AR Sponsor
Posted: 4/3/2026 10:21:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: makattack][Edited]
|
Hello. I have basically built my dream rifle. Daniel Defense M4a1 RIII 14.5 p/w on a FN military collector lower. Have it suppressed with a yhm turbokrb. I put an aimpoint comp m5s on it. Very nice rifle. Im starting to think about an acog ta02 instead of a micro red dot as this gun being suppressed is my general purpose rifle. The small amount of magnification makes sense for target id if nothing else. The guns a tack driver as it is but i guess im trying to get justification for switching lol. It feels like I’m holding the gun back as it will group 1 1/2” at 100. Update…. After using the Acog for about a month now. I have decided against it. Not that there is anything wrong with it just isnt my thing. Never could get comfortable with it. Njust used to red dots i guess. I suppose I should just look at magnifiers. Who knows? |
Joined:
Mar 2026
Posts:
14
EE: 100% (1)
OH, USA
| I will probably never run night vision. I wear contacts/ glasses and have a bit of stigmatism. Was having a bit of trouble in various light conditions with just a dot. Really like the bulletproof design of the acog. Ive shot my friends before and the only thing I’ve noticed is short eye relief |
|
Give it a try with a low power prism, you'll be amazed at the capability increase that a little magnification and a good, etched reticle will yield, especially if you shoot & train under realistic conditions. And run drills up close with it, you'll see that it's eminently doable as well. "Poor man's ACOG" setup is all win, at least for me. |
Joined:
Nov 2022
Posts:
256
EE: 100% (28)
USA
|
Originally Posted By makattack: I will probably never run night vision. I wear contacts/ glasses and have a bit of stigmatism. Was having a bit of trouble in various light conditions with just a dot. Really like the bulletproof design of the acog. Ive shot my friends before and the only thing I’ve noticed is short eye relief Have astigmatism and wear glasses. I’m one of the fortunate ones where the ACOG reticle still looks pretty good for me without correction. With my glasses or contacts it’s super crisp. People will also read some shit online and then eyefuck the optics to death looking for problems they didn’t notice before. Stuff that if you were actually using it you likely wouldn’t even pay any mind to. So don’t write off the ACOG in my opinion. |
Joined:
Dec 2022
Posts:
1438
EE: 100% (42)
SC, USA
|
Originally Posted By makattack: It’s not a bench rest gun by no means. It’s mt gp rifle so is should be used at super short range with the ability to stretch it out to 300-400. Combat type shooting. Then ACOG isn't what you want. Look at what most 3 gunners use nowsaday, no ACOGs on any of their rifles. The TA-11 was king of the hills back in early 2000s. Your style of shooting needs a large eye box and wide field of view, both of which the ACOG sux at. A decent 1-6x (pick one, plenty good optics out there for less than $500 that would do the job). |
| Also if you have vision issues, try an ACOG first before buying. I looked through my neighbor's and could not get the reticle to focus with my uncorrected vision. I have not tried it since getting glasses but I also don't want an optic that depends on me needing my glasses. The newer prisms with adjustable diopters and LPVOs work better for me since I can adjust the diopter to corrected/uncorrected vision. |
|
Originally Posted By Joedirt199: Also if you have vision issues, try an ACOG first before buying. I looked through my neighbor's and could not get the reticle to focus with my uncorrected vision. I have not tried it since getting glasses but I also don't want an optic that depends on me needing my glasses. The newer prisms with adjustable diopters and LPVOs work better for me since I can adjust the diopter to corrected/uncorrected vision. Yes. In my younger years I could shoot gnats with an ACOG. These days though the reticle is very fuzzy and there’s no way to correct that within the optic, you’ll just need dialed in corrective lenses. So if you need an eyefocus, you won’t have one on your ACOG. I will say some reticles are better than others. The chevron turns into a soft blurry upside down U so that’s not very useful. But the horseshoe I can still use fine. The dot is just fuzzy and there’s 100m impact is obviously the center of the small fuzzy dot and beneath that you’re in empty space to 300 anyway so it works fine. Your eyes may work differently though. |
|
Originally Posted By Raoul_Duke70: Have astigmatism and wear glasses. I'm one of the fortunate ones where the ACOG reticle still looks pretty good for me without correction. With my glasses or contacts it's super crisp. People will also read some shit online and then eyefuck the optics to death looking for problems they didn't notice before. Stuff that if you were actually using it you likely wouldn't even pay any mind to. So don't write off the ACOG in my opinion. My experience as well. |
Joined:
Jan 2025
Posts:
711
EE: 100% (72)
PA, USA
Joined:
Nov 2022
Posts:
257
EE: 100% (28)
USA
|
Originally Posted By makattack: Thanks everyone for the opinions. I think I’m going to run the gun as it is for now and shoot my friends gun a while as I make a decision. He just got an TA02 recently and really likes it. Thanks once again. Love the TA02. Fixed my only gripe with the ACOG by having a led so I can adjust the brightness. Truth be told I run the reticle black the overwhelming majority of the time. |
Joined:
Nov 2022
Posts:
258
EE: 100% (28)
USA
| I went through two 1-6 LPVOs before saying “fuck it” and buying an ACOG. I didn’t like the size and weight. Not an LPVO hater necessarily, but a 14.5 with an ACOG is just so handy and the optic seems perfectly suited for the capabilities of a chrome lined “combat” barrel throwing predominantly 55 and 62 grain FMJ’s. |
|
Originally Posted By Vague: Kind of sounds like you're pretty hot on trying the ACOG on your rifle. I say go for it. Can always sell it if you decide it isn't for you. Originally Posted By Vague: Kind of sounds like you're pretty hot on trying the ACOG on your rifle. I say go for it. Can always sell it if you decide it isn't for you. This. Just buy a used one and find out what you have to look for for fakes. Originally Posted By bravo5two: Then ACOG isn't what you want. Look at what most 3 gunners use nowsaday, no ACOGs on any of their rifles. The TA-11 was king of the hills back in early 2000s. Your style of shooting needs a large eye box and wide field of view, both of which the ACOG sux at. A decent 1-6x (pick one, plenty good optics out there for less than $500 that would do the job). Don’t listen to this guy. While he’s right about eyebox on the TA31/TA02, 1. The military uses it just fine. 2. There’s more than one ACOG, the TA47, TA33, and TA11 all have great eyeboxes. Someone else here has a TA50 and can chime in as soon as I can find his username I’ll tag him. https://www.trijicon.com/products/subcategory/trijicon-acog-riflescopes @-odiegreen- please share your thoughts on the TA50 3x eyebox |
Joined:
Nov 2022
Posts:
261
EE: 100% (28)
USA
|
I find the ACOG is more forgiving of head position and eye relief than most lpvos. I can move my head around using my TA02 and it takes quite a bit more movement before I get shadowing and even if my head is further back than needed for optimum eye relief the only thing that changes is the field of view shrinks. Can still see the reticle and can still get hits. Basically can pull my head back and mimic the field of view of a TA11 and a TA33 just moving away from the optic. Delta34 has a great video describing this if you’re so inclined. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qnjcMG4dB7I From 4:30 to around the 9:30 mark. |
|
Id go with an acog. Works just fine up close. If your in the scope and transitioning targets than a red dot is better but its really not a world of difference if you keep both eyes open. At distance the light gathering and clarity are worlds better. Plus they're lighter and tougher than lpvos. |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
AR Sponsor