter than the 1.5x and 2x Compact ACOGs. That's a fact. But, it is more than 1.5". I am telling you this for a fact. Some months ago we were talking about this and I did another test. I put my eye right up to the TA31 and moved my head back until I had what I considered the perfect eye relief. Then I took a picture (below). If I had my eye closer than the picture below depicts, I would start to see the inside of the scope around the magnified image. This meant my eye was too close. If I moved my head back much further than this, I would start to cut my field of view shorter. This means I am too far. Below was the perfect point where I was taking full advantage of the large field of view, without being too close to the optic. You can see that it is CLEARLY longer than 1.5". I would guess it was closer to 2.25" or so, maybe more.

Heck, some folks mount their EoTech's that far back. The point is this. Yes, the TA31 has shorter eye relief than many other optics. Is it so short that it distracts or impedes your peripheral vision. No, not hardly. In addition, if you use the scope like I described above, by not looking into the scope, but actually looking past it, the whole thing almost "ghosts" out anyway. Sort of like your rear sight aperture ghosts out when you are focused on your front sight. I think that's why they call them ghost ring sights, because the ring ghosts out, or practically disappears when you use it the way you should. Same principal applies to the ACOG in my experience.

Hope this is somewhat helpful... YMMV?

This is not 1.5";

Paranoid SHTF Q: Don't all illuminated reticles, like ACOG or a traditional scope, give away your position to opponents with night vision equipment?  I'm sure this has been answered before but the Search button is gone.  

p.s. will the Search button return?  It'd save the experienced folks from answering the same Q's over and over...

new-arguy,

Thanks for coming through again.  Is that your handsome mug gracing the posting?

Clarification on the fuzzy view through the BAC at close range.  Do objects, not reticle, look fuzzy up close?

Also what's YMMV?

Don't all illuminated reticles, like ACOG or a traditional scope, give away your position to opponents with night vision equipment

Depends on 3 things:
Brightness of your setting (tritium lamps are dim)
Distance from you to your observer
Quality of your observers gear.

If he's got good enough gear to make it out at 100 yards - I'd be more worried he has thermal imaging capability.

Do objects, not reticle, look fuzzy up close

 I've never noticed objects looking fuzzy.

Neil - great explaination of the BAC/reticule fuzziness thing!

Also what's YMMV?

Shorthand for Your-Milage-May-Vary (the catch-all escape clause).

Quoted: The first thing you need to decide is how will you be using the scope.  And what magnification you want to meet your needs.  I would look at Trijicon, Elcan, Leupold and Aimpoint.  But until you decide what you will do with your scope you cannot pick one.  If you want one for close quarters than I would look at the Compact ACOG and Aimpoint m2 and m2-2x.  These scopes can have no magnification up to 3x and they can be interchangeable to many weapons because the reticle is not calibrated to a specific size.  The Elcan standard ACOG or Leupold would be better suited for mid to longer range because they have a higher magnification around 3.4-4x.  These scopes have calibrated reticles.  But I would definately pick one from the above manufacturers.  Trijicon or Aimpoint are the best overall general scope.

Good advise, however I'd add EoTech for <75 meters...Over that distance it's How much money Ya Got!

Neither objects or the reticle look fuzzy up close if you are looking through the optic correctly. I apologize if my above explination was confusing...

If you keep both eyes open, and look past your optic at the target area, nothing will be blurry. Not the object, not the reticle. Not at 5 feet or 500 yards. Only when you close an eye and/or try to focus on the reticle inside the scope do things get blurry. If you avoid doing that, everything will be clear.

Again, this can take practice. Its just another one of several reasons I think you have to put some time in behind the glass before you really get used to BAC ACOGs. I know everyone keeps hearing me say this, and I dont want to scare people off. Despite all thats been written here, and despite any confusion my writting may cause, the scopes themselves are not confusing. Not at all. I think it is actually pretty amazing just how genuinely useful Trijicon has made these things while maintaining simplicity.

Once you get one and use it, all of this just sort of comes to you. I have written countless words about using them here, but the truth is, even if I didnt, all of this would become pretty obvious to someone using a BAC ACOG before too long. Give it a few weeks of regular use and you will be able to see exactly what it is you have been reading here for so long.

Oh and yeah, that is me